Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive50

User requesting enforcement

--Domer48_'fenian' 21:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

Sanction or remedy that has been violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case

Diffs

of edits that violate this sanction or remedy

Revert #1 Revert #2 Revert #3

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue

2 reverts in less than 24 hours, which is a violation of 1RR. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.

Enforcement action requested (

other sanction

)

Unsure

Additional comments

Their actions on the third revert here, resulting as it does in the removal of the text I added here from the article could be viewed as gaming. Having added the text, their removal is tantamount to a revert. Regardless they did go over the 1RR limit with this text being removed.

Discussion regarding this request

• Comment - These complaints are tedious. Rockpocket is trying, in good faith, to improve the article, and has put a lot of work in. Some editors are more concerned with the letter of the law than the spirit. I'd rather have an editor who actively tries to collaborate but technically breaks 1RR, than editors who fastidiously avoid 1RR but avoid collaboration. Mooretwin (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, isn't this nice. Lets actually discuss what happened here. I explained my intentions in advance on the talk page to rewrite the article to remove the awful editorializing that promotes a POV. I'd already done the same thing on the Peter Hart article. There was a general acceptance that this was a good idea, with the exception of Domer, who expressed his personal opinion that one historian's analysis was invalid and this we needed to state this. Yesterday I spent 5 hours reading and writing a new, fully referenced and balanced conclusion section which Domer reverted in one revert [61]. He was warned that this was disruptive by Elonka [62], which I tend to agree with. I reverted back, explained and invited discussion (explicitly stating that I did not want anyone get get involved in a revert war [63].) In response Domer provided his usual alphabet soup [64] and reinserted the critiques on the historian he has an issue with. Originally I thought this was a revert, but he actually added slightly different criticism (lifted from the same attack piece as the original stuff I removed) thereby avoiding a revert, which is interesting if we are talking about gaming.

I went back and summarized the new content in a neutral way (adding material) and hid the inappropriate critiques as per the consensus over the last few weeks on the talk page. This was not a revert, either in principle nor in practice. This may or may not technically be a revert, I really don't know. However, when trying to overhaul an article in this way, such edits are going to happen. I would hope anyone, with a modicum of understanding of

, should see the pattern of edits here and appreciate what this "report" is all about.

I don't know what else to say here. It appears clear that Domer has worked out how to laywer around these 1RR edits across a number of articles. He routinely makes one revert a day to ensure his preferred version remains and is quick to report anyone else that is not as clever at rule evasion. I came in

]

• Comment - Ok, so after a big preamble, you went over the 1RR. Now personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith aside that is what were here for. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What are you here for, to ensure those who don't accede to your POV are taken out of the equation one way or another? Personally, I'm here to write neutral balanced articles, not see who can manipulate the rules to ensure their POV is maintained. Whatever. If someone can tell me exactly what I did wrong here - having volunteered most of my weekend to sort out your mess - then I'd be happy to fix it and be on my way. But I think you really need to take a step back and ask yourself what exactly you are trying to achieve here. Because a neutral, balanced encyclopaedia sure ain't it. Rockpocket 22:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article-in-question should've been 'protected'. A harsh approach, but it stabilizes an article. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between assumption of good faith, which was done, and recognition of bad faith, which is what this is. Rockpocket has made a concerted effort, both in the article and on the talk page to reach NPOV on this artilce. Domer first reverted everything [65] and then re-inserted his pov back into one of the sections [66]. No discussion, just flashing 'rules' at people [67] [68] [69] in the form of threats. He then tries to get the other editors blocked in order to get his way. Be under no illusion mods, this is part of concerted strategy at work in a number of articles. There is absolutely no way Rockpocket should face sanction for good faith and constructive editing.

Also, without getting overly personal, is it appropriate that Domer has attempted to get other users blocked no less than 3 times in the last week alone? First provoke an edit war and then try to get the "competing" editor blocked. This, I'm sure is not what this page is intended for. Jdorney (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In response to Tznkai, below. The first edit was a revert. No doubt about it. Beyond that, there is no confusion. The goal was not to revert anything, the goal was to continue with the series of edits to turn the article into a balanced, nuanced read, rather than the POV mess it was. Were there subsequent additional "technical" reverts in there? It appears so. The point, however, is that 1RR is one thing when it comes to stopping revert warring. In that sense it levels the playing field. However, one editor has come in for a 3rd opinion, gone to the talk page, explained their reasoning extensively in advance and then was in the process of overhauling an article with the support of most contributors. In contrast another invested editor, in isolation and without any significant support, games the system to try and get that editor blocked. Is leveling that playing field really what we are trying to achieve here? Again, if you would like to tell me what edit I should make to resolve this and improve the article, then please do so and we can all go and do something more productive. I put to you that those two things are mutually exclusive. Rockpocket 22:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to Tznkai, below. Perhaps, yes. In fact, I think I mentioned I was going to add that on the talk page, but then forgot. I'll certainly keep that in mind in future. However, Domer alone has made it perfectly clear that he will not accept these edits, and indicated his intention to add back such criticism. He backed off his initial attempts to do the same thing on the Peter Hart article because - due to BLP - he was unable to continue to revert war over it. Instead, he has moved the criticism to this article and apparently will continue to add it here. It seems to me the more relevant part of the ArbCom remedy on this instance is not 1RR but "All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions." I came here as an outside opinion from the Hart article [70] hving never edited the article before. Pretty much everyone except Domer has reacted positively to my efforts. How long are we going to permit invested contributors to control content by gaming the system? Do we need a formalized way of establishing what outside opinions say, to stop this reoccurring? Rockpocket 23:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ Tznkai, no it couldn't have been prevented by use of a tag or sandbox, because Domer would have reverted anyway in order to promote his own pov. That's how he operates. There is a degree of bad faith here that has to really be investigated to be believed. Jdorney (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Example of Domer's attitude to editors who wish to go against his POV: In response to John, he quite literally dismisses him: treats him with apparent contempt ("Ill simply ignore their [sic] drive-by remarks"). Mooretwin (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've no problems with Rock's conduct at the article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend closure of this AE report. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ Elonka, so Rockpocket has to revert his own changes, even if they are constructive edits, if they could be construed as a revert? That is not how you're going to create decent articles and prevent edit wars I'm afarid. Quite the opposite. A good faith NPOV edit and a bad faith POV edit are not equal and should not treated equally for the sake of procedure. If they are then anyone with a POV just needs to get efficient at working the system to get all their edits through. That way lies the end of WP. Jdorney (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's more than 1 revert in 24 hours (and I'm still fuzzy on whether the second and third edits were reverts or not), then yes, it would be helpful if Rockpocket would reverse his own change. We're not going to block someone for accidentally going over 1RR in the heat of the moment, as long as they realize their error and then fix it in a timely manner. As for whether or not the edit is constructive, well, by its very nature a revert means that there is disagreement about whether the change is constructive or not. One editor's "constructive change" is another editor's "POV mess". Ultimately, the goal of 1RR is to get editors to stop using revert as an editing tool. A revert may be a quick "I don't like that edit" option, but reverts are not effective in implementing long-lasting changes in an article. The best way to proceed here, is to take the long view. Those who are able to moderate their behavior and edit in a careful manner should do so, and that will help administrators to identify those editors who are not able to do so, so we can remove them from the mix. --Elonka 00:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Elonka. If I can put this to bed by making further edits, I'm perfectly happy to do so. But someone is going to have to tell me exactly what exactly I should write, because I don't wish to add critical third party opinions about a BLP (Hart) that, with the apparent exception of Domer, everyone appears to agree is highly inappropriate. I fully accept it was naive of me to continuing to edit this article when it should have been clear that I risked being reported for 1RR. I've learned that lesson. Bear in mind, the sanctions direct editors to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions, what are we to do when such opinions are not only ignored, but purposefully countered by editors determined to keep their preferred version? Should this issue persist, I'll come to AE myself with a request for probationary sanctions in advance. Rockpocket 00:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head, I'd say to back off the changes in the diffs above of Reverts #2 and #3. Though when you say "everyone appears to agree is highly inappropriate", do you have a diff? Because if someone is making changes to an article to bring it in accordance with a clear talkpage or noticeboard consensus, that probably shouldn't count as a revert. --Elonka 01:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support when I proposed it in advance: [71][72][73]. Support when I justified the edits afterwards [74][75][76][77] Until, perhaps coincidentally, a few seconds ago, Domer was the only editor who expressed disagreement with the edits (with the exception of the "suspected informers" issue, which is still under perfectly civil and constructive discussion). Rockpocket 01:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there appears to be consensus that the article needs to be reworked. The diffs that you presented, however, do not seem to be saying anything about the issue of the Hart source. That's why I'm saying that it might be wise to rollback those two edits (the reverts that are cited at the beginning of this thread). It will de-escalate the situation for now, and the content question can continue to be discussed on the talkpage. --Elonka 03:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the issue of Hart was absolutely central (see [78].) It was this issue that I set out to address and this issue that the wide agreement was expressed. If the consensus is not for the balanced treatment of Hart, then I don't know what it was for. I'm really uncomfortable rolling back those edits, though, because I consider them a coatrack of BLP issues (see the parallel discussion on the Peter Hart talk page). We simply should not adding huge selective swathes of critical comment about a living individual for the sole purpose of discrediting their work (this is even admitted on the talk page). I'd rather be blocked than add that material back myself. However, I will recuse myself from the article for the next 24hrs to let the other editors there come to their own decision. Rockpocket 05:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rockpocket was not the first admin to try to promote NPOV, but he is the first to make any kind of tangible progress. All of the others were scared off by threats of blocking. If this pattern is allowed to continue, no progress will ever be made at this or several other articles.

So once again, it makes no sense to order a revert of constructive edits in favour of edit-warring ones. I suggest admins do not take my word for it but go and look for yourselves. Jdorney (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you're speaking of tag-teaming. How would one proove it? How would one defend against it? GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an administrator, I'm happy to block anyone who is violating NPOV, as long as there is proof of such. For example: Are one or more editors repeatedly adding unsourced information? Are they using unreliable sources? Are they editing against a clear talkpage or noticeboard consensus? If so, show me diffs, and I will take action. But simply saying someone is editing in a POV or

tag team manner is not helpful. Instead, if their POV is obvious, prove it: Get opinions from a dispute noticeboard, show the result of an RfC, come up with something that clearly shows that there's a consensus against the POV edits. But don't just say that an editor is pushing a POV, because then that's one editor's opinion against another, and that's not something that an administrator can take action on. --Elonka 01:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

What's happening here is that one editor in particular is giving absolute credence to one source, which confirms his POV and using everything in his power to remove or undermine another source, which doesn't. It is my understanding that we are supposed to report neutrally on what is in the sources, giving equal weight to each.

As I've said this is clear to anyone who has a look at the talk page. What is needed is Admin discretion. But ok, since you asked for diffs. Here for instance, talking up one source and talking down another.[79]. Or here, [80], inserting a whole load of text the only purpose of which is to undermine another source. And worst of all (recently) here [81] where he reverted, in its entirety, a day's work by Rockpocket, precisely because it was giving equal weight to each source and not arguing for a particular interpretation. What makes all of this much worse is a complete refusal to discuss the issues at hand. Instead, people are threatenend with blocking, as in here [82] or simply dismissed as here [83].

Ok, that's NPOV, re use of this page as a gaming tactic. Examples from this article only, though there are many more, FIrst of all, most recently here [84], as you know, Domer has tried to get Rockpocket blocked. This might be fair if he had discussed the issues at hand, but he refused to do this. Most frustratingly of all are edits like this [85], where he not only refuses to discuss, but then claims to have discussed and declares he's going ahead with editing/reverting regardless. This what makes this case so important. Without a good moderator, this article is going no-where. Finally here [86] he got me blocked for defending a lead reached after careful discussion with the previous admin who was brought in to de-POV the article.

This is not about me, I don't care if got blocked. Actually I was happy to do it as it seems to have attracted the attention of more admins to the article. It's about this editor constantly using this page to try to eliminate other editors and "win" edit wars. By my count here [87], he has made four requests for blocking here on 1RR violations in the last week alone. ANd this is not unusual. In each of these cases, this editor and also usually (sorry to name names but Big Dunc) have provoked the edit wars in question by reverting other people's work and then come straight here to get them blocked. Sorry for being so long-winded, but this needs to be addressed.Jdorney (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is going off-track from the AE thread, but let me try to address your post: I'm sorry, but it's just not compelling evidence. I'm not trying to be obtuse here, but instead I'm trying to point out that to you editors who are in the middle of a dispute, everything is probably "obvious". You probably think that any sane person could just take a look at the talkpage and see things clear as day. But trust me, it's not as clear to someone who's not familiar with the situation. That's why when I said diffs, I meant diffs of a clear talkpage consensus. Example: Say there's an article about tomato juice, with one side saying "fruit!" And the other side saying "vegetable!" And the talkpage is full of obscure sources which each side says proves their point. But to an outside observer or administrator, the talkpage is a mass of text, with sources that we're not familiar with, talking about a subject we don't know much about (and probably don't care much about, either). What does stand out in those situations though, is if we can spot a clear talkpage consensus, with a bunch of short posts where multiple editors are saying that they agree with a course of action. Or, it's easy for us to review a brief noticeboard discussion where uninvolved editors are mostly weighing in with similar opinions. So far when I look at

WP:ANI. Pick some thread at random, about articles or a topic area that you know nothing about, with editor names that you've never heard of. Now, try to read that thread and make a decision on "what should be done". Most likely you will rapidly discover that it is extremely difficult to sort through content disputes when you're coming in cold. It's not always clear who's "right" or "wrong", or who's pushing a POV, vs. who's resisting the POV-pushers. Does this make sense? --Elonka 03:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Right, I get what you're saying. It is not easy to tell from outside. Actually that's the point of flinging rules and policy at people - to confuse the issue. Here we have an established, respected admin, the latest of many, who is obviously knowledgable about the area and interested in the article. He now has to face blocking because of one editor whose entire contribution to WP consists of edit warring and requests for blocking of other users. What I'm saying is that he should have discretion to use admin powers to enforce NPOV. You may say that he can't do this because he is "involved", but the discussion clearly shows that only an involved admin will be able to grasp the issues. Jdorney (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason Rock faces blocking is because he breached 1RR nothing to do with any other editor, he is responsible for his own edits and as you say he is around long enough to know the way it works here. If he is editing the article then he is not a neutral admin he is just another editor, if he wanted to remain neutral he shouldn't have got into a slanging match with Domer. He is far from neutral on this issue.BigDunc 10:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In responce to Tznkai below, yes it could have been avoided, I did suggest a solution. As for Elonka, they ignore Rocks removal of whole sections of referenced text, and still post a comment on my talk for adding it back. The fact that see claims that the second revert is unclear, illustartes her double standard which has resulted in me asking and then tell her to stay of my talk page. Now Rock violated 1RR, simple as! as Tznkai has said above this is a little odd, and people get touchy about non-standard use of blocks, that Elonka has no problem with double standards should also cause some "concern."--Domer48_'fenian' 10:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so mods you can enforce these two user's gaming of the rules or you can let the admin get on with cleaning up the article. Choice is yours. Jdorney (talk) 11:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not calling for a block of any user and I am not gaming the rules, Rock is, to use your words, established, respected admin so he is well aware of the rules about 1RR, being involved with the whole Troubles debate, he is not some innocent who stumbled across the article and made changes and was caught unaware, he even said on the page that he was going to revert again, which was a blatant disregard of the community sanctions. Now this has turned into a case of shoot the messenger. Instead of whining about other editors if he held his hands up we could move on from this mess and get back to the the encyclopedia. BigDunc 13:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should revert the article back to before the disputes began, then work things out on the discussion. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That depends, revert to when? If we revert to before Rockpocket's edits we lose all the good work (and it is very good work) in not only dealing with npov but also clearing up the article and making it more coherent and easier to read. If editors have legitimate problems with these edits let them raise them properly on talk instead of reverting.Jdorney (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loose those edits, nay. Just have them 'transfer' to a talkpage 'or' a sandbox. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)I believe editors are still confused at the meaning of 1RR. The policy states Some editors may choose voluntarily to follow a one-revert rule: If someone reverts your change, don't re-revert it, but discuss it with them. This does not grant the right of 1 revert every 24 hours. It means that if you have been reverted, stop and discuss, period. I believe that we should be more explicit in the interpretation of 1RR in that it should preclude any reverts of a revert regardless of the length of time involved. This encourages stable articles, and discussions on the Talk page to reach consensus. It also prevent tag-teaming and other gaming. Perhaps if the policy doc was more explicit or had a policy of NRR (No ReReverting) NROAR (No Reverts of a Revert) DRR (Don't ReRevert) or something similar, we'd spend less time here.... --

]

Articles in this topic area (

Troubles restriction}} for more info. --Elonka 18:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Tznkai in all honesty, this is a straight forward report. Now I’m not going to even bother addressing Elonka’s comments below or the others comments above. The diff’s are there to support the report that’s it. Your right with your comments above “people get touchy about non-standard use of blocks.” --Domer48_'fenian' 20:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a game. Admins are not referees. Thsi is about improving the articles. Would blocking Rochpocket stop edit wars or encourage them? Would it help stabilise the content of the article? Would it help improve the content? If not then why block? Jdorney (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ Tznkai below, very good advice. BigDunc 19:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good advice. Rockpocket 19:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with a 1 second/minute block to acknowledge the violation and then just move on. My only concern was that blocks would be slective. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, because that would definitely serve a preventative purpose, right? The "violation" is fully acknowledged. I know what I did, I know why it was reported and I know how to stop it happening again. I simply dispute the application of this remedy to what was obviously not edit-warring but part of an ongoing process to improve a problem article, with a consensus of agreement on the talk page. But don't fear, it will not happen again (just as it has never happened previously). Rockpocket 02:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is an ongoing discussion at ANI about whether or not the Troubles case's remedies should be modified, to additionally authorize discretionary sanctions in this topic area. Anyone with an opinion on the matter is invited to comment at:

]

Result regarding this request

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

The 1RR restriction is meant to avoid edit wars, bypass the sock puppetry problems, and otherwise level the playing field, hopefully pushing all editors to the talk pages rather than the article itself. Generally, a string of consecutive edits, or edits clearly meant to be consecutive are counted as one edit for the purposes of revert restrictions. The first two listed reverts do seem to be in fact, reversions in that they undid another editor's writing in whole or part. I am however holding this request since there seems to be some confusion.--Tznkai (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could this have been avoided, say with the use of a sandbox or the {{major edit}} tag?--Tznkai (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this were a topic where such an approach had any prospect of success we wouldn't be being discussing here, would we? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first action is definitely a revert, though the second and third appear to be more complex, and I'm finding it difficult to tell if they're reverts or not. In any case, I'm not sure a block would be appropriate in this situation, since Rockpocket seems to have been making a good faith effort to edit the article. There are also some extenuating circumstances, in that Domer48 had made a sweeping change with his own revert today, wiping out several days of work (much of which was Rockpocket's) in one sweep.[88] Domer's action appears much more disruptive than any technical second revert which Rockpocket might have made subsequent to that. Perhaps the best way through this would be to give Rockpocket the opportunity to re-examine and reverse any action of his which was regarded as a revert, and then we tell everyone to take a day off? --Elonka 23:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some points:

1. I think it's about time we re-assessed the purpose and effectiveness of the 1RR restriction here. It's designed to prevent revert warring where there is no progress or discussion, not collaborative editing where some changes are undone and others revised, etc. At the limit, the overly literal and strict application of 1RR is unhelpful to the goals of Wikipedia and the spirit of wiki. It also risks scaring off anyone not willing to be masochistically dedicated to mastering not only the technical aspects of editing, but the intricacies of what exactly is allowed and what is not.
   WP:IAR
   should be applied as appropriate. I don't see how sanctioning Rock is going to achieve anything here. The aim of the restrictions is to move articles forward through collaborative editing, not to enable the blocking of attempts at progress.
2. One solution to avoid constantly having these AE enforcement debates is to work entirely in a sandbox until consensus is achieved, avoiding 1RR issues. This worked quite well at
   PIRA
   , albeit it was mighty hard work and required an engaged moderator.
3. WP:IAR. Rd232 ^talk 00:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Recommend closing this report as "no action". It was filed by Domer on Rockpocket, and it looks like

pointy. The sequence of events was this: At Dunmanway killings, Domer wiped out several days of edits in his own revert.[89] This naturally caused confusion on the article, and he has been warned for this. Rockpocket then, perhaps unwisely, chose to partially revert Domer's action, but he was within his rights since it was his first revert of the day. However, when he then continued editing, and modified two sentences, Domer claims that they were "reverts" and immediately filed this 1RR report. This does not seem to me to be acting in good faith, and it is not the first frivolous 1RR report that Domer has filed. Now, I agree that it was not particularly wise of Rockpocket to immediately jump back into editing the article after Domer's large-scale revert. But Rockpocket has acknowledged this and voluntarily recused from editing the article for 24 hours. This seems sufficient resolution to me. Let's close this report as "no action", and move on. --Elonka 16:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I would be happiest if we can close this report no action. I encourage the commentators to hold their tongues for a few, and for the participants to come to some sort of agreement. I again suggest for large scale changes, which reverts do not play well with, to use and abide by the {{major edit}} tag, or in the alternative, use the talk page to discuss changes and a sandbox to preview them before touching the main article itself. We should all be able to agree that stagnation in articles is a bad thing - and quite frankly any time we're writing about death in major conflict, having a position is the norm - not the exception. The charge we have on Wikipedia is to do our best to work past it, which includes working past dwelling on the biases of others and working around them, not against them. I have to some extent, seen all the editors in this discussion in action, and I believe all are capable and willing work forward.

Are the parties willing to move forward on some such understanding?--Tznkai (talk) 18:16, 9 November 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 Mr Unsigned Anon

User requesting enforcement:

]

User against whom enforcement is requested:

)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. [94] Here he acknowledges that his conduct could get him banned

1. [95] Here, he calls me a racist.

1. [96] Here, he uses gratuitous vulgarity.

1. [97] Here again he uses gratuitous vulgarity.

1. [98] Here, he refers to me as a "retard" and a "moron" and also implies that he has other Wiki accounts.

1. [99] Here, he rambles on and makes some strange reference to “night of the long blades”

1. [100] Here, he calls me "ignorant" and a "moron"

1. [101] Here, he makes inquiries about my race

1. [102] Here, he accuses me of working for the Israeli government and also makes derogatory accusations based on alleged demographics

1. [103] Here, he asks me about the weather in Brooklyn based on his belief that I live there.

1. [104] Here, he makes reference to my bank account on the Gaza discussion page

1. [105] Here, he taunts me to engage him in an edit war

1. [106] revert of sourced material

1. [107] revert of sourced material

1. [108] revert

1. [109] revert of sourced material

1. [110] removal of sourced edits

1. [111] removal of sourced edits

1. [112] removal of sourced edits

1. [113] removal of sourced edits. Preceding four reverts were effectuated within a span of ten minutes.

1. [114] His explanation for revert. "Cant understand why the lead is filled upp with pov stuff even if ballansing out eachother. Start a section or continue to use the reportin other sections. I put the stuff I cut in talk for use els (sic)"

1. [115]

1. [116] His explanation for revert. "removed israeli side exlanation that is undue weight in lead."

1. [117] His explanation for revert. "Removing israels intention to not cooperate. Its intention is bring undue weight and can be presented futher down."

1. [118] revert of sourced material

1. [119] revert of sourced material. Preceeding 2 reverts effectuated within 20 minutes of each other.

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

1. [120] Warning by Tyw7 (talk · contribs)

1. [121] Warning by Looie496 (talk · contribs)

1. [122] Warning by Looie496 (talk · contribs)

1. [123] Warning by Basket of Puppies (talk · contribs)

1. [124] Warning by enigmaman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested (

):
Permanent block, topic ban. Has contributed no substantive edits of his own except for extensive reverting. Engages in uncivil behavior and admits to socking.

Additional comments by

):
I am requesting a lengthy topic ban or block. Mr Unsigned Anon has engaged in uncivil, discourteous conduct with some racial overtones. In addition, he has engaged in a pattern of disruptive conduct and relentless reverts of sourced material. This despite being warned that his disruptive conduct could get him blocked.--]

This is the latest gem that Mr Unsigned Anon just recently left on my Talk page [125]That comment resulted in a 24 hour block issued by BozMo (talk | contribs)here [126] Mr Unsigned Anon seemed proud of his actions calling it "fun" here [127] and taunted the issuing Admin to issue him a lengthier block here [128]--

Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I am also inclined to believe that he has multiple accounts based on statements that he made here [129].--

Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

Mr Unsigned Anon Notified [130]

Discussion concerning Mr Unsigned Anon

There is not an allegation anymore. He admitted to losing his last password and starting a new account. It sounds like he expects a block and he is simply screwing around/being really inappropriate lately. This should be a pretty easy one to close out and I don't think it will hurt his feelings.Cptnono (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Unsigned Anon

Historical Revisionism and Islamic Anti-Semitism at Wikipedia

Well, thats it fellow editors. Before I get banned I leve this litle thing, by our user

]

Comments by other editors

I have found Mr Unsigned Anon's contributions to be largely unhelpful and difficult to follow (the latter because of a language issue perhaps?) He is also too quick to revert and often makes provocative comments that do nothing to encourage collaboration. I would support a ban from the Gaza War article for him.

I also think that banning Jiujistu Guy and Stellarkid from the Gaza War article (for revert-warring and editing without regard for NPOV) would be a good step in the right direction as well. Perhaps then, other less trigger happy and aggressive editors could get some real work done on the article. Tiamut^talk 12:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Tiamut has it exactly right - except that Stellarkid's editing without regard for NPOV (deleting relevant RS cited text) extends to the whole I-P topic so his ban should apply to that whole topic; I haven't looked at any of JiujitsuGuy's edits so I can't comment on his at this time. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fun is good, very bad spelling is very bad, and "Mr Unsigned Anon" is a great user name. MUA, if you are permabanned can I have it, I liek it. Meowy 17:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Stellarkid

I was going to stay out of this one since Mr Unsigned Anon has put out an AE on me, above. But with all the discussion going on about me, I feel I have to respond to this one despite any perceived COI. In the little more than a month since Mr UA has come on the scene, editing about 2 articles, he has been responsible for taking a number of other editors to various wiki forums for discipline, and to second Tiamut above, his contributions are "largely unhelpful" "difficult to follow'" and he "often makes provocative comments." Add to this a tendency to use slash and burn tactics and blatantly edit from his particular POV, his presence in the area has done nothing to encourage a collaborative atmosphere. Totally disagree with Tiamut in relation to her comments about Juijitsuguy and myself. We neither of us may be perfect but we try not to edit-war or to edit without regard to NPOV. Tiamut shares a POV with Mr UA, and I with Juijitsuguy but the answer to better editing is not destroying the competition but using the competition to build better and more neutral and informative articles. None of us is perfect, but Juijitsuguy (and I like to think myself) is different, in that he is working from good faith effort. Mr Anon, on the other hand, I am convinced, based on his "provocative" comments, disruptive editing in the month+ he has been here, is not working from good faith but deliberately trying to disrupt the project

]

Additional Comment by Jiujitsuguy

The blocks imposed on Mr Unsigned Anon were imposed for conduct that occurred after this AE was filed. It is inconceivable to me that a block of one week is sufficient to address his borish and vulgar conduct. The described conduct is beyond uncivil. It is strange and bizzare. He was well aware that he was under the threat of sanction and his behavior only worsened. Is this the action of a rational person? Add to this the fact that he's made not one original constructive edit. His editing ability appears limited to relentless reverts as evidenced by the partial list of diffs that I've compiled. There's also an issue of socking which he has admitted and is also listed among the compiled diffs. Subsequent to filing this AE, I found this page as further evidene of socking. Mr Unsigned Anon has also been issued several warnings including those of sanctions governing Israel/Palestine disputes. These warnings have all been documented and diffs for same have been set forth. It is also worthy of note that he has not a single defender. All who chose to comment on this matter, even those who share similar viewpoints with him, have agreed that his conduct was disruptive and in fact, only worsened with time. Therefore, a one week ban is an insufficient remedy to address the conduct of an "editor" who has demonstrated a total lack of regard for his fellow editors and the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. A much lengthier ban is in order here.--

]

Result concerning Mr Unsigned Anon

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

Action appears redundant with this user's block, but hold in the meantime.--Tznkai (talk) 05:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The block is only one week in length. Sanctions are placed after considering a much longer time frame. Discussion should, on that basis, continue as normal.

AGK 01:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I would prefer to watch his behavior coming off of his block before making any actions.--Tznkai (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeffed, does not appear to be interested in collaborative encyclopedia building.--Tznkai (talk) 05:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Note: I have reformatted this request - it appears to be an appeal against a ban imposed by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise after he was told this was the place to appeal[166], but was incorrectly formatted as a complaint. henrik•talk 22:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning appeal of topic ban by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise

User requesting enforcement:

HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested:

Appeal of topic ban

Sanction or remedy that this user wishes to appeal:

Unjust Topic Ban

HistoricWarrior, with this edit I feel you have crossed a line. You (and others) were warned some weeks ago that the permanent hostility and edit-warring on that article would not be tolerated forever. For the aggressive

]

History of prior warnings:

HistoricWarrior007 has no history of prior warnings.

Ban was imposed here: [167]

Enforcement action requested:

Exoneration from the Unjust Topic Ban

Additional comments by HistoricWarrior007 (talk):

I do not believe the ban is appropriate, as it goes against this wishes of the Community, 6 experienced editors told Future Perfect at Sunrise that his watchful eye in our article was unnecessary, and no one spoke out in his favor, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_29#Permanent_edit-warring, and the ban based on the policy I did not know about,

.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFuture_Perfect_at_Sunrise&action=historysubmit&diff=325113200&oldid=325060114

Discussion concerning appeal

Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise

I fully stand behind this topic ban: HistoricWarrior007 has a history of a persistently hostile, very combative battleground attitude over that article, combined with nearly incessant slow revert-warring over many months. I have become convinced that his presence is the main factor that has made the talkpage of

) the other day; now I'm being accused of being pro-EMLL because I happen to sanction somebody on the other side.)

Since the topic ban, HW has shifted his activity to other Russian war topics, such as Dagestan and Chechnya, and some of his edits have been so blatantly tendentious I am seriously considering if even more stringent restrictions are necessary. Here [169] he is inserting an unsourced, highly negative biographical assertion as a fact, when he must know (from the main article on that person) that the underlying claim is, at best, contentious. Here [170], in an edit that is actually skirting the topic ban (a bio of a semi-notable political analyst, which he only wrote as a

because he was previously promoting quotations from that analyst on the South Ossetia article for evident POV reasons), he describes the orientation of a Russian political journal as "a common sense magazine that does it best to explain what is going on in Russia without pandering to corporate interests". – I am convinced no editor of HW's intelligence and experience could possibly, even for a minute, fool himself into believing this is a neutral description. Therefore, this edit, even though only affecting a minor side issue, displays a reckless disregard for NPOV. This kind of irresponsible editing, by failing to strive for NPOV, is in and by itself sanctionable behaviour (in terms of the discretionary sanctions clause: failure "to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia"). 07:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just adding a dummy edit here to prevent the thread from being archived without a conclusion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HistoricWarrior007

Before reading further, I ask the reader only one thing: Look beyond the accusation. Look for the actual evidence. That is all I ask.

FutPerf accuses me of (1) ownership of the article; (2) edit-warring and hostility; (3) threats;

(1) Ownership: I have encouraged everyone to use the discussion page prior to editing, as is required by the article’s "controversial" template. I have discussed all of my edits, prior to making them. When a new user made an edit that I didn’t agree with, I reverted it, and asked him to use the talkpage; after the discussion, his arguments were better than mine, and he made the edit. There is a ton of material in the article that I disagree with in the article, but sometimes I win the discussion and they go, and sometimes I lose the discussion and they stay. And if anyone still thinks that I “own” the article, I volunteer for a 4 month long 1RR restriction in that article.

(2) Edit-Warring and hostility: as was previously pointed out to FutPerf, what was occurring in the article was not edit-warring but vandalism, and reverts of said vandalism. Despite 6 users pointing this out to FutPerf, all of whom are knowledgeable, long-term editors of the article, with a 2-4 pro-Georgian - pro-Russian split, FutPerf ignored our combined statements, and proceeded to claim edit-warring where none existed. Proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_29#Permanent_edit-warring.

(3) Threats: I challenge FutPerf to find a single threat that I made. Here is what FutPerf believes is a threat: "I am tired of you using these tactics. I won't hesitate to expose anymore of these tactics, the minute I see them. So don't use them." On the other hand FutPerf has been accused of making threats in our article, as is shown in the link above.

FutPerf claims that I was warned, in the above listed link and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Question_to_Arbcom:_2008_South_Ossetia_War However, in the latter link, ArbCom completely ignored FutPerf’s request; when a Court ignores a request, the status quo prevails, and no warning occurs.

I also fail to see why I am being punished per

. FutPerf states that it applies to all Eastern European Articles, but FutPerf failed to mention it in both of his "warnings".

The edit that I am being topic-banned for can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2008_South_Ossetia_war&action=historysubmit&diff=324541357&oldid=324532032 Granted, it wasn’t my brightest move, and the joke at the end was in poor taste. Nevertheless, in my defense, the edit involved the title debates, which occupy, literally, over 100 pages; it’s where every point was argued and counter-argued at least several times.

It is also interesting to note that FurPerf topic-banned me shortly after I presented evidence for ArbCom, and that he made the "warning" in the article, shortly after FeelSunny and I spoke out in the ArbCom case, regarding the Cabal.

To summarize, I am being banned for something I did not do, by an administrator who is hostile towards me, using a policy I never heard of. I have no history of prior bans/blocks/warnings. Thus, I am appealing.

Response to Biophys

Biophys takes the song that I posted, altered it, and on the basis of his alterations, claims that I am a member of Nashi.

Biophys' Version: "knife-bayonet penetrates a trembling body of your enemy"

Actual Version: "knife-bayonet penetrates the body...The poet-praised Caucasian Region is covered in blood, in the hearts hatred stings, but SpetzNaz will close hatred's path with their chests, because SpetzNaz doesn't run from danger"

The point of the song is to show that everyone suffered, but Biophys altered it, to make it look like the SpetzNaz was out to get the "enemy". (The word "enemy" isn't mentioned in the entire song, not even once. Nor is the word "trembling".) Additionally, Biophys connects this song to the KGB, that he sees everywhere. However the song is about the SpetzNaz. SpetzNaz is as much related to the KGB, as the Green Berets to the CIA; in other words - there's no relationship.

Please see here for further elaboration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Response_to_Biophys

Response to Future Perfect at Sunrise

It is interesting to note how quickly Future Perfect at Sunrise changed his reasons from (1) ownership of the article and (3) threats, completely dismissing those, and now arguing for (1) hostile-combative attitude and (3) toxicity of the talkpage, but he's still keeping the revert-warring claim.

My hostile-combative attitude can be easily debunked, by the fact that I backed down, when a new user presented better evidence, that contradicted evidence presented by MDB, a publication that I have always backed, and even had a dispute with FutPerf about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_27#Italics_vs_Quotes, where he made the edit, and I took it to the talkpage.

My recent reverts resulted when a user blanked a whole section, and I restored that section. With the exception of that, I had no reverts after FutPerf issued his "warning", that weren't reverts of vandalism. The revert wars have died out, before FutPerf entered the article. Please review this section, which completely debunks FutPerf's claim about my hostile-combative attitude: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#Moving_Over_from_my_Talkpage_-_naval_stuff. A short summary: two users came to me to ask for a mini-dispute resolution regarding the position of the Russian Naval Forces in the 2008 South Ossetia War. How can I be hostile and combative, when fellow Wikipedians are asking me to resolve a dispute?

I had less than 100 overall reverts, not counting vandalism reverts. I have never broken 3RR. I was never warned for any of my reverts. I repeatedly asked fellow Wikipedians to use the talkpage. FutPerf shows that he has no data on the issue, by claiming for "dozens, maybe hundreds" of reverts. I understand people are busy, but when administering a two-month topic ban, isn't it at least necessary to know whether a user did 24 or 400 reverts? Isn't it vital to know the time span? In a year's time of editing that article, I had less than 100 non-vandalism reverts. That's less than 1 revert in three days.

In response to the new "evidence" brought in by FutPerf:

151: Litvinenko first worked for the FSB, and then worked against the FSB for Berezovsky's Group. That makes him a double-agent, which is all that I inserted. I didn't say whether he was a bad or good double agent, but if you are working for two different security organizations, giving the intelligence of one organization to another, you are a double-agent, and I fail to see what's so negative about that. Every country has double-agents, it doesn't automatically make one the embodiment of evil.

152: I wrote an article on Patrick Armstrong, who works with Sharon Tennison to strengthen the US-Russia relationship. I made an effort to exclude anything he wrote that was relevant to the 2008 South Ossetia War, out of the article. I fail to see how that skirts the issue.

Future Perfect at Sunrise also claimed negativity about my edits to the Second Chechen War and Invasion of Dagestan Articles. He has yet to provide proof of how those were bad. I am a military historian, I edit articles relevant to military history. Why is this a crime? And no user can be truly NPOV, we all know that, and we all have bias on the basis of our education. One punishes editors for warring over POV, not for merely inserting their POV into the articles. The very fact that FutPerf is bringing such "evidence", shows that he has no evidence. And in terms of the Invasion of Dagestan, right after I began to edit that article, FutPerf, who showed no interest in the article prior to my editing of it, moved to delete the SpetzNaz image. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dagestan_1999.jpg

(3) Toxic Atmosphere: the most toxic atmosphere that I have seen in the 2008 South Ossetia War Article, was created by FutPerf. For instance when he came into the article to offer his services, he was vehemently rejected: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_29#Permanent_edit-warring

I will quote some of the reception that FutPerf's idea received, and these sum up the views of everyone who edited the article, except Biophys, who thinks I'm a member of Nashi, and KGB is editing Wikipedia Articles. Here is the reception to the toxic and hostile environment that FutPerf created, and then turned around and accused me of creating; reception to FutPerf's "policing" the article:

A. I'm sorry, but I don't think threatening editors is the correct answer here. Many of us have been working hard to improve the article. Offliner (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

B. So let me get this straight. An administrator is threatening to block a group of users who are almost entirely responsible for the article in its current form, simply because of the unavoidable fact that the topic is controversial and there are parties on both sides who are adamant that the article stay neutral from their view? So what would you rather, one person or one group with coinciding views to edit it to their liking with no disruptions? Your logic is incomprehensible to me...LokiiT (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

C. If I'm thinking of the same "small group of editors" that you're referring to, Future Perfect at Sunrise, I belive that you're sadly mistaken. Although disagreements do break out, as they usually do on such a controversial and fairly recent topic, this "small group of editors" has done a superb job of revamping this article over the past several months. There is little revert-warring occurring, and the only reason for the high revert count is due to the fact that Reenem's edits are often reverted, as they are done improperly and violate WIkipedia rules, as HistoricWarrior said earlier...Laurinavicius (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

D. Do I understand it right your last message means you intend to block me from editing this article together with a "whole cast of its regular editors" unless I convince you this article can breath with me editing it? If so, you can proceed with your administrator duties and rights and block me right away, if this is your intent. Please take into account that whatever decision you make, you make it on your own discretion, of course, and this message is in no way an expression of my wish to be blocked. Thanks, FeelSunny (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

FurPerf's threats and subsequent carrying out of said threats, are the reason for the hostility that he is getting, and not just from me.

Nobody is accusing Future Perfect at Sunrise of EMLL, and the Jacurek case is irrelevant. The accusation I made, was that as soon as FeelSunny and I spoke out in the ArbCom case, Future Perfect at Sunrise threatened us in the 2008 South Ossetia War Article, thereby creating the toxic atmosphere. He also "warned" Xeeron from the other side. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Question_to_Arbcom:_2008_South_Ossetia_War FeelSunny, Xeeron and I were the most active ArbCom contributors from the 2008 South Ossetia War article, that weren't directly involved in the case. And he directly accused the three of us.

The accusation against FutPerf is that he worked actively to against the writers of the 2008 South Ossetia War Article that commented on the ArbCom case, irrespective of the sides.

On the 18th of September, 2009 I asked to be included in the proceedings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_29#Permanent_edit-warring

On the 22nd of September, Future Perfect at Sunrise appeared with a threat in the 2008 South Ossetia War Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_29#Permanent_edit-warring

On the 5th of November, I presented evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FEastern_European_mailing_list%2FEvidence&action=historysubmit&diff=324160468&oldid=323152291

On the 8th of November, I received the topic ban: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HistoricWarrior007#Topic-banned

And I've yet to understand why I was blocked per

a policy that FutPerf didn't warn me about, a policy that I didn't even know existed.

Response to Looie496

According to FutPerf, I was "warned" twice:

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_29#Permanent_edit-warring (please note the response to FutPerf's "warning" by editors on all sides, as we tried to, in vain, inform him that the edit-war was over.)

And Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Question_to_Arbcom:_2008_South_Ossetia_War

Please note, that with the exception of Biophys, who thinks I'm Nashi because I posted a SpetzNaz song, (that's like relating Green Berets to Black Panthers,) no one supports FutPerf. In the second request, FeelSunny asks for proof of edit warring, and Biophys provides his altered version of the song instead. The second one was also phrased as "Question to ArbCom" to which ArbCom didn't reply. So it FutPerf's language, "Question to ArbCom" really means "warning to the editors I am mentioning below". You can find the elaboration here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HistoricWarrior007#Topic-banned

Response to Tznkai

I would like to note four things:

1. All of the evidence that was presented against me, was refuted. The very fact that Tznkai has to devolve to talking about my username, shows the drops of evidence that the accusers have. I feel like I'm at the

. Maybe Tznkai would be kind enough to show me which evidence by FutPerf he used, but for some reason I doubt he will do so.

2. The Arbitration Committee for ban appeals consists of Coren, Roger Davis and Cool Hand Luke. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ARBCOM#BASC I don't see Tznkai on there. The way I understood the process, was that only experienced administrators who look at all sides of the evidence, not just the parties' usernames, are subject to commenting on ban appeals. I apologize if I was wrong, and this is indeed Salem.

3. I apologize for requiring the administrators to actually get their facts right before the ban, or denying the appeal. Tznkai claims that the community at large has abandoned the topic area because of irritating partisans. If Tznkai was kind enough to actually check the logs, he would notice 9 active editors, in the past two weeks, in a single article! If the discussion page was included, the total number is 16 active editors, not to mention a few active IPs. We must have a lot of partisans. And our partisans must vote for both sides of the issue, and argue with each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war&action=history

I'd also like to note that I was given a Barnstar for the article, by a completely neutral editor who was just watching for grammar/vandalism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HistoricWarrior007#For_the_Incredible_Work:_The_Tireless_Contributor_Barnstar, and that FutPerf, Tznkai, and Biophys need to present actual evidence, not posting a SpetzNaz song and claiming it's Nashi song, not accusing me of calling a double-agent, a double-agent, and in all honesty, you need something aside from my username to convict me.

4. Despite all this, Tznkai now accuses me of editing Wikipedia like a Patriot, whatever that means. It is interesting to note, how quickly the accusations change. I never knew that edition like a Patriot is against Wikipedia rules. A Patriot strives for NPOV, because he wants the World to know the truth about his country, be it bad or good, and is tired of the lies spread about it. A Nationalist edits for POV, because he just wants to tell the World that his country is #1, irrespective of reality. It is important to know what Patriotism and Nationalism mean, and to not confuse the two.

Comment by Biophys

• Some background information. Biophys (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Looie496

FPS, in your topic ban you stated "you (and some others) were warned...". It would be helpful if you could provide a pointer to the warning. Looie496 (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by FeelSunny

Guys, when an admin comes to an article, and in two messages makes a threat to block users in packs - this is called "going postal". And here, thesame admin is going to topic ban an active editor that has added tons of useful information to the article, virtually making it look like it does now.

Yes, the post that FPAS incriminates to HW looks bad, as a "batteground spirit" one. The only real reason, though, is HW is alive and frank. There are dozens of editors out there with the same battleground type of behavior, who normally conceal their intentions, but may well coordinate their disruptive activity, and involve in any kind of illegal activity to push their POV.

However, only the 3-4 most misbehaving members of this Eastern European mailing list out of a dozen may now get a topic ban. Now here an admin just makes a three months topic ban for one wrong edit. Plus, HW was one of the editors that helped to protect the article from the anti-Russian mailing list members, and he was attacked by them numerous times in "2008 SO war" and other articles. And now he gets banned for "battleground behavior." No matter how much FPAS is sad about the initial unwelcoming attitude of the article editors towards him, his decision in this case is absolutely not fair.FeelSunny (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File the appropriate reports and gather evidence on the other ones then. I'm not going to go looking around just on your say so, nor am I capable of reading your mind as to figure out exactly who you are talking about.

In the vernacular, (frankness, if you prefer) put up, or shut up.--Tznkai (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not too difficult to get to the arbcom page which is linked in my previous post and see that one of the main purposes of the Eastern European mailing list members was to pester HW007 and Russavia and provoke them. It is not too difficult for an uninvolved administrator.FeelSunny (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ETST

I cannot be called a completely uninvolved person, since while I'm not a prominent editor of the article, I'm still a very avid reader of both the article and its talkpage, and have been monitoring them ever since their conception. That's why I decided to have my say in this case, as soon, as I became aware of it, since it strikes me as - and I see no other suitable description for it - completely unjust.

The was no evidence shown in the case to prove that HistoricWarrior is guilty, only accusations. I will do my best to show you why I believe that HistoricWarrior is valuable to the article, and to Wikipedia. Please bear with me, as I try to show you the side that the accusers will not.

To begin with, I saw the edit, that according to Future Perfect at Sunrise "broke the camel's back", and frankly, I find it laughable. I don't know, maybe to an article's outsider, HistoricWarrior's (let's admit it) overwhelming (but rather hilarious - even his opponents sometimes admit that) sarcasm can seem to cross the line, but my experience is that after a couple of posts one will understand that it's his general manner of speech, which doesn't carry any hostility towards anyone, and will stop noticing it whatsoever.

To be honest with everyone, I also have to say, that I completely agree with what HistoricWarrior said in that notorious post. Kamikaze tactics, stalking/haunting tactics, flashmobbing tactics, and just about every other dirty tactic one can think of has been implemented in the article, by certain users, and group of users including, but not limited to, the notorious Eastern European mailing list group.

I can only praise HistoricWarrior when he comes out and calls things their proper names. This, and also the fact, that he almost singlehandedly managed to oppose said group in their attempt to rename the article to an inherently POVed title with his clear and concise arguments. This act not only attracted, and still attracts a certain degree of hostility to him (which he constantly has to endure), but is the very reason, why he was awarded Barnstars, for his coolheadedness and professionalism. Maybe that "certain degree of hostility" is what Future Perfect at Sunrise has perceived as an "incredibly toxic environment" in the article, but he couldn't be more mistaken.

This level of hostility was present in the article much earlier than HistoricWarrior appeared. It was just concentrating between a different set of editors. And trust me when I say it, the current level of hostility is at its historical lowest. Judging by the latest discussion between editors (connected to release of UNOMIG report on the war, which cleared up majority of contentious issues, but introduced lots of others - as usual), the improvement in interaction is so strikingly noticeable to anyone who was unfortunate enough to see the article at least half a year before now, that I'm completely at loss of understanding, why Future Perfect insists on ruining that miraculously established balance between differently POVed editors. Does he really think, that if he removes one of the most prominent contributors to the article, the situation somehow will improve?

Let me assure him, then, that it will just mean that all contentious issues in the article from now on will be raised to community's attention by someone else - which will make said "someone" a next hotspot for all controversy and accusations by opposing groups. Will that "someone" and then another and another "someones" become next targets for Future Perfect's bans, until article won't have a single homogenous group with internally noncontradicting POV? Does that make any sense? Not to me.

Seriously, I think Future Perfect at Sunrise should familiarize himself more with the article's background, before trying to impose his uninformed decisions. Just where was he, when EEML cabal was taking their jump at the article (and the cabal is now getting only two months' ban each)? Where was he, when article renaming issue was so contrived that it took several rename attempts, three flashmob votes, and numerous renaming discussions? For a glimpse of what I'm talking about, all of these links concern article rename (and that's without 3 months worth of the latest ones):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_2#Article_name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_3#Name_change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_4#Google_hits_confirm_most_popular_names http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_4#Media_call_it_Georgia-Russia_conflict http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_5#Rename_War_in_Georgia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_5#name_change.3F http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_5#Rename_now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_5#Article_rename http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_6#Seriously.2C_this_article_needs_to_be_renamed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_7#Requested_move http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_8#Needs_to_be_renamed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_10#Article_rename http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_11#Name_rankings_on_Google_News http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_11#Name_of_article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_13#.22South_Ossetia_War.22.3F http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_14#Title_consensus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_15#New_Title_consensus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_17#Rename http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_19#Rename http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_22#Specific_options (there is actually a vote) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_23#To_Those_Opposing_the_current_title http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_24 (the whole archive is dedicated to another vote) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_25#The_title_and_the_lead http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_25#An_Argument_that.27s_yet_to_be_defeated_by_all_the_.22let.27s_change_the_war.27s_name.2C_yes.2C_again.2C_we_really.2C_really_want_to.22_people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_25#It_Appears_that_Kober_did_violate_the_moving_convention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_26 (that's yet another archive dedicated to yet another vote)

Those neverending rename discussions were so dirty, long (really, REALLY long) and persistent, that some editors (even innocent bystanders) said they are disgusted and nauseated by it, and quit editing the article (if not Wikipedia, I'm afraid) forever. Ever since "we should start a rename discussion" is a running gag among extremely-dark-humor lovers, and any other editor will have a hard time reacting to such proposal adequately (in this regard, HistoricWarrior's reaction that he expressed in his post was more adequate, than I myself would have been able to muster on his place).

Despite all that and unlike some other editors, HistoricWarrior managed to remain open to compromise as can be seen from the latest example: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#Moving_Over_from_my_Talkpage_-_naval_stuff).

I really insist on Future Perfect getting a full read of talkpage archives (no, seriously. it's a worthy read even in itself, not just only in this case), if he indeed wants to make informed judgements on article's proceedings. I also can only wonder, what he could have meant by an "incessant slow revert-warring" by HistoricWarrior, and I doubt there can be any evidence to it (I have never seen any). It occurs to me, though, that maybe Future Perfect have never seen before how truly controversial articles are usually edited.

Personally, I suggest to consider that: during a whole year of editing (and especially during one of the rename votes) many opponents would have liked to frame HistoricWarrior up. EEML cabal went as far, as trying to suck a case of Canvassing out of their collective finger, but it was so ridiculous, that it fell apart without starting. The simple fact, that even his worst opponents haven't managed to uncover any kind of misbehavior on his part that they could cling on, says more to me, than anything else.

Having said all that, I suggest to lift this ban, while majority of other editors still hadn't remembered their old grudges, and tried to bury HistoricWarrior and each other in accusations in order to gain "editing advantage", and thus returned on the wrong path of accusing each other instead of improving the article. I was really glad when that trend discontinued, and I really hope to never see it any more, thank you. ETST (talk) 12:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors

Archiving this in 24 hrs barring an uninvolved admin requesting otherwise = must bury this quickly, lest some honest administrator sees it. Meowy 03:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning appeal of topic ban

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

If I understand the basic argument here, HistoricWarrior007, aside from having an unfortunate username that suggests he is here to do battle instead of build a collaborative encyclopedia, claims the community at large is against this topic ban. The community at large has abandoned the topic area because of irritating partisans. I see no reason to believe that HistoricWarrior007 is not one of them. I see evidence that not only has HistoricWarrior007 has not left his rather strong opinions at the door, but has let it infect his work. I see excellent reason to extend the topic ban even wider, or to boot HistoricWarrior007 off the project entirely. Appeal denied.--Tznkai (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for the ban appeals subcomittee, rather than for another administrator to overturn a discretionary sanctions, you need to e-mail the

Ban Appeals Subcommittee. As for evidence, I looked at your contribution log and at your talk page, which suggest that you identify yourself as a "patriot" (whatever that means to you) and you edit in advocacy for the associated point of view.--Tznkai (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Archiving this in 24 hrs barring an uninvolved admin requesting otherwise.--Tznkai (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]