Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive65

Request concerning Varsovian

User requesting enforcement

 Dr. Loosmark  21:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions, User_talk:Varsovian#Arbitration_enforcement_warning:_discretionary_sanctions_.28WP:DIGWUREN.29, ([1]).

Diffs

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

#

[2] <Accusing other editors of calling him racist, not providing diffs. This entire thread seems like a harassment thread, aiming at driving an editor away from a discussion>

[3] <Personal attack and bad faith assumption - discussing another editor in a fashion that shines bad light on them and is not relevant to the ongoing discussion>

[4] <Unnecessary comments about another editor - borderline personal attacks, poisoning the discussion atmosphere>

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

{{{Diffs of prior warnings}}}

Enforcement action requested (

other sanction

)

block or other sanction which would stop such type of behavior

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I believe that diffs like presented above are unacceptable and I am especially disappointed by such behavior because user:Varsovian was very recently sanctioned by user:Sandstein and advised to stop claiming that people have accused him racism when they did not. It did not stop him.

Reply to Strife: Have you read the Digwuren sanction Varsovian is under? We are not talking about just reasonable civility standards (which is always somewhat personal interpretation) but direct violation of his sanction which requires him to provide the diff at the same moment when he is alleging misconduct of another user. He accused me of trying to divert attention from a warning I received. How exactly was I trying to "divert attention"!? He claimed that Kotniski is making accusation of racism without any diffs, is that not in direct violation of his Digwuren sanction? What exactly is the point of having him under such a sanction if he can freely ignore it!?  Dr. Loosmark  09:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Varsovian's statement: I am not quite sure why is Varsovian providing diffs from 2009. Yes I might have made mistakes in the past but I own my errors and those diffs have nothing to do with request against Varsovian. Just briefly: 1) Kotniski has not accused Varsovian of racism, but Varsovian keeps repeating that. 2) He wrote bellow: How is it a personal attack to mention that he’s been warned that week?. Mentioning that I was warned that week is not a personal attack, however implying that I am trying to "divert attention" from being warned is in direct violation of his sanction. 3) I totally reject the bad faith accusation that I have deliberately mistranslated a source. I maintain that my translation was accurate. 4) Claiming that I have a problem "controlling myself" as he claims bellow is uncivil.  Dr. Loosmark  11:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further reply to V.: Varsovian is now stating that he didn't accuse me of deliberately mistranslating a source. Fine. Here is what he wrote: But instead of being happy that I haven’t assumed bad faith and reported him for deliberately mistranslating a foreign language source, Loosmark instead reports me! Why should I be "happy" that he didn't report me for deliberately mistranslating a source? In my opinion his implication is clear: the only reason I could possibly be happy that he didn't report me for deliberately mistranslating a source is if I would have really deliberately mistranslated a source.  Dr. Loosmark  12:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Stifle's proposal: An interaction ban between Dr.Loosmakr and Varsovian!? You have to be kidding. Varsovian broke his AE restrictions and on top of it Sandstein advised him just a couple of days before that he is not allowed to write that people accuse him of racism when they obviously do not. That is what this report was about. After I opened an AE request here, Varsovian instead of explaining/appologizing for his conduct/comment, started personal attacks against me providing a whole series of diffs which are: 1) old (some of them from 2009) 2) have absolutely nothing to do with his breaking of the AE restrictions. Among other things he even hinted that i deliberately mistranslated a foreign language source (quote: But instead of being happy that I haven’t assumed bad faith and reported him for deliberately mistranslating a foreign language source, Loosmark instead reports me!). A very creative way of getting off the hook indeed. He breaks AE restriction, I report him and the results is an interaction ban for the two of us!?  Dr. Loosmark  13:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Varsovian statement: Yeah Varsovian wrote "I am not accusing Loosmark of misconduct" to cover his himself against possible sanctions but then immediately added that I should be "happy that he haven’t assumed bad faith and reported him for deliberately mistranslating a foreign language source". The implication is clear, if I had not deliberately mistranslated a source then why should I be happy that Varsovian did not report me for "deliberately mistranslating a foreign language source"? Unless he is saying that he knew I wasn't deliberately mistranslated a source but was willing to report me anyway. To give an analogy imagine somebody tells to you: "I am not accusing you of being a thief. But be happy I have not reported you to the Police for stealing a car." What exactly is that?  Dr. Loosmark  14:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't reply to Varsovian statements anymore because clearly he is trying to turn this report into a big mess and then everybody will forget what the report actually is about. Suffice is to say that his analogy is ridiculous, no person would "break a window and hot-wiring the car" just because he lost the keys. Such things actually do happen often and there are reserve keys, plus most car manufacturers can give you new keys. In the worse case scenarion you'd call the Police and try to get the car to a mechanic to replace the lock. So yeah if you see somebody "breaking a window and hot-wiring the car" you can 99% assume something dodgy is going on.  Dr. Loosmark  14:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[5]

Discussion concerning Varsovian

Statement by Varsovian

Summary
The best solution here is that Loosmark and I are both completely banned from interacting with each other.

Loosmark's accusations

Third diff he provides. I must admire Loosmark’s front here: the gall he has when complaining about this post is staggering. Loosmark claimed that a Polish source “states precisely that he [the subject of this article] was in the "Belarusian police" ”. The source actually says “Sawoniuk, który w czasie okupacji służył w granatowej policji białoruskiej,". “granatowej policji białoruskiej” actually translates as “the Blue police in/of Belarus” (for details of granatowej policji see this article). It most certainly does not translate to “Belarusian police”. I assumed and stated that Loosmark had made a good-faith mistake in his translation and state that I am not “accusing Loosmark of misconduct” with his unfortunate mistranslation (despite the fact that Loosmark has translated the phrase in precisely the meaning which supports his PoV). But instead of being happy that I haven’t assumed bad faith and reported him for deliberately mistranslating a foreign language source, Loosmark instead reports me!

Second diff he provides.The same week as being warned he threatens to report me for stating that a if a man who was born in Poland to a Polish mother is not Polish, another man who was born in Poland to a Polish mother is also not Polish. How is it a personal attack to mention that he’s been warned that week?

First diff he provides. No diff? Got me on that one. There is no diff: because the post contains a direct quotation from the post immediately above it! Let’s get one thing straight: if one said to somebody “you are anti-negro” or “you seem to have something against black people”, one’d be calling them a racist. Insert the word Polish or Poles in place of negro or black and you have the same accusations of racism. Strangely Loosmark doesn’t mention Kotniski’s repeated accusations that I am not editing in good faith ([6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11], a quote from that last one “That you're putting unsourced facts into an article, or dishonestly citing sources which don't support what you're writing, or putting off-topic information into an article just to smear a particular nation that you seem to have something against.”) or that the first post in that thread is “You have now made your second accusation that I am editing in bad faith. Kindly refrain from doing and strike out your accusation on the WP:POLAND page or I will request that you are warned of DIGWUREN sanctions.” How is a polite request that somebody doesn’t not make accusations of bad faith editing a “harassment thread”? Loosmark also claims I am accusing “other editors” but he has only provided a diff which mentions a single editor. What an unfortunate mistake.

Loosmark’s conduct and a requested solution
Loosmark has been warned of DIGWUREN sanctions ([12]), topic banned under DIGWUREN sanctions ([13]), placed on revert restrictions ([14]) and given a formal warning under DIGWUREN sanctions (“violates Wikipedia conduct norms, notably WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:BATTLE.” [15]). Since that formal warning, he has in relation to me been warned again for WP:BATTLE behaviour ("Continued misuse of this forum as a battleground will result in sanctions."[16]) and warned again about being civil ([17]). And for good measure a 3RR violation ([18] [19] [20]) while he attempted to keep an off-topic argument with me visible. When I asked Loosmark to self-revert he denied that he had reverted me "even once" and accused me of making "bogus accusation." ([21]). However, after I posted about his behaviour on Matthead's talkpage ([22]), he self-reverted ([23]) claiming "returned the collapse thing to avoid the usual wiki-drama. i still don't agree with it and will raise the issue at an appropriate board later." He didn't raise the issue.

This all suggests that Loosmark has something of a problem controlling himself when it comes to me finds civil interaction difficult when it comes to me. He and I were having problems at

Further support that Loosmark has 'difficulty' in interacting with me in a civil way come from his reply to my comments. He says "I totally reject the bad faith accusation that I have deliberately mistranslated a source." but I have clearly stated above "I assumed and stated that Loosmark had made a good-faith mistake"! Varsovian (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear: in the above I am not alleging any misconduct by Loosmark. I'm sure that when he read my "Loosmark had made a good-faith mistake" and read that as me saying he had "deliberately mistranslated a source", he made that mistake in good faith too. Varsovian (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kotniski
More of his gems about me smearing Poles (this gave my girlfriend, her kids, my former uni students from when I was working here with Peace Corps and all my colleagues (i.e. some of the Poles who actually know me) a good laugh). I will reply in detail to his comments when I have enough time to (probably not until next week, I intend to be sat in front of the TV this weekend) but could he perhaps quote the part of

Yes Kotniski “policji białoruskiej” does mean "Belorussian Police". However, the source actually says “granatowej policji białoruskiej” and, as we both know granatowej policji means Blue Police.

Comment by Stifle Please note that the comment from Kotniski which alleged that I trying to "smear a particular nation that you seem to have something against" (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kotniski&diff=prev&oldid=367250748), i.e. that I am anti-Polish, which is the same as being racist, was the post immediately above my post on the talk page. You really think that I should have provided a diff in that situation?

I'm reminded of a group of editors from Eastern Europe who used to tag team their opponents: one or more would deliberately wind up an opponent and then another would immediately report the smallest infraction by the wound-up opponent. While clearly Loosmark and Kotniski would never engage in such behaviour, we have [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] from Kotniksi and then Loosmark jumps straight in with a report. Against me of course, Kotniski's self-confessed incivility isn't even worth a mention to Loosmark. Varsovian (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Chumchum7 This diff well describes Chumchum7's comments "But in its current state it is too long and argumentative and contains too few relevant diffs. We are not interested in opinions, we are interested in evidence." Despite being told that this page is not for long argumentative opinions, Chumchum7 simply copy/pastes his entire long (2,038 word!)argumentative opinion. Not the most helpful of contributions. Varsovian (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution suggested by Stifle I'd much prefer that you made the ban six months and made it more than just an interaction ban. I'd prefer to see it as "We will not be allowed to reply to each other’s posts on discussion pages or talk pages, we will not be allowed to comment on each other’s edits. We will not be allowed to edit an article for 48 hours after the other has edited it. We will not be allowed to mention each other or even allude to each other anywhere on WP (i.e. talk pages, discussion pages, edit summaries, AE requests, everywhere!)" Obviously I'd welcome contributions from other editors as to how to best word this ban. Varsovian (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loosmark's reaction to this solution includes: still claiming that I "hinted that Loosmark deliberately mistranslated a foreign language source" when I actually said that Loosmark had made a good-faith mistake in his translation and explicitly stated that I was not “accusing Loosmark of misconduct”; twice repeating his little 'mistake' with singular vs plural ("Varsovian broke his AE restrictions" "his breaking of the AE restrictions" (emphasis added) but he can only give one diff to support his claim that I broke one of my restrictions); and alleging that I make "personal attacks" against him. I conclude that this shows the suggested ban on us needs to be permanent and very very tight. Loosmark appears to want blood (mine to be exact); I'd prefer to see Wikipedia made better, and an interaction ban will do just that. Varsovian (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loosmark's reply to my reply again shows the need for a tight ban on both of us. His metaphor regarding a car would be better as "I am not accusing you of being a thief. But instead of you being happy I have not reported you to the Police for stealing a car when I saw you breaking the window of a car and hot-wiring it because I assumed that you had made the good faith mistake of losing the keys to your car, you report me to the police for failing to dot an i in my tax return." I note that Loosmark says "Yeah Varsovian wrote "I am not accusing Loosmark of misconduct" to cover his himself against possible sanctions but then immediately added that I should be "happy that he haven’t assumed bad faith and reported him for deliberately mistranslating a foreign language source"." (emphasis added). In reality "I am not accusing Loosmark of misconduct" ([32]) was 18:59 on 10 June and "happy that I haven’t assumed bad faith and reported him for deliberately mistranslating a foreign language source" ([33]) was actually 10:42 the next day. So when Loosmark says "immediately", he's either badly mistaken or lying. Given all the mistakes he's made in this thread, I'm more inclined towards 'lying' than 'mistaken'. But regardless of which it is, his comment simply shows that our ban needs to be very tight and permanent (and immediate). Varsovian (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually been in a situation where I lost my car keys and needed to break the window and hot-wire the car (the spare keys were a five hour drive away). But I agree that it is 99% likely that something dodgy is happening when one sees somebody hot-wiring a car. Just as it is 99% likely that something dodgy is happening when somebody mistranslates something written in one's native language and mistranslates it in a way that supports one's PoV. However, as I always remember about

WP:AGF, I say that Loosmark's mistranslation was the 1% where nothing dodgy was happening: which is why I said "good faith mistake" and "not accusing Loosmark of misconduct". That Loosmark appears to assume bad faith with regard to my reply is merely yet more proof that a ban is needed to prevent us from harming WP. Varsovian (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

What we have here is a strongly POV-motivated editor who gives a very clear impression that his sole purpose on Wikipedia is to smear Poland and Poles generally (or wind up Polish editors, I don't know exactly what his motivation is). Anyone with an ounce of experience with these issues knows this - we won't make any progress by trying to pretend such things are not so. So frankly I'm not so concerned with the uncivility of his comments (and I'm sorry if people find what I say back to him uncivil, but Wikipedia forces reasonable editors to interact with people like that, so it's understandable if frustration and the desire for simple truth sometimes leads us to call spades spades), as with the inherent and unapologetic biased-ness of his editing. And it's not just him - there are other similar editors (you all presumably know them better than I do) on all sides. If ArbCom and admins really want to solve these issues, they must address the underlying problems of agenda-driven editing, rather than (just) the surface phenomenon of incivility.--Kotniski (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh and "policji białoruskiej" most certainly does translate as Belarusian police - maybe it's a simple linguistic mistake on Varsovian's part clamining that it doesn't, but there is no way in the world that it translates to "Polish police" as he originally claimed. But I'm tired talking to him or taking any further part in this debate - any discussion with him (even though civil on the surface) is destined to consist of this kind of untruths and fantastic original theories. --Kotniski (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Chumchum7 here. I recently wrote the following complaint about Varsovian at AE, which I may get round to filing in standard AE format, if I ever get the time. Any or all of it may be used as evidence here:

Thanks -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chumchum7 could you please collapse your text? My report is about a very specific violation of the AE sanctions by Varsovian. Your evidence might suggest problems of another nature however I doubt that the Admins will be willing to examine it within my request.  Dr. Loosmark  18:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loosmark, I have no idea how to collapse text so please go ahead and do that if you know how to. I support your request, but repeat the message to administrators that we have a much bigger, long term problem here with Varsovian, who is playing a long-term

WP:GAME, as I have detailed in my text above. I may file another AE at any time at my convenience, and anyone else can use the evidence I have earmarked in future AE requests, if the problems continue as they have for the past several months. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I've collapsed it for you. Regards,

AGK 10:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• None of those three diffs appear to me to be outside the bounds of reasonable civility standards. On the contrary, Varsovian is expressing himself quite reservedly and straightforwardly. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• To Dr. Loosmark: I see now, this refers to [61], an existing sanction, rather than a general request for a new sanction. This is actionable; I will hear editors and other admins as to what might be an appropriate sanction. Stifle (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Not resolved yet. Stifle (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• An interaction ban between Dr. Loosmark and Varsovian seems to have some merit. What if I said two months interaction ban? Stifle (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will hear Dr. Loosmark on their opinion of the terms proposed. Stifle (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, my time has run out; I have to go on Wikibreak now due to my impending wedding. I will have to hand this over to another sysop. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! And after seeing these two bicker on my talk page all day long, I agree that they need a break from each other. Accordingly, per

Request concerning Shuki

User requesting enforcement

Nableezy 00:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

Diffs

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

1. [62] Accuses me of lying
2. [63] Again
3. [64] Again
4. [65] Again
5. [66] Again

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

1. [67] Prior to the first diff listed I told Shuki if he or she continued to accuse me of lying I would be coming here
2. [68] Notified of ARBPIA case

Enforcement action requested (

other sanction

)

That Shuki be told in no uncertain terms that repeatedly accusing people of lying, or purposely misleading others, is not acceptable. I am not asking for a topic ban or a block or anything else, just that Shuki be told to not continue with such attacks.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There is an ongoing RFC about an issue that Shuki and I have clashed over at a large number of articles and whatever the solution here I think Shuki should be allowed to continue on that page. I am not trying to remove somebody from the other side, but I also do not want to continue being called a liar.

Yn, the difference is that I am not saying that Shuki is intending to mislead others. By saying the argument is "bogus" I am saying that the argument has no merit, I am not saying that he or she is purposely misleading others or impugning his or her character in any way. There is an accusation of bad faith in saying somebody is lying, it is a clear cut personal attack. How about you use whatever influence you have with Shuki and explain to him or her why such accusations are inappropriate. nableezy - 00:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think an interaction ban would be possible, we both work on a ton of the same articles. nableezy - 00:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ep, Im not going to waste too much time replying to you, but bogus also means fake, or, in the sense I was using it wiggity-wiggity-whack; bulls***; unfortunate; silly; unbelievable; not genuine; the opposite of excellent. And if Shuki has said that such a word caused offense I would not have continued to repeat it. As for your other request, I presented diffs backing what I said on the Katzrin page, and the accusation on the RFC is so nonsensical I am not exactly sure what Shuki is accusing me of lying about. nableezy - 08:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[69]

Discussion concerning Shuki

Statement by Shuki

If an editor, such as Nableezy, consistently makes statements directly attempting to attack and delegitime my edits and comments, and not related to the topic/discussion, they he should not be surprised when he is accused of lying and should instead verify if he has indeed made baseless disruptive accusations. Frankly, each reply Nableezy provides above is in defense of his allegations. --Shuki (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Shuki

Comment by Ynhockey

Seems like a case of the

pot calling the kettle black. Saying that someone makes a bogus argument seems like an accusation of lying to me. How about stopping the mutual mud slinging? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by Andrensath

I concur with Ynhockey re: pot/kettle. As Shuki and Nableezy seem incapable of working together constructively, a broadly-interpreted ban on interaction between the two may be in order. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 00:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may be an appropriate solution. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Stellarkid

By filing this at this time, Nableezy is attempting to knock an opponent out of the ring in the middle of an RfC on issues that the two have been arguing for months. Even though he denies this with respect to the RfC, (he can afford to be magnanimous as so far the !voting is lopsided in his favor), if he is able to get a broad topic ban on Shuki, he will have carte blanche to follow his preferred edits, which, as Shuki writes in the RfC "infers that [a particular] locality is primarily a disputed political location, and not a normal place where families live, work, study, shop, and play." Shuki is one of the few editors left on WP to support this apparently unpopular position, even though, as Shuki points out "The use of the municipal status as the lead term is NPOV and the most widely accepted standard for geographical locations in the WP encyclopedia." A topic ban for Shuki would be a TKO for the other side, a major propaganda victory which would resonate throughout the I-P area. This is a content issue that is of high importance in the I-P conflict area, and some people don't care about the means used to win. If someone can knock the editor out of contention, he doesn't need to do the hard work necessary to make his points. I support Shuki and quite understand the frustration of trying to collaborate with Nableezy, who strikes me as very unwilling to compromise on any issues he feels strongly about with respect to the Israel-Palestinian situation. Until this latest RfC, I have avoided editing articles he edits for that very reason.

talk) 01:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

It should be noted that Nableezy is explicitly *not* asking for a topic ban, merely that Shuki be told to cease saying that Nableezy is a liar. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 01:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pot/Kettle per this: while I was topic banned you took it upon yourself to restore fringe terminology. Forgive me for bad faith, but Nableezy is trying to game the system on the RfC and here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gilisa

What we have here seems as interaction problem between two specific editors. I'm not sure, though, that long term interaction ban would be a constructive solution. I couldn't get the whole picture from the diffs provided here, but I'm sure that there is a solution that can sattele down this conflict without actionable measures have to be taken. --Gilisa (talk) 06:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Epeefleche

Nab -- can you supply more detail? Specifically, showing the lack of truth in the accusations? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your statement that "the difference is that I am not saying that Shuki is intending to mislead others. By saying the argument is "bogus" I am saying that the argument has no merit, I am not saying that he or she is purposely misleading others." The problem with that, is it is completely incorrect.

The definition of bogus can be found here. As is obvious, "bogus" describes an argument that is "not genuine: counterfeit, sham". All of those require the maker of the article to be making an argument they know is untrue. "Bogus" does not mean -- as you (no doubt, in good faith, without the slightest interest in misleading anyone) meritless. It means, as the click-throughs of the aforementioned definition make clear, "made ... with intent to deceive", "insincere, feigned", "a trick that deludes: hoax". That has everything to do with you accusing the kettle of deceipt, insincerity, and trickery.

Again, to be clear. I'm of course certain that Nab was not making the above misstatement as to what the term "bogus" means to intentionally deceive anyone with insincerity or trickery. I think he simply made a mistake by accidentally misleading us as to what bogus means, with his incorrect definition being one that -- had it been true -- would have supported his position.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by cptnono

Being guilty of it myself before, one thing I have learned about the I-P area that is very important is never call anyone a liar. He may have misled others with his comment, inserted silliness, made a bogus claim, or a number of phrases that say similar things but liar is too offensive and could even imply that he as a person is overtly and intentionally immoral instead of someone you just disagree with and may not like. It simply shouldn't be used in an already touchy topic area. I don't blame you if you are livid with Nableezy at all. I often am. We just can't apply that label to anyone here even if another editor's comments were questionable. So refrain from doing it and the problem should be solved. Simple enough fix. Of course, I'm not saying say everything but liar since that can open up its own can of worms.Cptnono (talk) 08:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Shuki

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

Cptnono is correct: "He may have misled others with his comment, inserted silliness, made a bogus claim, or a number of phrases that say similar things but liar is too offensive and could even imply that he as a person is overtly and intentionally immoral instead of someone you just disagree with and may not like. It simply shouldn't be used in an already touchy topic area." It is acceptable to critically engage the statements and opinions of others if a professional tone is employed; "bogus argument", however, is already too confrontational in my opinion. But it is certainly not acceptable to attack people themselves ("liar"). As requested, I am warning Shuki not to repeat such personal attacks.

Nableezy, however, is also cautioned that this page is neither a substitute for the

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema, closed 8 January 2008, settled a dispute between Skyelarke, who is now User:Scott Free, and myself, User:Tenebrae.

The Arb ruling states:

Skyelarke and Tenebrae may freely edit John Buscema but should respect consensus developed in the interim concerning the basic structure of the article and the nature of the material that should be included, including but not limited to the number of images. ... Any uninvolved administrator may ban Skyelarke or Tenebrae from editing John Buscema or any related article or page for a reasonable period of time ... if either engages in any form of disruptive editing, edit-warring, or editing against an established consensus.

1)  Skyelarke/Scott Free attempted to restore his 2007 non-consensus edits in July 2008, as noted by now-admin User:Emperor here, who told him, "your edits to this page and the addition of that link is a pretty blatant attempt to get around things like consensus." After comments by Emperor and myself, Scott Free backed off from this attempt.

2)  Scott Free returned 15:26, 11 June 2010, to make a large number of changes that included removal of wikilinks, unexplained truncation of cited authors' names and other undiscussed edits. On discussion at the talk page Talk:John Buscema#Revision/Expansion here, he again backed off and seemed prepared to behave collegially. Indeed, on June 15 I wrote to him on his page at User talk:Scott Free#Extending my hand to say, "Nothing would make me happier than collaborating equally well with you on John Buscema to help bring that deserving article to the same GA status."

At this point, he began to reinsert the same or similar non-consensus edits as he did prior to the Arb ruling — with the addition of certifiably false citations. Some, which I initially took to be the work of an IP vandal, were made under what I alter learned was his IP, User:132.216.67.168.

My edit summaries help tell the story of my attempts at working with those same/similar non-consensus edits as from before the Arb ruling:

• "that [citation] doesn't say anything about Lee's offer - I couldn't find it elsewhere in the Woolcombe interview either." "21:56, 16 June 2010

• "Going into who inked him in this or that specific individual issue is excessive detail [of the type an RfC consensus disallowed]. Also, non-standard footnoting inconsistent with footnoting being used throughout rest of article" 03:44, 18 June 2010

• "rvt fannish, wholesale changes made without discussion, and similar to changes previously made that an RfC disallowed." 02:47, 22 June 2010

Before that last edit, I had written on the article talk page:

I'm a little concerned because after I contacted you on your talk page to initiate a discussion on your recent edits, and explain my own, you unilaterally, and without the reciprocal courtesy of a discussion, reverted many of the changes — specifically the clogging minutiae about a few inkers you seem to admire ... These are the kinds of contentious edits that resulted in an RfC that, as I recall, went against you, and I don't believe it's proper to reinsert them now. As well, another issues has reappeared, which is your occasional citing of references that do not say what you claim. [emphasis added] Spurluck, Sketchbook, p. 95 says nothing about retirement; indeed, Buscema says he would like to retire but cannot. You removed a citation request and added your own interpretation that, as far as I can see, clearly misinterpreted Buscema's own words.

3)  I then sought an admin's help for an RfC, stating to User:J Greb that, "The rules for establishing an RfC appear to require that two editors first go the talk page where the dispute lies and try to mediate first." J Greb attempted to stabilize the page at 23:20, 23 June 2010. In response, Scott Free made an "Abuse of Admin Tools" accusation against him here.

The RfC at Talk:John Buscema#RFC has attracted little attention. It does, however, give detailed comparisons of Scott Free's disallowed, non-consensus edits from 2007 and his same/similar edits today.

I tried extending my hand. I tried an RfC. Yet for weeks now, Scott Free has tried to insert the same non-consensus edits as he did in 2007 and 2008, and which were disallowed both times. Now he's trying again, and using false citations on top of it.

This is disruptive editing, and while there is a lull while admins watch the page, Scott Free on the article talk page has made remarkable, obfuscating statements that indicate he will continue his efforts at first chance.

Because of this disruptive editing, and his violation of both the letter and the spirit of the Arb ruling I believe Scott Free should be banned from editing this article for a reasonable period of time as the Arb ruling states. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't informed of this request. Either I could make a defense, but I think at this point I'd like to request that the case be re-opened, since the above is virtually a reitiration of the previous arb case complaints anyway. I'd like to summarize the problems since the ruling and include evidence and submit evidence that would include User:J Greb in the dispute. Anyway, I volunteer to step back from editing the article and the talk page indefinitely.--Scott Free (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

defense

On second thought, since I don't see any indication that the matter will be resolved any time soon - I might as well respond here :

1) We had a productive discussion on mirror sites - I agreed the link was innapropriate - the cited comment is an uncivil accusation.a

2) I had clearly explained what I was doing in various ways: article talk page :b,

arbitration clarification: c

talk page to an admin d with GA comics article experience:e

placing a template on the page: {{Under construction}}

One instance of me forgetting to sign in is suspected as vandalism - why?

3) Accusation - I tried to resolve it in a civil manner beforehand and followed due procedure afterwards: f

"Scott Free on the article talk page has made remarkable, obfuscating statements that indicate he will continue his efforts at first chance."

"I'm a little concerned because after I contacted you on your talk page to initiate a discussion on your recent edits, and explain my own, you unilaterally, and without the reciprocal courtesy of a discussion, reverted many of the changes — specifically the clogging minutiae about a few inkers you seem to admire ..."

??? - Not true - Here's the article at that time of the comment (June 20) - the inker phrase is not there - see line 74f - I clearly offered discussion and explanation here (after line 111): g

Things were at least civil and going relatively OK until the abrupt - h

The above section has several innapropriate accusations - To his credit, of the 24 added references, there were 3 reference page typos which he spotted. I corrected them. What is the problem? I have explained on the talk page how the accusation of falsifying reference material is spurious and will add more info.

Stumbling Block 1 - Repetitive, rigid, dogmatic, illogical consensus statement

The so-called 2007 RFC consensus version is almost entirely unreferenced : 2007

Any I've material tried to re-introduce has been referenced, or modified according to comments in the 2007 RFC, or adapted, etc.. expansions

I had added over 40 referenced passages after the RFC - so clearly, it's mathematically improbable that the 2007 RFC with 4 refs can have a serious bearing on any expanded material - I think it represents a lack of understanding of the verifiability policy.

The problem is that he's seems convinced that I'm absolutely disruptively editing against a past consensus - (and seems to think that the arbitration decision supports his claim that there exists permanently rejected content on the article) and I don't think that that will change anytime soon. Has anyone besides TB supported this consensus claim?

Stumbling Block 2 - Repetitive, uncivil conduct and content accusations based on the above

This is what he's been repeating regularly since April 2007 1

Here are the recent sample of a string of uncivil conduct and content accusations, besides the many on the article talk page:

Article edit descriptions: 02:47, 22 June 2010 Tenebrae (talk | contribs) (35,463 bytes) (rvt fannish, wholesale changes made without discussion, and similar to changes previously made that an RfC disallowed.) (undo)

Noticeboard: 2

Admin talk pages: 34 (Calling it a brewing edit-war is exaggerated and inflammatory)

Unfortunately he seems convinced that his behaviour is perfectly justifiable and arbitration hasn't noticeably changed that - unfortunately it's proven very effective in creating suspicion and mistrust and makes it very difficult for me to get any neutral admin or community assistance.

Basically I see the real problem as being a small group of rigid deletionist niche editors attempting to block article expansion. If people are so concerned about NPOV issues (which I've never seen clearly explained in terms of NPOV policy per se) and respect of consensus, why are they relunctant to submit the contested material to a Peer Review? That would seem like an ideally adapted process to verify NPOV and establish a stable consensus.

I have no beef against anyone. I wish everyone all the love and happiness in the world. I simply maintain that I'm a trustworthy Wikipedia GA article editor attempting to get neutral, civil feedback on article expansions.

I've never bothered responding to the basic personal accusation, because I've always found it silly. But for the record, no, I'm not a deluded fanboy desperately trying to sneek in rejected fancruft. Peace out --Scott Free (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a lengthy defense, and I will be responding to it.

I'd like to note that even though we are in an enforcement proceeding Scott Free unilaterally today reinserted his disputed, non-consensus edits from before.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Scott Free

In the interest of brevity, I'll try to address just the major points.

1)  He says, "I had clearly explained what I was doing". This "clear explanation" was an

[I]t would be simpler to wait until all the revisions are added, before doing any extensive reversions or modifications.

Given his disputatious history with the article, it would actually be simpler for other editors to see his edits bit by bit, rather than try to deal with a giant batch of them at once. In any event, it's inappropriate to warn off other editors until after he's good and done.

2)  His "another clarification" is in response to the following — and, as his own link to it shows, doesn't even address the following points, much less clarify them:

• In his most recent multiple edit, he cites "Evanier, Mark, and John Buscema, Alter Ego vol. 3, #15 (June 2002) pp.16-17V" for the claim "His first recorded credit is" such-and-such. I turn to that issue, and "John Buscema: The San Diego 2001 Interview", conducted by Mark Evanier. Pages 16-17 (they are not "16-17V") say nothing whatsoever about any first recorded work. I could find nothing about it, in fact, in the interview at all.

• In another example of his using false citations to support his own POV, he cites "Evanier, 7V" to support the claim, "His work on Indian Chief #30-33 is notable late 50's work." The only thing page 7 (not 7V) says is, in an identifying caption, "Also shown directly above is a page from a 1950s issue of Dell's Indian Chief," followed by an offhand comment by Roy Thomas that it, a Helen of Troy page and a Seventh Voyage of Sinbad page look like preparation for drawing Conan.

As I wrote on the talk page: "This is not a good faith error. These are the same kinds of discredited edits he tried to do in 2007, and for which he was banned from this article after trying to reinsert them after an RfC disallowed them."

3)  His link where he says "I tried to resolve it in a civil manner beforehand and followed due procedure afterwards" goes to a post where he accuses an admin of "abusing admin privileges" for not agreeing with him.

4)  He says "things were civil until the abrupt [Tenebrae post]".

That post was a response to Scott Free calling those above edits "typos" ("Thanks for pointing out the typos." ... 14:04, 25 June 2010). My "abrupt" post pointed out:

Those were not "typographical errors," which mean errant keystrokes resulting in misspellings. You were not misspelling "the" as "hte". You were deliberately citing content that did not say what you claimed. And you have done this multiple times before.

5)  He is dismissive of the 2007 RfC consensus. If you would go to Talk:John Buscema#Magazine illustrators, you will see a number of editors who disagree with Skyelarke/Scott Free's version, and none who agree. Two sample comments:

• "[A]s you can plainly see we all think that Tenebrae's is better in terms of an encyclopedic sense. ... If Skyelarke wants to keep reverting back even though we all say that his edits are not encyclopedic, then fine let him, he will get banned, and then we wont have to deal with it. ..." Phoenix741 03:57, 28 February 2007

• (to Skyelarke/Scott Free) "Based on that and the tone of the article that you ultimately did create, I have absolutely no faith in your neutrality, your assumption of good faith in others, or your knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines." CovenantD 08:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6)  He says he is not making the same edits that the RfC rejected. Here is just one example, which I gave at Talk:John Buscema#RFC, the 2010 RfC — a two-paragraph version with fannish minutiae, and the one-paragraph version that the consensus preferred:

[As I wrote on the Talk page] "Compare your non-consensus version from 2007, which you tried to sneak back in...

Buscema began penciling Conan the Barbarian with #25 (April 1973)with writer Roy Thomas following Barry Smith's celebrated run, and debuted as the Conan artist of the black-and-white comics-magazine omnibus Savage Sword of Conan with issue #1 (Aug. 1974). He would eventually contribute to more than 100 issues of each title (the former through 190, the latter through 101, then again from #190-210), giving him one of the most prolific runs for an artist on a single character. Ernie Chua/Chan was his main inker on Conan the Barbarian in the 1970s, (except for a hiatus between #’s 44-69 which were inked by Tony DeZuniga, Dick Giordano, Tom Palmer, Steve Gan and others). Highlights of the Buscema/Thomas run include the double-sized issues #'s 100 and 115.

He additionally drew the Conan Sunday and daily syndicated newspaper comic strip upon its premiere in 1978, and even contributed some storyboard illustrations for the 1982 Conan movie, as well as painting four covers for the Conan magazines. Alfredo Alcala was his regular inker on Savage Sword of Conan until #24 and they produced some highly regarded stories. Of note are "Iron Shadows in the Moon" (#4), "The Slithering Shadow" (#20), "The Tower of the Elephant" (#24,) Tony DeZuniga became Buscema' regular inker with #26 producing Conan literary adaptations until his departure with #58 (with Thomas leaving with #60).

"... with the post-RfC version:

Buscema began penciling Conan the Barbarian with #25 (April 1973) following Barry Smith's celebrated run, and debuted as the Conan artist of the black-and-white comics-magazine omnibus Savage Sword of Conan with issue #1 (Aug. 1974). He would eventually contribute to more than 100 issues of each title (the former through 190, the latter through 101, then again from #190-210), giving him one of the most prolific runs for an artist on a single character. He additionally drew the Conan Sunday and daily syndicated newspaper comic strip upon its premiere in 1978, and even contributed some storyboard illustrations for the 1982 Conan movie, as well as painting four covers for the Conan magazines.

[As I wrote on the Talk page]I've got other examples of your reinserting the very same text that a consensus of editors disagreed with you about in 2007/2008. I honestly and sincerely don't know how you can justify in your mind to wait two or three years and then sneak the very same, disallowed content all over again. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2010

7)  He asks, "If people are so concerned about NPOV issues ...and respect of consensus, why are they relunctant to submit the contested material to a Peer Review?"

To which I replied on the Talk page: "So you're saying you should be allowed to make outright citation falsehoods and then see if excellent, experienced editors catch if after the fact?" In any event, it's currently the subject of an RfC, which is form of peer review.

I could give more examples, but it comes down to:

• Scott Free wants to reinsert many of the same edits that an RfC rejected, as in the single example I give above.
• He and I were banned from the article in 2008. His ban was extended when he again tried to insert those rejected, non-consensus edits.
• Now he's trying yet again, in violation of the 2008 Arb ruling. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response

For the content issues, I had responded on the talk page: here

For point six - the unreferenced material that has been re-inserted has several references added to them. Obviously an important distinction. Current article structure has been respected.

I have no desire whatsoever to edit war - my last edit was simply to make corrections for the RFC discussion version. My main claim is that my efforts to initiate discussion to resolve the consensus confusion has been met with disruptiveness that makes it practically impossible to have neutral discussion.

I'd be willing to have the case re-examined by arbitration - as a new arb request or maybe an ammendment request - I'm not too sure how to proceed. But it would essentially be the same statements and evidence presented here, with maybe 3 or 4 added points. --Scott Free (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "my last edit was simply to make corrections for the RFC discussion version": What you call "corrections" are what the RfC consensus rejected and the Arb ruling disallowed. Calling disputatious edits "corrections" is disingenuous and an attempt at misdirection. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Sandstein

"Frankly, I am not able to determine, based on the lengthy and nonstandard enforcement request and the long discussion above, who if any of the two is editing in accordance with any consensus."

Precisely why I suggest taking it back to arbitration. Although I realize that the sanctions you propose are the standard thing to do, even though it won't change anything, I don't blame you. I suggest that the remedies apparently haven't helped resolve the content dispute and probably need to be revised. My situation as an editor has changed considerably since then and I would like to present evidence that the input of JGreb has emerged as a consistent pattern of non-neutral input that has been disruptive. IMAO, his description below is almost completely one-sided and in support of one party's unproven allegations. The charges of false references really are not true. I'm willing to provide scans of the reference works to prove that they are correct.

Edit warring - to put things in perspective - there was one very minor instance of edit warring 3 years ago that lasted 2 hours. What's happening now, whatever it is, is very slow thing that has stopped. I humbly suggest that two bathtub farts in four years do not a persisent edit war make:-) Cordially, --Scott Free (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would gladly submit to a year's ban for both of us if it would stop such disingenuous posts as Scott Free's immediately above. He and I were banned from John Buscema — he longer than I for attempting to insert the rejected non-consensus edits, as he does again now — so I wouldn't call what happened "very minor."

I think I've documented my points regarding the reinsertions, giving one example above, and also the false citations, giving multiple examples.

And I believe accusing an admin of bias simply for not agreeing with him is improper. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator discussion

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema indicates that this is the latest episode in a multi-year (since 2007!) series of edit wars between these two editors concerning John Buscema (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Frankly, I am not able to determine, based on the lengthy and nonstandard enforcement request and the long discussion above, who if any of the two is editing in accordance with any consensus. But a look at the article history shows that the two still edit war with one another about the article. Consequently, if no admin disagrees, I will stop the persistent editwarring, in enforcement of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema#Disruptive editing, by banning both editors from editing the article for the duration of one year.  Sandstein  20:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2-ish¢, and take it for what it's worth since Scott Free would point out I'm and "involved editor" since I commented at the ArbCom case and the article level RFC.

Yes a lot of this goes back a long way. And a good chunk deals with a "preferred form" of the article, And frankly, if it were just that I'd agree with re-instating the article ban. I'd be very tempted though to come down a bit harder on the editor that decided to reignite the issue. Fairly good chunks of the article content issues were settled previously so revisiting those should be done on the talk page by asking if consensus has changed, not by boldly re-adding the material.

There is also a new issue brought up - the charge of falsified references. That one is really worrying, more so since most of the editors I know of that are likely to have a copy of the reference material (it's hard copy and unavailable on line) are what would termed "involved editors". Again from having commented on the RFC and at ArbCom. Frankly, if the cites are false - deliberately placed but but unable to directly support the information they are attached to - it does not reflect well on the editor trying to use them. Beyond that, at a minimum once a ref is questioned, it and the material it is the sole support for should be remove until the ref is verified by an editor other than the one that placed the ref and the one calling it.

And one last, really sad thing, this comes on the heels of Tenebrae complementing Scott Free on how well they worked together on Al Williamson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). - J Greb (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With no uninvolved editors objecting, I am hereby banning

WP:AE is not set up. But if either party believes that a more nuanced decision is required, they remain free to ask the Arbitration Committee for it. The Committee, unlike AE, is set up to handle complex cases.  Sandstein  11:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Request concerning Saguamundi

User requesting enforcement

-- tariqabjotu 08:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:ARBMAC#May 2010 –

Diffs

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

1. [110] This is an open and shut case. His reversions to this very section to this very article without any discussion was exactly what led to his sanction in the first place. Less than twelve hours after his last AE block expired, he has violated his sanction again by reverting without any prior discussion on the talk page.

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

Not necessary; he has a clear sanction placed against him

Enforcement action requested (

other sanction

)

Lengthy block, a week at the bare minimum

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

diff

of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

[111], 08:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Saguamundi

Statement by Saguamundi

No the reverts I made are not an attempt of arbitration enforcement. Otherwise the editions and reverts of tariqabjotu can apply as an arbitration enforcement as well.

I reeadded the Geology Flora and Fauna sections because of their relevance and credible academic references.

Any body has the right to contribute and is not vandalism.

Unfortunately the reversions to the section of the article is done without any compromise and arbitration (I confess I did do the same as well nor talked beforeand nor afterwards to Tariqabjotu's talkpage as well) But Tariqabjotu does not seem to be open or indeed tolerate any reversions and reeditions (In this case by me); however I now added more credible academic references and explanations to them. That is why I do not want to be rude, I hope I am mistaken, I think that Tariqabjotu might abuse his status as an administrator, by not being flexible, just as was the case with me.

As I mentioned above even if it may not sound important to Tariqabjotu personally, the (geology), flora and fauna sections and its diversity are very important aspects of the city, and ecologically very significant and I added credible academic references and try to continue to find more credible academic references.

I want to add that the climate of Istanbul does not (solely) fit neatly into one climate type, even though it is classified as "mediterranean". The climate (and also the vegetation) is a borderline case between mediterranean in the south and oceanic in the north. That is how the climate of Istanbul is classified by Turkish meteorologists, in Turkey as the "Marmara climate" who are obviously no amateurs. (See page page 2 Section III. Climate Classification by the ©TSMS, Turkish State Meteorological Service. Unfortunately only in Turkish But here is a machine translation and you can translate the whole text yourself through a machine translator. This is the climate type that Istanbul is classified as: Semi-humid climate of the Marmara: This climate is seen in the Marmara region except the Black Sea coastline. The summer heat is not as high as the Mediterranean region. The warmest months is July. The average temperature is approximately 23-24 ° C. January is the coldest month with an average of around 3-5 ° C. Maximum rainfall is in the winter season. Between 10-15% of the annual precipitation is in summer. The average annual rainfall varies 500 - 700mm. Snowfall is normal. Frost is common unlike in the Mediterranean region. The Black Sea coast of Istanbul is however classified as the "Karadeniz (Oceanic) climate" and annual precipitation in the northern sections of the city exceed 800 mm.) That is why there are so many different decriptions and "confusions" about the climate of Istanbul.

I just intend a compromise on this section.

Saguamundi

Comments by others about the request concerning Saguamundi

Result concerning Saguamundi

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

Blocked two weeks. Clear case of repeated breach of revert limitation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Tariqabjotu

User requesting enforcement

-- User:Saguamundi 08:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Diffs

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

1. [112] His reversions to the section of the article without any compromise and arbitration and does not tolerate of any reversions and reeditions (In this case by me) including with credible academic references and explanations to them, that is why he abuses his status as an administrator.

Yes

Enforcement action requested (

other sanction

)

Lengthy block, a week at the bare minimum

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

diff

of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Result concerning Tariqabjotu

This page is only for requests for the enforcement of an arbitration decision. Since this request does not concern the enforcement of a specific arbitration case, it is closed. See

Request concerning Varsovian

User requesting enforcement

MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Interaction ban imposed on Varsovian

Diffs

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

1. [113] Loosmark started a debate on Nazi introduced names for Polish cities
2. [114] Radek started discussion on the thread started by Loosmark
3. [115] Varsovian joins in with provocative comment
4. ...

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

2. [116]] Warning by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested (

other sanction

)

As determined by admins if indeed sanctionable

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User Varsovian has been placed under interaction ban with regarding user Loosmark and patricipation in topics articles as defined here. Is Varsovian's entry into a debate started by Loosmark and explored deeper by another user in sub thread regarding Loosmark's thread(complicated isn't it) a violation of the interaction ban? Note that I want to clarify this, I am personally of no opinion if this sanctionable or not. Interaction bans are something completely new to me.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

diff

of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Discussion concerning Varsovian

Statement by Varsovian

Please note that the section in which I contributed was Nazi names for Polish places. I did not make any post at all in the other section MyMoloboaccount mentions (i.e. this one). It is not a "sub-thread" which I posted in: it is a different section and on a different topic ("Nazi names" as opposed to "German names" and is about the inclusion of politically-driven names to ledes). And even if I had posted in that section, the exact wording of my interaction ban (which for some reason MyMoloboaccount fails to link to) states "they may still edit the same pages or discussions if they do not react to one another and otherwise stay out of each other's way." In no way have I reacted to any comments by anybody other than Radeksz. And how is it 'provocative' to point out that the names given to Polish towns/villages by the Communist regime in post-war Poland but no longer used are included in the ledes of the articles about those places?

I note that this is the second time today that a former member of the EEML has attempted to have me blocked (here Radeksz reports me for supposedly misrepresenting what sources say and then does precisely that himself). I further note that in reply to my question "Has something happened today at Enforcement ... ?" ([117]) Radeksz replies "I'm guessing Coren is referring to your frequent visits to that page, or perhaps just the last one" ([118]) and that edit was made 20 minutes before this request was first posted. Could there have been off-wiki communication as to which of the former EEMLers should next harass a victim? I do hope not, I really hope that the lessons of EEML have not been forgotten so soon. Varsovian (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to MyMoloboaccount's edit of 15:55, 6 July

I am not commenting on your email communication with Sandstein. I am observing that Radeksz made an apparent reference to this request 20 minutes before it was first posted. Did you discuss this request with him by email perhaps? Varsovian (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement regarding Chumchum7 edit of 09:45, 7 July 2010

Given that you feel this has become a discussion about

WP:CANVASSING, and given that you were notified by Radeksz of a discussion in which Radeksz appears to refer to this request before it is made, please confirm for us that you were not approached about this AE before you first posted on it. It will assist the objectivity of the discussion. Thanks. I hereby confirm that I have not made any on-wiki or off-wiki contact with anybody which is in any way, shape or form connected with this request. Varsovian (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Regarding Varsovian concerns about timeframe. I actually posted this in somewhat similiar form to Sandstein by email for clarification yesterday(I didn't want it to be posted here as I am not sure if it violates the ban). He advised me to post it here[119]. Also despite Varsovians claims I have expressed clearly that I have no opinion if those actions are reason for block or not. The interaction ban seems to be new invention, so I am asking for clarification of the subject.

'Reply to Varsovian's edit of 16:16, 6 July 2010

No I did not, and your behaviour was discussed here before from what I can see, so there is nothing strange in Radeks statement.Furthermore you falsely imply that Radek made reference to this request, while he didn't. If you think Radek's actions require intervention please start an appropriate thread about this. The matter here is the issue of clarification of the interaction ban.

Reply to Skapperod statements:

• As this very thread is part of this behaviour, I add this request here and ask that this request of Molobo be regarded as evidence.
• Sandstein can confirm that I sent him email asking for clarification way earlier if this report has any merit and if there is anything to be sanctioned.
• this is false. Loosmark started a thread "German names for Polish villages", where he argued that his mass removal of pre-1945 names of villages which became Polish after 1945 was justifie

Skapperod-you didn't notice the following Loosmark started discussion about Nazi names-in his first post this sentence is included right at the beginning: think it's especially problematic that he also adds into the lead separate names which were invented in 1938 by Nazi Germany[120]

• Molobo appear, having never before edited this article

I was contributing in discussion about German and Nazi names[121], which included information about edits by HerkusMonte. Once I overviewed recent HK's edits I noticededits to Wielbark page, which I knew from history. I checked sources and contributed to the article in significant way adding large section on history sourced by many publications. Mystery solved. You know very well that I edit many articles on Polish history including Polish cities,towns and villages that were within Germany before.

• The EEML case is widely known.

Loosmark was never part of EEML discussion group.

And finally-if you believe something has merit to report, It would be polite to start it in seperate request,rather than divert the topic of this one.

Reply to Skapperods statement 18:20, 6 July 2010 : from history-as if in historical knowledge I am aware of regarding history of the that region not about history of the wikipedi. Regarding HK edits-I checked user contributions to see all recent locations that could be affected by introduction of Nazi naming, didn't actually check all links provided on the discussion page, since checking user contributions is easier. You seemed to missed my edit where I changed the sentence to be more precise and not to lead to any missunderstandings[122]. Since Sandstein has decided on this matter, I have nothing else to add, and apologise to him for any trouble. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Three things: about the merits of this request, I'm inclined to accept Varsovian's defense above – his edit doesn't seem to violate the letter of the sanction. (Whether it is a constructive edit is open to some doubt, but be that as it may.) Second, I am somewhat concerned that a tendency towards coordinated hounding may again be discernible. Only yesterday, Loosmark (who is mutually topic-banned from interacting with Varsovian) inquired if he could raise a certain complaint against Varsovian [123]. The answer was that he couldn't. Only a few hours later, Radeksz takes over and raises the exact same complaint [124], on a matter he had previously never edited (I have noted the discussion at User talk:Coren, where Radeksz defends himself.) The same day, Varsovian engages in a discussion with Radeksz on the thread pointed out above, and MyMoloboaccount steps in and raises the complaint here. Third thing: I am also concerned about Varsovian's ongoing tendency towards tendentious OR at the 1946 victory parade issue, and am considering sanctions for that one – but it feels all the more irksome that these sanctions, if they happen, might in effect be perceived as a "reward" for the coordinated hounding behaviour that the EEML case was meant to stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • FPS I sent almost exact version of this report to Sandstein yesterday for clarification through email if this is valid yesterday-he can confirm this. If he would wrote that this has no merit then I wouldn't have posted. He directed me to post this to AE instead, writing "I normally act on interaction ban violations only after a report by the other editor", so I took it here, again-for clarification since I have no opinion on the matter. Also note that all those issues are seperate. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Skäpperöd

(after multiple ec) I participated in the discussion Molobo referes to. Molobo misrepresented what happened.

• Molobo's first diff, quote: "[125] Loosmark started a debate on Nazi introduced names for Polish cities"

This is false. Loosmark started a thread "German names for Polish villages", where he argued that his mass removal of pre-1945 names of villages which became Polish after 1945 was justified. The diff given by Molobo confirms that, and consensus is that Loosmark's removal was unjustified (whole thread: [126]).

• Molobo's second diff, quote: "[127] Radek started discussion on the thread started by Loosmark"

This is also false. Radeksz started a discussion not at the thread started by Loosmark, but a thread started by WlaKom titled "Nazi names for Polish places" [128]. WlaKom started this thread for editors to separately discuss a distinct, though related issue that got mixed up with the topic of Loosmark's thread during the discussion. Except for Radeksz and Varsovian, noone has participated in this thread so far [129].

• Molobo's third diff, quote: "[130] Varsovian joins in with provocative comment"

Varsovian was responding to Radeksz and did not make any reference to Loosmark.

Further investigation needed

Further investigation is however needed concerning the recent "help-each-other-out"-behaviour shown by Loosmark, Radeksz and Molobo. Radeksz just returned from a topic ban and Molobo just returned from a long block. The EEML case is widely known.

• As this very thread is part of this behaviour, I add this request here and ask that this request of Molobo be regarded as evidence.
• At Wielbark, Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship, Radeksz made some edits, HerkusMonte then made an edit, and suddenly Loosmark and Molobo appear, having never before edited this article [131].

re Molobo's reply, quote: "I was contributing in discussion about German and Nazi names[132], which included information about edits by HerkusMonte. Once I overviewed them I noticed recent edits to Wielbark page, which I knew from history. I checked sources and contributed to the article. Mystery solved."

It can't have happened this way: Loosmark linked more than 20 similar articles in the respective thread (link above), but Wielbark was not included there. Also, the article was never before edited by either of the named parties, so it was not "known from history". Skäpperöd (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yesterday, Loosmark asked at Sandstein's talkpage: "Sandstein, I have a question, if a user with whom I am banned from interacting makes false claims that a source says something which the source doesn't actually say, who and where can I alert of the situation without breaking my ban?" Sandstein declined. At night, Radeksz started a thread at FPaS' talk page "Misrepresentation_of_what_the_sources_say", filing the request that hours before Sandstein had told Loosmark not to. Offline co-ordination again?

Skäpperöd (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skapperod, given this has become a discussion about

WP:CANVASSING please confirm for us that you were not approached about this AE before you first posted on it. It will assist the objectivity of the discussion. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I would endorse EdJohnston's idea about a complete topic ban wholeheartedly, because we are now caught between two problems. The first is that you're asking us not to file more AE's, the second is that one of the editor's DIGWUREN warnings is so stringent that it prompts us to file AEs. Go figure. Right now, I was just about to file an AE about edits at

London Victory Parade of 1946, where I would concur with Radek's recent talk page concerns. If it is true that the three editors above are proxying, my hunch is that they have been driven to it out of desperation dealing with a WP:GAMING editor who consistently ignores WP:CONSENSUS and exhibits contempt for the ethos of our community. The problem needs to be dealt with. EdJohnston, look into this further and you'll see it is just one sad episode in a very long history of disruption that has never been conclusively dealt with. I say take action now: you won't get more AEs, and you might get editors to spend their energy more constructively elsewhere. -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The edit at issue is not a violation of the interaction ban because the talk page comments do not relate to one another. The question borders on the frivolous. I am sorry not to have communicated more clearly to MyMoloboaccount, after he asked the same or a similar question to me by e-mail, that third-party engagement in these matters is entirely unwelcome because the point of an interaction ban is to make the users leave each other alone, and such "questions" are counterproductive to that goal. I am warning MyMoloboaccount not to continue to needlessly stir up trouble, or they may face sanctions. All other involved editors should do likewise and drop the matter. If no other admin objects, I will close this thread without action.  Sandstein  18:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The long-running dispute between Loosmark and Varsovian takes the concept of

beating a dead horse to a new level of ridiculousness. They should let it go, and other interested parties should let it go as well. If stuff like this continues, a topic ban on both editors should be considered that keeps them away from this whole set of articles. Third parties could help out by not filing new AE requests that refer to this dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree entirely. If these shenanigans continue, topic bans are likely to ensue all round. I'm closing this now to stop the bickering above.  Sandstein  13:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Bdell555

User requesting enforcement

O Fenian (talk) 08:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Bdell555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

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

Diffs

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

1. [133] First revert on Michelle Gildernew
2. [134] Second revert on Michelle Gildernew, within 24 hours of the first
3. [135] Partial first revert on Corporals killings
4. [136] Second revert on Corporals killings, within 24 hours of the first

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

1. [137] Warning by
   talk · contribs
   )

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In my opinion the text being added to Michelle Gildernew ("In 2009 it was reported that although she billed UK taxpayers just 300 pounds in travel expenses, she claimed a 21 000 pound London housing allowance", note the highly biased word "just") is a violation of BLP, as it insinuates wrongdoing. Due to the

United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal the expenses of MPs were gone over with a fine toothcomb, and Michelle Gildernew received a "clean bill of health". The editor has also been making highly tendentious edits to another Troubles related article about a living person, I will be happy to provide evidence and an explanation about that if needed. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 08:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

"The Guardian did not see the relevance of the other material Mr Fenian refers to, and it would accordingly take WP:OR to make it relevant" has to one of the most hiliarous comments I have ever read. The Guardian report is dated 8 April 2009 and the Telegraph report is dated 15 October 2009. Considering there was an inquiry made into expenses, it is a terribly bad argument to suggest that it is original research to include the results of that inquiry as it does not appear in news reports before it took place, even ignoring that the results of the inquiry negate any need for inclusion. All I see is extreme wikilawyering over the meaning of 1RR and bizarre claims about OR. O Fenian (talk) 09:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[138]

Discussion concerning Bdell555

Statement by Bdell555

Convention was "per day". If it is 24 hours then describe as "per 24 hours". This isn't a 3RR case. In any case, re the substance of the

The Guardian article says "McGuinness did not want to be drawn on Fermanagh and South Tyrone MP colleague Michelle Gildernew, who claimed £21,000 for housing allowance in London but only £300 in travel expenses – suggesting few visits to the capital", so the implication was contained in the source. Perhaps it would've been better to phrase this differently, attributing the suggestion to The Guardian, but I don't consider this to be blockable. PhilKnight (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Bdell555

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

• The suggestion that the 1RR per day should be construed as referring to a calendar day is tenuous at best. It was linked to
  Probation Act. Stifle (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I am going to file a request for clarification at
  Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification to confirm that the restriction should be construed as per 24 hours. Stifle (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • It's clearly a violation of the 1RR (day has always meant 24 hour period and not calendar day), but it is also two weeks stale. I don't think we can do anything here. NW (Talk) 17:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Stifle and NW.
  talk) 18:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Request concerning Johnalexwood

User requesting enforcement

-- Cirt (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Discretionary_topic_ban

Diffs

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

1. 18:14, 19 July 2010 - Adds poorly sourced info to
   WP:BLP page of a former Scientology executive, Mark Rathbun
   . In addition to sourcing issues, adds in POV-pushing phrases on the BLP page, including "apostate", and POV interpretation of events injected into text, "despite..." etc.
2. 19:57, 19 July 2010 - At same
   WP:BLP page, Mark Rathbun
   , adds blatant attack website to the page, for sourcing regarding negative material about the BLP.
3. 20:08, 19 July 2010 - Again at
   WP:RS
   , to the BLP page.

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

1. 21:05, 28 August 2008 Blocked by
   Fox (talk · contribs), for "Repeated addition of non-reliable sources into BLP articles."
2. 21:07, 28 August 2008 - Explanation posted to user's talk page, by blocking admin, with comment, "Due to your repeated ignorance of the rules on reliable sources and the strict biographical article policy you have been blocked for 24 hours to stop the abuse. Please do not continue to add these links to these articles in the future."

Enforcement action requested (

other sanction

)

• Topic ban. -- Cirt (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• Appears to be quite similar pattern of what the user was previously blocked for, namely, "Repeated addition of non-reliable sources into BLP articles." It is more grave and concerning in this case, due to
  WP:ARBSCI history, and the fact that in this case it is addition of negative contentious material to BLP articles that is sourced to attack websites. -- Cirt (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• 02:30, 22 July 2010 -- Cirt (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Johnalexwood

Statement by Johnalexwood

Comments by others about the request concerning Johnalexwood

Result concerning Johnalexwood

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

The requested sanction under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Discretionary topic ban does not appear to be possible at this point, because that remedy requires "a message on the editor's talk page, linking to this paragraph, warning the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated". No diff of such a warning is provided in the request.  Sandstein  20:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nod, then such a specific warning is requested. -- Cirt (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, user warned, case closed for now.  Sandstein  06:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning MrSimmonds

User requesting enforcement

-- Cirt (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Single_purpose_accounts_with_agendas

Diffs

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

1. 01:02, 21 July 2010 - Uploads very poorly sourced attack image of
   WP:BLP, of person, Mark Rathbun
   .
2. 01:09, 21 July 2010 - Adds poorly sourced info to
   WP:BLP, Mark Rathbun
   , sourced only to attack website.

1. Prior warnings not (yet) given. Due to grave nature of adding negative info to a
   WP:BLP page, sourced only to a blatant attack website, urgent action is necessary here. -- Cirt (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Enforcement action requested (

other sanction

)

Topic ban. -- Cirt (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• Note also: This is a possible sock of Shutterbug (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• 02:11, 22 July 2010 -- Cirt (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning MrSimmonds

Statement by MrSimmonds

Comments by others about the request concerning MrSimmonds

Result concerning MrSimmonds

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

I'm not going to close this one, but I will comment that I have deleted the image. I've no opinion on whether it's an attack image, since I'm not familiar with the context here, but the image was of documentation that contains non-public information. I would suggest that it's forwarded to oversight once this thread has been closed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that this account is "clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda" as per the decision. The edits at issue may be the result of bad judgement and ignorance of our policies, and the account's other edits are not obviously problematic.  Sandstein  20:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First edit by account in 2007 is to create a one-line-userpage [146]. No edits for two years, then some edits to a Scientology-front-group article page.

WP:BLP page, a link to attack website, "www.markrathbunisasquirrel.com", to article Mark Rathbun. Certainly seems like account is "clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda". -- Cirt (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

BTW, it's not altogether necessary to bring such questions here in any case, as this kind of problem can also be dealt with under

WP:BLP. Gatoclass (talk) 02:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

It is requested that, at the very least, a warning be given to the user. Agree with Gatoclass, that due to the egregious nature of the edits adding an attack website to a page of a living person, that

WP:BLP can be used here. -- Cirt (talk) 02:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

You don't need to request that a warning be given. You can give the warning yourself, anyone can warn a user of the existence of AE sanctions. Gatoclass (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is best that the warning come from an uninvolved administrator. -- Cirt (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. It can come from anyone. In fact the warning is already there, on every talk page of every article subject to AE sanctions. Indeed, "warning" is really a misnomer - it's just a notification. Personally notifying someone of the existence of special sanctions is just to ensure they are not unfairly victimized by having sanctions imposed before they were aware of their existence. Gatoclass (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, now that you mention it, I note that the

standard notification template states that only admins can give a notification, and PhilKnight has recently added the word "uninvolved". This has never been my understanding of the situation at AE and I suspect this may be a requirement more honoured in the breach than the observance. In any case, it strikes me a something of a catch-22 to only allow admins, and uninvolved admins at that, to hand out notifications, because one cannot start an AE case until the notification has been given, which means one would have to request a notification at some other venue, like AN/I. This doesn't strike me as a very logical approach. Gatoclass (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Getting back to the point, in checking through his edits, I can see only two that look problematic, which are those cited by Cirt above. I think slapping an AE notification on him after just a couple of poor edits would be a little heavy-handed, so I'm inclined to decline this request. I suggest that Cirt simply notify him about his violation of

WP:BLP instead. If he continues to offend, we can always revisit the issue. Gatoclass (talk) 06:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Rather than asking myself to do it, requesting that an uninvolved administrator leaves the note for this user about their violation of

WP:BLP. -- Cirt (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't believe it's at all necessary for an uninvolved admin to leave such a reminder, but since you insist on making an issue of it, I have done as you requested. Gatoclass (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Russavia

User requesting enforcement

I'm chanting as we speak 19:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

User against whom enforcement is requested

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys#Russavia_restricted

ag

Diffs

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

1. [147] - here Russavia comments on Miacek, and attempts to bait Miacek into discussion, possibly in order to get Miacek to break
   Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted
   . Russavia also mentions the EEML case.
2. [148] - here Russavia comments on Miacek, and attempts to bait Miacek into discussion, possibly in order to get Miacek to break
   Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted
   .
3. [149] - here Russavia posts on Miacek's talk page, and attempts to bait Miacek in discussion, possibly in order to get Miacek to break
   Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted. And he succeeds!!! [150]
4. [151] - here Russavia again posts on Miacek's talk page, and attempts to bait Miacek in discussion.

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

1. No

Enforcement action requested (

other sanction

)

Lengthy block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On at least two occasions in the diffs above, Russavia has thumbed his nose at the restriction placed upon him by the Arbcom, and has clearly stated his intention to ignore it and continue to engage with Miacek. Therefore, a lengthy block is clearly in order, as it will only be coercive to get him to abide by the Arbcom decisions. --

I'm chanting as we speak 19:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Russavia, please explain why you request arbitration enforcement against yourself.  Sandstein  19:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a note, the warning Russavia got (from me no less) was not about his interactions with Miacek as he tries to imply here, it was about the remarks about the EEML group using words like "propaganda pushing", "harrasment", "underhanded". Basically, though this time he didn't mention editors by name, he's continuing the same stream of complaints that led to the mutual interaction ban. Shell ^babelfish 15:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • I certainly noticed his comment at Arbitration pages (and this request is apparently the next act of the drama), but I am not going to complain about him, whatever he does.Biophys (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Russavia

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

• Recommend closing as
  WP:POINT vio. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I agree that this request appears to be a
  WP:POINT violation, but – since it is then not a part of necessary dispute resolution – it is itself a violation of the interaction ban with Miacek and would, as such, warrant sanctions.  Sandstein  11:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I read this request as a statement of intent by Russavia to act disruptively. The implication of this request is that, if it is simply ignored, we should expect to see another such request in a short time. I don't think dismissing with no action is an option here. CIreland (talk) 11:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course, the "point violation" here is that Russavia is making the point that nobody, including the person he was "interacting with", seemed to have been bothered by his edits and that they are not objectively disruptive. As a matter of principle, in an issue like a no-interaction ban, I'd go by the principle of nemo iudex sine actore: sanctions are warranted only if the person who the sanction was supposedly meant to protect has actually complained, or at least there is indication they felt offended/annoyed or whatever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, and I normally also do not sanction interaction ban violations that are not disruptive and that nobody complains about. For this reason, we should not sanction Russavia for the edits that are the subject of the request, but for the request itself, which is a disruptive banned interaction because it is a POINT violation and a form of trolling this noticeboard.  Sandstein  14:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Tuscumbia

User requesting enforcement

Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

Diffs

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

1. [152], 1st revert.
2. [153], 2nd revert, however, with minor additions.
3. [154], 3rd revert, again, with minor revisions.

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

1. [155] Warning by
   talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA
   )

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

According to administrator AGK, who imposed a one month topic ban upon Tuscumbia on May 19 this year, Tuscumbia is not allowed to make more than one (1) revert per week on articles relating to Armenia and Azerbaijan for a period of four months (that is, four months from May 19). However, he has violated that provision and has already reverted me three times on the Khosrov bey Sultanov article over the past day, despite my best efforts to invite to leave it alone temporarily and to discuss everything on the article's talk page. Unfortunately, what has passed off as a "discussion" on the talk page has bore little fruit. Rather than commenting on the content, he has resorted to making comments regarding my ethnic heritage and his other comments have otherwise been quite acerbic and relatively hostile in tone. I largely ignored it, but did give a stern warning on the perils of turning a conversation into an ethnic battleground, but instead received [156] another hostile and defensive response. In addition to failing to justify the "dubious" tags to the sources I am using on the article, he has now proceeded to make unilateral edits, that is, without even consulting them on the talk page. When I raised this matter with him, he flat out dismissed my concerns and alleged that my concerns are merely because they fail to "fit your agenda". Editing in this kind of acrimonious environment is extremely difficult, and like I informed Tuscumbia, exasperating.

In light of the revert violations and his uncivil comments, I am hoping the administrators will be able to take some sort of action so that this sort of behavior is discouraged. According to AGK, if such violations should continue, Tuscumbia's restrictions on his "sanctions will be reset and may be extended, and you may also be blocked from editing."--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[157]

Discussion concerning Tuscumbia

Statement by Tuscumbia

First of all, I am aware of my restrictions and there was only one revert I made after MarshallBagramyan, asking for additional sources [158] due to the fact that the source he provided and selectively chose the text from comes from an Armenian author presenting a POV. The problem is that the text from source he claimed as reliable was not supplemented by any other 3rd party source. Neither did he present any text indicating the other side of the story. All he put out there was the information about alleged pogroms and hostility from Azerbaijani army towards Armenians failing to mention a word about the fact that Armenians revolted first. The other subsequent edits [159] [160] [161] by me were made during the course of discussion while working out our differences. I would search, find and add sources/sourced information, while at the same time he never looked for any other source and moreover did not and still has not provided the correct information about the book I marked as dubious. Here [162] he claims that he provided the source (Hovannisian, Richard G. (1996) The Republic of Armenia: From London to Sevres, February - August 1920, Vol. 3. Berkley: University of California Press, p. 132.

Comments by others about the request concerning Tuscumbia

Result concerning Tuscumbia

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

The request has merit. The three edits given as evidence are reverts as defined at