Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive69

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

Appealing user

JRHammond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – JRHammond (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Indefinite ban from editing Six Day War article and participating on Six Day War talk page.[1]

Administrator imposing the sanction

Wgfinley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

(1) I was banned on the stated pretext of "tendentious editing". Amended: "Tendenitious Editing" is defined as "editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out." User:Wgfinley does not even attempt to substantiate that my editing "is partisan, biased or skewed" or that it "does not conform to the neutral point of view" in his stated argument for my ban, and he would be hard-pressed to do so. Moreover, WP:TE states explicitly: "It is important to recognize that everybody has bias. Whether it is the systemic bias of demographics or a political opinion, few people will edit subjects in which they have no interest. Bias is not in and of itself a problem in editors, only in articles." WP:TE applies to editing of articles, not participation on Talk pages. I have not edited the article in question, and could not if I wanted to, as it is protected. I therefore further move that the ban be overturned on the basis of a spurious pretext.

(2) The imposing admin, User:Wgfinley has demonstrated a pattern of abuse of authority and prejudice towards me, including previously blocking me on a spurious pretext (successfully overturned by appeal, with the deciding admin stating: "I see nothing in JRHammond's comments at that talk page that warrant a block, let alone a one week block, and particularly a "cool down" block.")[2] and violating WP:OUTING by posting personal information about me I did not share with others myself.[3] Given this pattern of behavior on the part of the admin, I move that the ban be overturned on the basis of prejudicial treatment.

(3) This current ban follows this pattern of abuse of authority. For example, User:Wgfinley alleges: you will be disruptive if you consider it necessary you will venue shop by abusing the 'editprotected' template and believe proper usage of it is "unreasonable". This is a gross wilfull and deliberate mischaracterization of the facts, and demonstrably so. User:Amatulic had arrived on the page and outlined the proper use of the template. Contrary to expressing that I "believe proper usage of" the template "is 'unreasonable'", I responded to observe that I had followed that procedure exactly, and what I actually said was "I'm using the tag precisely as it was intended, as you yourself just outlined. And, as I said, I will continue to employ the tag as it was intended to be used." User:Amatulic replied, "JRHammond, I am gratified that you have agreed to follow the procedure I outlined..."[4] User:Amatulic went on to express his personal view that it was not enough that no objections were raised to the proposed edit for which I'd employed the template, arguing that "You won't find an administrator on Wikipedia who will agree to a request to edit a contentious article without clear positive evidence of consensus." I disagreed with that interpretation of its use and observed the fact that I had already come to an understanding with another admin, User:MSGJ, who had already, in fact, agreed to implement my requested edit if it remained unopposed after more time was allowed to give others opportunity to review it ("I've invited other editors to comment on your proposal and if there is no response in a couple of days I can make the edit.")[5] It was this situation that User:Wgfinley deliberately tries to mischaracterize as some kind of rebelliousness or "disruptive" behavior in an attempt to offer a pretext for this ban. Given User:Wgfinley's previous pattern of abuse of authority, along with such deliberate distortions of my comments as this, I reiterate that I move that the ban be overturned on the basis of demonstrably prejudicial treatment. JRHammond (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:PhilKnight stated: "JRHammond's talk page conduct has been disruptive, and he has yet to accept that he needs to modify his approach. Accordingly, I consider the indefinite article + talk page ban to be within admin discretion, although it's longer than I would've applied." (1) PhilKnight has not substantively addressed the basis for my appeal, and (2) PhilKnight has not substantiated his claim that my "talk page conduct has been disruptive" with even a single example.

User:CIreland stated: "I concur with this assessment." (1) CIreland has not substantively addressed the basis for my appeal, and (2) CIreland has not substantiated the claim that my "talk page conduct has been disruptive" with even a single example.

User:EdJohnston stated: "The reopened appeal by JRHammond suggests he has learned nothing at all from the last one. His mission on Wikipedia is (seemingly) to pound away until he can force his views into the Six-Day War article. I support the indefinite ban from article + talk page. You would think that JRH could manage to occasionally say *something* diplomatic that could lighten up the image that we have of him, but that never occurs. 'Harmonious' is not a word in his vocabulary." (1) EdJohnston has not substatively addressed the basis for my appeal, and (2) I reject this characterization of my work, which is a wholly unsubstantiated opinion that completely disregards the actual merit of the improvement I've tried to make to the article -- yes, which I have fought hard for, and rightfully so. As for the suggestion I should be "diplomatic" and "harmonious", that is very difficult to do when others refuse to substantively address my arguments on the basis of the facts and logic contained therein, preferring to make unsubstantiated and prejudicial statements against my character (such as EdJohnston remarks here), which falls within the definition of the fallacy of ad hominem, and when I am constantly harassed by User:Wgfinley and banned or blocked on spurious pretexts, such as those underlying this current ban, the facts of which none of the admins here have yet to address (see above).

Look, if I've done something admins think was inappropriate, I'd be happy to acknowledge my error and apologize to anyone I may have offended. However, all of these judgments by these admins simply seem to assume the accuracy and legitimacy of User:Wgfinley's stated pretexts for this ban, which I have shown indisputably to be spurious, such as by the fact that Wgfinley felt it necessary to manufacture a deliberate falsehood in order to support his case for why I should be banned; and they offer nothing beyond what Wgfinley has already offered by way of substantiation for these characterizations. This is completely unreasonable. Is it too much to ask that admins judging my appeal be reasonable and actually substantively address the basis for my appeal? Is it too much to ask that if accusations against my character and behavior are to be offered as a basis to deny my appeal that they actually be substantiated with at least a single example? It is not. JRHammond (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE!!! ALL INVOLVED EDITORS, PLEASE READ THIS!!!

Once again, all I'm asking for is a single example to be presented to substantiate the claims made against me of even a single instance where I did something in violation of Wikipedia policy that would warrant this ban. I can't very well say, "I'm sorry, I won't do that again" if I don't know what it is I've done that would warrant my appeal being denied. And it goes without saying that if nobody can present even a single example of an instance where I did something warranting this ban that my appeal should be approved. This is a perfectly reasonable request, and it is perfectly unreasonable for those judging this case to refuse it. JRHammond (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wgfinley stated, at the time he notified me of his ban against me on spurious pretexts, including willful and deliberate falsehoods and mischaracterizations: "I will be willing to consider lifting this ban if you state you can work with other editors and avoid tendentious editing."

I hereby state that I will continue to work with other editors to improve the article, as I have always done, and that I will continue, as I have always done, in a good faith effort to do so in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. JRHammond (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to "JRHammond's Epiphany" by Wgfinley

(1) I was invited to re-appeal when the former was closed. If you have an issue with my taking up that invitation, take it up with the admin who invited me to re-appeal.

(2) See (1).

(3) Regarding my having allegedly "replied sharply", I welcome others to follow the diffs and judge whether expressing gratitude and an explanation as to how I had allegedly misused the template,[6], observing the fact that it is not reasonable to support opinions not with fact, but with more opinions,[7] requesting that an example of any violation of Wikipedia policy be presented to me,[8][9][10][11], requesting an admin to support me in that reasonable request,[12] observing that WP guidelines exist to foster improvement to articles,[13], clarifying a point of logic,[14], and inviting someone to point out any error in fact or logic in an argument,[15] would substantiate that characterization, or whether any of those comments warrants a punishable offense.

(4) I haven't "accused" everyone here of not answering my questions. I simply observed the fact that I have repeatedly requested that people making prejudicial remarks against me substantiate them by pointing to a single example where those characterizations would apply, and have had that reasonable request repeatedly and explicitly refused. Neither have I "accused" people of being hypocrites. I simply observed the fact that refusing to answer questions asked in good faith is itself a characteristic of the very thing I'm accused of, Tenentious Editing, which, by definition, makes those refusing this reasonable request hypocrites.

(5) Speaking of hypocrisy, Wgfinley asserts I violated WP:CIVIL in doing so; yet he lied, falsely asserting I had declared my intention to abuse the editprotected template contrary to its intended use (when the fact of the matter is just the opposite, that I had explicitly stated my intent to use it as it was intened to be used) to support this ban against me, as I've already demonstrated incontrovertibly, and as anyone here may verify for themselves, which is certainly a blatant violation of WP:CIVIL. I, unlike Wgfinley, don't find it necessary to lie in order to make my points or support my positions.

(6) It's quite true that I've repeatedly requested that actual evidence be presented that would support the accusations underlying this ban. It's equally true that that request has been repeatedly explicitly rejected. Wgfinley is an exception in that he at least offers diffs he claims supports his accusations. Others may judge whether those diffs are fairly characterized by Wgfinley. I would once again point to his pattern of prejudicial treatment against me (see documentation above and below, in his section), and the demonstrable lie he manufactured in order to support this very ban, all of which is ample evidence that this ban is inappropriate, and ample evidence that Wgfinley, in all his hypocrisy, is guilty of the exact things he accuses me of, WP:WIKILAWERING, WP:CIVIL, and WP:TE. My appeal should be granted on that basis alone. JRHammond (talk) 04:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to BorisG

Having been informed of WP:NPA by Enigma, which says "Comment on the content, not the contributor", I apologize for calling BorisG a hypocrite, and I'll rephrase: BorisG, by saying he supports this ban on the basis that I've repeated myself, when he has also repeated himself, is applying a hypocritical standard.

Now, BorisG, regarding your logical fallacy with regard to my proposed edit, again, the question is not whether the source supported the statement or not, but whether the article accurately characterizes the UNEF mandate in compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, and it demonstrably does not, which is verifiable simply by looking at the actual mandate itself. I gave you the links and excerpts. It's simple: the article characterizes the mandate as being to prevent fedayeen attacks on Israel, without saying anything about preventing Israeli attacks on Egypt. Yet the mandate itself, which was to prevent raids from both sides, does not even mention fedayeen attacks, but does refer specifically to Israel's attack on Egypt. This is a clear cut case of bias, and it needs to be corrected to accurately reflect the mandate. My proposed edit is a perfectly reasonable and perfectly neutral alternative. JRHammond (talk) 12:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JRHammond your apology is not accepted. Never in my life I have been called a hypocrite, in real life anyway. There is not a shred of substance in your personal attack. I do not want to talk to you anymore. Bye. - BorisG (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fact: You said you supported this ban because I had repeated an argument. Fact: You had also repeated an argument (a logical fallacy). Fact: You therefore, by definition, applied a hypocritical standard. Elementary. If you don't like people pointing out your hypocrisy, then simply don't apply a double standard. You're the problem, not me. JRHammond (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow admins, we have the wrong version.

Thank you.

--WGFinley (talk) 04:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Phil and CIreland's comments below, they were what I was thinking of when I worded the ban:[16]

Tendentious editing has no place on Wikipedia and it is especially unwelcome on articles involving the Palestine-Israel conflict. I will be willing to consider lifting this ban if you state you can work with other editors and avoid tendentious editing. Until then you are banned from editing Six-Day War and its talk page.

WP:OFFER He's shown he can't drop things and move on in this case, it doesn't mean he can't do it elsewhere and it doesn't mean I wouldn't entertain lifting the ban if he demonstrated he could work with others elsewhere. After all this is an indefinite ban on this particular article and not the topic (although some kind of restriction there may be warranted) and not his account. I think since all of his editing has been restricted to this article up until a few days ago it has caused most of the problem. --WGFinley (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, isn't indef too harsh? - BorisG (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indef = earn your way back, it is particularly used in cases where the editor has shown no intent on changing behavior thus far. --WGFinley (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also was working under the incorrect impression that "indefinite" meant "infinite". If it doesn't, then that is much better. • Ling.Nut 22:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, WP:OFFER. --WGFinley (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wgfinley, the underlying assumption of your above statements that I should "drop things and move on" regarding WP:OFFER is that I should acknowledge I've committed the faults you accuse me of, and yet the main basis for your ban is with regard to my proposed edit for the Suez Crisis section of the article[17], in which I committed no such wrong as you claim, such as that I had expressed that I "believe proper usage of the template is 'unreasonable'" with regard to that proposed edit, which I've already demonstrated is a willful and deliberate falsehood. Given your history of harassing me and given the fact that you felt it necessary to manufacture such a lie in order to support this current ban, I will gladly take my chances with the appeal rather than being intimidated under threat of punishment into acknowledging I've said and/or done things that I never said or did. JRHammond (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's observe the pattern: (1) Blocking me on a wholly spurious pretext, with the admin granting my appeal stating "I see nothing in JRHammond's comments at that talk page that warrant a block, let alone a one week block, and particularly a "cool down" block."[18]; (2) Posting personal information about me I had never revealed myself in direct violation of WP:OUTING.[19]; (3) Banning me for 48 hours on the basis that I had violated 1RR[20] when the facts were that: (a) an edit I made[21] was reverted by an anonymous IP editor on the basis it was not well sourced,[22] (b) I did not revert back to my original edit, but rather (c) added a great many authoritative sources in order to satisfy the raised objection;[23] (d) and, moreover, my edit improved the article by replacing an unsourced and demonstrably false statement with a very well sourced statement of fact; (4) Blocking me for 7 days and banning me for two weeks on the basis that I had violated my spurious 48 hour ban[24] when the facts were that: (a) My above noted improvement to the article was reverted by the same anonymous IP editor with no legitimate explanation and without discussion,[25], so I (b) restored my edit to prevent the unsourced and false statement from remaining in the article,[26], (c) all of which is in keeping with the the spirit of Wikipedia guidelines, the whole purpose and intent of which is to create a conducive environment for the improvement of articles,[27], which demonstrates further that you were merely "Utilizing the rules in a manner contrary to their principles", demonstrating clear disregard for the purpose and intent of the rules you feign to uphold; (5) telling me I "shouldn't be" contributing to the Talk page after my ban and block had expired and threatening to ban me again for "carrying the edit war from the article on to the talk page",[28] a reference to my having proposed a solution to a problematic passage in the article that was reviewed, approved, and implemented by an administrator;[29], (6) this current ban based on demonstrably false and misleading claims, and (7) issuing further veiled threats of punitive action against me on the basis that my comment "Accredited, it is not clear to me, because you commented on tangential matters and not on any perceived merits/demerits on your part of my proposed edit, so kindly just answer my question. Yes or no?" was "combative".[30] I rest my case. Perhaps it's you who needs to be banned, Wgfinley. JRHammond (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My word, WP:TL;DR. It's really not necessary to reply to each and every thought uttered that does not completely support you. Do you really think you are doing yourself any good individually calling out uninvolved admins and/or going to their talk pages to confront them there? Is there a single shred of any of the 5k written above that you haven't already said? WP:STICK! Saying I should be banned, you actually think THAT'S helpful? I should delete my entire section your conduct on both of these appeals has done nothing but affirmed my position. --WGFinley (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone here can verify the facts are precisely as I've stated them. It's instructive that you are either unwilling or unable to substantively address my argument for appeal. JRHammond (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Gatoclass -- Telling someone they have bald tires and are about to go driving in the rain is not a threat, it's courteous warning. I courteously informed JRH that editing, in the same fashion, an article whose subject is the reason why he was banned on another article could resort in a topic ban. That's not a threat and it's already been suggested by others here. --WGFinley (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get our facts straight, Guy. With regard to the incident in question, what Gatoclass actually said was: "Witness this latest exchange between JRH and WGFinley where WG again purports to find a "combative tone" possibly worthy of a new topic ban in this post. Nobody whose edits were subject to such a level of scrutiny and threats would be likely to maintain their equanimity for long." Which was a reference to your "courteous warning" that I could be further banned for such "combative" comments as this: "Accredited, it is not clear to me, because you commented on tangential matters and not on any perceived merits/demerits on your part of my proposed edit, so kindly just answer my question. Yes or no?" Which speaks for itself, and is instructive as to the spurious nature of this ban, and the spurious nature of the stated reasons for denying my appeal. JRHammond (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my offer when I notified of the ban:[32]

I will be willing to consider lifting this ban if you state you can work with other editors and avoid tendentious editing.

However, I have considered the matter. In it I have considered the following:

1. The previous ban appeal took about 125kb, at least 80% of that from JRHammond. It was closed for WP:TL;DR -- I submit that is a disruption in violation of WP:POINT, part of the WP:CIVIL pillar.
2. JRHammond immediately refiled and while he kept his initial filing to the requested 1000 words this appeal ballooned to 41kb and, I would say at least 90% was from JRHammond. -- Again, I submit that is a disruption in violation of WP:POINT, part of the WP:CIVIL pillar.
3. JRHammond has replied sharply to any individual who has given him anything by full support including moving to their talk pages, [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] one of these as recently as the past hour (when I started writing) [41] and prevailed upon another to post here on his behalf while accusing other uninvolved admins of being unfair [42] even suggesting what it should say [43] -- I submit that is a disruption by campaigning, part of the WP:CONSENSUS pillar.
4. JRHammond has accused everyone here of not answering his questions and calling us hypocrites [44] [45] -- I submit that is a disruption in violation of WP:AGF, part of the WP:CIVIL pillar.
5. JRHammand has accused me of "manufacturing deliberate falsehoods" [46] [47], stated I made threats and false and misleading claims and should be banned [48] and accused me of manufacturing lies (along with calling another editor a hypocrite for good measure)[49] -- I submit that is a disruption in violation of both WP:ETIQ and WP:NPA, part of the WP:CIVIL pillar. Normally I accept I'm an admin, working in an area where passions get enflamed, and harsh criticism is part of the job. However, these are not the words of someone just banned, he's been doing this for days and I shouldn't be called a liar.
6. JRHammond has repeatedly instructed others how this process should proceed including stating no evidence at all has been presented against him, [50] then made his statement I have dubbed an "epiphany" above and then promptly refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing and demanded his appeal be granted [51] -- I submit that is a disruption by WP:LAWYER, part of the WP:IAR pillar. I'm forced to call it an epiphany because he posted it within hours and some cases minutes of almost all of the above He also immediately went to other venues again asking for his ban to be removed. I am forced to apply WP:DUCK to, and attribute it to an attempt to WP:GAME.

In light of the gross disturbance on this page and his conduct I deny removing my ban at this time. Further, I think there is ample evidence for a Palestine-Israel conflict ban until he demonstrates a better grasp of harmonious editing. --WGFinley (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The prior request was just closed by NE. Do we really need to go over this again? I believe the ban should be extended to be broadly construed, and the request should be closed. It is just a time wasting. As with all indefinite bans the next appeal could be filed in a year.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The admin who closed it invited me to re-appeal ("If JRHammond wishes to refile a request to overturn the ban, he is instructed to limit his statement to no more than 1000 words..."). I did so according to the instruction given. (2) Your remark does not substantively address the argument for my appeal. JRHammond (talk) 06:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree my remark "does not substantively address the argument for your appeal" because I believe that filing appeal after appeal is an abuse of the right to appeal. There was a clear consensus (4 to 1) of uninvolved admins to leave your ban in place. That's why I see absolutely no ground for filing another appeal right away.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That opinion of yours is something you will have to take up with the admin who invited me to re-appeal, Mbz1. I would observe that any reasonable decision one way or the other must substantively address my argument for lifting the ban; conversely, any decision that does not do so would be unreasonable. JRHammond (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently working my way through JRHammond's contributions to both the Six-Day War article and the related talk page in order to try and make a judgement about this. I'd appreciate it if this appeal was not closed until I have had a chance to complete my review. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 08:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that true you are "currently working my way through JRHammond's contributions to both the Six-Day War article and the related talk page in order to try and make a judgement about this"? One could have thought that you've already done this before you've made this comment in the uninvolved administrators section BTW.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh give it a rest Mbz, please. Gatoclass (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gato, you do know that this is an usual arguments, for ones, who have nothing better to respond, don't you? :)--Mbz1 (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Cptnono

Response to PhilKnight

Phil, as far as I can tell, JRH has only been editing since July and only made a handful of edits to mainspace - no more than about thirty I think. I agree his talk page behaviour has been less than exemplary at times, but given his inexperience I am concerned at the somewhat draconian nature of this remedy. I am also concerned at the fact that he has been pursued by one admin in particular who has slapped a series of blocks and bans on him often for quite trivial and at times patently imaginary offences, and who still appears bent on dogging his footsteps in a manner that looks very much to me like harassment. Witness this latest exchange between JRH and WGFinley where WG again purports to find a "combative tone" possibly worthy of a new topic ban in this post. Nobody whose edits were subject to such a level of scrutiny and threats would be likely to maintain their equanimity for long.

JRH obviously has a lot to learn in regards to acceptable conduct but everyone has a learning curve, there are many users on the I-P pages who have edited far more tendentiously and for much longer periods and escaped any sanction whatever, and JRH at least appears to be intelligent, erudite and reasonably well informed. That doesn't necessarily mean he will become a productive editor but it does indicate that he has the potential to make a worthwhile contribution. And I don't want to see a potentially useful editor unfairly discouraged. Gatoclass (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, I have a suggestion. As you can see, JRH is adamant that he has done nothing wrong, contrary to your comment above. It appears that you are sympathetic to him. If you are, then perhaps you are best placed to explain to JRH (here or on his talk page or elsewhere) what the problem is, and more importantly, convince him to change his approach. If he does, then we will all welcome him. But if he persists, then the article in question is best left without it. It has enough problems without him. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already offered to assist him should he find himself at loggerheads with other editors in a future discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 05:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really? In that case we'd better first somebody, who will assist you at loggerheads with other editors in a future discussion--Mbz1 (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BorisG, why don't you follow your own suggestion and point to anything I did or said on the talk page that would warrant this ban. Given the fact that every stated pretext has been completely spurious, even manufactured, it would seem incumbent upon all of you arguing against my appeal to substantiate your claims with even just a single example. I also welcome Gatoclass to do the same if he is in agreement about denying my appeal. It's highly instructive that all these charges of bad behavior have so far not been substantiated with even a single example. Let's have a diff or diffs substantiating these charges, BorisG. Is that too much to ask? Do you find it unreasonable? In fact, it all of you are guilty of Tendentious Editing, which includes ignoring or refusing to answer good faith questions from other editors, inasmuch as I have repeatedly asked this question in good faith, and every single one of you has refused so far to answer it. You are all being unreasonable hypocrites. JRHammond (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JRH, I made my remark in order to help you, and in response I get a personal attack (calling someone a hyporcite is a personal attack). I hope others will see this. I have done nothing to provoke this. You have now made crystal clear to everyone what sort of editor you are. However if your goal was to provoke me, it's not going to work. I hope your ban stays because I do not want to be involved in any articles/talk pages you are going to edit. BTW, no Wikipedia policy says that I have to answer your questions. - BorisG (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, I didn't realize your statement that you would support the ban was an offer of "help". As for your hypocrisy, it is what it is. A double standard is a double standard. If you don't like people to observe your hypocrisy, then don't be a hypocrite. I disagree it's a "personal attack" if it's demonstrably true. JRHammond (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether something like that is true is just about always a matter of opinion, and it's certainly a personal attack. Enigma^msg 15:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not at all a matter of opinion, and not at all subjective. You can verify for yourself that Gatoclass said he supported the ban on the basis that I had repeated an argument. Yet he, too, had repeated his argument (a logical fallacy). The definition of a hypocrite is one who refuses to apply to himself the same standard applied to others. So, unless BorisG wishes to ban himself, he is, as a matter of demonstrable fact, applying a hypocritical standard. JRHammond (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JRHammond, can't you see what's happening here? I said the ban was going too far, and your response was to aggressively argue that I was out of line, to such an extent that I now support the ban. Boris made a similar comment, and following your argument with him, he now supports the ban. In other words, your approach really isn't working. Just a suggestion, but you could try being more diplomatic. PhilKnight (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly aware of what's going on here. Let's get our facts straight: Yes, you said the ban went too far, but you also expressed support for a shorter ban. On what basis? I requested that you point to even just a single example of something I did or said that would justify that judgment, and you refused.[52] That is totally unreasonable, as I rightly observed. As for Boris, I merely observed that if he judged himself by the same standard he judged me, he would have to ban himself. The issue is not lack of diplomacy, the issue is the unwillingness/inability of so many of you to reason. All I'm asking is that people be reasonable. That is not too much to ask. JRHammond (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• JR has occasionally worked cooperatively, especially in the early days of our work on the article's WP:LEDE. He bears a particular POV, and is amazingly tireless and unyielding in his defense of it. It is the "tireless and unyielding" bit that grates on people. It is indeed unproductive, because it does indeed wear people down.
• There is simply a fundamental disconnect going on here. There is a fundamental disconnect between the way that JR views this entire situation, including the proceedings in this forum, and the way neutral editors view it. [Here I must also note that there are several editors in this forum and on the article's talk page who bear an NPOV that is categorically opposed to JR's; I trust that uninvolved admins will make an effort to discover who those editors are, and discount their views accordingly]. JR seems to want to marshal arguments any time anyone voices an opinion different than his, supporting his arguments with facts, rather than interacting in order to investigate perceptions of other editors involved (which are sometimes valid). JR seems to live in a world where arguing in the formal sense (fact vs. fact) is the only approach to any problem. He operates in an environment in which there are winners and losers (including most especially, winning ideas and losing ideas).
• He also is unable to let things rest and breathe a while, as per m:eventualism.
• JR's tirelessness can occasionally be fruitful. Since he researches issues thoroughly (albeit in a biased manner), he often brings facts to the table that very definitely need to be included in the article. In fact, he is unquestionably a valuable contributor in that restricted sense. However, the problem is that he does not stop at bringing facts to the table; he tirelessly argues to prove to everyone that his facts always and everywhere supersede all others.
• I was not aware (before now) that an indefinite ban is not the same as an infinite ban. It can be lifted, upon signs of altered behavior. I hope JR will take note of that fact.

Ling.Nut, (1) You are not substantively addressing the basis for my appeal, and you offer nothing by way of substantiation, beyond your own personal opinions, that would support the basis for this ban. (2) Said opinions of yours depend primarily upon the assumption that I am biased, yet you offer not a single example to substantiate that claim. Moreover, as WP:TE states, everyone has bias and bias is not a problem in editors, but in articles, and I maintain that all of my edits and proposed edits are perfectly in compliance with WP:NPOV (in fact, many corrected statements that violated NPOV). I challenge you or anyone else to demonstrate otherwise. (3) Facts matter. Logic is applicable. Arguing vigorously for my positions by presenting well researched and factual information (as you yourself attest to) and sound logic is not something which warrants a ban. Neither is the expectation I have that other editors similarly support their positions by presenting factually and logically sound arguments, rather than resorting to ad hominem or other logical fallacies, unreasonable. (4) Your assumption that my behavior is in need of alteration is based solely upon the above unsubstantiated opinions and logical fallacies. If you want to convince me I've behaved inappropriately, you need to give me something to go on. You've given me nothing, and I stand by all my edits and all my contributions to the Talk page. Facts matter. Logic applies. I expect you and everyone else to be reasonable with me, and that is a reasonable expectation that is constantly disappointed,through no fault of my own. JRHammond (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm (all at the same time) a bit burned out on this discussion (and) very busy in real life so shouldn't even be here (and) putting up with on-wiki trouble over other articles and with other editors. My only observation about your facts (in the article, not in this forum) is that they are occasionally refuted by other reliable sources, yet you always and everywhere see that your sources supersede others. I am extremely hesitant to present diffs showing that edit from a POV, because I want to leave you a figleaf in order that you may continue editing (I hope), and leave our editing relationship a figleaf so that we may continue editing together... Moreover, I actually do not care about POV, as you accurately cite TE; almost every editor on that page is from either the pro-Israel or the pro-Arab camp. I care about how POV affects the editing process. I am looking forward to working with you again. I do not want to poison our working relationship. I know you will not believe this, but I am actually trying to help you (I know that may sincerely seem difficult to swallow – I really do). You suggest I have not pointed out the behaviors that are unacceptable; gosh, I thought I had done that repeatedly. I would be very happy to discuss anything and everything in other forums (after a cooling-down period). Right now, you are sitting at AE, and many folks want to ban you from the article. Rather than continuously arguing that those folks are wrong, why don't you ask them (in a non-challenging way and on other forums) how they believe you can modify your behavior to be more in line with community expectations? Work with the community rather than fighting against it. I am so sorry, I know that everything I say probably seems invalid to you because I am not putting up a counterpoint for each of your points.I am not being sarcastic or condescending or any negative thing at all when I say I am sorry; I am in fact actually and genuinely sorry. • Ling.Nut 05:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JRHammond, please re-read Ling.Nuts original statement. Receiving criticism is always hard, but this criticism is fair and made in good faith. --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As are my replies. All I've requested is that if my appeal is to be denied that the basis for my appeal be substantively addressed and I be given a reason for this ban (one not based on deliberate falsehoods), substantiated with even just a single example of behavior on my part that violated Wikipedia policy as would warrant it! An short of that, my appeal should be granted. This is certainly not an unreasonable request! JRHammond (talk) 06:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ling.Nut, you continue to make prejudicial statements against me (e.g. "you always and everywhere see that your sources supersede others") that you refuse to substantiate with even a single example. It hardly serves to make such remarks and then refuse to substantiate them on the basis that you "do not want to poison our working relationship", because doing so does just that. As for your suggestion that I ask in a non-challenging way how those sitting in judgment of me believe I can modify my behavior to be more in line with community expectations, first of all, this assumes I have done something wrong, which is prejudicial inasmuch as determining whether or not that is the case is what this appeal is about (and I have already demonstrated that the basis for this appeal is spurious, demonstrated by the demonstrable fact that Wgfinley felt it necessary to manufacture deliberate falsehoods to support the ban), and, secondly, I have repeatedly done just that, only to have that reasonable request either so far ignored or declined! [53][54][55][56][57] Seriously, is it too much to ask that if I am to be banned that a reason be given for that ban that is actually substantiated with a specific example of something I've posted that violated Wikipedia policy? I'm not the one being unreasonable here, Ling.Nut. JRHammond (talk) 05:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything Ling.Nut said. To put it in my own words, the problems with JRH's editing are:

• Style (wall-to-wall text, repeating the same arguments over and over again).
• Presenting his own opinion as 'truth'.
• Attempts to use editprotect template without consensus.
• Above all, this is a single-purpose account.

I will not be giving any examples, because anyone can see it (and form their own opinion which may be different from mine) just by browsing Six-day war talk page for 5 minutes. I will not express any opinions regarding the ban, because I do not have enough relevant experience.

(1) I agree I do often have to repeat myself, because the fact is that others, yourself included, refuse to substantively address my arguments (e.g. Suez Crisis proposed edit). This is not an offense anyhow. (2) I have never presented my own opinion as fact; I do however, fully support my opinions with facts. This is not an offense anyhow. (3) As for the editprotect template, I employed it for precisely 2 edits, and I did so properly: (a) For the first, I'll let the words of the admin who accepted my request speak for themselves: "I see no issue removing contentious material when the parties concerned agree that the material should eventually be replaced with something more neutral." (b) For the second, I outlined my proposal, clearly stated my intent to employ the template, and called on editors to state any objections if they had any. After several days, no objections were raised, so I did so, in full compliance with the template instructions. (4) Yes. It was numerous problems I saw with the Six Day War article that compelled me to join the process. I don't have time for other articles, so I stick mostly with this one. I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy that says you must edit multiple articles or none at all. JRHammond (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I would add two further observations: (1) None of your comments address the basis for my appeal. (2) If you express no opinion on the ban, then it's inappropriate to comment here with prejudicial remarks against me. JRHammond (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) From [WP:TE]: You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people.

(2) Ok, you have convinced me to support the ban. - BorisG (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The sentence is sourced to a RS. Unless it is shown that this is not what the source says, it can stay. I don't have the source to check."[58] -- BorisG

"More generally, assessment of what is right and what is wrong in a RS is OR. We need to see what the source says and how it explains it."[59] -- BorisG

"The statement is based on a reliable source. If the reliable source does say this, then it belogs to the article."[60] -- BorisG

BorisG, my above comment was specifically in reference to our discussions over my proposed edit here:[61]. You repeatedly said that so long as the source said what the article says it says, the text should remain. That did not convince me, because it is a logical fallacy. As I repeatedly observed in response, the question is whether the article accurately characterizes the UNEF mandate, which it demonstrably does not; it demonstrably violates WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, which is the underlying issue I repeatedly tried to get you to address, to no avail. The full explanation for "Tendentious Editing":

If your arguments are rejected, bring better arguments, don’t simply repeat the same ones. And most importantly, examine your argument carefully, in light of what others have said. It is true that people will only be convinced if they want to be, regardless of how good your argument may be, but that is not grounds for believing that your argument must be true. You must be willing to concede you may have been wrong. Take a good, long hard look at your argument from as detached and objective a point of view as you can possibly muster, and see if there really is a problem with it. If there isn't, it's best to leave the situation alone: they're not going to want to see it and you cannot force them to. If there is a problem, however, then you should revise the argument, your case, or both.[62]

Your unwillingness to acknowledge your logical fallacy when I repeatedly pointed it out to you, your continual repeating of that logical fallacy despite my having pointed it out as such, and your refusal to actually address my own argument on any point of fact or logic clearly demonstrates that it was you and not I are guilty of "Tendentious Editing". Hypocrite. JRHammond (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no logical fallacy in my arguments. Wikipedia is not about truth, it is about verifiability. And please refrain from writing in my section here. Move your responses to your section. Thanks. - BorisG (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil and do not attack other editors. Enigma^msg 03:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was pointed out in the last appeal that I am "uninvolved" except in an administrative role, I guess I'll post a comment here. Anyone who feels differently (including the petitioner) may move my comments. I'll make no behavioral judgments here, just some relevant observations.

Observation 1: JRHammond refers to Wikipedia:Tendentious editing as if it were a hard definition. WP:TE is an essay, not an official policy or guideline. As an essay it needn't (and doesn't) comprehensively describe every possible way an editor can be tendentious. (That essay could use some improvement. It has had a few minor fixes, but like most essays, it was largely written by one person.) Other highly experienced editors and administrators have described JRHammond's talk page behavior as tendentious. They've seen it before, and they saw it not only on Talk:Six-Day War but possibly also in these two appeals. Regardless of the merits of the accusation of tendentiousness, that is what was seen.

Observation 2: Based on the comments of two other editors who have become fatigued by arguing at length with JRHammond on Talk:Six-Day War,[63][64] one example of tendentiousness not described in WP:TE is to wear out your opponents to the point where they are no longer willing to participate. I am not saying that JRHammond's intent was to drive off opposition, but that was an outcome. And that outcome was apparently one reason leading to a ban.[65]

Observation 3: JRHammond is a fairly new and inexperienced editor whose first contribution was in February this year, and who has made about 500 edits, the bulk of which (about 80%) are on talk pages. That may be reasonable given the contentious nature of the topic he chooses to get involved in, but I'll leave it to others to decide. In any case, I believe it is common for new editors who start out with a flurry of activity to violate the community behavior norms, and earn a ban or a block. I personally see no dishonor in that. It's part of the learning process of becoming a Wikipedian. JRHammond didn't start out being fully aware of things like Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, or other relevant documents that he now knows about. Different people approach Wikipedia in different ways. Many of us have found it necessary to modify our natural inclinations when participating here. For example, it isn't natural for me to swallow my pride, refrain from lashing out at a personal attack, or refrain from defending myself against every single accusation. But, I observe from personal experience that practicing those skills does make life on Wikipedia more pleasant in the long run.

Observation 4: Taking a larger view, this ban seems pretty minor. It's a ban from one article and one talk page. It isn't a topic ban. It isn't a block. It isn't even forever — "indefinite" means "without a specified limit", not "infinite". Given that there are 238 other articles in Category:Arab-Israeli conflict, which seems to be JRHammond's area of interest, I don't see this ban as hindering JRHammond's participation here. A topic ban most certainly would. But a single-article ban is no big deal, considering the millions of articles on Wikipedia that need improvement.

Observation 5: Finally, I note that in the U.S. court system, one can plead guilty, not guilty, or no contest. Pleading "no contest" isn't an admission of guilt. I suggest that JRHammond recognize this ban for the minor thing that it is, accept WGFinley's offer, plead no contest, and move on. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pleading "no contest" would mean tacit acknowledgment that WGFinley's stated pretext for this ban was legitimate. It is not, as the fact that he felt it necessary to lie in order to fabricate a basis for it clearly demonstrates. As for the characterizations here that this ban is warranted, please point to whatever comment(s) I made on the Talk page that would demonstrate that this is so. JRHammond (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JRHammond, remember, this section is for discussion among uninvolved editors. Please refrain from commenting here.

As to your concern about tacit acknowledgment and so on: ask yourself, so what? While a ban feels like a big deal to the banee, being banned from a single article isn't worth the energy you've put into this. I have learned that a little humility goes a long way. You aren't harmed or dishonored in the least by walking away, saying "okay, no big deal, I'll try not to piss you off in the future", and moving on to more productive activities on Wikipedia. You have already stated your case that this ban is unwarranted. The result will be determined by an administrator based on your overall conduct rather than on specific comments. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I gather the earlier discussion was closed as it was TL;DR, so I'll try to keep this short. JRHammond's talk page conduct has been disruptive, and he has yet to accept that he needs to modify his approach. Accordingly, I consider the indefinite article + talk page ban to be within admin discretion, although it's longer than I would've applied. PhilKnight (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this assessment. I would add that JRHammond's best approach to getting the sanction lifted would be to spend some time editing harmoniously outside the Arab-Israel conflict topic area. Indefinite ought not necessarily to imply infinite. CIreland (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reopened appeal by JRHammond suggests he has learned nothing at all from the last one. His mission on Wikipedia is (seemingly) to pound away until he can force his views into the Six-Day War article. I support the indefinite ban from article + talk page. You would think that JRH could manage to occasionally say *something* diplomatic that could lighten up the image that we have of him, but that never occurs. 'Harmonious' is not a word in his vocabulary. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• On behaviour, I would support banning JRHammond from using {{editprotected}} in relation to Six-Day War for a finite period of a month to a few months (and keeping the article protected), but I'm reluctant to support more than that. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

User requesting enforcement

No such user (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Mir Harven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Final Decision

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

1. [66] "I don't know what kind of therapy would suit you (if any), but your hysteric idiocies are all too easy refutable. ". If I recall correctly, was warned for this, and withdrew it. But there's more to follow...
2. [67] Talk:Croatian language: personal attack to kwami at the start of TLDR. Continued by a unpublished letter to an editor (in Croatian) violating BLP of Snježana Kordić, Croatian linguist of different opinion than Mir's
3. [68] Talk:Croatian language
4. [69] Talk:Croatian language: "My way or no way" attitude
5. [70] Croatian language: Summary revert to a fairly old version, throwing away all grammar and style changes in between
6. [71] Croatian language: Summary revert
7. [72] Croatian language: Today's summary revert

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

1. [73] Warning by Knepflerle (talk · contribs)
2. [74] Warning by kwamikagami (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on Talk:Croatian language
3. [75] Warning by kwamikagami (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on Talk:Croatian language

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

Left to admins' discretion

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The atmosphere surrounding the articles Croatian language, Serbo-Croatian language and to a lesser extent, Serbo-Croatian grammar and Serbian language is poisonous. There is a number Croatian nationalist editors, many of them SPIs, see e.g. Rokonja (talk · contribs), 78.0.154.106 (talk · contribs), 78.3.120.82 (talk · contribs) [76] which opposes any linking of Croatian with Serbo-Croatian in any shape or form, asserting that "Serbo-Croatian has never existed", summarily reverting to a version not mentioning the Serbo-Croatian as the language group, and putting walls on text on the talk page. According to Talk:Serbo-Croatian_grammar#Wikipedia_article_Serbo-Croatian_grammar_makes_headlines_in_Croatia, the campaign for "freedom of Croatian language against hegemonism" is moving even outside of Wikipedia, so this entire affair needs less fuel and more water. We don't want another ARBMAC arbcom, do we?

Granted, there was less than stellar behavior on the opposite side, myself included. Still, it is difficult to lead a thoughtful discussion and reach a consensus against an army of single-purpose accounts, and editors like Mir Harven and Croq (talk · contribs), who mostly summarily revert and repeat the same arguments on the talk page over and over. No such user (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[77]

— kwami (talk)

This is beyond ridiculous. I think part of the reason so much revolves around slander is that no RS's are presented on Mir's side for substantive debate. I have no doubt that he actually believes his POV, but I've seen no evidence that it is in any way credible, and he has been debunked numerous times. (There are elements of truth in his arguments, such as Yugoslav standard Serbo-Croatian never being fully unified as a standard language, but such points are already covered in the articles and are largely peripheral to the edits he is pushing.) Since he cannot win through evidence, he resorts to edit warring. He's been gone a while, but is now back, and his only recent purpose here appears to be edit warring to redact the Croatian language article.

I'd think WP:ARBMAC should be applicable.

His accusations continue even when not engaging any of us here, as on WP-hr.[78] (Google translate will give you the gist; note that Kubura, a WP-hr admin, continues the rant, so this is not a single editor.) — kwami (talk) 11:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't see a lot of edit warring going on in the article in question, his reversions seem to have been dealt with by others and the diffs on prior behavior are a few months old. I have put the WP:GS warning on the talk page and added a section to advise the editors there the article is subject to sanctions. I don't think any further action is needed at this point, perhaps a 1RR parole if things get bad with edit warring but it doesn't seem to be that way right now. --WGFinley (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mass killings under Communist regimes Is under a 1RR restriction "per Digwuren", with a requirement that reverts be discussed on the talk page.

User:Petri Krohn is well aware of Digwuren (having been under its restrictions specifically, and has made reverts as [79] without posting the revert on the article talk page (copying a "bold" edit by Fifelfoo of deleting more than half the entire article, and which had been reverted) and then making a separate second clear revert at [80], The page is clearly marked on the talk page about the 1RR restriction, and has a huge red warning about the 1RR on the edit page. As Petri knows about Digwuren, I doubt that any excuse can be made. The 1RR is set as a bright line, not even an entitlement, and Petri has crossed it in spades. Thanks. The template is simply incomprehnsible, alas, for making this into the official format. Collect (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:Digwuren enforcement: ""any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process" (my emphasis). Collect failed to warn the editor and one violation of 1RR cannot be seen as "repeatedly". The correct forum is the edit-warring noticeboard. TFD (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The warning is on the article pages. Also note repeated warnings on the person's ut page. The Digwuren warning has been given to Petri per the initial sanctions. And note that the article page specifies that the revert is to be noted on the article talk page. So much for Wikilawyering here about Petri not having any idea about Digwuren <g>. Collect (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is where it started, and it was declined there as it was moved here. Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, could you please assume good faith and do not accuse other editors of "wikilawyering". I have inadvertently broken 1RR and I believe you have as well. Usually in these cases the editor is asked to self-revert before any sanctions are taken. Petri Krohn has self-reverted.[81] TFD (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. The first revert Petri Krohn made there [82]. Strictly speaking, it was not a single revert, but two unrelated edits: firstly, he removed the text re-inserted earlier, and, secondly, he modified the lede. The latter edit cannot be considered as a revert, because Petri Krohn didn't edit the article before.
2. After that Fifelfoo and I made our edits, which were totally unrelated to the Petri Krohn's edits [83].
3. Then Collect made a wholesale revert, thereby reverting Petri Krohn's, Fifelfoo and my edits [84]. According to his edit summary, his only objection was removal of large text from the article. It is clear from this edit summary that Collect didn't notice change in the lede and the edits made by me and Fifelfoo.
4. Petri Krohn restored my and Fifelfoo's edits, as well as his changes to the lede which were reverted by Collect without any edit summary [85]. Note, he didn't redo a removal of the text Collect noted in his edit summary. Consequently, based on the Collect's edit summary I conclude Petri Krohn restored only the text removed by Collect accidentally.
5. Mark Nutley falsely accuses Petri Krohn in violation of 1RR [86]:

"* 1st revert: [87] first revert was to remove content which had been removed and then restored [88]

* 2nd revert: [89] reverts back in content he had added which was reverted out."

6. As a result of Mark Nutley's attack Petri Krohn self-reverts [90].

Since Mark Nutley is known to use a 1RR as a pretext for unjustified attacks of good faith editors, in my opinion, he should be admonished about intrinsic flaw of such a behaviour.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec to TFD above)You sought to dismiss this all, despite the clear material on the article pages, due to me "not notifying" Petri. I daresay that this is a splendid example of what you ought to decry. The person was, indeed, asked to self-revert -- and specifically refused. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Petri_Krohn&diff=383461541&oldid=383460124[ shows the refusal. Collect (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I were you, Collect I apologised first for doing wholesale revert of several unrelated edits, which was supplemented with poorly written edit summary. It is your revert [91] which caused all this turmoil which distracts reasonable editors form their work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? I went back to a stable version of an article - rather than just looking at more than half of it being deleted. Indeed, I would suggest that deletion of more than half an article is a wholesale deletion. As for any assertion below that any person missed the prominent notice at the top of the article talk page which specifies Digwuren, that is hard to fathom indeed. Collect (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that someone made a deletion of a large piece of the text does not allow you to revert other edits de facto without any edit summary. I agree, it is always easier to return to a stable version rather to meticulously restore the text you want, leaving other editing intact. However, if you are not ready for meticulous work, don't edit Wikipedia. Interestingly, Petri Krohn fixed your own mistake (accidental removal of my edits without any edit summary), and, as a result, you reported him. Moreover, even after I pointed out at your mistake (which, I believe, was just a mistake) you still refuse to apologise and withdraw your accusations. Unbelievable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that I have no idea of WP:DIGWUREN. I have not taken part in any of the WP:DIGWUREN deliberations nor have I even read the related pages. (I have however read much of the WP:EEML evidence and find it most revealing.) I have followed a voluntary topic ban on the disputes in the EE topic, that is in anything Digwuren of his followers would be interested in – starting from the day in July 2007 when my request at WP:AN to have a community ban on user Digwuren (talk · contribs) was first rejected. The so called Digwuren warning was only introduced long after the case, I have never seen one. I do however take this AE as a serious warning.

There has been a clear argument made in the the long discussion at the talk page that the deleted content is off topic. Its inclusion is the main reason why the page is marked with multiple tags. As per WP:BOLD I suggested a new status quo where the tags could be removed. I also introduced a new lede to the article. The article was then edited by users Paul Siebert (talk · contribs) and Fifelfoo (talk · contribs). My edits and those of Raul Siebert Fifelfoo were then reverted by User:Collect, who reverted the article to a version by Marknutley, who again had reverted the article earlier today.

The two reverts to the article were to totally unrelated sections of the article. When I made the edit I was fully aware of the exitance of the 1 revert limitation and carefully limited my edits not to break it – although I would not brake 1rr even if it was not mandatory. I now checked the article behind the WP:3RR and find that it now states "on a single page within a 24-hour period". This is new to me – the last time I remember reading the page was in May 2007 when I intentionally led user Digwuren into breaking 3RR. I now see that my edit have been against the letter of the new 3RR policy and have reverted myself (only to be reverted 2 minutes later with my changes restored.) I am now going through the edit history to see when the "single page" definition was added.

Unlike Collect and Marknutley I have never edited the article before during its probation, (most likely never – but have not checked full history.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

mark nutley (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collect (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Petri Krohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Digwuren

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

1. [92] Reverts the reinsertion of a massive removal of content article is on a 1r restriction. He also did not go to talk to discuss these reverts or changes
2. [93] Reverts his lede back in

1. ...

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

1. [94] Warning by Marknutley (talk · contribs)
2. [95] Notice from Collect
3. ...

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

No idea what the usual actions are in this case, but his refusal to self revert after being informed of the restrictions on the article is problematic mark nutley (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per notice at top of page involved - all pertinent Digwuren sanctions Collect (talk) 17

40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

<Your text>

The page is clearly marked as being under 1RR, and that the Digwuren sanctions apply. It states that revers are to be posted on the talk page, which was done in neither case. The notice is prominent on the edit page, talk page, etc, hence is (per the notice) sufficient warning in the first place. Petri refused to revert at [96] which makes the far later "self revert" not applicable as an excuse (which was then reverted <g> by TFD at the two minute mark!) Petri is, moreover, expected to be especially mindful of all Digwuren sanctions. Collect (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also [97] inter alia and is well familiar with multiple bans. Collect (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[98]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Actual article talk page, edit page and so on as well as -[99] and [100] which ought to be sufficient. [101] Notification

Neither of my two edits to the article today constitute edit warring as in Wikipedia:Edit warring. My first edit to the article, in accordance of WP:BRD, was a giant leap forward for the article, as it removed the heavy POV-tagging from the article, that had hampered it for wiki-years. My second edit only restored minor chances and improvements that were lost in User:Collect's summary revert of the article.

There has been a clear argument made in the the long discussion at the talk page that the deleted content is off topic. Its inclusion is the main reason why the page is marked with multiple tags. As per WP:BOLD I suggested a new status quo where the tags could be removed. I also introduced a new lede to the article. The article was then edited by users Paul Siebert (talk · contribs) and Fifelfoo (talk · contribs). My edits and those of Raul Siebert Fifelfoo were then reverted by User:Collect, who reverted the article to a version by Marknutley, who again had reverted the article earlier today.

The two "reverts" included in my edit were to totally unrelated sections of the article. When I made the edit I was fully aware of the existence of the 1 revert limitation and carefully limited my edits not to break it – although I would not brake 1rr even if it was not mandatory. I now checked the article behind the WP:3RR and find that it now states "on a single page within a 24-hour period". This is new to me – the last time I remember reading the page was in May 2007 when I intentionally led user Digwuren into breaking 3RR. I now see that my edit have been against the letter of the new 3RR policy and have reverted myself (only to be reverted 2 minutes later with my changes restored.) I am now going through the edit history to see when the "single page" definition was added.

Unlike Collect and Marknutley I have never edited the article before during its probation, (most likely never – but have not checked full history.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2010

As there still seems to be discussion on this issue I will make an additional comment. I do follow a very strict 1RR rule, I would not revert the same action of another editor more that once in a day, in a week or most likely – ever. I believe most people who follow a 1RR would interpret it the same way. Also I would at all cost avoid a blanket revert to earlier versions, like the ones done today by Collect and Marknutley. My two edits partially reverted unrelated actions in separate sections of the article and were within this policy. I was genuinely not aware of the precise 3RR definition: one article – not one action or section. This really slows down any improvement as well as conflict down to a snails pace. If that is needed, so be it.

I also have to protest against EdJohnston's belittling comment below, removing the tags from the article would be a major achievement, as agreed by all editors involved. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to see that users Collect (talk · contribs) and Marknutley (talk · contribs) have not been given a formal DIGWUREN notice as logged here. It is clear that their edits today have been edit warring and part of a long pattern of similar behavior. Also note, that Marknutley has volunteered to leave the Climate change topic area as a result of the on-going ArbCom case, so his future participation here is more then likely. Also I find their actions awkwardly teamish, as their common interests seem to extend from the Category:Koch family to climate change to commies. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC), expanded 21:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? I made a single and proper revert. Period. Nor have I been "edit warring" on Climate Change, Communist killings, nor any other area, nor do I even have any real overlap with Ptetri other than the simple fact I reported his 2RR on an article. Nor have I made any practice of editing anything remotely connected with Digwuren as far as ArbCom is concerned. This bit (complaint) made without even giving me the courtesy of any notification, and out-of-process to boot, ill serves WP:AE, and looks very much like a tit for tat response at best. Collect (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of "tag teaming" do not belong here. My overlaps with you or with Nutley are de minimis, and often not in agreement. To accuse a person of "tag teaming" is a violation of WP:NPA at best. I note your prior bans. You did not get any real punishment today, but it looks like you are anxious to push the envelope - sigh. Even if you do view it all as "kindergarten justice" (your words). Collect (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Collect (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In any action, where you seek sanctions, you must assume that all parties are likely, if not equally likely to be sanctioned. Even in cases where one party is guilty, Wikipedia will only offer its version of kindergarten justice. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They seem well aware of it and unable to deny it since they asked for it against you. The warning is just so admins can keep track. If you want to submit diffs for some action to be taken against them you can but I would caution you, you admittedly [102] come to this with unclean hands so you may want to just drop it. I see the article is now protected due to the edit warring of various parties. --WGFinley (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mass killings under Communist regimes Is under a 1RR restriction "per Digwuren", with a requirement that reverts be discussed on the talk page.

User:Petri Krohn is well aware of Digwuren (having been under its restrictions specifically, and has made reverts as [103] without posting the revert on the article talk page (copying a "bold" edit by Fifelfoo of deleting more than half the entire article, and which had been reverted) and then making a separate second clear revert at [104], The page is clearly marked on the talk page about the 1RR restriction, and has a huge red warning about the 1RR on the edit page. As Petri knows about Digwuren, I doubt that any excuse can be made. The 1RR is set as a bright line, not even an entitlement, and Petri has crossed it in spades. Thanks. The template is simply incomprehnsible, alas, for making this into the official format. Collect (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:Digwuren enforcement: ""any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process" (my emphasis). Collect failed to warn the editor and one violation of 1RR cannot be seen as "repeatedly". The correct forum is the edit-warring noticeboard. TFD (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The warning is on the article pages. Also note repeated warnings on the person's ut page. The Digwuren warning has been given to Petri per the initial sanctions. And note that the article page specifies that the revert is to be noted on the article talk page. So much for Wikilawyering here about Petri not having any idea about Digwuren <g>. Collect (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is where it started, and it was declined there as it was moved here. Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, could you please assume good faith and do not accuse other editors of "wikilawyering". I have inadvertently broken 1RR and I believe you have as well. Usually in these cases the editor is asked to self-revert before any sanctions are taken. Petri Krohn has self-reverted.[105] TFD (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. The first revert Petri Krohn made there [107]. Strictly speaking, it was not a single revert, but two unrelated edits: firstly, he removed the text re-inserted earlier, and, secondly, he modified the lede. The latter edit cannot be considered as a revert, because Petri Krohn didn't edit the article before.
2. After that Fifelfoo and I made our edits, which were totally unrelated to the Petri Krohn's edits [108].
3. Then Collect made a wholesale revert, thereby reverting Petri Krohn's, Fifelfoo and my edits [109]. According to his edit summary, his only objection was removal of large text from the article. It is clear from this edit summary that Collect didn't notice change in the lede and the edits made by me and Fifelfoo.
4. Petri Krohn restored my and Fifelfoo's edits, as well as his changes to the lede which were reverted by Collect without any edit summary [110]. Note, he didn't redo a removal of the text Collect noted in his edit summary. Consequently, based on the Collect's edit summary I conclude Petri Krohn restored only the text removed by Collect accidentally.
5. Mark Nutley falsely accuses Petri Krohn in violation of 1RR [111]:
   "* 1st revert: [112] first revert was to remove content which had been removed and then restored [113]
   * 2nd revert: [114] reverts back in content he had added which was reverted out."
6. As a result of Mark Nutley's attack Petri Krohn self-reverts [115].

Since Mark Nutley is known to use a 1RR as a pretext for unjustified attacks of good faith editors, in my opinion, he should be admonished about intrinsic flaw of such a behaviour.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec to TFD above)You sought to dismiss this all, despite the clear material on the article pages, due to me "not notifying" Petri. I daresay that this is a splendid example of what you ought to decry. The person was, indeed, asked to self-revert -- and specifically refused. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Petri_Krohn&diff=383461541&oldid=383460124[ shows the refusal. Collect (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I were you, Collect I apologised first for doing wholesale revert of several unrelated edits, which was supplemented with poorly written edit summary. It is your revert [116] which caused all this turmoil which distracts reasonable editors form their work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? I went back to a stable version of an article - rather than just looking at more than half of it being deleted. Indeed, I would suggest that deletion of more than half an article is a wholesale deletion. As for any assertion below that any person missed the prominent notice at the top of the article talk page which specifies Digwuren, that is hard to fathom indeed. Collect (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that someone made a deletion of a large piece of the text does not allow you to revert other edits de facto without any edit summary. I agree, it is always easier to return to a stable version rather to meticulously restore the text you want, leaving other editing intact. However, if you are not ready for meticulous work, don't edit Wikipedia. Interestingly, Petri Krohn fixed your own mistake (accidental removal of my edits without any edit summary), and, as a result, you reported him. Moreover, even after I pointed out at your mistake (which, I believe, was just a mistake) you still refuse to apologise and withdraw your accusations. Unbelievable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: " As for any assertion below that any person missed the prominent notice at the top of the article" The ref to this notice is totally irrelevant, because there were no second revert: Petri Krohn just fixed the mistake you made (removal of subsequent edits, which appeared to be reverted accidentally).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that I have no idea of WP:DIGWUREN. I have not taken part in any of the WP:DIGWUREN deliberations nor have I even read the related pages. (I have however read much of the WP:EEML evidence and find it most revealing.) I have followed a voluntary topic ban on the disputes in the EE topic, that is in anything Digwuren of his followers would be interested in – starting from the day in July 2007 when my request at WP:AN to have a community ban on user Digwuren (talk · contribs) was first rejected. The so called Digwuren warning was only introduced long after the case, I have never seen one. I do however take this AE as a serious warning. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2010

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

While it is true Petri was an original party to Digwuren the case was amended with discretionary sanction powers during his ban. It's conceivable he was not aware of them and I did not see any previous warnings or a log of the warning. Therefore I have now warned him [117] and logged the warning [118] so it is now clear he has been notified. I see no further action needed in this case as he self-reverted. This article may need a watchful eye for edit warring. --WGFinley (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This report was filed (I think) as a Digwuren request because the article 1RR restriction was placed by NuclearWarfare under the authority of WP:DIGWUREN. Since a notice of the 1RR restriction is posted prominently on the article talk, in my opinion Petri Krohn has had plenty of notice. In fact, a giant red warning about the 1RR restriction appears when you hit the 'Edit' button on the article. Note that this particular 1RR is accompanied by an explicit requirement to take changes to the talk page: "All reverts should be discussed on the talk page" (See the talk page header). Nonetheless since Petri Krohn self-reverted I don't think any sanction is needed here. The editor's statement in his own defense is rather embarrassing; I hope he does not use that logic in the future. "My first edit to the article, in accordance of WP:BRD, was a giant leap forward for the article." I strongly recommend not using BRD on articles subject to a 1RR. The sky will not fall if you use the talk page first. EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, he self reverted, so we don't need to apply any sanctions. PhilKnight (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, though any of the three parties who has not formally received a Digwuren notice should be given one now. Courcelles 05:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. [119] Personal attacks and another concern, see comments section
2. [120] Personal attacks
3. [121] Edit-warring on an article about settlements right after ban's expiration
4. [122] Personal attack against Brewcrewer (unrelated to settlements)

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

1. [123] ARBPIA notification by PhilKnight (talk · contribs)
2. [124] Notification of ban for similar misconduct

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

A ban on articles about settlements

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Nableezy and I have a history of unfortunate interactions, and in most cases I prefer to avoid any kind of interaction rather than potentially enter a heated dispute (as is usually the case in this topic area). Nableezy has been going around articles about Israeli settlements with an attempt to demonstrate that they are illegal under international law. He has edit-warred and personally attacked other editors in this topic area on numerous occasions, and was banned for this behavior in the past. What made me file this report now of all times was this comment, where Nableezy states that he will use sources only for one purpose (adding sentences about settlements' legalities) while refusing to make constructive contributions to these articles based on the same sources. I have contributed to articles about settlements in the past (and intend to do so in the future), and to me this comment is incredibly disheartening. I believe that this kind of outlook is much more severe than either edit-warring or civility, and, to cite WP:ARBPIA, goes against the very purpose of Wikipedia. It also shows that Nableezy chooses to adopt a clear WP:BATTLE attitude by only adding information that is controversial. As far as I can tell, Nableezy has not made any other contributions to settlement-related articles. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: Just for the record, I do not oppose this edit (and won't unless there's consensus against it from other editors), and my complaint has nothing to do with this edit, or indeed any content issue, but with Nableezy's behavior only. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re to PhilKnight: I would like to hear your opinion on whether you support editing in a manner that's meant to be controversial while refusing to make non-controversial contributions to articles. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given you've asked the same question on my user talk, I'll reply there. PhilKnight (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another question to PhilKnight: You did not see a problem with Nableezy's conduct in the first two diffs. In the second one he makes a statement that he doesn't take anything I say seriously (and, implicitly, other editors who are perceived as pro-Israel). If that is the case, how are we supposed to engage in dispute resolution? The basis for successful dispute resolution (and I speak from experience) is that both parties must take each other seriously and understand the other side's concerns.

I'll reply here, if I may. From the context, I gather Nableezy is saying that he doesn't take seriously the view that it's dehumanizing to describe the people who live there as settlers. Again, for hopefully the last time, I still don't consider Nableezy's conduct to be substantially worse than yours. PhilKnight (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[125]

This is somewhat ridiculous. Ynhockey says here that "If you feel that the legality is another important fact, feel free to mention it in 8 words or less". I did that in the next edit, using only 6 words instead of 8 to address his somewhat inane argument that the 10 words that had been used was undue weight. Yn seems to think I am obligated to add any information that I can find about these settlements. The information that I am interested in is the information on the legality and so I add that information to these articles with sources that back my edits. I have emphatically not edit warred at this article. Yn removed the material as unsourced here (from an article that has no sources at all!). I reinserted the material and added a source here, addressing the cause for his removal. A "new" user removed it and I reverted the edit. The "new" user removed it again, again without commenting on the talk page as to why they were removing the content. The only user besides myself on the talk page talking about the content was Yn who said at this time "If you feel that the legality is another important fact, feel free to mention it in 8 words or less." I did exactly that and he brings me here? What is happening here is relatively transparent, but I think if I were to explicitly say why Yn brought this request he might call it a "personal attack". The first 2 diffs are not personal attacks, the 3rd one is but happened on my talk page after an editor did something somewhat stupid. nableezy - 21:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WGFinley, every page in the category Category:Israeli settlements and each of its sub-cats is in my watchlist. Ynhockey hasnt even accused me of hounding him. nableezy - 22:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yn, no such implication is made, and I take some things you say seriously. The topic under discussion was you claiming that calling Israeli settlers "settlers" is dehumanizing. No, I do not take your view that calling settlers "settlers" is dehumanizing seriously. nableezy - 23:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Supreme Deliciousness, this is really ridiculous, Ynhocky (an admin) complains about Nableezy adding the only sourced material to the Psagot article. Why does Ynhocky want the only sourced material in that article removed? If an Israeli settlement is illegal under international law, isn't that a pretty huge deal? He first complained about it being unsourced: [126] and then when source is added, he instead says at the talkpage that the sentence is "superfluous" [127]. I have also seen Ynhocky push a very strong non neutral pov at the First Battle of Mount Hermon article: "the claim that it's in Syria is just as "valid" as the claim that it's in Israel." (remember, this is a region that is internationally recognized as a region in Syria) [128]. Its unfortunate that an admin edits in such a non neutral manner. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Comment by Cptnono It looks like the requester and I are on similar pages. I recently opened up a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues#Legality and edit warring. Of course it is a problem when Nableezy returns from a ban partially based on the same exact line in other articles to make reverts/partial reverts[143][144][145] without consensus. We all know a ban or block will not come from this request but I certainly hope editors will see that discussion since it is a hot button issue that has not been properly addressed. And Nableezy should at least be reminded that his behavior might be a problem.

And civility is an ongoing problem. I think that is a broader issue that would only serve to muddle up this request since it deals with other article's. I would like to remind Nableezsy that it is not OK to comment on why he believes people are making edits when it is done in a pointed fashion. I was sanctioned for it and Nableezy is fully aware of the issue.Cptnono (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is already spiraling into unreadability and getting off topic. Hockey provided a link to the history of the article. In that history the following reverts/partial reverts can be seen:[146][147][148] over a short period (few days) without consensus. As Shuki points out, this is a resumption of behavior he was recently blocked for. It very well might be a good edit so maybe it shouldn't be controversial. But it is controversial. Can an admin simply remind Nableezy to chill with the revert button and crawl through the consensus building process like we are supposed to?Cptnono (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a comment on his talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this is about to be closed out. Thought that was a great idea until Nableezy kept on editing the disputed line even though there is an attempt at a centerilzed discussion off the page and a discussion (without consensus on the page).[149][150] What is so wrong with holding off on making the edit until there is consensus or at least until more people are onboard?Cptnono (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can the closing and commenting admins address the above edits before closing this? They look to me to be a too similar to the primary reason this was originally opened.Cptnono (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could, this admin can tell you it wouldn't end with Nableezy. Takes two people to edit war usually and were we to wade into this and start taking action it would not stop there. It's what Phil was getting at when he was trying to balance behavior. --WGFinley (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Anyone making multiple and/or contraversial changes when there is an ongoing discussion needs to be aware of the consequences.Cptnono (talk) 23:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I have already said that I don't believe this AE request will end in blocks or bans and it is still doubtful. He received notice on his talk page and at the very least it needs to be repeated. Cptnono (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Shuki,[151]
• Haberstr,[152]
• Ynhockey[153](is it more and I am missing one? I somewhat understand your concern with his revert, though)
• LibiBamizrach[154][155] + tag[156]

There has been a request on the talk page to stop but it keeps on going:

• Brewcrewer:some new ones (sequential)[157][158]
• Nableezy: 4 reverts/partial[159][160][161][162] and some sequential[163] but still controversial edits (these diffs are previous to the additional request to relax on reverts) + a new tag[164]

What needs to happen for some administrator intervention? It is obvious that Nableezy is the problem but others are also guilty. "Wade" in there and tell editors to knock it off. Cptnono (talk) 08:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Zero0000 Despite being on opposite sides of the fence, both Nableezy and Ynhockey are editors who edit with integrity, a valuable commodity in a part of Wikipedia where such editors are outnumbered by pure POV-pushers. This particular episode seems to me like a storm in a tea-cup. Nableezy's words might have been better chosen, for sure, but I don't see an offense that can't be handled by a cooling off and calm discussion. Zero^talk 00:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Shuki Integrity and nableezy? Zero, please read more of the case here and what is surrounding it. Ynhockey brought up that Nableezy is a quintessential POV pusher uninterested with improving WP. In this case, Nableezy seems to be showing his trademark lack of collaboration, and consistent post topic-ban POV pushing. WP is hoping that these repeated topic bans and warnings would motivate Nableezy into a being collaborative editor, but I guess not yet. --Shuki (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is Nableezy pov pushing and how is he uninterested in improving wikipedia by adding the international view to an article and adding the only sources into an un sourced article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Nableezy is continually getting warned. At what point do all those warnings mount up to something? --Shuki (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by JRHammond

I'm not involved in this. I was just curious seeing Nableezy here, as we've encountered each other elsewhere. So I took a moment to examine the claim. There simply are no personal attacks by Nableezy in the diffs provided (1) and (2), period. As for (3), "edit-warring", at a glance Ynhockey has quite a few more edits than Nableezy. How are Nableezy's edits "warring" but Ynhockey's own not so? The claim is made, but no actual argument or facts to support it are presented. As for (4), on Nableezy's own talk page, he says, "I really did not think you were that stupid." At a glance, I don't understand the context for that remark. Perhaps Nableezy could explain it. In any event, so what? Has Brewcrewer himself filed a complaint? Why is Ynhockey speaking for him? If this is about someone having their feelings hurt by "personal attacks", real or alleged, I would suggest if people can't take the heat, they get out of the kitchen. Toughen up and don't be so extremely sensitive. I hardly think Nableezy's comment on his own talk page, which is the only thing even remotely substantive here, warrants any punitive action. But it's pretty clear this isn't about Nableezy violating Wikipedia standards. This is clearly the heart of the issue:

"Nableezy has been going around articles about Israeli settlements with an attempt to demonstrate that they are illegal under international law." -- Ynhockey

Ynhockey doesn't like Nableezy pointing out the indisputable facts (and it is a completely uncontroversial point of fact under international law that the settlements are illegal), and so is trying to silence him by seeking punitive action. This itself is abusive behavior. JRHammond (talk) 03:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by BorisG

Looks like a routine content dispute. I disagree with Nableezy on many issues but I do not see a problem here. He is interested of putting certain material from the sources but not all of it? Fine, Ynhockey can add more. Indeed a storm in a teacup, in my view. - BorisG (talk) 04:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment by Sol Goldstone "I propose that you use the source to improve the article (write about its winery) and in the process we can think of something regarding the legality issue. Until you make it clear that your goal is improving the article, I will have trouble supporting your edits about legality. —Ynhockey (Talk) 16:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)" So the bulk of the accusation is that he refused to meet arbitrary criteria? If the information satisfies policy standards how can you set conditional requirements on its inclusion? Never mind why the editor's intent is important. Sol Goldstone (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The first 2 diffs show Nableezy and Ynhockey criticising each other on an article talk page. I've formally notified Ynhockey of the WP:ARBPIA sanctions, however beyond suggesting they use WP:RFC/USER for personal criticism, I don't think any further action is required. The 3rd link isn't a diff, and I'm unsure what it's supposed to be showing. The 4th diff is uncivil, but was over a week ago, so I don't see why it's being dredged up now. PhilKnight (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diff 3 (though not really a diff, it's a history link) shows Nableezy reverting Ynhockey [165] on a topic he's never edited before 5 minutes after Ynhockey has edited it.[166], Ynhockey had edited the article before. This would indicate Nableezy could be hounding Ynhockey's contributions. --WGFinley (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy has edited the topic of Israeli settlements previously, but not that individual article. Looking at the edit immediately before that diff, Ynhockey's edit disingenuously says the statement was unsourced, when anybody familiar with IP dispute would be aware of the legal situation, and easily be able to find a source. PhilKnight (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I agree there are clean hands issues here but while saying one isn't as bad as the other, neither is good. --WGFinley (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Nableezy explaining how he came to that page and the advice given on his talk page, I'm in agreement with Phil on this and see no action needed at this point. --WGFinley (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I see Nableezy getting involved in content disputes. People in content disputes are human and tend to piss each other off. That's just how it goes. I see no need for action here. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are we ready to close then? I would be in favor of no action with a warning to both to mind their interaction lest further sanctions be needed. --WGFinley (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appealing user

Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

A collective 1RR limitation [167] [168]. It has been logged here [169]

Administrator imposing the sanction

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[170]

The AE request [171] and sanction statement [172] refered to Tag Team and use of Wikipedia for propaganda. From a general standpoint, I want to say that I am against Tag Team and I object to any use of Wikipedia for propaganda. For example see [173], which I wrote when I was still anonymous before I created my account. I made an informal appeal [174], but received no response at all. In the following, I present my formal appeal to that sanction.

The warning. The "warning" [175] that is mentioned in the Arb Request Enforcement was about a content dispute and has been presented to me by an editor that was involved in that dispute. We had a disagreement about what are the main findings and conclusions of a meta-analysis. My understanding progressed in that discussion, for example see [176]. At the end, my edits were basically taken from the summary of results in the source and reflected my honest understanding [177] of this source. In any case, there were no mention of any thing closely related to Tag Team and collective restriction in that warning.

Note added by Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC) : The administrator who drafted the requirement for a warning clarified that the intent was that the warning must be presented by an independent administrator [178][reply]

The edit. The specific edit for which I am sanctioned is [179]. This was a revert to material [180] [181] that I wrote alone. Except for a possible and natural overlaps in the views (on sources) of editors, it was not material advanced by a team. It did not violate the Wikipedia policy. Even if it did, there were no warning specific to whatever rule would have been violated (e.g. Tag Team). I hope that the sanction I received based on that revert will be reconsidered.

Consensus in a Rfc. Part of the argument presented to support the sanction is that I would not have accepted a concensus in a Rfc [182]. The Rfc was presented as a vote between two options. I did not realize that other editors could perhaps see this Rfc as a definitive survey. If editors sees a Rfc as a survey, policy about survey [183] should apply. I was interested in all the comments expressed by outside editors in the talk page, especially when a comment came after what could be interpreted as a vote. No definitive conclusion could be drawn from the comments. For example see [184] where Yobol is one of the two external editors. After the Arbitration Request Enforcement started, at the request of Doc James [185] [186], Yobol made additional comments (e.g. [187]), but they came after the sanction was closed [188] and are thus irrelevant to determine whether I accepted consensus or not.

The preceding statement was written on 18:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Response to Doc James and Future Perfect at Sunrise

The quiet environment [189] or success [190] that Doc James and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise are referring to is the following [191]. Basically, a new article about Transcendental Meditation, named Transcendental Meditation Technique, has been created without any consensus [192]. As a justification for the new article, it was suggested that the main Transcendental Meditation article can be used as some kind of "disambiguation page" and a parent article [193]. Actually, the new article is a fork to remove peer reviewed scientific research, including many systematic reviews, from the main Transcendental Meditation article [194]. Note the explanation "moved from the main article" given by Doc James. This important fork of the main article was done without any consensus and very little discussion while the question how to present research in the Transcendental Meditation article was accepted for formal mediation [195]. Moreover, if this parent article is like a disambiguation page, this also violates the guideline regarding disambiguation [196] since it clearly also requires a consensus amongst the editors:

There are no absolute rules for determining which topic is most likely to be sought by readers; decisions are made by discussion between editors, often as a result of a requested move.

Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Updated Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Cirt

If I was mislead about the procedure to follow to appeal [197], please accept my apology. I asked help to make sure that I do it right but no help was provided [198] because it was assumed that I have a lot of experience with arbitration [199], which I do not have. I even originally misplaced my appeal in the amendment section of Arb Requests because I thought an appeal was an amendment [200]. This is why it was moved. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to WGFinley

Actually, I did not violate 1RR, since I only did one revert. Moreover, there are side consequences to a sanction. It suggests to other editors that I have strongly and repeatedly (even after warning) violated policy. I have the right to clean myself from such accusations. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you violated 1RR, I'm saying it's good for you. --WGFinley (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@WGFinley: I did self apply 1RR and I agree that it is good for me to do so. In fact, I did even more than that: I self applied collective 1RR. When I did the revert [201], I had in my mind that I was reverting to my own material. I would not have reverted otherwise. Please, having an unfair sanction cannot be a good thing for me. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late response. I believe these sanctions have been overall successful, as they have reduced the unacceptable level of edit-warring on the pages in question. As such, I believe they should not be overturned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should be written by people independent of the subject at hand (see WP:COI and by those who contribute broadly to the encyclopedia. Having a 1R policy on this collection of SPA definitely has made a historically controversial page easier to edit on as can be seen with the more quite quiet editing environment recently. User:JamesBWatson an editor not involved with this topic provides a clear summary of matters here [202] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, another party covered by this enforcement, Littleolive oil (talk · contribs), has requested a clarification of the enforcement process at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Transcendental Meditation movement.   Will Beback  talk  06:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of recent appeals

1. 18:29, 12 September 2010 - Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs) files appeal, was moved and currently located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Edith_Sirius_Lee.
2. 20:24, 12 September 2010 - Littleolive oil (talk · contribs) files appeal, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Transcendental_Meditation_movement_Arbitration_and_Enforcement.

Notes

• It seems quite odd that both of these two Transcendental Meditation-focused accounts (see [203] and [204]) filed appeals, at two different locations, on the same day, within less than two hours of each other.
• This seems like forumshopping of very similar requests to multiple Wikipedia-process pages at the same time, and also possible meat-puppetry as a tactic, initiating multiple debates about what is substantively the same issue.

Question

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Edith_Sirius_Lee
2. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Transcendental_Meditation_movement_Arbitration_and_Enforcement

• Can these two processes be consolidated into one page somewhere? Do these two separate processes filed by these two Transcendental Meditation-focused accounts need to be ongoing at two different pages at the same time?

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The appealing party is a SPA who claims to be a new editor, other than for series of IP edits for 10 days prior to registering this user name. While no SPI has been commenced, a number of editors have questioned the assertion that ESL is a new editor. The claim that there was inadequate warning is meritless. The editor was repeatedly warned that s/he was violating the TM ArbCom decision in a number of respects, including for improper reversions of sourced material (the same editing behaviour which resulted in the sanctions) well prior to the further warning by DocJames, the commencement of AE, and the imposition of sanctions.[205] This was not some rogue admin imposing meritless sanctions without proper justification or process. Three univolved admins strongly concurred in the imposition of these sanctions. They should not be lifted or modified. [206][207][208] Fladrif (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• ESL's most recent round of arguments [209]are irrelevant to the appeal, but are telling nonetheless. The complaint is that other editors are making edits with which s/he disagrees. How is that relevant to whether the sanctions should be lifted or modified? It isn't. But ESL's "solution" is that the 1RR collective restriction on ESL, LOO and TG be lifted. Why? The only conclusion is that ESL, and LOO, who filed a separate request for "clarification" that has been denied as an appeal filed in the wrong forum,[210] want the power to repeatedly revert edits with which they disagree - up to 3 times per day individually and 9 times per day collectively (counting TG) in a single article absent the restriction. Fladrif (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm going to let FutPer comment before I put in a formal position but to be honest I am going to have a difficult time accepting these appeals. Many editors, myself included, hold themselves to WP:1RR voluntarily and follow WP:ROWN as a way to demonstrate good faith and avoid edit warring. If you need to revert something more than once for anything other than vandalism then there is a good chance you are fermenting an edit war. In short, 1RR is good for you and shoudn't be anything to file an appeal over. --WGFinley (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There being no other comments it appears to be the consensus is the restrictions have been beneficial, therefore I see no reason to remove them at this time. --WGFinley (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

Jacurek^(Talk)

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

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy

With this bold allegation of sock puppetry [211] user Varsovian violated his restrictions [212] as discribed below:

"..whenever he alleges misconduct by another editor, he must with the same edit provide all diffs that are required to substantiate his allegations, or link to the place where he has already provided these diffs, if he has not already provided them in the same section of the discussion at issue." Failure to comply with these restrictions may be sanctioned with escalating blocks or additional sanctions [213]

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to

[214]

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

Block and extension of his topic ban [215] from the topic of Eastern Europe, broadly construed.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[216]

As an uninvolved admin trying to sort out this mess I am instructing all parties here to only post if they have something directly related to this complaint. Further, I don't want to hear about any previous complaints, filings, findings, hurt feelings, etc unless there is a claim a user is in violation of a standing sanction against him/her. If that's not the case I don't want to hear about it. Finally, I will remind all here that you had best not post here if you come with unclean hands as you risk being sanctioned yourself. Given that almost all the parties here have been involved in one sanction or another I would warn you that patience among admins is wearing thin with these constant disturbances and further squabbling could result in bans from the Eastern Europe topic altogether. Wikipedia is not a battleground and the constant attempts to turn it into one with partisan editing needs to stop. --WGFinley (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. I do not make any allegation or insinuation of socking.
2. My comment regarded apparent possible off-wiki communication. Off-wiki communication is not misconduct. Therefore I am not required by my sanction to supply diffs and casting aspersions does not apply either.
3. I made no comment on any matter related to EE and specifically stated "I can/will not comment on Raseksz's article edits or this request"[217].
4. This amendment request involved me and the actions that another editor had taken towards me and thus comes under the classification 'necessary dispute resolution'.
5. I am banned from taking part in EE-related AE not from Amendment requests.
6. I do try very hard to AGF but it is near impossible to do so with posters who have repeatedly harassed and attacked me ([218], [219], [220], [221]).

It is a well known fact that Jacurek and Radeksz are not the same person. The allegation made by Jacurek is little more than using AE as harassment, precisely the kind of disruptive request that can be meet with a block for the filing party (see here for an example, although not an example that involves Jacurek). Jacurek has in the past been blocked for harassment, harassment of me (see this log). Jacurek has also been blocked for socking as User:Cvc42 and other accounts have been blocked as suspected socks of Jacurek (User:Ambor and User:Mamalala and User:Tommy_on_Theems). If I wanted to accuse Jacurek of having used socks, there wouldn't be any shortage of evidence to support it. However, I did not accuse him of it: my comment was actually a reference to apparent possible off-wiki communication. As far as I am aware, off-wiki communication is not considered misconduct (unless one is socking for a blocked user) and as such, I am not required to provide diffs.
As for the claim made by Chumchum7 (how fascinating that a semi-retired user should stumble upon this request within 8 hours of it being made) that I have violated my topic ban, I clearly state that "I can/will not comment on Raseksz's article edits or this request": I make no comment on any post or article related to the area of my topic ban; my comment is regarding Radeksz's failure to offer any defence with regard to his actions regarding me after Skäpperöd pointed them out. With regard to Sandstein's comment about "necessary dispute resolution", it is not necessary that Radeksz ceases to engage in the attacks and behaviour pointed out by Skäpperöd? It's also interesting how two posters Radeksz has worked with in the past (see for example how Radeksz and Chumchum7 worked together on the London Victory parade article) now wish to make sure that I am not able to even comment on an Amendment case which involves me (or at least somebody's behaviour towards me). Varsovian (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

My understanding is that off-wiki communication is not considered to be misconduct: am I wrong in thinking that? As for AGF, I do try very hard to do that: however, given that Chumchum7 in his last post about me called me a troll four times ([222]) and has in the past filed a 2,000 word report described by an admin as "too long and argumentative and contains too few relevant diffs", despite being told "We are not interested in opinions, we are interested in evidence." Chumchum7 then posted the whole text again here and Jacurek has a history of bans for attacking me (this log), sometimes no amount of effort will work.

I read the "diff" [223] concerning the "Bold allegations of sock puppetry made by Varsovian", offered here by Jacurek. That's a little scary, because either I'm losing it, or my wayward youth is giving me flashbacks. Does any one else see such an assertion made in that "diff" brought forth as evidence? Dr. Dan (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "bold allegation" in that diff, but there is a clear insinuation of sockpuppetry. "What are the chances" carries the unstated (but obvious) implication "unless they are sockpuppets". What this means in terms of arbitration enforcement against this editor I have no opinion about, since it would seem to turn on whether an insinuation is an example of the user "alleging" something or not, and I stopped counting angels on the heads of pins some years ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wgfinley has asked me to comment here as the admin imposing the original sanction. That sanction is based on the principle recognized by the Arbitration Committee that routinely casting aspersions on others is prohibited (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight#Casting aspersions). In the instant case, Varsovian's comment at issue, [224], violates his instruction not to allege misconduct on the part of others without at the same time providing relevant diffs, although I do not think that this particular violation is grave. Since I'm currently taking a break from AE, I'll leave it to others to decide what sanction, if any, is appropriate.  Sandstein  05:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But at any rate, Varsovian's contribution to a Eastern Europe-related request for amendment violates his recent topic ban from Eastern Europe, as imposed here, unless the comment was made in the course of necessary dispute resolution, about which I have no opinion.  Sandstein  05:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Sandstein says, Varsovian is banned from the Eastern Europe topic area here. This strict restriction was applied after many months of time consuming disputes and personal conflicts involving Varsovian, and after many milder warnings, sanctions and restrictions had failed. Varsovian has now posted on the subject of the Eastern European Mailing List [225]. As Sandstein says, by doing this Varsovian has ignored the strict sanction imposed on him. This supersedes any concerns about (i) his possible allegations of sockpuppetry or (ii) his involvement in AE in a possibly disallowed manner. As it happens, his post at EEML Amendment engages in personal conflict again. For the WP community to remain confident in the the WP enforcement process, and to send a clear message to restricted editors not test authority, further sanctions must be applied on Varsovian now. One option is that his sixth-month ban from Eastern Europe topic areas is restarted from today. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to repeat that I read the "diff" [226], and do not see a bold accusation of "sockpuppeteering" (sic). And Ken, there is also not a clear insinuation of sockpuppetry there either. Specifically, I saw it as suggesting that the two had collaborated on the issue in question. Varsovian's statement here seems to substantiate my impression. Actually it's Jacurek who has made wild accusations about myself and sock puppetry that have never been retracted or apologized for. In this post [227], Jacurek claims, in the most offensive and obscene manner, that Varsovian and I are one and the same person. Talk about throwing stones within glass houses. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 - Reminder of Dr.Dan's recent sanctions [228]. Please focus on the misconduct of user Varsovian and cease attacks of your own.--Jacurek (talk) 00:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 - Link to one of many copmlaints filed against user Varsovian for those who are not familiar with the history of his editing [229].

(OD) Jacurek, I don't have to "cease any attacks" here, because none have been made. Just like there haven't been any "bold" (or not bold) accusations of sockpuppetry made here by Varsovian either. If you consider commenting on your "evidence" to be an attack on you, that's unfortunate. As for the other matter, your obscene and vicious attack on Varsovian and myself [230] was simply putting your M.O. into perspective. Actually, I would have been surprised if you took this opportunity to retract your statement and apologize for it. Would you like me to translate it here for those who do not read Polish? I'd be happy to do so. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed all of us here, myself included, could take another look at WP:BOOMERANG and WP:KETTLE. To date I've never been sanctioned and I think it might be thanks to hearing about a very cool idea called WP:DENY. There is a limit, of course, to how much dickery can be ignored; but when faced with someone itching for a fight (for whatever reason), sometimes non-engagement really works. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing other editors here of acting like dicks may well be precisely what WGFinley was cautioning against in his notice. Might I politely suggest that you follow my example and strike out the content which he correctly points out as having no place here? Varsovian (talk) 09:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that no sanctions are needed against Varsovian right now. Nowhere in this diff did he hint that Jacurek might be applying sock puppets at the moment. Let's copy the sentence concerned: Also interesting that Radeksz repeatedly uses a precise legal term (slander) and Jacurek then uses the precise same term in his 13 word note. What are the chances of that happening?!
Well, a dormant account suddenly became active, and it's really fair to assume, that he was simply notified off-wiki (though there weren't apparent insinuations regarding this matter either). In addition, Jacurek has previously been using sock puppets (cf his block log). Varsovian simply noted that Jacurek came up with the same legal term that Radek had been using. Nothing more. It seems the whole request is just an essay in WP:POINT. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 18:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"What are the chances" carries the unstated (but obvious) implication "unless they are sockpuppets".

No, there needn't be implications of sock puppetry. If there were any implications - obvious or not - it might just as well been that the two users are (still) collaborating off-wiki. For example, Radeksz is known for having proxyed for Molobo.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 18:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I read this my first impression was that it was an unwarranted personal attack, not so much insinuating sock puppetry but improper co-ordination between Jacurek and Radeksz. IMHO some kind of interaction ban would be appropriate here. --Martin (talk) 07:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is a 'no interaction ban' really needed for Dr. Dan? I don't see any misconduct by his part. We should be careful with handing out interaction bans like this for experienced users. Recent enforcement requests have shown that such bans, if imposed liberally, often stir drama rather than curb it. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 11:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear to me me from the above that these four do not get along and there is little hope in them getting along productively. --WGFinley (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I’m happy with your decision. I have no interests in interacting with these two, EVER. If you have time, please carefully review Varsovian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)’s edits from the time of his sudden appearance last year to understand why. Unfortunately, to understand the problem you have to dig deep into it and analyze everything, even decisions of certain administrators. The only problem I see is that user Chumchum7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was sanctioned unfairly here. He was never sanctioned or banned before in any way and if you review his history of interaction with user Varsovian you may come to the same conclusion that in his case ban is absolutely excessive. If anybody needs to get the interaction ban here it is User-multi error: "Miacek and his crime-fighting dog" is not a valid project or language code (help). who does not come here with "clean hands” ( check his history ) and according to the note of yours [231] may and should be sanctioned for aggressive lobbing for his ally Dr. Dan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).--Jacurek (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's odd that my name was mentioned by Jacurek in such a context. I think Jacurek's comments above are really self-revealing. I didn't come here to lobby anything, I do not edit war with any of the users mentioned here, avoid users with petty national disputes whenever possible and am most definitely not Dr. Dan's ally. The sentence aggressive lobbing for his ally with the consequtive demand for an 'ineraction ban' for me rather looks close to an unwarranted WP:NPA violation. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 12:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remedies should be focussed on (A) the user requesting enforcement and (B) the user against whom enforcement is requested. Other users may be dealt with in cases of their own, according to the DR process including ANI and/or AE filings if necessary. This would entail objective hearings and the use of evidence in the form of diffs. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PETARD states "A common statement on noticeboards is "this isn't about me, this is about them"." and "Anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny." Attacks like this one and this one (during discussion of this request!) show that an interaction ban would be helpful. As for Jacurek, this block and this block show that an interaction ban would definitely be a good idea. As for my own actions, I would like to apologise for making an accusation of wrongdoing: I did not think that off-wiki communication is misconduct (but will take care to remember in the future). I think that the revised ban from boards is an improvement on the previous wording of my topic ban. Varsovian (talk) 10:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Varsovian, focus on your own misconduct ([232]) and cease attacks. I could present endless examples of your unacceptable behavior including name calling and blocks. I'm not doing that because we were asked not to by this note [233]. I expect you to respect that also.--Jacurek (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An endless list of my blocks? I think that you must be getting me confused with a user who has been blocked for nine months since 28 April 2008. Thank you for not making any attacks, would you now like to strike out the attacks you made in your posting of 18:47, 19 September? Varsovian (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've asked Sandstein, the admin who made the ban, to take a look and chime in. It's not clear to me if this skirts the AE ban he placed on Varsovian or not. The "diff" provided is spotty, yes he infers that someone is socking but it's not a blatant accusation. --WGFinley (talk) 04:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Varsovian is right, actions directed at him were referenced multiple times in the filing of the Request for Amendment, therefore I believe he is involved in that case and has not violated his ban concerning commenting on AE matters.
2. Varsovian is not doing himself any favors overcoming a ban on casting aspersions by responding to this AE request by, yes, casting aspersions. Saying you weren't accusing him of using socks but you were referencing "apparent possible off-wiki communication"? Pretty disingenuous. He then continues "how fascinating that a semi-retired user should stumble upon this request". Varsovian seems to have a general disregard for WP:AGF and wants to disregard that portion of his ban. It appears some action is needed there, what type, I will ponder and welcome input.
3. It seems some type of interaction ban needs to be looked at. --WGFinley (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a chance to wade through some of this now and would suggest the following actions:

1. Varsovian is admonished for making accusations without proof of wrongdoing and participating in an Eastern Europe related discussion in violation of his ban.
2. Varsovian must get approval from an uninvolved administrator before participating on any dispute resolution or Arbitration board or process, requests can be made on this board.
3. Varsovian and Dr. Dan on one side and Jacurek and Chumchum7 on the other are now subject to an interaction ban until December 1.

--WGFinley (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I need to look through some diffs still my proposal on the interaction ban is the less than productive interaction above, I welcome other uninvolved admin takes on it. --WGFinley (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guess no one else is wading in, I am not including Dr. Dan and Chumchum in the interaction ban, just Varsovian and Jacurek. --WGFinley (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]