Important information Shortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,[a] or is no longer an administrator;[b] or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. ^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. ^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Domer48 has effectively claimed ownership of the template IrishL. With clear knowledge that I have a 'probation' under The Troubles Arbcom, it is my belief that Domer48 used this knowledge to game the system in order to keep his preferred version of the template.

The editor reverted my good faith edit to the template with no explanation given other than the edit comment "per talk", referring to a talk page that he had not yet edited. I reverted his revert, giving clear explanation again as to the rationale behind my edit, both in the edit summary and on the template's talk page. His own explanation, which he gave just before his second revert on the template's discussion page, was not satisfactory and my alternative was clearly a more appropriate symbol to use for the template. Domer48 did not accept this and, after my second revert of his revert, he reported me for breach of the ArbCom and subsequently reverted the template again to suit his own agenda.

When I say agenda, I mean a political agenda. The template covers the subject of Loyalism. The flag of Northern Ireland is not a specifically Loyalist symbol. My alternative was specifically Loyalist. Domer48 is amongst a group of editors who have campaigned tirelessly to have the flag of Northern Ireland removed from articles throughout Wikipedia, except in sports and apparently situations whereby the flag is shown in a negative light.

I am left in a position, due to an ArbCom ruling against me as a result of a case on suspected sock puppetry by a collaborator with Domer48 (which was not presented with the full facts), in which I am effectively unable to introduce balance to many articles, categories and templates because of a certain group's apparent avid patrolling of said articles. --Setanta747 (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Domer48 is currently blocked, and AE probably isn't the right place for this, this looks like a case of edit warring, content disputes, and disruptive behavior on a sensitive subject.--Tznkai (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a set of articles that have been subject to arbitration.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I take that back, Domer48's behavior suggests to me he should probably placed on probation as well. Second opinions please?--Tznkai (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim62sch was instructed under the Jim62sch case that, "Should Jim62sch make any comment that is or could reasonably be construed as of a harassing, threatening, or bullying nature, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator. Any such action should be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch#Log of blocks and bans and should also be reported to the Arbitration Committee" [1].

Since that time, Jim62sch has made the following comments that appear to violate the ArbCom instruction:

• 23 May 2008: [2] [3].
• 30 August 2008-13 September 2008: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8].

Jim62sch has been warned for some, but not all, of these comments [9] [10]. Later, a member of the ArbCom characterized some of the comments as "unacceptable" [11].

The correct procedure [12] for enforcing this instruction is apparently to post the violations here so that an admin can take action and then record the action in the case log. Cla68 (talk) 06:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's several in there that are rude, but all seem to have been made in heated debates, and I wouldn't call them harassing or bullying. For one thing, surely both of those would require some pattern of attacking the same person? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over the September diffs, and Jim was definitely rude and uncivil on the workshop page, but bullying would be a stretch. The reversions and his comment on the proposed decision page was obstinate and his conduct on his talk page when he was called out on it is pretty indicative of an attitude problem, but none of it qualifies as harassment. It looks like this all falls under general Wikipedia etiquette and civility though.--Tznkai (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how those posts on my userpage could be considered as "heated debate." Even if it were, does that excuse profanity or insulting the intelligence of others, as he does on the ArbCom case talk page, especially as he is aware that he is operating under an ArbCom civility remedy? Cla68 (talk) 07:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of that happened weeks ago. Please let us know if that happens again. -- fayssal - Wiki me up^® 11:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A separate note, it doesn't look like Jim was notified of this discussion, should we do that, or just flag as resolved and move on?--Tznkai (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68 should have done it. Yes, it is both a matter of courtesy and common practice. Please do so while moving on. -- fayssal - Wiki me up^® 13:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tznkai. Yes I was rude, unfortunately, and I was quite mad. It's something I need to work on. But there was certainly no bullying as two of you have noted. Thanks again. Cheers. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:VartanM has been placed under civility supervision per Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 ArbCom. Please, check out his commentary, while reverting my edits: "rv: did you drop something on your head? because you're showing signs of amnesia. See talk", clearly removing a reference to a scholarly source. Speaking on subject term, perhaps User:VartanM needs to be reminded about the parole, and I am still hopeful that he can discuss references in a civil manner on the talk page, instead of unconstructive comments such as this. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your tendentious, disruptive and highly provocative recent edits were clearly intended to invite such a reaction. After all what could you have possibly expected to happen? You show up and revert on articles after one year of inactivity by repeating the same nonsense that was discussed and refuted throughout last year (Talk:Principality of Khachen and Talk:Sahl Smbatean). You have been uncooperative every single time. Insisting on the same misinterpretation and instead of attemtping to pay attention to the arguments against your misinterprations you constantly allege that other users are disputing your sources when nobody has or is disputing them. I don't expect anyone to engage in an effort to assume good faith or to attempt to take you seriously when you haven't changed your editing patterns in all this time. Atabek should be topic banned from any and all articles that deal with anything predating the 20th century.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 04:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what adding a scholarly reference to an article, and your obviously angry reactions have to do with AGF. Is VartanM's comment on something hitting my head, and me having amnesia, an AGF? No. You suggest that I am topic banned for adding a reference to an Oxford scholar and expert on the topic in encyclopedic article, just because there is a group of nationalist POV contributors who have intended and turned those articles into fabricated propaganda tool? Eupator, amidst this nationalistic zeal, you're forgetting a simple thing, I am for impartial use of references, in fact, my edits of the same pages [13] always included references to all, including Armenian scholars, and those claiming Sahl Armenian. But removing CJF Dowsett references from these two pages, is like talking about Communist history by removing any reference to Marx. As far as VartanM's comments go, he was incivil as he was placed on parole precisely for that reason. So, AE post is only seeking to follow the rules, if any. Atabek (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At September 11 attacks, User:Frank Freeman has been persistently reinserting a section on "CIA preparation and tracking." Consensus on the talk page[14] is that the material is inappropriate for this page. Repeated insertion risks destabilizing the article. Under the arbcom's discretionary sanctions remedy, I'd appreciate it if someone could ask Mister Freeman to stop it and respect the consensus. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this on AE instead of AN or ANI?--Tznkai (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Tom brought it here because this arbitration case placed 9/11 articles under discretionary sanctions. No comment on the editor in question as I have not reviewed the specifics. MastCell ^Talk 21:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's correct, forgot to link the arbitration case. Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now dealt with some of the issues raised on the 9/11 talk page. Frank Freeman (talk) 10:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus on the talk page is that this does not belong here. I hope an uninvolved admin will explain this to the user, and let him know about the general sanctions that apply to this subject. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit of a meta-request, but I've just realised that there doesn't seem to be any formal explanation of what a topic ban is. They're mentioned in WP:BAN, but not actually explained. Can I request that a short explanation be made at WP:Topic bans or similar? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFAR under requests for clarification might be a better bet.--Tznkai (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi appears to have violated the findings and remedies of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat as documented here including a personal attack [15] on the editor calling him on it. Cla68 (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much of a do about nothing, the data is all there in these diffs for all to see. I am off WP until Monday, but may check email from time to time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi--provide evidence of the stalking. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was my response to his allegation. I found the Rawat stuff while researching for the RFAR I'm involved with, with him. I saw this one was nearly 100% unsourced, AFD'd it, and walked away. I noted it got deleted, and hours later checked Jossi's contribs to see if he'd DRV'd. I saw he put the deleted material back in article talk, and moved it back to user as a courtesy, which led to my being a "stalker". rootology (C)(T) 19:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at a user's contributions by itself is never stalking. Contribution lists are available to all for the sake of transparency and editors are welcome to use them. Following an editor to unrelated pages and attempting to disrupt or frustrate their activities may constitute stalking, depending on the severity. Jossi, any chance you could amend your comment, and then we could close up this complaint? Jehochman ^Talk 19:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi repeated this inappropriate use of WP:STALK twice, first at 15:01 20 September 2008, and then again a few minutes later at 15:07, 20 September 2008 after Rootology took the matter to AN. Both times Jossi is saying something different to the core message of WP:STALK ("stop the witch hunt", and "raiding my contrib list"). IMO Jossi is explaining how he feels about his interaction with rootology's recently, but it isnt supported by evidence of the hallmarks of wiki-stalking; they havent interacted enough on content for Jossi to have any justifiable claim that he feels concerned for his personal safety, nor concern for the longevity of his wiki-creations. I am reading it as an off-hand remark by Jossi, and he should be trout slapped when he returns. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may be missing something relevant re the ArbCom here, but this thread seems to center more around something jossi said about stalking. I see nothing here which leads me to believe that putting deleted content in other spaces is wrong. What jossi says about keeping the content so that it can be used in other ways only makes sense, unless it constitutes something like a BLP violation or whatever. He also explains it well here. Thus, if that part of it is not a real issue, the stalking accusations hardly even live up to the standard of trout slapping. If such is happening, saying it is not even uncivil. Rootology says that it was copied to mainspace. It wasn't, at least according to jossi. If jossi is correct in this, it looks to me like a bit of harassment may have been going on. And there is a limit to how much one can talk wikispeak all the time: harassment comes in forms which may not be documented specifically in that policy. There is obviously history between them, or (I'm guessing) between rival bands of editors where they have both been pigeonholed, and perhaps there is provocation on both sides. If there is, then the thing to say here is that it should stop, not that there should be admin action taken. I'm a complete outsider here, so perhaps it doesn't make sense (; ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, prior to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Evidence and first coming across each other on the Sarah Palin article a week prior, Jossi and I to the honest best of my memory never even "met". I stumbled across the article I AFD'd while looking at his contributions putting together that evidence. We weren't even on opposing "sides" re the Palin content. I just was opposed to his unprotecting it (ironically, and rather sadly, Jossi and I, I suspect, are ideologically/politically pretty close together, but it hardly matters now). rootology (C)(T) 04:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might matter. People can make up. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undent: A bit of background, As seen at User:Kelly's talk page archive here, [16] Kelly made what is in my judgment, a baiting attempt on Talk:Sarah Palin. Without placing blame, Kelly and Jossi have been in a dispute over Sarah Palin articles, and itsbeen getting increasingly personal. Rootology's comments on the Kelly's talk page carried what could reasonably interpreted as an acidic tone. Which it seems lead to more escalation, until we're here, on WP:AE for no good reason.--Tznkai (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting silly. That was after Jossi at first all but implied that Kelly and I had specifically coordinated some Palin-related counter-attack on the Prem Rawat content. Which is preposterous, because while Kelly and Jossi clearly have issues between them, I've had zero stake in any of this beyond the unprotection issue! That link is actually another example of Jossi casually tossing out the harassment and stalking accusations. Things like that just devalue and make the idea a joke, which makes it worse for people who actually are stalked and harassed. I believe that I did nothing wrong here, in moving that material that was deleted by bold consensus at AFD out of article space back to Jossi's userspace, when I could have easily hit the CSD G4 button in my Twinkle and had it just deleted with no recourse for him. I do a guy a favor, and now I'm an asshole stalker, and probably an easy target for Jossi to do this to, given that I've been falsely accused of stalking before. That's fine, whatever. However, if Jossi again accuses me in bad faith of stalking, harassment, or any civility violation, he is stalking me out of spite for putting in evidence against him in the RFAR over Palin that demonstrated he abused his tools in the face of a BLP. And yes, I *am* sensitive about this, which I'm entitled to be. I've busted my ass to prove I care about this site, and don't appreciate an admin in tenuous community standing accusing me of this that and the other thing like Jossi has. rootology (C)(T) 15:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You being upset is duly noted, and I make no judgements whether or net its reasonable for you to be upset. What I am making a judgment on, is the following. First, that for whatever reason, your comment on the talk page carried a tone that made the situation worse, not better. Two, Jossi's reaction, while unhelpful, makes more sense when more context is given than what was originally here. Three, Jossi's community standing is not your concern, or frankly, anyone elses, and the constant remarks about how various people think Jossi sucks or is under Arbitration review or what not is unhelpful. Four, Jossi's comment was directed at Kelly at first, not at you. Five, this situation is escalating, not getting better, thus making its placement on AE disruptive instead of constructive. Six, the relevant remedy in the Arbitration case is an article probation on Prem Rawat, and this is a generalized complaint about Jossi started from an incident on a Sarah Palin talk page. Eight, to be clear, I am not accusing you or calling you an asshole or whatever, merely stating your comments were not constructive. Nine, no harm was done, and this post on AE is counter productive. If you want Jossi to be reprimanded by the community for misusing WP:STALK, fine, we have various methods and procedures for that.--Tznkai (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC) (N.B) You can't "violate" findings of fact.[reply]

Petri Krohn (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was banned from Wikipedia for one year, for his part for attempting to incite ethnic hatred against Estonian editors and turning Wikipedia into an ugly battleground. The fallout of Krohn's disruption has been the departure of three excellent Estonian editors from Wikipedia. He is due to return in October 2008.

During the period of his ban, Petri Krohn has continued his anti-Estonian rhetoric that earned him his original Wikipedia ban: Within blog space:

• May 2008, where he rails against the mainstream view that Estonia was occupied by the Soviet Union and agitates against Estonian membership of NATO. English translation here
• August 2008, where he uses the conflict between Russian and Georgia as an opportunity to spray anti-Estonian hate speech, in particular that Estonia glorifies Nazism. English translation here
• August 2008, where he characterises Estonia as a fascist apartheid state created by a secret coup d'état by the late Lennart Meri and former prime-minister Mart Laar. English translation here
• September 2008, where he again claims Aparthied is at the heart of Estonian independence, English translation here

and also in the Finnish and Estonian press via the "letters to the editor" pages:

• Here he characterises Estonia as a fascist apartheid state

While I respect his right to free speech, however extreme it may be, Wikipedia is not the venue for the promotion and publication of these personal viewpoints. Given the evidence presented above of his apparent need to voice his strident hate speech in a number of off-wiki forums, and his previous resort to really nasty slurs on-wiki, I have no doubt that he will not be able to restrain himself from bringing his battle on-wiki again.

Therefore a topic ban in all articles covered by WikiProject Estonia and WikiProject Soviet Union is requested as the best option to preserve the relative harmony that now exists within these topics areas and is a necessary preventative measure to ensure that Wikipedia is not turned back into the ugly battle field that it became when Krohn was actively pushing his extremist viewpoints, which risks driving away the remaining handful of Estonian editors that continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Martintg (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Martin here, but I think it would be nice if other admins were to comment. There is an issue of precedent here: further, what then do we do with Petri's old sparring partner Digwuren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Admittedly, Digwuren is somewhat less of a nutter than Petri, but he was also pretty awful in his time here. Moreschi (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compare Krohn's anti-Estonian bile above to Digwuren's recent off-wiki activities here. There is no comparison between the two, Krohn clearly has an axe to grind, while Digwuren does not. The existing discretionary sanctions regime as it applies to all of us would be sufficient in the case of Digwuren. Martintg (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. Say a six-month topic-ban for Krohn, to see if he can edit peacefully elsewhere, while discretionary sanctions deal with Digwuren if he starts causing problems? Moreschi (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me this discussion seems to lack the proper ripeness. If he's going to cause a problem, deal with it when it happens, unless you think some sort of permanent damage would be caused in the minutes and hours before an admin is on hand.--Tznkai (talk) 13:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never could took the fringe theories Petri Krohn has been supporting seriously but in case he is going push his extremist POV on WP again, it surely is not going to be funny. But then again, taking preventative measures doesn't feel right either. There are simply too many eyes on this guy that hopefully prevent him doing too much damage this time. Regarding Digwuren, the way I see it, he became "awful" only because Petri Krohn's behavior was tolerated for such a long time on WP. Since nothing was done about Krohn, the only way to stop him was to become just like him. And that was exactly what Digwuren did, I think he took willingly the role of being collateral damage in a BATTLEGROUND created by Krohn.--Termer (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A temporary topic ban (six months would be adequate) is only meant as a precautionary measure for the benefit of Krohn, Digwuren and Wikipedia. It would ease the transition back into Wiki-world. Krohn has clearly built up a fair amount of anger against Estonia in the recent months. Just as in a Fire triangle where separating either oxygen, fuel or heat will prevent a fire, so a topic ban would remove a source of friction and prevent something blowing up immediately. While in theory an admin could act within hours of some incident, experience has shown that the issues can become muddied and confused in the ensuing heated debate, and thus it may take days, if at all, before action is taken. A temporary topic ban for Krohn would give everyone concerned some breathing space, some time to adjust and get some positive runs on the board for both Krohn and Digwuren. Martintg (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think my, and I suspect Termer's unease with premptive measures could be allayed if Krohn willingly took the topic ban. Any chance?--Tznkai (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• None, based on those blog posts. For the same reason (the blog posts) I do think a pre-emptive six months off EE articles is a good idea. Moreschi (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say, after first sign of trouble, lets say an attempted edit warring by Krohn, have him banned from "EE related" subjects indefinitely, instead of limiting his editing privileges preventively. So far nobody even can tell if he plans returning to WP. But up to you, keeping good faith and helping the guy to ease his transition back into Wiki-world, so that WP community would act like an anger management program for his benefit... I wouldn't have any problems with it in case you really think that easing someone's anger issues is something that the WP community should take care of.--Termer (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that the Digwuren's return will become a nightmare similar only to Molobo's last return from his year long block. That said, he served his time and perhaps his return may prove my assumption wrong. That said, restricting Petri in any way before he commits any violation seems overboard. If any of them would return to their old ways, the blocks should be swift. But they served their time and both should be given a chance to demonstrate that their editing is not a concern anymore. --Irpen 20:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be great if Krohn willingly took a topic ban. But if he refuses, what does that say about his intent, given his recently published views on his blog and past performance. If I had an axe to grind and I intended to wield it, I would certainly object to any such measure too. Martintg (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor has an axe to grind, then he does not like a topic ban. Petri Krohn does not like a topic ban. Therefore, Petri Krohn has an axe to grind (and deserves a topic ban). Affirming the consequent. Do you think all editors who do not want a topic ban have an axe to grind? Ask yourself: "Would I like a topic ban?" This is no approval or disapproval of a topic ban for Petri Krohn (I do not know him, a topic ban may or may not be a good thing here and I don't have a crystal ball), just an attempt to get the logic back on track. Sciurinæ (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, however external evidence provided above has established he has an axe to grind. There is no need to prove a premise via logic (or logical fallacy), empirical observation has established it as fact, hence your observation regarding "Affirming the consequent" is not wholly applicable here. I mean, would you spend your spare time writing poisonous blogs and letters to newspaper editors about the "fascist apartheid regime of Nazi-glorifying X-onians", while being banned from Wikipedia for making poisonous edits about the same "fascist apartheid regime of Nazi-glorifying X-onians"? Don't tell me this is not axe grinding. Martintg (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that remark of his would be offensive. Wouldn't it still be worth a thought that he managed to avoid Estonian-related areas by himself for three months until he was blocked (correct me if I'm wrong) without needing a topic-ban? I think Irpen's comment above appears to wrap it up quite nicely and fairly. Sciurinæ (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some say his avoidance of Estonia related articles back then was an attempt to remain under the radar while an active ArbCom case in which he was subject was in progress. As for Irpen's opinion, he has a tendency to doggedly defend disruptive editors such as Ilya1166(User:Miyokan) [17] and User:RJ CG(who btw is currently serving a 2 month ban) against admin intervention [18] [19] while at the same time attempting for the umpteeth time to sanction a very productive editor [20], so I would have to question his judgment. That said, perhaps someone could ask Krohn if he was willing to voluntarily restrict himself from editing Estonia-related articles. As it stands, his off-wiki activities have destroyed any notion that his future edits could be considered NPOV. Martintg (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His motivation for avoiding Estonian-related articles doesn't matter at all. The point remains that he did so without needing a formal ruling to do so. I don't see where Irpen is defending him - on the contrary, please read his comment again - and it wouldn't matter. It makes more sense to address what Irpen said than who he is supposed to be. Sciurinæ (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get your point. You seem to be saying: having avoided the topic area in the past without need for a formal ruling he could thus similarly avoid it again in the future? If that is the case, mutatis mutandis: having disrupted a topic area in the past he could thus similarly disrupt it again in the future. Is this what you are saying here? I was responding to your personal judgment that Irpen's comments were "fair" with my own personal judgment that Irpen's comments were not fair, citing his obvious partisanship. If my prior comments regarding Irpen came across as a personal attack, then I apologise. Martintg (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that he may not be the paradigm of a lemming that needs an extra leash after a block for behaviour about 14 months ago to not jump off a cliff when the block is over. If he gets disruptive again, I'm sure you will be the first to point at it. I do not see where I'm making a judgment about comments of Irpen in general (I would never blindly trust anyone's every word, not even Jimbo's) and I clearly said "Irpen's comment above". Making up an additional story about how you were just doubting my general approval of all of Irpen's comments in all affairs (which I don't have) makes it much worse and you're still trying to drive home the message about "Irpen's obvious partisanship". This comment ends the topic for me: "Restricting Petri in any way before he commits any violation seems overboard. If any of them would return to their old ways, the blocks should be swift. But they served their time and both should be given a chance to demonstrate that their editing is not a concern anymore." Sciurinæ (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin is it absolutely necessary to repeat the same unfounded accusations of bad faith of Irpen on all the possible forums, over and over again. It is sort of taxing, you know Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, can we all keep this current request on topic. If you believe I've repeated "the same unfounded accusations of bad faith of Irpen on all the possible forums, over and over again", and I don't believe I have, you can post the relevant diffs in the appropriate forum and if other eyes concur, I will stand corrected and issue an appropriate apology. Martintg (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The logic here makes my head hurt. Firstly, Martintg quotes Krohn's off-wiki comments to conclude that Wikipedia is not the venue for such promotion of personal viewpoints. (No, it's not and off-wiki forums have in fact been the venues for them.) And secondly, Martintg cites Krohn's "really nasty slurs on-Wiki", that the ArbCom already sanctioned him for. And with this "evidence" he wants a topic ban? Seriously? Let Krohn (and, indeed, Digwuren) return and do something actually sanctionable before sanctioning him. Good faith is to be presumed after an editor has served his "sentence", and, as Tznkai points out, permanent damage can hardly be caused in the minutes and hours before an admin is at hand.

Furthermore: it's ridiculous for Martintg to get on his high horse about keeping "this current request on topic" when Alex—very properly—asks him to stop insulting Irpen in this very thread. Martintg, Alex's reproach is on topic with jam on the top, and I join him in it. This is an appropriate forum, so you might see about issuing that apology right here. Bishonen | talk 07:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Points well taken and I can refactor some of my statements above if that is desired. Getting back to the central issue, I still have nagging doubts. My point in presenting data on his external blog activities was to show that his anti-Estonian sentiment that was core to his disruptive behaviour 14 months ago has hardened in recent months. By analogy, we wouldn't allow somebody with strong views and an extremist anti-semite blog edit Jewish related pages on Wikipedia. While in theory blocks could be issued swiftly, previous experience has shown that Petri Krohn enjoys some support within the community, so in practice blocks could be extremely difficult to achieve if his supporters come out of the woodwork and engage in pages and pages of debate with no result.

I don't see what Petri Krohn could possibly contribute to Estonia related articles, other than the same fringe viewpoints that led to his ban, the same fringe viewpoints he continues to strongly hold as demonstrated by his blog and the same fringe viewpoints that will lead to future conflict if he is permitted to edit Estonia related topics. A topic ban covering all articles covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Estonia would be immeasurably easier to enforce compared to having to plead every case of disruption after the event, which experience has shown turns into a sh!t fight when supporters get involved. It's not like the Estonia topic area is huge compared with the rest of Wikipedia and a topic ban would ease the blood pressure for all involved, particularly since Petri Krohn's recent one week block for incivility on Finnish Wikipedia in May 30, 2008 [21] (English translation here) is cause for concern. Anyway, I guess if no consensus develops here, I'll ask ArbCom if they will vary the remedy. Martintg (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2008 (UT

Martintg, I am not in the business of extracting apologies as the basic meaning of the term apology makes an extracted one meaningless. What you posted already, a text-book non-apology apology, just proves the point. I must say I am puzzled by your obsession about myself (as well as Alex Bakharev) that you have been demonstrating for years [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] but your continuing to comment on either of us here does not help you make your case any more convincing.

If Petri is a xenophobe, as you allege, and his edits would show that, he should be banned or, at least, topic banned. That's if he chooses to return. Same should apply to Digwuren, you, me, anyone. We should not tolerate xenophobic edits anywhere in Wikipedia. But what you suggest is not to punish him for any wrongdoing, but to punish him for an intent to make bad edits that you allege he has. This reminds me of the worst excesses of Stalinism when survivors of the horrors of the Leningrad Blockade were arrested by NKVD after the liberation of the area for the intent of treason as the treason charge was not used to the citizens whose place of residence was never occupied by the Nazis. This is the most ridiculous AE proposal I've ever seen. --Irpen 20:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, your first 3 diffs (the first two have nothing to do with you) are all from August 2007 in the lead up to the Digwuren ArbCom which dealt with those issues with zero findings against me and thus the matter is now stale; the 4th diff I expressed my genuine surprise as did User:Folantin, why aren't you beating on his door; the 5th diff shows I placed a neutral notice on a talk page, so what; the 6th diff I merely make an observation that you were attempting to re-open a discussion without any comment as to why; and your last diff (from this current thread) actually contains an apology before Alex, Bishonen or yourself waded in to continue this. Alex's assertion that I stated "the same unfounded accusations of bad faith of Irpen on all the possible forums, over and over again" remains unproven. I'm not continuing anything, but you evidently are.

As to the subject at hand, I don't see it as topic ban as "punishment" against Petri, but rather a restraining order for the benefit of the other editors. I think the community's right to a peaceful collaborative editing environment outweighs Petri Krohn's right to promote his particular fringe view of history or of a people. You say remedies would be swiftly applied, but history has shown, any discussion about Petri Krohn quickly descends into a mud throwing exercise. The guy for some reason evokes strong emotion, so a Estonia topic ban would be a way to preempt that and give the rest of us a break. Martintg (talk) 01:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marting, I have no interest in proving anything to you. I expressed my puzzlement about your such a long-term obsession. Diffs speak by themselves to anyone who cares to click. You offered a non-apology apology and I simply explained why this apology talk does not interest me. As for Petri, I suggest you leave his conduct for others to judge and rather concentrate on moderating your friend Digwuren and help him not to go back to his old ways if he chooses to return. ---Irpen 01:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we do not have preventative sanctions, right? If Petri is so obsessed, he will be sanctioned again. I noticed however that he was able to edit not only Estonian subjects.Biophys (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. If he is obsessed and his edits would show it, he will be sanctioned again. But since the times of Stalinism are over, we do not punish merely from our assumptions of people's intentions. --Irpen 02:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Border officials the world over stop the entry of thousands of travelers at border checkpoints every week, purely based on their assumptions of people's intentions. Just as gaining entry to a country is a privilege for a traveller, so too is accessing Wikipedia as an editor. There is no comparison with "stalinism". Martintg (talk) 04:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vacio was officially warned by User:Khoikhoi just a couple of days before, but chose to ignore the warning: [36] This should be taken into consideration when making a decision about this user. After the warning by Khoikhoi Vacio made 2 more rvs on Mihranids: [37] [38], and a few more on other articles. And I personally made no rvs in excess of 1RR per week limit, even though I'm not on any restriction anymore. So the info provided by Eupator is not accurate. Grandmaster (talk) 05:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster's continuous attempt to have his opponent under restriction should not be left unanswered. Checking the history of the edit wars a bit more closely, we can easily discover a more disturbing reality, which is that Vacio has been ganged up by four more experienced users. Which includes User:Dacy69, who came out of nowhere to revert him, the same goes for User:Parishan (who in spite of proxying for years was never placed in any kind of restriction while Grandmaster is attempting to have a recent user restricted). I don't see how Grandmaster can flatter himself for respecting the 1RR when others basically revert for him. There are several more disturbing and fishy users to place under restriction, which includes User:Baki66 who's very significant number of edits are actually reverts. Another new user to pay attention is User:Melikbilge. But unlike Grandmaster, I won't waste my time starting a new round of reporting every time someone disagrees with me. VartanM (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So can someone actually show us to the actual noticeboard for that? I've looked in several places and all I find are policy boards that ask not to be edited. Itsmyright (talk) 02:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]