Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive149

Appealing user

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

Sanction being appealed

The other participants (Galassi (talk · contribs), Bandurist (talk · contribs) and Lvivske (talk · contribs)), all of whom have had prior sanctions and/or warnings under the "Digwuren" Arbcom rules, are placed under an indefinite revert limitation on all Ukraine-related edits: not more than 1 revert per 48 hours per article, with the extra slowdown condition that before they make any content revert (obvious vandalism excepted as usual), they are required to first open a discussion on talk, provide an explanation of their intended revert and then wait 6 hours before actually making it to allow time for discussion"

Topic bound 1RR per 48hrs with extra slowdown on Ukraine related articles. Sanctions were applied on this talk page on 30 October 2011.

Editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) / Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notification of that editor

diff

My primary area of editing is on Ukraine or Europe, be it in politics or sports, and having a topic bound sanction that limits my ability to engage in WP:CYCLE indefinitely is a major hindrance. The sanctions were applied in 2011, and really should have been limited to just the page where the edit war at the time was occurring, in order to slow down the conflict that happened that 1 day...which was over 2 years ago.

I wasn't even a prime mover in that particular conflict, and in a way got dragged in, but I wasn't an instigator. After the sanctions were applied, a user who was opposing me on the discussions stated:

User:Greyhood: I also think that user Lvivske's conduct wasn't really problematic here, at least for me, and I'd like to kindly ask the involved admins to reconsider the restrictions on him.

Also, the sanctions were predicated on having "prior sanctions and/or warnings under the Digwuren Arbcom rules". I had no prior sanctions under DIG. Also,my warning on DIG was made by Cailil.

This warning was related to a block Cailil made on me, the discussion related to which is here. Commenting users found that the admin was too involved. It was overturned.

Here are some comments by neutral users who chimed in:

User:Lothar von Richthofen: Cailil's DIGWUREN warning to Lvivske was handed out for the same "reasons" as the block. After much discussion, these "reasons" were found to be spurious at best. As a result, the block was summarily overturned. Shouldn't this mean that the warning also be rescinded?

User:Lysy: Having looked through the edits in question it seems clear that this block should not be held. Additionally, the content disagreement between the blocking admin and Liviske regading whether Mila Kunis is Ukrainian or not, not only does not warrant a block but on the contrary, should make the admin more cautious, and refrain from using his admin priviliges

User:Djsasso: I almost unblocked immediately this block was a very bad block by someone clearly involved and biased.

User:Piotrus: it would be helpful if the blocking admin would apologize to the victim (Lvivske).

User:Volunteer Marek: It should also give you two pause that folks who have had disagreements with Lvivske in the past are coming here to defend him. It's pretty clear that this was a horrible block, that it was abusive and that now just a whole bunch of excuses are being made. There's nothing uncivil about stating this fact

The admin's (Calil) conduct actually inspired another 3rd party user to file an AE report on him and cite many of the things that happened in my oreal here. The block itself in the end was overturned by Future Perfect at Sunrise. (which I guess is ironic that something overturned was later used against me)

I am thus asking for 2 things:

• a) That my sanctions be lifted - they were harsh at first but after 2 years passing, I think I've learned my lesson. It's also debatable as to how involved I was in the first place.
• b) That my warning on WP:DIG be removed from my record (or reworded) since it was based on a very questionable dispute and a block that was overturned and opposed by a slew of uninvolved users who thought I was unfairly treated. Something like this shouldn't be ammo to use against me in the future.

---Further comments---

@Callanecc: For the record, the dispute you're citing was resolved on the talk page. / Yes, I may have overstepped my bounds and lost track of my edits in that particular instance a few weeks ago. Nonetheless, I feel that I should be treated under the same 3RR rules as anyone else. I'm a very active user on talk pages, the sanctions imposed are more fitting for someone who reverts continually and/or ignores discussion while I do operate in good faith and try to engage as well as provide rationale behind my edits if disputes arise. --Львівське (говорити) 03:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DangerousPanda: I believe my track record does show greatly positive editing considering the volume I deal with, and positive interactions with other users far outweigh the few negative relationships (seeing as users I clash with come to my defense in, I would assume this is a rarity on wiki). Maybe my methods are a necessary evil? I'm not a bad guy.--Львівське (говорити) 16:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: This request is entirely unrelated to Stephen Sharpe's 3RR complaint. He had been after me for a while. I had been meaning to write this for a long time but just had no clue where to file this. I guess his harassment was a catalyst but not the sole cause.--Львівське (говорити) 18:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephen J Sharpe: Insinuating you were going to 'cut my balls off' and proceeding to 'nail' me for sanctions on the 23rd (dismissed) and then unprovoked again on the 30th for edits made on the 10th can indeed be seen as harassment. --Львівське (говорити) 20:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephen J Sharpe: If you truly wanted to avoid the noiceboard you wouldn't have filed a complaint 2 weeks after the fact when I was no longer engaged on the article. It seems, rather, than you went back in the logs to 'hunt' for a sequence of edits you could report me for; that is, not an active dispute. I don't know if you have better things to do, I can only go by your actions.--Львівське (говорити) 22:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to point out that Epeefleche is not a neutral party here as he was engaged in an edit war with myself and several other WP:HOCKEY folks dating back to June over a BLP issue. He's currently arguing with me on my talk page at the moment. I should also point out that his diffs indicating I'm reverting are actually links to me talking on talk pages...so...glean his motivations as you will. --Львівське (говорити) 04:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Epeefleche: Since context is key , I was accused of, and was replying to a direct quote insinuating that I held an ‘’“apparent belief that being Jewish & Ukrainian is not possible”’’. I stand by this being a fabrication, as I never stated nor insinuated such a belief. It was probably a misunderstanding, but doesn’t make my defense of it any less staunch. Epeefleche, however, seems to be persistent in his vendetta against me, hounding me, and coming up with imaginary conspiracy theories about “patterns” in my editing; cherry picking select content disputes years apart. ‘’’It reminds me of Chief Wiggum trying to catch the cat burglar’’’. I should also point out that none of this has anything to do with the appeal/enforcement of sanctions nor my editing, so it seems this user is just trying to pile on me for his own enjoyment, which fits his MO thus far.--Львівське (говорити) 23:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should look at the log & sanctions section

On the 28th (October, 2011) I made one revert after a user (Voyevoda) engaged in disruptive activity (blanking, name calling another user in edit summaries). The user Voyevoda was blocked indefinitely for his conduct.

From these edit logs, it displays I never broke 3RR or even really got into an edit war in the first place. I tried to intervene in an ongoing dispute and made a single revert on a user who was so over the line he was blocked forever, and am still paying the price today. I was also heavily engaged with other users on the talk page. I wasn't a disruptive user but was punished as one.

If the question, as posed by Sandstein, is why the sanctions are no longer necessary, I would still argue that they weren’t really necessary in the first place. You guys are obviously looking at my block log and seeing that I’ve been without issue for over a year, and if we’re ignoring the couple hour timeout I got in Feb 2013 my last issue here was in March 2012. The issue in March 2012 was filed by Volunteer Marek, a guy who is standing up for me here. I think that says something. As others have noted, my conduct has been on the up as I’ve gotten more settled in here. I think this is a very good explanation as to why the topic sanction is no longer necessary.

If I need to show positive editing and positive user interactions, just look at my record. I used the quotes in my appeal to show that even users who I’m not always in agreement with support my being a contributor. Yes I've gotten into arguments, we all do at some point, but by and large I think that my editing is an asset to the community and this topic area, not a hindrance. Sanctions like this should be in effect for repeat offenders who need to stop breaking policy without dialogue, not people who engage honestly and actively who can go year(s) without issue.--Львівське (говорити) 17:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a long history of interaction with Lvivske and quite often we were on opposing sides of numerous editorial disputes and I cannot help but notice that his behavior significantly changed to the better. He is much more civil and stricter follows the rules than three-five years ago. This is of course my own opinion, but there is a fact: most people subjected to 1RR remedy would become banned from the site in a year - usually if somebody is unable to follow general 3RR rules then they certainly could not obey 1RR - Lvivske on the other hand not only survived on 1RR remedy without being banned for more than two years, he was not even blocked for a single time since then.

Now there is a series of very important events occurring in Ukraine since 2014 Ukrainian revolution and 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. The whole world is now looking on Ukraine, a lot of new events and a lot of editorial activities attracts many new users. Some of new users are not aware of Wikipedia policies, some are very opinionated, some might be trolls. Ukraine is the main topic for Lvivske and he is trying his best to keep the related articles in shape doing a lot of usable work. His ability to do this work is strongly affected by this 1RR ban: if an important article has dozens of edits per day and many are done by new or biased editors or people with poor command of English then it is easy to formally violate 1RR restriction by just doing noncontroversial edits like fixing BLP issues, removing repeated info, fixing grammar, etc. I think we should give Lvivske a chance to work without interference from the 1RR restriction. If he started to edit problematically when it is just a few minutes from any uninvolved administrator to put him on the restriction again. Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't have much to add that Alex above hasn't said already. Same thing. I often disagree/dispute with Lvivske (I think I got him blocked once long time ago). I think that over the last three years his behavior has gotten much better. And... oh, ok, I do have a bit to add: I don't think his behavior was all that bad to begin with. Just some usual minor stuff that happens in any sufficiently contentious topic area, but I've always found that if you actually approach Lvivske in a reasonable and respectful manner then... you get a reasonable and respectful conversation (which is A LOT, both on Wikipedia and in this topic area). I also agree with Alex that right now we really do need knowledgeable editors about Ukraine and Lvivske has a lot to contribute. The appeal is timely and well justified. Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Toddy1. Correlation is not causation. And anyway, by that logic we should slap some sanctions on anyone anywhere because "fear of sanctions will have a moderating effect on their behavior". You know, prevention, not punishment. You ready to volunteer to be first in line Toddy1? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Alex Bakharev says is all the more reason to maintain the current sanctions. The fear of sanctions has had a moderating effect on Lvivske's behaviour.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Mishae. The reason the wise admins put in the sanctions, was to preserve the benefits of Lvivske's enthusiasm, whilst trying to contain the bad effects of his/her behaviour. If I had been the admin I would have done an indefinite topic ban on any article to do with Jews or Ukraine. What you say, suggests that maybe the admins are wiser than me.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Callanecc's note on rewording warnings. I would have no problem with my warning being reworded if its considered helpful by the admins here.
But given that this sanction (Future Perfect's) has stood for years. And seemed to be well understood I think changing my warning is quite pointless at this point - but if it helps I will not stand in the way of the log being undiffed and reworded (but linked to this thread) - but only in the case that is considered necessary by a consensus of sysops here.
Also if I remember correctly Shell Kinney notified Lvivske of the RFAR in 2009 as well--Cailil ^talk 10:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also for the record Future Perfect granted Lviviske's unblock appeal of 72 hour block after 51 hours. he did not overturn or rescind my warning. He used his discretion in what was a normal non-AE block that any sysop could unblock without prejudice. Lviviske is confusing this non-AE action (the unblock) with overturning his notification of the existence of AC/DS (something that is impossible). Yes Volunteer Marek did file an AE thread against me. It was closed with "no action" (see here)--Cailil ^talk 10:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a constructive proposal if sysops want a reworded log at WP:DIGWUREN might I suggest:

Lviviske is notified of WP:DIGWUREN and the discretionary sanctions in place in that topic area

--Cailil ^talk 11:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Epeefleche For clarity Epeefleche the text you quote is from my block of Lviviske NOT the sanction he is appealing. Lviviske was not given an AE sanction by me. The sanction was applied by Future Perfect & his rationale is here[1]--Cailil ^talk 11:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Could someone please have a word with the relatively new users using this page to cast vague aspersions about groups of people they see as being "the other side™" & general soapboxing--Cailil ^talk 10:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lvivske has already been operating for some time as if these sanctions do not apply. I recently cited 3RR violations and edit warring over on the noticeboard. The edit warring in question appear to be very similar in nature to the edit warring that brought about the original sanctions. Namely, Lvivske reverted multiple editors despite there being an ongoing conversation on the talk page where the emerging consensus supported the original text. Further, Lvivske has a history of attacking those who criticize him with personal attacks including repeated allegations that I am "headhunting" him, calling me "a nut", and yesterday accusing User:Solntsa90 of libeling him here. Clearly the status quo is not working - either the sanctions should be enforced or they should be removed. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As if to prove my point, Lvivske characterizes my 3RR report as harassment above instead of assuming good faith. As I understand, this is the same uncooperative attitude that brought about these sanctions in the first place. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: A perceived "information war" is not a good reason to hold long-term contributors to a lower standard "against the rules". If anything, it seems to me that long-term editors should be held to a higher' standard because they should be expected to have a better understanding of Wikipedia rules. For example, Lvivske's misinterpretation of WP:CYCLE, as User:Callanecc points out below, is all the more troubling given that he's been editing for 6 years. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lvivske: You misread it. I wrote that you had "cut off my balls" referencing our conversation where you called me "a nut" and removed it as soon as you complained. Why is 'nail' me in quotes? - I never used that language. So reporting you twice is harassment? I was active on both article when you made reverts that appeared to be a breach of your sanctions. I even tried to avoid the noticeboard for the 3RR violations by requesting help from User:Alex Bakharev but he didn't respond for a week. You could've assumed good faith; you could've asked me for an explanation; instead you accused me of "headhunting" multiple times as if I don't have better things to do. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lvivske: The latest 3RR violations were committed on the 18th and I notified User:Alex Bakharev on the 24th so that's 6 days. I didn't report it at the time because I didn't know what 3RR was until User:My very best wishes explained it to me on the 22nd in this discussion. I waited a week without a response from User:Alex Bakharev about the 3RR reverts and only then reported it on the noticeboard. The fact that I waited 7 days should be seen by you as evidence that I'm not terribly interested in your affairs but instead you somehow saw as further evidence of headhunting. Again - you could've just asked me this on my talk page but instead you just assumed bad intentions and have prefaced every conversation involving us and a third party with the same claims of harassment. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: Disclosure of personal information? You mean that Lvivske is Ukrainian and from Lviv? That's proudly stated on his user page. Why are you suggesting I'm a sockpuppet and how is this relevant to what's being discussed? Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: Please don't remove your previous comments from the talk page if others have already responded to them. It's also considered bad form per WP:REDACT. You're over-analyzing what I wrote - it was a joke, perhaps in bad taste and I removed it as soon as Lvivske complained. I'm still learning Wikipedia etiquette so I thank you for your explanation. You and Lvivske are welcome to discuss any other concerns you have on my talk page but lets not get distracted from the issue at hand here. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephen J Sharpe: I know you might disagree with me but 3RR rule is sometimes being overused here to the point of it being a harassment to some users. Lets face it: As someone mentioned here that majority of users get blocked indefinitely within a year because of this rule and lets not forget, some users don't even know of the rule existence until its too late. If so, that's how we lose many good faith editors (Lvivske included).--Mishae (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mishae: I can't agree or disagree as I've only been here 2 months. What I can say is this - I also didn't fully understand 3RR until User:My very best wishes kindly explained it to me in this discussion on March 22. My point being that I was editing for 48 days before I became aware of 3RR; Lvivske has been editing for 6 years but just a couple of weeks ago ran afoul of 3RR multiple times (while on 1RR restriction) as I reported on the noticeboard the day before he launched this appeal. For that reason, I am opposed to the sanctions being lifted. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephen J Sharpe: I think we need to give him another chance, considering that all of us are still learning the nook and crannies of this project, and we are learning every day, and it doesn't matter if we are newbies or level 4 editors. I think in some cases users still need to be reminded here that Wikipedia is not a dictatorship, and that's why WP:IAR still exists. On a side note, in my opinion, Lvivske just have spring fever, it will pass by April, I hope. --Mishae (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that editing restrictions to experienced editors (such as all three people sanctioned by FPS) should never be given for a period of time longer than six months because this gives unfair advantage to SPA accounts who are engaged in WP:BATTLE. This is the reason I agree with Alex and Marek that restriction must be lifted - per WP:IAR. My very best wishes (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at atrociously POV editing by SPA/sleepers in this subject area, I now believe my first judgement was correct. My very best wishes (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@S.J. Sharpe. This is current version of userpage of Lvivske. No, it does NOT claim that he is a "Ukrainian" [citizen]. Neither it claims he is from Lviv (he comes from Ontario) as you asserted in your comment, which I believe was completely inappropriate and an obvious violation of WP:NPA while editing in the area of discretionary sanctions you was warned about. I also did not call you "sockpuppet". I did suggest that an SP investigation might be helpful. Sorry! I agree with one of admins that such suggestions should only be made after a preliminary investigation and with diffs on appropriate (SPI) noticeboard. My very best wishes (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify. In my opinion, what happens is not pro-Ukrainian users versus pro-Russian users. What happens is Wikipedia being successfully subverted to deliver political propaganda under disguise of NPOV. Here is just one of many examples. This page tells: "The leadership in Crimea and Sevastopol considered the ousting of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, which was supported by the United States and EU, as a coup ..." and so on. No, there was no any leadership of Crimea. From the moment the building of their parliament was taken over by Russian special forces (in the beginning of the operation, and very much like during Soviet war in Afghanistan, but only without killings), there was only Russian occupation administration in Crimea. I personally do not want to be any part of the project that delivers political propaganda. My very best wishes (talk) 09:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From my reading this appeal & the original blocking & reversal discussion, this vestigial sanction's status is analogous to fruit of the poisonous tree (lingering penalty from an overturned bad decision by an administrator the "fruit"). In real world, sanctions don't last ad infinitum, and in any case these IMO R clearly punitive, contrary to stated purpose4 sanctions. Parole & even probation expire. Kindalike judgment was overturned but judge neglected to vacate the sentence.

Lvivske appears IME to be one of few mainstays in building Ukraine-related content in the encyclopaedia, e.g., [2] and [3]. The few times our paths have crossed (he edits a lot more articles and creates a lot more content than I or most editors), Lvivske has been very helpful, e.g., I was working on an article when the founder of this site himself one day edited it. I mentioned this fact on the talk page and asked generally for some info. The very next day, Lvivske provided THIS. Another time I and some other editors were frustrated an article was so out of date it hardly even mentioned the reality on the ground in Ukraine. I posted this talk comment and Lvivske was the first to respond with a helpful link, which likely was a catalyst for transforming the article. I could cite many other examples where Lvivske is both a major sourced-content contributor and a help to less involved, less knowledgeable editors.

I’ve seen last few months exactly what Alex Bakharev (par2) & Volunteer Marek are talking about. Someone who knows how & cares must take time to write quality content & volume in order 4 the subject area 2B covered in something approaching encyclopaedic format and detail.

• New comment 1 April (UTC): I agree mostly w/ the now deleted remarks of User:My very best wishes rel the state of "administrating" on Wikipedia. Well stated! I detect wikilawyering--esp. disregard for the core purpose of Wikipedia here. In admin. Callanec's 1st diff, he points to Lvivske's UNcontroversial correction of obvious error ('Never heard it any differently from what Lvivske corrected it to, EXCEPT ON WIKIPEDIA. I even saw RT report it correctly.) ‘Seems more interested in sticking it to Lvivske than having a factually accurate encyclopaedia to "administrate." Hamstring your core editors in their subject areas and see what happens to the quality of your encyclopaedia … It ‘BE happening & BEEN happening. I see wikilawyering in admin. Sandstein's & DP's remarks, too. I haven't seen a WP statute of limitations for correcting neglected reversible error (in the form of this per se punitive and unfair-to-start-with action). Paavo273 (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comment 2 April (UTC): To respond to User:Epeefleche's "analysis" of Lvivske's "deletions of RS-supported material and RSs from the bio of a Jewish Ukrainian," the facts are not on Epeefleche's side. There is an ongoing dispute about the article subject's alleged Jewish ethnicity, the quality of evidence, it needing to meet BLP standards, and the subject himself scrupulously not self-identifying as of Jewish ethnicity. Lvivske got caught in the crossfire of an emerging edit-war between another user and myself. This is yet another hatchet job on Lvivske, although I am not questioning Epeefleche's GF; he may genuinely believe what he says, lacking in substance though it is. Paavo273 (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC) THANK YOU, User:My very best wishes, for your IMO excellent analysis. This is IMO a systemic problem that is destroying the integrity and credibility of Wikipedia. Paavo273 (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the sanctions should stay in place.

I'm a neutral editor as to the initial matter for which Lvivske was sanctioned, as I was not involved in it.

"The fact that you are now edit-warring over your apparent belief that being Jewish & Ukrainian is not possible is pointy, incorrect, and contrary to the core policies of this site (source based, neutral point of view edits). You should be in no doubt User:Lvivske that further behaviour like this will be prevented by block if necessary."

But Lviske asserts that "after 2 years passing, I think I've learned my lesson." I find that statement astounding.

The very day he posted that, he was involved in this discussion relating to Jews on Ukraine-related articles. I believe his actions alluded to there and, his statements there (especially as to his deletions of RS-supported material and RSs from the bio of a Jewish Ukrainian, evidence precisely the opposite. He did so asserting faslely, among other things, that it is wp:OR to maintain the RS-supported text. (?!) And his assertions in that discussion are amazing in that they reflect either an utter lack of understanding, or an intentional bald effort to disrupt. No lesson has been learned, from what I can see.

Also during the pendency of his request, he is on a totally unrelated (but, also Ukraine-related) article again accusing Sage of OR for ... reflecting what the RS does in fact say.[4][5][6] He seems to believe that it is OK for him to revert editors by using the phrase "OR", when the text he is deleting is just the opposite of OR.

The above matters in which he has taken these positions remain unresolved, so his tendentious but unsupportable positions have led to deletions of appropriate material.

Similarly, these problems on Jewish/Ukrainian articles are long-standing, from even before the incident that led to his above-discussed sanctions, as can be seen in the discussion initiated of his edits by Jayjg here.

Furthermore, I believe the warning should stay in place.

He wants it removed so that it won't "be ammo to use against me in the future." But it is precisely the sort of thing that we should have as background, when seeking to understand and weigh his editing and his comments in the afore-mentioned discussion, in which he "explains" his deletions. Without that background, we might fail to understand that this is part of an ongoing practice of his.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In a post Lvivske left just today he accused sysop Cailil of -- in Cailil's Block and Warning post to Lvivske -- having "completely fabricated" facts, and made "false statements". This may perhaps further call into question whether Lvivske has not, as he maintains he has, "learned" his "lesson." Epeefleche (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know Lvivske since Euromaidan article was written here in early 2014. I must also add that I don't know Lvivske who was here 2, 5 or 6 years ago. I however need to point out that if anyone likes Lvivske as an editor here (me and Alex included), then they should at least lessen the sanctions. Otherwise we have a chance of losing a very knowledgeable editor. Besides, not many people know where Ukraine is and what its like, so this topic which Alex, Lvivske, @Yulia Romero:, (and sometimes me), try to expand upon is very important. We also need to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a dictatorship (I am surprised that such rule wasn't included in what Wikipedia is not), and that's why we have WP:IAR which was ignored by admins and users who issued concern about Lvivske. Keep in mind, no one is perfect and Lvivske is as equal as everyone else, just because he violated 3RR rule doesn't mean he should be sanctioned. Now I wanna know the admins response to my comment above (I bet their talkpages aren't clean from block either, and if they are, then there are some hiding in their archives). Feel free to throw NPA rule if you please, but I tried to be civil.--Mishae (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know Lvivske for quite a bit. Frankly, he is very stiff in arguments and does like to press his point of view quite hard. Nonetheless, I cannot say that one may not find some common ground with Lvivske if he or she wishes. In general Lvivske might be a difficult to argue, but his civility and courtesy proves that he could be compromised and reasoned with. It would be a great loss for the Wikipedia community to have Lvivske locked out completely as he is a major editor on number of subjects that no one else edits. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• These (from March 2014) seem like a violation of the 1RR/48hr restriction 1, 2 & 3 plus another 1 & 2. Lvivske explanation of the reverts as WP:CYCLE in progress (which it isn't as there is only one R in BRD) shows me that they don't understand the reason the restrictions were imposed (to make them discuss rather than revert) or what they actually mean. Given this I don't see a strong argument to remove or lessen the sanctions unless either the sanctioning admin wants to remove them or there are other arguments presented. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that it was resolved on the talk page but that still doesn't excuse the reverts in violation of your edit restriction. Also regarding the warning, there have been a (lot) of discussions about removing warnings from log pages and the agreement is that you can't un-notify or un-warn someone that discretionary sanctions are in effect so warnings therefore shouldn't be removed from the log page. Though they can be reworded, and I'm very open to considering that pending the logging admin's comments on the matter. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• After all this time, I would have expected to support this. However, the appellant's argument TODAY is that the original sanctions were wrong, and beats us up using random quotes to support that. This is not at all what I would have expected as a appeal. Any form of topic ban appeal, whether AE-imposed or community-imposed needs to show a) positive editing b) positive user interactions. There seems to be violations just RECENTLY of the imposed restrictions. As such, there's no possible way to vacate this as of yet. DP 12:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As DangerousPanda says, it is not helpful to appeal a three-year old sanction with the argument that it ought not to have been imposed at that time. Rather, the appellant should tell us why the sanction is no longer necessary. As Callanecc shows above, Lvivske has recently violated the sanction and engaged in edit warring. The sanction seems therefore still to be necessary. Accordingly, I'd decline the appeal. Log entries are not to be removed.  Sandstein  16:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I personally feel that 1RR/48hr doesn't help currently. That being said, if a violation as recently occurred then it's not beneficial to remove it altogether. I would suggest the sanctions be altered to the standard 1RR per 24 hours on the same articles. I do not know whether the extra slowdown clause should be modified if the sanction is indeed altered. Penwhale (nonsecure) ^{talk/footsteps} 19:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that the sanction has recently been broken I don't see why we should be lessening it. Plus given that it has been shown to be necessary (as shown by Lvivske recently breaking and edit warring) I am very hesitant to lessen it without first hearing from the sanctioning admin (@Future Perfect at Sunrise:). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'll declare neutral on this. Don't currently have the time to dig sufficiently deeply into Lvivske's recent editing to see if there are signs of continued tendentiousness or unconstructive conduct in disputes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Discussion seems to have mostly stopped, and there is not the required clear consensus to undo or change the sanction. Without objection, I will (or perhaps somebody else will) close this appeal as unsuccessful tomorrow.  Sandstein  16:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree there isn't consensus at this time. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • So closed.  Sandstein  06:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Fram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough#Rich Farmbrough prohibited from using automation :

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

1. 04:49 8 April 2014: whether the original page was created using automation may be hard to prove (although everything points in that direction as well). But this subsequent edit is clearly not manually made. Every instance of " (*" (an opening bracket preceded by a space, plus every character after that on the same line) has been removed, no matter if that was wanted or not. The result is that you get changes like:

• Albategnius (al-Battani) (1333*) to [[Albategnius
• Alhazen (al-Haitam) (2490*) to [[Alhazen
• Alicia (344*) Boole (340*) to [[Alicia
• Julia (1945*) Bowman (1924*) to [[Julia
• ibn Sina (1984*) (1965*) to [[ibn Sina
• Anna (530*) Johnson (516*) to [[Anna
• Lord (2752*) Kelvin (2702*) to [[Lord
• Leonardo of Pisa (2250*) (2223*) to [[Leonardo of Pisa

And about ten further instances of the same pattern. Perhap others will see this as a manual edit nevertheless, but to me it certainly matches "For the purposes of this remedy, any edits that reasonably appear to be automated shall be assumed to be so.".

1. 06:27 6 April 2014 This one is taken from the end of this document, pages 104-105 (or from a different site with the same information and formatting, his page lists no source); note how, in Rich's article, four companies have a name ending in (a); 79 TOTAL Deutschland GmbH(a), Germany, 191 TOTAL Petrochemicals & Refining S.A. / NV(a), Belgium, 192 TOTAL Petrochemicals & Refining USA Inc. (a), United States, and 207 TOTAL UK Limited (a), United Kingdom. These just happen to be the same four companies that have a "*" after their name in the original document, indicating a footnote for "multi-segment entities". It seems unlikely that Rich Farmbroug made the same typo four times, matching exactly these four "starred" companies, the only ones to have that extra bit.

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

While the first (and most obvious) violation is in userspace (which falls under the restriction but is of course less critical than the mainspace), I don't think it makes sense to wait until it goes really, badly wrong again; that was the reason the restriction was implemented, to prevent further problems. Not following the restriction, so soon after coming back from a year-long block for the same, seems a clear case of having no intention to follow the restriction at all.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [7]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

1. "An automation tool is a technology designed to facilitate making multiple similar edits" (Principle 3.1)

Therefore the suggestion that search-and-replace or cut-and-paste is automation is absurd. Even the test for automation in Identifying the use of automation tools says "including the speed, number, timing, and consistency of the edits" we are not talking about the odd edit here or there.

Clearly any stray edit can be reverted, the concern (allegedly) was that many "wrong" edits in quick succession could be made. That is clearly not the case here.

To attempt to apply this ruling to the edits given is absurd.

2. In the complaint comparing * and (a) - the plaintiff has simply, in his eagerness for blood, gone to the wrong source.

3. In the other diff, it is unbelievable, uncollegial, and anti-encyclopaedic to attempt to to get an editor blocked for working on a "wanted articles" list in their own namespace.

4. Sandstein says "The edits submitted as evidence can only be the result of an (apparently malformed) search-and-replace command." He is wrong, as demonstrated explicitly in point 2. above.

5. Further Sandstein said previously that this edit appeared automated. He was wrong in any interpretation, he was looking at the wrong diff here is the single character edit I actually made.

6. Sandstein closed the previous request very hastily, in the edit immediately after requesting "go-ahead" from arbcom - without notifying me that he believed that he had received it.

7. It is clear that one arbitrator may not speak for the committee, without previous discussion taking place, and that should have been apparent to Sandstein.

8. In his preliminary response to this request Sandstein has looked for a different "remedy" under which to sanction me, as in the previous request he looked for (and failed to find) additional reasons to sanction.

9. It is unclear why Sandstein has gone to extra lengths to support the casus belli but I would have thought that he could raise a request for arbitration enforcement himself, rather than becoming a party and judge at the same time.

9. It is clear that the edits to a user-space list have not caused a problem, nor are that likely to. Sandstein argues elsewhere that " Whether the specific edits at issue are harmful or not does not really matter. What matters is that the Arbitration Committee has made a binding decision that any and all automated edits by Rich Farmbrough are prohibited."

10. This is a moot point. If we take the dicta WP:AGF and WP:IAR to heart, we might think that it is better to have copyright violations removed from the encyclopaedia (which I have done), and incorrect facts removed from the encyclopaedia (which I have done) that to enable those who cry foul over putative uses of search-and-replace or cut-and-paste, especially in a wanted articles user page.

11. Moreover if one interprets the additional "remedy" the way soem have done, I am breaking it by responding here, and cutting-and-paste-ing diffs and quotes.

12. I did not protest the previous block, because I did not wish to be divisive. I still think that it was a bad block.

13. Sandstein says "In this case, Rich Farmbrough has made it clear through his statements and his conduct that he does not intend to comply with the restriction"

13. a. It is clear that the restriction is badly worded.

13. b. Sandstein was clearly aware that I was requesting that restriction to be lifted.

14. Sandstein further remarked "if Rich Farmbrough convinces me that he understands that he must unconditionally observe all of the restrictions that apply to him, and that he intends to do so in the future, I'll unblock him at once"

15. This offer was not made to me. Maybe Sandstein could convince me of its sincerity, but he'd really have to be quite convincing.

16. Strangely the AE was allowed to proceed on the basis that the amendment was moot, and the amendment was declared moot on the basis that the AE was proceeding. A procedural irregularity that would make Kafka blush.

15. To sum up, this is a trivial complaint that should be rejected on a de minimus basis. Sandstein is giving every evidence of partiality, has made two demonstrable errors, and should remove himself from the request. The Arbitration Committee should take notice of the abuse of their remedies, and strike, by motion, those they see fit.

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 20:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Personal note, I would far rather be working on African calendars, missing field commanders and the Trinidad and Tobago portal, than spending time here. Unfortunately WP:NOTCOMPULSORY does not seem to apply here, and clearly there are those that enjoy it, so I guess I am stuck with it. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 21:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

@Quest: Automation was defined in the decision thus: "An automation tool is a technology designed to facilitate making multiple similar edits". I believe that was point 1 in my notes above. Should you wish to read the rest of my notes, you might find other informative tit-bits. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 00:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

While I agree with HJ Mitchell its harsh, Rich is under an un-ambiguous editing restricting. He must not, at all, make any edits that are automated or appear to be automated. No ifs or buts. This has been explained to him multiple times by a number of people in various locations, including admins here and members of Arbcom. On the other hand, the theory of escalating blocks is that you keep blocking for longer until the editor gets the point. Its pretty clear that that he either a)is incapable of getting the point or b)willfully ignoring it because he doesnt agree with it. Either of which means another block is fairly pointless as a deterrant. At this point stick an indef block on and refer it to arbcom since they caused the restriction in the first place. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• DP - Find and replace is automated in the sense that it performs a series of tasks without being under the direct control of the user. If I hit find and replace 'the' with 'fish' on this page for example, you could not argue that I typed 'fish' however many times it did it. Rich is forbidden from doing *absolutely anything* other than manually typing in every word in an edit. Its one of the most clear restrictions Arbcom have ever issued in its severity. But the restriction exists and its not really the place here to say 'well we are going to ignore it on this occasion' otherwise what is the point? If its too restrictive, he can appeal to the community or Arbcom and attempt to get it lifted. Remember the original restriction said "any edits that reasonably appear to be automated shall be assumed to be so." Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't planned on commenting, but I am taken aback by the suggestion that Find and Replace searches aren't automated searches. As a software developer for the past 15+ years, I can say that using a text editor's search and replacement feature is absolutely an automated process and one that requires special attention to each and every edit. While I don't know the specifics of RF's ArbCom history, apparently this user has screwed this up so many times that the community has decided that they cannot be trusted to do this again. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those who feel such a definition is nonsensical may have a point, even an excellent point, but it's not a point which has any relevance here, it's one that should be directed to an appeal of the sanction. That's not the function of AE, which is to enforce sanctions as they stand, regardless of whether the admins involved in the discussion agree with the sanction or not. Anything else invites the undermining of ArbCom decisions, which are supposed to be final and binding on the entire community. BMK (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RF: You're hanging your hat on a definition of "automation" used in a Principle (Principle 3.1), which is only a stepping stone used by the committee in reaching its final decisions. What's important is the actual remedy where the sanction which is binding on you was laid down by ArbCom. That remedy (Remedy 2) says:

Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia. For the purposes of this remedy, any edits that reasonably appear to be automated shall be assumed to be so. (emphasis added)

This is the sanction which is binding on you, and your continued reference to an earlier principle begins to look to me like Wikilawyering intended to confuse the issue. The actual sanction is crystal clear, and you wouldn't be here again if you would only adhere to it. BMK (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom's remedy should not be read in isolation, and the Findings of fact make it clear that "automation" is referring to repeated edits of the same kind over multiple articles. For example, the "violations of restrictions" finding shows examples like this which is one in a series with edit summary "Delink date fragment or minor clean up using AWB". Other findings refer to the mass creation of categories and the undisclosed use of automation with "numerous examples of high-volume, high-speed sequences of identical edits". Those are the kind of problems that led to the case, and which were discussed during the case, and which the remedy was framed to address.

Arbcom intended to stop the disruption caused by bot-like edits to multiple pages; there is no indication that search-and-replace on a single page (and not repeated on any page) was prohibited. Yes, the search-and-replace was borked, but editors are encouraged to experiment in their own user space. If RF made a careless edit like that in an article, there may be some reason to debate a suitable sanction, but AE should not be used for a pointless "gotcha". Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Search and replace is undoubtedly, undeniably, and unequivocally automated editing.

2. If the only occurrence of automated testing is on Rich's own user page, the filer should get a WP:TROUT and this closed as WP:SNOW.

aprock (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to reply to the statement by Rich Farmbrough, "2. In the complaint comparing * and (a) - the plaintiff has simply, in his eagerness for blood, gone to the wrong source.". Without providing the right source, either here or at the article (which really should have had a source from the start), this is of course a worthless defense. I have provided the evidence on which I based my statement: my conclusion may have been wrong, but without evidence to the contrary, I see no reason to change my opinion. Without evidence for point 2, there is also no support for his further points (4 and following), since these are based on 2. His edit here makes it clear that they were footnote identifiers, like I said. Fram (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The request has merit. The edits submitted as evidence can only be the result of an (apparently malformed) search-and-replace command. Search-and-replace is a form of prohibited automation under the terms of the Committee's motion of 6 June 2012, which provides that Rich Farmbrough "is directed ... to make only completely manual edits (i.e. by selecting the [EDIT] button and typing changes into the editing window)". The previous violation of this restriction, also for search-and-replace edits, resulted in a one-year block, the maximum allowed under the enforcement provision. Without objection by another admin, I will impose another one-year block.  Sandstein  18:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The statement by Rich Farmbrough does not change my assessment.  Sandstein  21:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I object. I request this be left open for at least 48 hours to allow me to add my rationale, and to allow for input from other admins. If it is not, I will open a request for an arbitration case against the admin responsible, as Sandstein has had no hesitancy in doing to admins who have dared to defy him in the past. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't been involved in this issue before, so I don't know the ins and outs, but it seems harsh to block someone for using the search-and-replace function on his own user page. The edit didn't cause any harm, so I can't see a reason to block. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Since when is Find...Replace and automated process? I find this filing to be some ridiculous and petty form of harassment, and the filing should come with its own repercussions DP 22:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@OnlyInDeath: Look, I don't think I've typically supported Rich in the past, but seriously, calling using Find...Replace using an "automated tool" is (pardon my language) fucking ridiculous; period. Not to sound insulting, but hopefully he hasn't used a circular saw in his workshop or a vibrator in his bedroom in the last 4 months either. This is ridiculous DP 23:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that in June 2012 the Committee passed a motion, which amongst other things, stated "if Rich Farmbrough breaches the automation prohibition again, notwithstanding the standard enforcement provisions, he will likely be site-banned indefinitely with at least twelve months elapsing from the date of the site-ban before he may request the Committee reconsider" and that there is disagreement among administrators regarding whether Rich has breached his restriction we should refer this to the Committee to decide (1) whether this violation is serious enough to warrant a block and (2) decide whether this combined with the violation which lead to the one year block are enough that they want to go through with the site-ban. In any case, there doesn't seem to be a consensus to block (even though that it is not technically required) so it might be best to send this the Committee's way. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with this approach.  Sandstein  05:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll wait for at least one of the other admins above (ping HJ Mitchell, DangerousPanda, SlimVirgin) to agree and I'll file at WP:ARCA. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yup. If they think Find...Replace is "automated" then let them cast the stones DP 08:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Rim sim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions:

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

1. 5 April 2014 Pointy edit, just copied and pasted the warning given to him, and changed the username to mine, the link there is obviously to his edit.
2. 8 April 2014 apparently nominating an article for deletion makes you a "Muslims and their apologists"
3. 9 April 2014 Removes content critical of the RSS, marks edit as minor. inserts unsourced OR.
4. 9 April 2014 Calls me, "a muslim extremist" and "vandalizer"

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

1. Warned on 5 April 2014 by Darkness Shines (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[8]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

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

• Most concerned about the reference to another editor in the dispute as a "muslim extremist" and was pretty much ready to block for NPA, let alone any form of AE. The extreme level of wP:BATTLE mentality across these articles is the reason why discretionary sanctions exist in this realm. The reporting editor has been more than patient in this specific situation (alt to admin account:) ES&L 10:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd support a one week block for personal attacks and disruptive editing (just these edits to the notification log alone [9], [10] & [11]). And having had a look at more of their edits I wouldn't have a problem indefing them. However in terms of AE I'd suggest the widest topic ban we can impose which is "for all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed". Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, the edits submitted reflect a degree of prejudice (or a lack of ability to distance oneself from the prejudices we all carry around) that is incompatible with writing a neutral encyclopedia.  Sandstein  12:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunately, I can also get fully behind the 1-week block AND topic ban combo platter ES&L 12:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll give 6 or so hours so that others can comment, but I'd rather not leave it too long, as it's getting closer to punitive as we wait. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBEE :

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

1. [12] Main one, and the one I really care about here. Baseless accusations of bigotry. Clear WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude.
2. [13] Baseless accusations. Note the responses from other users: [14] [15]
3. [16] Accusation of xenophobia directed at another user.
4. [17] More of the same. Accusations of "rampant emotion driven nationalism". Accusations of "filling wikipedia with fascist/russophobic propaganda "

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

1. Blocked on [18] under discretionary sanctions in the topic area by Tiptoety (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on [19] by Tiptoety (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I don't really care about the usual accusations that get thrown around in these kinds of discussions about "POV pushing" and all that, I got thick skin. However, I find the accusations of bigotry, racism and xenophobia to be appalling, unacceptable and too much too just let go. Of course there's no diffs, or evidence to support these slurs - because they are untrue. The fact that they've been directed not just at myself but also at other users is pretty clear evidence that LokiiT has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and is not here to constructively improve the encyclopedia, this topic area in particular.

For a bit of background, LokiiT was extremely active in the EE area during the 2008_South_Ossetia_war. At the time his behavior was very similar to his current actions on Ukraine related topics, and he got a couple of blocks. He edit warred, and after being blocked for edit warring [20] he turned to running a sock farm [21] to try and get his way on the relevant articles. I think there is a strong basis for a concern that at least part of that pattern is being repeated on Ukraine and Crimea related topics.

Also, I did ask him to remove the attacks first, but no go [22]

LokiiT is referring to my removals after this discussion at [[23]] (might have to un-hat a section). Despite the comments there he insisted on inserting material which misrepresented sources. Strangely in that discussion he referred to another user's comments as if they were his. The other edits LokiiT is referring to below (like this one) are about my undoing of an edit by an account which is not User:LokiiT, a newly registered SPA User:Limestoneforest. Not sure exactly how this is relevant. Maybe it is.

For the accusations of bigotry, just click the diffs I provided above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[24]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

This seems like little more than a personal vendetta, as Marek has gone to great lengths to provoke me over the past month or so via bad faith accusations[25], stalking, edit warring/tag teaming, and blanking material[26][27][28] that I've added to various articles, with edit summaries that would suggest he did not read the talk page, content or sources at all. His behaviour has been in line with the disruptive tactics used by members of the Eastern Europe Cabal that Marek (aka Radeksz) was an active member of[29], hence my comment in his the first link (note the comment I was responding to; I'm not the only one to notice his disruptive editing habits, although admittedly that was a bad place to bring the issue up).

My edits to wikipedia articles are always in good faith and always well sourced. I try my hardest to keep content neutral, which seems to have displeased a few pro-Ukrainian editors. I have strong opinions which I have expressed on talk pages; I don't claim to have neutral opinions. But I try not to let this effect my editing habits and do make an effort to correct for my biases.

I'm not sure what sockpuppets 6 years ago have to do with this. It's unclear to me whether Marek is accusing me of sockpuppeting right now, or trying to create an illusion of ongoing disruption. Moreover, I have not accused anyone of being bigoted or racist as Marek claims. He must have me confused with someone else.

On a final and important note: I was not active between the time he asked me to remove my comment and his second message informing me of this enforcement request; I saw both messages just now when I logged in. I have no issue with removing the comment and will do so now.

• Response to Marek: I contributed at least half of the material to the anti-semetic section that you blanked numerous times despite having no consensus to do so (and all of it in the last blanking). Moreover, I removed the material that you contested and made that clear on the talk page - you not only still blanked the material, but you claimed in your comment that I reinserted it, suggesting that you didn't bother to read my comment nor the material before blanking. Again here is your blanking[30]; notice how it does not include anything regarding the Haaretz article someone else included, which you so strongly opposed[31]. I made that clear on the talk page.[32]. You also continually cited WP:CONSENSUS as your reason for blanking when there were at least three editors actively trying to keep it. In the second diff you mentioned you blanked a large amount of material, including a well sourced paragraph that I added (the one with commentary by Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich).[33][34].

• Response to Lvivske: I consider xenophobia to be a very different thing from racism and bigotry (as does the dictionary). For example, the political party Svoboda that I believe you support (correct me if I'm wrong) advocates xenophobic policies, but that doesn't necessarily make them racist or bigots, does it? With that said, your comment that "The Russians", and not Stalin and the ethnically diverse Soviet leadership, were responsible for the deportation of Crimean Tatars was ignorant at best. LokiiT (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Moreover, I have not accused anyone of being bigoted or racist as Marek claims." was somehow a response to this: "Oops, your xenophobia is showing."....can we at least be honest here?--Львівське (говорити) 14:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I find the "Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings..." submitted to Volunteer Marek to be a little deceptive given that they are from 2008, and I'm a bit disappointed that Marek would post them in such a way. I was going to suggest that an IBAN between Volunteer Marek and LokiiT might help solve the problem, however this edit (that Lvivske is xenophobic) which looks unprovoked suggests that there might be something more going on. I'm not sure what to do at this stage, but my gut feeling is that a warning might do the job. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that the request has merit. The evidence shows that LokiiT has engaged in personal attacks against others (WP:NPA), and, in particular, has alleged severe misconduct on the part of others without appropriate evidence (see WP:ASPERSIONS). Such conduct is forbidden. LokiiT continues to engage in it in their statement, and does not substantially address their own conduct. As a discretionary sanction, I would block LokiiT for a week.

  The diffs by Volunteer Marek submitted by LokiiT in their response are not, at least on their face, evidence of misconduct. I do not find it deceptive to link to a warning of 2008, as it is still relevant for the purpose of WP:AC/DS#Warnings.  Sandstein  12:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Deceptive is probably the wrong word, I meant that given they were so long ago it would have been more appropriate to mention that they were from 2008. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering that there has been no further discussion, I am imposing the block as discussed above.  Sandstein  11:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Grandmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Urartu TH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:AA2

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

1. April 5, 2014
2. April 5, 2014
3. April 5, 2014
4. April 5, 2014

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

1. Warned on February 21, 2014 by Grandmaster (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on March 15, 2014 by Sandstein (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Urartu TH violated 3RR on an arbitration covered page Khojaly Massacre. Despite objections of other editors, he persistently adds his personal interpretation of a source into the lead of the article in violation of WP:OR, and edit wars to keep it there. I have already reported the 3RR violation, but since this is an arbitration area, this forum might be more appropriate for this violation. This user has been in Wikipedia for less than 2 months, but he already has one block for incivility. In addition, he makes questionable edits to Ukraine related articles, such as a BLP article Ihor Tenyukh, which as I understand is also an arbitration covered area, in particular calling him a member of a "neo-fascist" party: [35] [36] [37] It appears that this user fails to understand the core WP policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:BLP. Grandmaster 08:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As result of the report at WP:AN3, Urartu TH was blocked for 72 hrs: [38], in escalation of the previous block. As the enforcing admin noted, it is a second block in 3 weeks, and it is a result of continuing battleground approach. As the problematic editing of Urartu TH appears to be unlikely to stop, I believe it might be appropriate to consider placing him on an editing restriction in arbitration covered areas. Grandmaster 13:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add the following in response to comments. First, the term "reprisal" is not found in any of the sources used in the article, and in particular in HRW report that Urartu TH was referring to. Neither are the terms "retaliation", "counterattack" or other words with similar meaning, nor do the sources imply that the massacre could have been a "reprisal", which as was noted here has quite a specific meaning. In fact, HRW explicitly places blame on the Armenian side, as do other third party sources that conducted their own investigations. So the edit was in a clear violation of WP:OR, which holds that "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication". Yet Urartu TH was introducing the term "reprisal" not found in any source, and as was also mentioned here was removing every instance of mentioning "Armenian forces" or "Armenian attack", so after his edits it was unclear who attacked whom. Me and other editors found his edit to be unacceptable, and made that clear to him both in edit summaries and at the talk of the article, which did not stop him from restoring that edit 4 times. And when Urartu TH says that I reverted without discussion, it is not true. It is enough to take a look at the talk of the article to see the proof of the contrary. Every time that he posted at talk in support of his edit, he was responded by either me or another editor, and despite there being a clear opposition to his edit, he proceeded to restore it every time he left a comment at talk. Judging from comments he left at his own talk page, where he says that his comments were "ignored", he believes that posting a comment entitles him to rv the page as many times as he likes, even if other editors disagree with his proposed edit, and if they disagree, they "ignore" his arguments, which of course is not so. I think this is where we have a problem. Grandmaster 10:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[39]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Please note that Grandmaster (talk · contribs) has been asked to mind WP:HOUND[40] in the past.

As to the issue at hand, any time I have attempted cited edits on Khojaly tragedy, the user has either deleted or modified the edits.

Please see for attempts at resolution in civil manner:

1. April 5, 2014
2. April 5, 2014
3. April 5, 2014

The user has been warned not to start an WP:EDITWAR various times in the article's edit page.

I have not added a single bit of interpretation to any edit. I merely used the word "reprisal" to define an attack by Armenian forces during the battle of Khojaly which relates to the article. I was opposed by the user in regards to this word. I explained that the chronology of the events clearly show that this was a reprisal attack but that a different term may be used. The user proceeded to simply begin reverting the page back to the previous form without discussion; they ignored my statements regarding the chronology of the events. I believe this is a violation of WP:CIV, WP:NPOV and goes against the spirit and reasons for WP:TP's.

Grandmaster (talk · contribs)'s attempt to have me sanctioned for an unrelated matter was deemed "not actionable" by Sandstein (talk · contribs) and Penwhale (talk · contribs).

As far the the Ukraine edits, the terms "neo-fascist" or "neo-nazi" were taken from a cited source [41].

I don't see evidence of wrongdoing on my part and would like to further discuss this with a third-party. Please let me know if any other proofs are required and I will gladly provide them.--Urartu TH (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think ya'll can DS individual editors but I don't think you can 1RR the entire article NE Ent 20:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I see a quite clear 3RR violation (4 reverts in quick succession, within a single hour, against three different users on the other side); combined with an ongoing pattern of aggressive editing and reverting during the previous days; combined with previous warnings and blocks for misbehaviour in the same topic domain, combined with an overall editing profile almost exclusively focussed on national POV issues. That's a case for a topic ban in my book. I notice somebody else blocked him for 72 hours in the meantime, evidently in response to the AN3 report, but I see no reason why that should stop us from considering the longterm side of the matter here too. Fut.Perf. ☼, 16:45, 5 April 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
• The thing is, I believe Grandmaster's 2 reverts also makes him run afoul of the AA2 DS (and Grandmaster was previously sanctioned under ARBAA2 in 2008). And the word reprisal's primary meaning according to many dictionaries is counterattack, and if I'm reading the events chronologically, it is a counteroffensive (though may not be the best choice of word, it shouldn't have been reverted war over anyway). I would sanction both Grandmaster and Urartu TH for this. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 17:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are probably going down a dangerous road when we here as admins try to re-debate the merits of the dispute, but since you brought up a possible content legitimization regarding the term "reprisal", then no, "reprisal" doesn't simply mean "counter-attack". It has a very specific meaning in the law of war, and that meaning carries a very strong and obvious POV implication: a reprisal is a measure that, while normally forbidden, can be seen as legitimate in a particular situation. Calling the massacre a "reprisal" is making the definite claim that the massacre was legally justified. The immediate rejection of that edit as illegitimate OR by three other editors was thus understandable and clearly legitimate. Coupled with the other change of wording that served to de-emphasize Armenian agency in the events, we have all the marks of a POV-driven edit on Urartu's part. As for the two reverts, I'm extremely hesitant to hand out sanctions for 2R as long as we haven't formally put the thing under an explicit 1RR rule. If you think that a general 1RR would be beneficial to the article, let's by all means place it under one (I assume that's possible under the current version of disc.sanctions, isn't it?) but as long as that's not in place, I believe editors are entitled to a certain measure of reliability of rules, and suddenly placing the sanctions threshold that low would smack of arbitrariness. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You are right. Also, based on the discussions at the article talk page, this article already needs specific sanctions set down. 1RR and a binding move discussion for a specific period of time (if a RM is requested) would be a good start. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Addendum: Also, my AGF-ness still leads me to believe that the block placed on Urartu TH is due to violation of the 3RR rule and not specific to the ARBAA2 sanction, in case anyone's wondering my position on that. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Yes, my block was based on the 3RR report - I was unaware of the existence of this filing at that time DP 10:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like everyone's attention has moved away from this request since the block. If there are no objections I'll close it tomorrow with an un-logged warning based on what was mentioned by the admins reviewing this request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little concerned by their actions since the 3RR block - they seem totally oblivious to their actions, and seem to feel they're under no warnings or potential sanctions whatsoever ES&L 10:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from a topic ban or a block until they understand what edit warring is (which would and should be a normal admin action) I'm not sure there is a lot we can do here. @DP, do you think it's enough to warrant a TBAN? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having just re-read a bunch of their edits, I'm almost thinking 0RR being imposed as the next step before a TBAN. DP 10:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on their statement on my talk page that they now understand what they did wrong, but were just "goaded" into it. I'd support either a short term 0RR (month at a maximum) or a longer term 1RR (around 3-6 months). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to impose a 1-month 0RR followed by 3-month 1RR in 24 hours unless someone objects to this. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd prefer to go with one or the other (preference to the 0RR for a month), it'll come back here pretty quickly afterward if there are problems I would imagine. But I don't mind it going through as Penwhale has suggested. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can work with this solution - hopefully it works ES&L 18:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

76.107.171.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions :

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

1. 5 March 2014 Accuses Simonm223 of bias.
2. 5 March 2014 Asserts that Wikipedia is under assault by a skeptical “militant group of fundamentalists”.
3. 5 March 2014 Accuses others of bias and says that they are unfamiliar with the material.
4. 5 March 2014 Accuses other editors of attempting a “character smear”.
5. 5 March 2014 Personal attack on Barney the barney barney.
6. 5 March 2014 Calls Barney a pseudoskeptic.
7. 5 March 2014 Calls Barney a pseudoskeptic again.
8. 5 March 2014 Rants about the evils of pseudoskepticism.
9. 5 March 2014 Modifies his rant to call Barney a pseudo-skeptic once again.
10. 8 March 2014 Rants about the pseudoskeptics controlling Wikipedia.
11. 8 March 2014 Says that a comment by Goblin Face is evidence of pseudoskepticism.
12. 8 March 2014 Says that Goblin Face is acting like a troll.
13. 30 March 2014 Calls Doubter12 a pseudoskeptic.
14. 16 April 2014 Rants on Talk:Rupert Sheldrake that Wikipedia has been taken over by “fundamentalists for the skeptics society”.

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

1. Warned on 5 March 2014 by Goblin Face (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

159.118.158.122 has demonstrated a persistent failure to focus on content. He has made repeated personal attacks against other editors and appears to be attempting to use the expression “pseudoskeptic” as many times as he possibly can. 159.118.158.122 seems chiefly concerned with verbally abusing and harassing other editors and does not appear to be here to build an encyclopedia.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[42]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

I filed this report on the behalf of 76.107.171.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I support what he has written. The IP 159.118.158.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been leaving conspiracy theories and abusive messages on talk-pages related to paranormal topics about "skeptics" controlling Wikipedia articles. Examples [43] and [44]]. Also see his latest rant on the Rupert Sheldrake talk-page [45]. Goblin Face (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked 159.118.158.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) after a review of the edits from that address, which consistently advance fringe views in an aggressive manner, and show, to my eye, good circumstantial evidence that this is not an accident, but that the editor has come to Wikipedia precisely because of offsite discussions of our robust policy on pseudoscience. These on their own are not necessarily a problem requiring decisive action, but the battleground mentality and personalising of the dispute are, in my view.

I am not averse to this user registering an account and beginning to engage properly with the Wikipedia community, in place of the drive-by rants and POV-pushing we've seen to date: from the sporadic IP edits we're obviously not going to find out if the individual has any interests other than advancing fringe views. That said, comments from Goblin Face indicate that this is actually block evasion, I would be interested in seeing that evidence more fully.

Does this need AE? I feel that standard restrictions on tendentious editing are sufficiently robust. AE is for people who are likely to be productive outside of their hot button areas, IMO. I may be misinterpreting it. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I concur with Goblin Face that this is indeed block evasion by Jamenta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There is nothing to do here other than block any socks or IPs and move on. Guy (Help!) 14:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

At a glance, it seems likely from behavioral evidence that the now-blocked IP is a sock of the blocked user, or at any rate that their conduct is similarly unproductive. Closing as moot.  Sandstein  16:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Back to the ol' stomping grounds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA :

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

1. 21:26, 17 April 2014 first rm at Al-Lubban_ash-Sharqiya
2. 21:36, 17 April 2014 second rm rm at Al-Lubban_ash-Sharqiya
3. 21:18, 17 April 2014 first rm at Public diplomacy (Israel)
4. 21:37, 17 April 2014 second rm at Public diplomacy (Israel)

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

Warned here by Huldra (talk)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

"New" editor who insist on ignoring the 1 RR rule under Wikipedia:ARBPIA

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

here

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Neither of the diffs provided show any violation. In both pages edited, I made an edit to bring the page into compliance with wiki policy, and then made one revert. The OP, in contrast, is edit warring to re-introduce into the text a "word to avoid" - "terrorist", instead of the neutral "militant", despite having in the past done the exact opposite when dealing with Palestinian terrorist groups. She should be topic-banned from the I_P area on that basis alone. In the other edit, she re-inserted a dead link, for no other reason that to spite me.

Administrators looking at the Ops actions are encouraged to view the pattern of her editing: repeatedly removing mentions of "Israel" or Jewish history from articles discussing topics related to localities relevant to both Israelis/Jews and Arabs/Palestinians: [46], [47],[48], [49]. At the same time, she is adding anti-Israeli commentary, from extremely dubious sources, such as this one [50], accusing Israel of appropriating Palestinian land, based on a 10th grade school project (I kid you not).

Like so many socks of banned editors this hours old account's first two edits were reverts of my edits. As the account user is clearly evading a block all their edits may be reverted by anyone without even looking at the actual edit. Someone block the account and close this. Sepsis II (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Hasteur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Standard discretionary sanctions : Specifically I want an official warning from an administrator as this user is on a streak and is of the impression that any editor who expresses any viewpoint (including cautioning them) is not qualified to give the neutral/unbiased viewpoint.

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

1. 4 May 2014 Explanation: Heracletus attempts to disqualify a DRN volunteer for making a suggestion on how to move forward that Heracletus does not like.
2. 6 May 2014 Explanation: Heracletus takes an abusive and disruptive tone after being warned by myself that Assuming bad faith on others will not be tollerated at DRN.
3. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities Explanation: Heracletus violates WP:TPO (in addition to sailing past the WP:3RR hard line) in attemps to frame the referred conflict from DRN in a light favorable to them.
4. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities 2 Explanation: Heracletus attempts to wash their hands of the original complaint while at the same time importing the same personal conflict (and conduct) into the new MedCom request

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

No warnings have been issued, hence my asking for an Administrator to issue the warning as a warning by me will only serve to inflame the user even more and probably be met with "I never recieved a warning" denials

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Heracletus's actions are in bald violation of the principles of the case, at the intersection of unacceptable conduct and Serbia/Kosovo as described by the finding of fact for the case, and has been of concern previously.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[61]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Me and User:Qwerty786 have a content dispute over the articles of Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities and Community of Serbian municipalities, Kosovo on whether a new Community will continue the old one or not. We talked a lot about this issue, we presented our edits, tried to get input from Wikiprojects Serbia and Kosovo to no avail, and eventually ended up in DRN. Our entry there: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Assembly_of_the_Community_of_Serbian_municipalities was thought by User:Mark_Miller to be premature, because he hadn't noticed that extensive discussion had been made in the userpages of me and Qwerty786. In the mean time, Mark Miller also assigned us to User:Hasteur, after which point, User:Bejnar intervened raising different issues and taking up our case.

At some later point, however, I noticed that User:Bejnar had taken a clear position on the dispute in the talk page of the article, Talk:Assembly_of_the_Community_of_Serbian_municipalities#Recent_edits, in which he did not only make suggestions regarding our dispute (as a DRN volunteer), but also took a position on the dispute (of whether the one Community is a continuation of the other) presenting arguments. I therefore questioned his impartiality to act as a DRN volunteer in our case, as he had made those comments before taking up our case (while he thought the case would be dead, due to not enough prior discussion, as indicated by Mark Miller) and had not disclosed this when he took up our case, and then I countered his arguments on the content. In his suggestion, he does acknowledge himself that what he writes may not allow him to act as a DRN volunteer in our case. Anyway, he thought I object to him and withdrew from the case, while I also explained what I may object over.

Bejnar then notified Mark Miller that he's leaving the case and Mark Miller proceeded to state he does not have to do so and accuse me of wikilawyering Bejnar out of the case. I never explicitly asked Bejnar to leave the case, but since he had taken a position and argued on the content before taking up the case and he had never disclosed this, I think I had the right to clearly question his impartiality. Furthermore, he never countered my remarks and just withdrew and I faced no issues with him and didn't mean anything bad.

Then, Hasteur, who had created a section on our DRN case with the title "Reaper's process" when he intervened, went on to accuse me of assuming bad faith of Bejnar, because I questioned his impartiality, and threaten me with reporting me here. I, of course, confronted him over his ability to act impartially, due to his accusation and threats and he proceeded to close the dispute accusing me of assuming bad faith of him, too, and suggesting that I should be warned from some administrator over ArbCom Balkans' discretionary sanctions.

All this saga can be found here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Assembly_of_the_Community_of_Serbian_municipalities and here:Talk:Assembly_of_the_Community_of_Serbian_municipalities#Recent_edits. Obviously, questioning a DRN volunteer's impartiality because he took a position before taking up the case and did not disclose this, and then commenting that another volunteer who proceeds to accuse me of assuming bad faith and threaten me with irrelevant sanctions have NO connection to the content of the articles, to Balkans, to the reasons for which we had sought dispute resolution or the articles involved, or their content, or even our conduct regarding the content. I just questioned their impartiality over their actions as DRN volunteers and not over anything to do with the Balkans.

However, Hasteur proceeded to refer our dispute to a mediation process, Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Assembly_of_the_Community_of_Serbian_municipalities. In doing so however, he acknowledged he was not a party to the dispute and removed himself from the dispute, setting however the topic into the following:

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

• How should the organization from 2008 be handled with the organization that is forming in the next few months?
• How should the nationalistic and conduct issues regarding this organization be handled, especially with respect to WP:ARBMAC??

and including the following note:

"DRN Case manager's note: This is a referral from DRN for failure to come to a solution due to conduct based issues. Indications were made at DRN that one (or more) of the parties to the case would not respect the outcome unless it was in their favor (or enforced by an Admin). Hasteur (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)".

Obviously, in doing so, he only prejudiced the whole procedure, by a. claiming nationalism, whereas we were in the middle of a dispute resolution procedure (with Qwerty786 and not with Hasteur), b. claiming conduct issues, while we were in the middle of a dispute resolution procedure and even though it is clearly mentioned: "Formal mediation is only suitable for disputes over article content, so requests to mediate grievances with other editors will not be accepted." and c. indicating some party had mentioned that the result of DRN would not have been respected if it was not in their favour.

As User:Hasteur had clearly indicated he was not a participant and had erased his name, I of course, not only addressed the issue of a potential result of DRN not being respected with the following:

"No party ever indicated such a thing in DRN or anywhere else. To prove this, one can check Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Assembly_of_the_Community_of_Serbian_municipalities. Furthermore, the issues which caused User:Hasteur to choose to close the dispute resolution thread on DRN had nothing to do with the dispute, and all to do with what he/she perceived as bad faith against certain volunteers, including himself. By claiming that any party would not respect the outcome unless it was in their favour, User:Hasteur once again tries to be disruptive towards the mediation he/she himself/herself filled a request for. Heracletus (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)"

but also proceeded to change the topic into the one of our actual dispute with Qwerty786:

"1. What is the relation between the Community of Serbian municipalities in Kosovo formed in 2008, after elections organised by Serbia, with the Community of Serb-majority municipalities in Kosovo, which will be formed from the 2013 municipal elections organised by Kosovo authorities?
2. How should this relation be represented in the relevant articles?",

while also adding the following issue:

"The filling party, User:Hasteur, filled this request, trying to make it into a conduct review, and potentially cause sanctions by involving the Arbitration Committee, even though this had nothing to do with the reasons for which we had sought dispute resolution or the articles involved, or their content, or even our conduct in them. After filling this request, he/she tried to disengage himself/herself from this process, stating he/she is not involved in this, even though he filled this and tried to push it to be a mediation over his/her own grievances, contrary to what is stated here: "Formal mediation is only suitable for disputes over article content, so requests to mediate grievances with other editors will not be accepted." The relevant differences to prove this and related content are: [62], Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Assembly_of_the_Community_of_Serbian_municipalities, [63] and [64]. This kind of conduct is highly disruptive and forced me to reformulate this request. Heracletus (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)"[reply]

When Hasteur noticed that I removed the terms prejudicing our dispute with Qwerty786, he quickly changed them back to his, while continuing to act as a third uninvolved party, claiming that since I had crossed his comment of some party refusing to accept a potential result of DRN everything should be restored.

I then indicated that if he wants to set the topic and be the filing party, he has to indicate so and list his name as an involved editor, with an edit summary of reverting him: "If Hasteur wants to be the filling party, he/she should identify as such and as an involved party, before invoking the rules." And he just reverted me. However, in the mean time, Qwerty786 had indicated his participation in a mediation process with my version of the topic and thus Hasteur's changes - as he did not revert, but merely changed stuff - would make it seem as both me and Qwerty786 had agreed to his prejudice and suggestion that this was also a dispute over conduct.

Therefore, I reverted him again with an edit summary: "Stop being disruptive, you clearly mention you are not involved and you ever erased your name off here. You want to be a third party, be a third party." as he also kept acting as an unlisted third party. He reverted me again, for a third time, as he believed that I was just deleting his new comments, at which time, I reverted to the initial version, before anyone - including me - had commented and clearly indicating that he can restore his comments and I will create a new mediation request after adding my disagreement with his on his own request, as the topics he suggest are involving conduct, prejudice the conflict, state a false statement over acceptance of a potential result from DRN and all these, while he had removed or crossed his name from filing party or participant in the dispute. My edit summary was: "Restoring the original version, adding my own disagreement and will open a new request. Hasteur can restore his own, and only his own, comments, if he wishes."

Then, Hasteur proceeded to not only reinstate his or any comments, but to just revert for a fourth time in the previous version, where there were indications of agreement for a mediation process with his own topics. His edit summaries are after this, as follow: "Undid revision 607271493 by Heracletus (talk) No, you don't get to modify my text AT ALL! Such Incompetence leads me to think a Competence block needs to be implemented."
"→‎Decision of the Mediation Committee: TPO wins over everything"
"→‎Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities: Shut the dumb editor up and sieze the rights of the filing party" ---(a clear personal attack to me, which I would just let go) --- at this point he also reinstates himself as an involved party and as the filing party
"→‎Parties' agreement to mediation: Because Heracletus is more disruptive than MMA fans"
"→‎Decision of the Mediation Committee: Fix"

I of course subsequently edited his request to indicate I do not agree with it, as such: "I do not agree, due to User:Hasteur's disruptive editing (see the history of the page). User:Hasteur wants to act as a third party to this, while also setting the topic and making comments about it. He even kept resetting the topic, after the other involved user, User:Qwerty786 had agreed. Furthermore, he tries to make this into a conduct review, trying to push his own grievances on the issue. Heracletus (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)"[reply]

as he had reverted to me and Qwerty786 agreeing with his changed topics, and also pinged Qwerty786 over the changes made to indicate whether he still agrees to such a mediation process.

In the mean time, after his fourth revert, Hasteur indicated in his mediation request that he only listed himself as involved in this dispute for the following reasons:

"I agree only to stop Heracletus attempting to frame it as a "Everybody is on a vendetta against me" debate. Hasteur (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)"[reply]

" Since Heracletus is either incompentent and can't understand the rules of the road or is willfully trying to yank me in to this case by making it a conduct issue with me as well, I'll add myself to this case and come down on the prejudiced side of opposing anything Heracletus wants. Hasteur (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)"[reply]

Thereby, he clearly indicates he is a non-involved party who wants to set the topic into being a conduct dispute and who will get involved only in order to disrupt the mediation process against me. All these can be found in the history of his mediation request: [65].

As I had indicated in my last revert (3rd - but to the original clean request of his) I made my own mediation request explaining it, with Hasteur again trying to disrupt it or force me to accept his which is over conduct and prejudices the whole dispute by referring to nationalism and a denial to accept a potential result from DRN: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Assembly_of_the_Community_of_Serbian_municipalities_2

"User:Hasteur has filled a similar request, trying however to make it into a conduct review, and potentially cause sanctions by involving the Arbitration Committee, even though this had nothing to do with the reasons for which we had sought dispute resolution or the articles involved, or their content, or even our conduct in them. After filling this request, he/she tried to disengage himself/herself from this process, stating he/she is not involved in this, even though he filled this and tried to push it to be a mediation over his/her own grievances, contrary to what is stated here: "Formal mediation is only suitable for disputes over article content, so requests to mediate grievances with other editors will not be accepted." The relevant differences to prove this and related content are: [66], Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Assembly_of_the_Community_of_Serbian_municipalities, [67] and [68]. This kind of conduct is highly disruptive and forced me to enter a new request. He even then proceed to try and enforce his views, while either remaining a third party or claiming the filing party position only in order to disrupt the mediation process, as can be seen in the history of his request. Heracletus (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As an involved party I ask that the committee close this request and force Heracletus to face the original MedCom request as is is only an attempt by Heracletus to frame the debate the way they want it. Hasteur (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have clearly indicated here that you are not an involved party, and here that you only want to get involved in order to disrupt the mediation process against me. And, you have even made the following edit summary while reverting me: "Shut the dumb editor up and sieze the rights of the filing party". Heracletus (talk) 03:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you do admit that you are deliberately trying to frame the debate under terms that are favorable to you. Since you kept moaning and complaining over the fact that I was not a party to the dispute and trying to remove my text, I thought it only fitting that I become a party to the dispute and take the rights granted by MedCom to prevent you from whitewashing the debate. Hasteur (talk) 03:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot set the topic for a mediation process for which you are not a participant and then just walk away. You wrote here: "Since Heracletus is either incompentent and can't understand the rules of the road or is willfully trying to yank me in to this case by making it a conduct issue with me as well, I'll add myself to this case and come down on the prejudiced side of opposing anything Heracletus wants.", so it is clear that you only want to disrupt the mediation process against me, otherwise you believe you are not a participant to the content dispute. Furthermore, you try to make this into a conduct review to settle your grievances. I will just ignore you here from now on. Heracletus (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)"[reply]

At this point that Hasteur saw that I will just try to settle my dispute with Qwerty786 and not fall for his disruptions, he filed a claim to have me warned here. Obviously this has nothing to do with the Balkans, or the articles, or their contents, and has everything to do with Hasteur trying to mediate his grievances with me in an inappropriate way.

I am not sure if I should ask for a WP:Boomerang, but he has clearly tried to disrupt our mediation process with Qwerty786. The dispute did not involve him, much like my objections on whether Bejnar could be impartial or not did not involve him. He proceeded to close our DRN entry and then wanted to set the topic on conduct disputes, while also falsely indicating we would not accept a DRN result, and all these while he indicated he was not involved in the dispute and even crossed his name out. And, then, when he was forced to get involved to be able to control the topic as the filing party, he went on to say that he's only getting involved to "come down on the prejudiced side of opposing anything Heracletus wants", after even having called me dumb and so.

And, instead of me reporting him, he is the one who reports me here, merely because my content dispute with another editor touches articles about the Balkans. His motives clearly have nothing to do with the Balkans and he indicates that with the examples of "violations" he refers to. He even reverted the content of his request more times than I did, 4 vs. 3 (with my last one being to the pre-disputed "clean" version), and he mentions this as an example...

Since he is an uninvolved volunteer/user/editor, he should let me and Qwerty786 set our own topic of content dispute and try to settle it, instead of just trying to make it into a conduct dispute. Heracletus (talk) 05:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will also ping here the other editors, in case they may want to comment: Bejnar, Qwerty786, Mark_Miller. Heracletus (talk) 05:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per the new WP:AC/DS procedures, there are no more warnings, only alerts, which any editor can issue to any other. Please follow the instructions at WP:AC#DS/Awareness and alerts to do so. In the absence of any condition described there being met, there is nothing that admins can do here.  Sandstein  05:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

76.107.171.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions :

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

1. 29 April 2014 Mallexikon engages in race baiting; “white male tech/science-friendly geeks”
2. 29 April 2014 Mallexikon taunts Dominus Vobisdu when Dominus Vobisdu responds negatively to Mallexikon’s comments about race.
3. 27 April 2014 Attempts to call Traditional Chinese medicine a “protoscience”.
4. 27 April 2014 Edit wars to call Traditional Chinese medicine a “protoscience”.
5. 27 April 2014 Edit wars to call Traditional Chinese medicine a “protoscience”.
6. 28 April 2014 Removes “pseudoscience” from Traditional Chinese medicine.
7. 28 April 2014 Edit wars to call Traditional Chinese medicine a “protoscience”.
8. 28 April 2014 Edit wars to call Traditional Chinese medicine a “protoscience”.
9. 28 April 2014 Edit wars to call Traditional Chinese medicine a “protoscience”.
10. 29 April 2014 Removes “pseudoscience” from Traditional Chinese medicine.
11. 4 May 2014 Returning from his block, Mallexikon once again calls Traditional Chinese medicine a “protoscience”.
12. 6 May 2014 Edit wars to call Traditional Chinese medicine a “protoscience”.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 29 April 2014 Blocked for edit warring on Traditional Chinese medicine

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Previously sanctioned for conduct in the area of conflict on 29 April 2014 by Tiptoety (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

After having been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring on Traditional Chinese medicine, Mallexikon has resumed his efforts to call Traditional Chinese medicine a “protoscience”. His earlier efforts involved calling Traditional Chinese medicine a protoscience directly, while his newer efforts use a new source to attempt to call Traditional Chinese medicine a “pre-science” while piping to protoscience. Mallexikon has been informed that his new source does not use the expression “pre-scicence” to refer to protoscience (a through reading of his source makes this quite clear), yet he reinserted the contentious text anyway.

Mallexikon’s comments about race on Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine reveal a racially motivated agenda. He seems to be of the opinion that “white males” or those he suspects of being white males are not allowed to call Traditional Chinese medicine a pseudoscience. This, combined with his refusal to stop reinserting his preferred text without achieving consensus, makes him unable to edit constructively in the area of Traditional Chinese medicine.

@Sandstein, Okay, I’ve taken the issue to WP:ANI, so this thread can be closed. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

6 May 2014

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

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

We can't act here because the previous block was not a discretionary sanctions block. There is therefore no evidence that Mallexikon was aware of discretionary sanctions, and so we can't apply any. However, any editor can issue an alert to Mallexikon, with {{Ds/alert}}.  Sandstein  15:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]