Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Skäpperöd (
talk) 15:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Loosmark (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
"Not applicable." But warned anyway:
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
Loosmark makes valueable contributions in the motorsports area, the problems only concern Eastern Europe. Thus, topic ban or some sort of counseling.
Additional comments by
Skäpperöd (
talk):
Situation at
Expulsion of Germans after World War II
For the parallel discussion, read Talk:Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II#Nazi-occupied_Warsaw. Be aware that the thread is not chronological, and that the thread is actually about everything but the controversial line. See my attempts to get the discussion focussed and how they were disregarded.
Now we have a situation that an unsourced, emotional statement, not by a single source connected to the scope of the article, not by a single source shown to be factually acurate, disputed by many editors, remains in the article because of the combined efforts of user:Radeksz, User:Loosmark and user:Jacurek, who are obviously thinking that stuff like this may only be removed "by consensus". I expect the reviewing admins to give some advise how to deal with situations like that. I thought about opening an RfC, but the idea of an RfC on a statement not even complying to WP:RS and WP:V seems pretty ridiculous. My position on this is that per WP:RS and per remedy Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2#Editors_reminded a removal is justified and its re-introduction constitutes a violation of both the policy and the remedy.
Situation at Polish Corridor
Diffs above, here Loosmark exchanged the header of the section "Establishment of the corridor", which is without doubt a very neutral way to title the section dealing with the establishment of the corridor, with "Poland regains independence". Loosmark also altered the first lines of the section, displacing a reference. No discussion.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
notified
Ok I'll to be to brief. The problem we have here is that Skäpperöd gets nervous as soon as somebody has the courage to oppose his POV in various articles. He was creating great dramas all over the Expulsion of Germans after World War II talk page over a single sentence which shortly described German atrocities in Warsaw to explain at least a little why many Poles had anti-German feelings after the war. He also acted dishonestly because it was very clear from the talk page that I opposed the elimination of that sentence but he just lied that nobody was opposing his proposal for 2 days and simply went on with it.
Regarding the Polish Corridor article yes I did exchange the without doubt very neutral title header "Establishment of the corridor" which is in reality an unbelievably hard German POV. The facts are that after World War I the only thing that was established was an Independent Polish State. The area in question was part of the Pomeranian Voivodeship, had a clear Polish majority therefore it was simply and rightfully part of Poland. The German politicians started to push this "Polish corridor" term which then escalated into Hitler and the Nazis trying to wrestle the area from Poland and finally using it as one of the excuses for starting WW2. I stand behind my edit, even more so because the article is still very disbalanced in favor of a German POV, please see the article on Polish wikipedia for comparison: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korytarz_polski
As for the all diffs which Skäpperöd produced and painted in such a dramatic fashion, what is he saying is downright absurd. He was the one who was hysterically trying to get the sentence removed because it didn't suit his POV. About that Elysander, he never edited that specific article before, nor did he participate in the discussion on the talk page, he just came to that page to make reverts, which were, oh surprise, basically the same that Skäpperöd was doing.
What is completely unbelievably that Skäpperöd has the nerve to accuse me of edit warring and battlefield mentality since he's famous for entering countless disputes with Polish editors due to his hard POV. We have a classical case of the pot calling the kettle black, as is clear by taking a look at the articles he edits. I can only conclude that Skäpperöd's only intention here is to get rid of editor(s) which have a different view than his own so that he can shape the articles completely the way he wants. Therefore I propose his proposal for sanctions is dismissed and he is advised to, how shall i put it, stop screaming "calamity, global calamity" if he can't have it his way every single time. Loosmark ( talk) 17:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Another thing, this sentence Now we have a situation that an unsourced, emotional statement, not by a single source connected to the scope of the article, not by a single source shown to be factually acurate, disputed by many editors, remains in the article because of the combined efforts of user:Radeksz, User:Loosmark and user:Jacurek, who are obviously thinking that stuff like this may only be removed "by consensus". is blatantly false. First I reject Skäpperöd's POV claim that is an "emotional statement", second Skäpperöd cannot be the sole and ultimate judge what info belongs to an article and third the only other editor which disputed, indirectly, that sentence is ANNRC. Woogie10w initialy supported the connection between the events in Warsaw and the expulsions and even provided a source but later apparently changed his mind (Woogie10w has ancestors of German Prussian origins and Skäpperöd started to lobby that a single sentence about German misdeeds in Warsaw would introduce the 'collective guilt' concept!?!). Even so Woogie10w, unlike Skäpperöd, still thinks the destruction of Warsaw should be mentioned in the article but just suggests the sentence be rephrased. It's pretty clear that Skäpperöd isn't presenting a truthful picture of what was going on on that talk page. Loosmark ( talk) 17:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Further comments: I find Sandstein's comment bellow that I made "long and rambling statement" offending. I had to explain the situation under which the events happened and since he also doesn't seem to understand my "line of defense".. It is important to understand under which circustances were reverts being made, who started edit warring, who was being dishonest in the discussion etc. But ok if you want me to be more specific, lets look at Skaperod's actions on the Expulsion of Germans after World War II page:
We should all asume good faith and believe that Elysander by some cosmic coincidence found that page in the exact moment Skaperod needed it the most. But down there if you are honest to yourself you all know what was going on there so 2+2=4 for the tag-team Skaperod, and who was breaking the rules here? Loosmark ( talk) 01:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment on AdjustShift's action described in the results section: Seems to me that all editors involved in the dispute on the Expulsion of Germans after World War II page acted responsibly and refrained themselves from making any edits from 27th June. Therefore by protecting the page on 1st July AdjustShift seems to be kicking a dead horse. Loosmark ( talk) 16:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Please amend your request to specify the specific sanction or remedy that you believe this user violated, and/or the remedy under whose authority you request sanctions. Sandstein 17:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I think there is some mild edit warring here; the kind that usually gets one a reprimand to not do it the future, especially for an editor with a clean block log. Furthermore, Loosemark also simultaneously engaged in a LOT of discussion with numerous editors, unlike Skapperod, and as Jacurek pointed out there was a gradual convergence to a consensus emerging on talk, now disrupted by this request. Also, there is just as much edit warring on these articles from User:HerkusMonte so the behavior of the two users should be considered together. radek ( talk) 22:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion it is very necessary to mention what I have to say now, therefore I am doing this. By banning one editor who was involved in discussion/dispute of the above pages, you will only open door to the POV of the editor who is not sanctioned. Either everybody has to stay away from these pages for a while or everybody is allowed to continue to discuss and edit. I am sorry but banning one side only will be counterproductive to the development of these pages resulting with one sided view and highly POV article. -- Jacurek ( talk) 23:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Is this coment in the right place? If not, please move. In response to Thatchers comment, I ask for a clarification on the warning/listing issue:
Loosmark has accused me of having an anti-Polish POV, and provided this diff [39] as evidence. I must strongly object. I do not even believe that there is a German/ Polish/whatever POV, nations don't have a POV. There are only POVs of disagreeing editors, which do not matter for the content but may make consensus and civility difficult to establish, and there are POVs of disagreeing RS, which matter for the content according to WP:NPOV/UNDUE. That's it. You can take this as response to the "German POV" comments above too, to which I cannot respond further because they are not backed up. The diff shown by Loosmark also shows no more than that I edit in this spirit, by changing "Polish view" into "this view" in regard to the preceeding line in the article which already says "especially in Poland". Ethnic generalization must not happen. Skäpperöd ( talk) 06:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment for other admins: The diffs provided as evidence under [1] and [2] are indicative of edit-warring. Loosmark's long and rambling statement does not help his case at all, because it does not address his own conduct that is the subject of this request (except by trying to defend his edit warring with the argument of being right, which, as we know, is not a good excuse for edit-warring). I am about to impose a revert restriction or topic ban with respect to subjects related to Poland and Germany. What do you think? Sandstein 21:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
User requesting enforcement:
Momento (
talk) 01:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Will Beback (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat#Article_probation/ disruptive editing
[47]
" Prem Rawat and related articles, including their talk pages, are subject to article probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivility". In this case "tendentious editing" - disregarding other editors' objections to edits and continues to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors".
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Notice of edit
[48]
Violating edit [49]
Despite an ongoing discussion about the appropriateness of using the term "cult" in the lead (OK in the rest of the article) in which three involved editors are objecting to the use of "cult" in the lead, Will Beback ignored the discussion, ignored consensus and ignored any other form of resolution and changed to lead of the Prem Rawat article to insert "cult". When asked to revert this disruptive edit, he ignored that as well.
Diffs of edits by three editors expressing opposition -
Diffs of edit asking Will Beback to revert but his doesn't. [53]
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
Topic ban of Prem Rawat related articles.
Additional comments by
Momento (
talk) 01:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC):
WillBeback has already been admonished in April for his editing of Prem Rawat articles
[54] and blocked in May for violating remedies.
[55] He assumes his opinion is more important than editors who disagree with him and ignores their input and the ongoing discussion in order to impose his will on the article. Asked to revert his edit, he ignores that as well showing a complete and deliberate disregard of consensus or any other appropriate avenue for resolving the issue.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
Will Beback notified.
[56]
Before I start, is it reasonable that Sandstein withheld judgement for 24 hours in order to allow WB to reply to my comments but then waited only 22 minutes to make his judgement before I had a chance to reply? Particularly since WB claimed support from "five editors" for his edit when three of the editors weren't even talking about the edit in question.
The diffs supplied by WB do not support his claim that they supported his edit.
Conclusion People have tried to follow Wiki rules at Prem Rawat. Instead of edit wars and reverts they've been arguing their points on the talk page to try to get the best result. But it is all in vain. Because following the rules isn't necessary for some. Will Beback gave less than nine hours notice of making an edit that was being discussed and opposed by three editors. He ignored the discussion and consensus and made it anyway. An edit so badly written and incorporated in to the article that two of the three editors who supported it after it was done (no one had time to comment after he said he was going to make the edit) still had problems with the edit. Savlonn commented "a few minor quibbles, such as moving to the end of the paragraph taking the date order out of sync" and Maelefique commented "agree with Savlonn, from a chronological viewpoint, it might be better to put it ...." In short, a bad edit made against opposition without consensus in an article that is supposed to be under probation. Aren't I supposed to bring this here? Apparently not judging by the indecent haste with which Sandstein (22 minutes) and KillerChihuahua (32 minutes) rushed to judgement. Will Beback was given 24 hours to respond to my comments, Sanstein didn't give me 22 minutes to respond to WB's ( I wonder why it's called discussion when no one is allowed to discuss it). They were so quick they didn't notice that Cla68, Wowest and Nik W2 did not support the edit as WB claimed. Or that the"factual inaccuracies or faulty characterizations" WB claimed I made in my request were all his. If Sandstein and KillerChihuahua were serious about this case they would remove their comments and let other admins review this case in it's entirety so as not be influenced by their premature opinions. Sandstein even wonders if it was "prima facie disruptive". Have a look at the Prem Rawat article now, is that an edit war I see. [79] Or look below to Prem Rawat 3.( talk) 07:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I have amended this complaint according to Sandstein's request but note that "You may also choose not to use this template and format your request by hand, as long as you provide all relevant information as described in the template above". Momento ( talk) 01:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
As a result of this discussion, under the authority of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat#Article probation, Momento is hereby banned from discussions related to Prem Rawat. That is, he is banned from initiating or otherwise participating in any discussions related to Prem Rawat in all Wikipedia discussion pages and other fora, including article and user talk pages, WP:AE, WP:AN, WP:ANI and their talk pages, except to the extent necessary to make responses to any requests for administrative action against him. This topic ban shall last as long as his ban from editing articles about the same topic (i.e., currently until 20 April 2010 per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2#Momento topic banned). Sandstein 08:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Note: I've contact the administrator who issued the sanction User:Thatcher off wiki and s/he suggested that I file this appeal. I apologize in advance for the length of this request. I have tried to make this appeal as brief as possible while still covering all the points I feel are relevant.
[82] a 1RR per week limit on all Eastern Europe related articles with the possibility of a review after 6 months.
Per descriptive text of the sanction notice, this stems from the fact that there was edit warring at the article Nashi (youth movement) from June 11 to June 21. During these ten days I made 3 (three) edits to the article, spread out over the ten days (i.e. there was no 3RR or even a 1RR violation).
I was also listed in a very minor, tangential manner by Shell Kinney over at [83] though not as one of the “major players”, and almost in an offhanded manner.
The third relevant aspect here is the Digwuren case. I was not involved in that case, I was not put under any restrictions, notice or sanctions because of that case – unlike most editors who received the same sanction handed out by Thatcher in the past week or so.
I am filing this appeal per: [84] Specifically:
Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement), or the Committee.
(For reasons mentioned above, I am filing this appeal to the appropriate administrators’ noticeboard, ie. currently this one.)
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. (my emphasis)
(I never received any kind of warning. I was completely blindsided by this. I was never counseled, nor was I ever given an opportunity to improve my editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines)
There are three reasons why this sanction was inappropriate and why it should be rescinded:
I request that
I personally volunteer to
Additionally
Yes, I stumbled into an edit war and made three reverts over the course of ten days (not a week). After my first edit I did not bother to check the history of the relevant article - precisely because my edits were so few - and I did not realize the full scale of the edit warring that was going on. This was my fault for not being careful enough. But I think this is an oversight that is very understandable. If you're going to make three edits in ten days, how careful are you going to be about making sure you avoid any potential charges of 'edit warring'? With just those three edits, which follow 1RR/Week, are you going to write a lengthy description of every single edit on the talk page? Or will you, understandably, believe that a simple edit summary is sufficient?
As to the matter of the warning: Yes, I was, of course, aware of the Diguwren case. But as you yourself state here [92] At RFAR/Digwuren, users must be notified of the existence of the case and the possibility of further sanctions, with the notification logged, prior to imposing any sanctions.. To emphasize users must be notified...the notification logged, prior to imposing any sanctions. If at some point between June 11 and June 21 you'd have even said something like "I see that you've made a revert to the page "Nashi". Please try to refrain from making further edits without talk discussion as there is a major edit war going on at the moment" I would have totally desisted from further (uh, from the further TWO edits) edits and probably initiated a talk discussion. But no such warning, or log was made. This was all POST FACTUM, where you issued a sanction to EVERYONE who edited the article, whether they made 3 edits in ten days, or 12 edits in two days. How can you ask for 'neutral editors' when you automatically ban everyone who edits an article? Seriously, if I had any inkling that my edits were problematic I would have done things very much differently. But since I only made three edits in ten days I didn't think myself that that was the case. And you didn't give me any indication that the situation was different. radek ( talk) 23:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Sandstein, I understand your concerns. BUT;
Then if the user continues causing (real) trouble sanctions and restrictions follow. I was never given such a warning (probably because unlike almost everyone else who got the sanction I don't cause trouble) nor was the warning logged - "not effective unless given by an administrator and logged". I would be somewhat sympathetic to Thatcher's argument that such warning was not necessary in my case because I was clearly aware of the case if I had done something extreme, like violated 3RR or been uncivil or made personal attacks. But I didn't, I followed 1RR/Week in my edits and hence had no idea that what I was doing was in any way wrong. A short notice at the time would've been sufficient to make me realize that. I don't understand why users who have behaved much much worse than I have, were first given a warning (sometimes a few) and only after they failed to change their behavior were sanctioned. Whereas in my case, a minor infraction lead to a short-circuiting of the whole process (that was working quiet well) and an immediate restriction. Even Thatcher acknowledge that that was the proper way to proceed in the case above - why not in my case?
Thank you for saying concisely what I've been trying to get across here. I think the voluntary editing limits I propose above in lieu of the sanction demonstrate my willingness to "voluntarily step away from the topic area". I would have been happy to have done so much earlier, if a proper warning that there was something wrong with my editing had been given. radek ( talk) 11:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
My rationale is here, and specifically here. In brief, Radek was the 3rd, 11th and 22nd revert of an edit war that lasted a week and spanned 25 reverts without one single post to the talk page. I have been canvassed off-wiki with the concern that Radek is a good admin candidate but won't pass RFA with a revert limit on his record. In my opinion, a good admin candidate would have realized by the 11th revert, and certainly by the 22nd revert, that approach to the dispute wasn't working and that something else needed to be tried.
As far as I know, Radek was never officially warned "your behavior is bad, you could be sanctioned under the terms of this arbcom case." However, he was clearly aware of the case because he has commented extensively on Diqwuren enforcement requests in April [93] May [94] and June [95]. So it depends on what you think the purpose of "notice" is. Is putting someone "on notice" a way to avoid catching good faith editors who are new to a topic that they weren't aware was contentious, or is it a formality that must be obeyed even when someone is clearly no stranger to the controversy. Thatcher 21:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
It appears that if Radeksz's statement is accurate, then there is solid basis for appeal. Having read Thatcher's comments, [96] there's no denying that the broader topic has been very difficult, yet it also appears that Radeksz had acted in this context with the reasonable belief that three edits over ten days would be safely within policy. If that is a problem then 1RR would not prevent it from recurring.
In the long run it's better to stabilize difficult topics by giving editors incentive to reform. There's a danger of defeatism setting in, and sometimes within mentoring situations I've held long conversations with editors who were saying something like "They're going to come up with excuses to block me no matter what, so I might as well do what I want if that's going to happen anyway." That's not a healthy mindset in one individual, and it's worse when groups of people share it. Warning and dialog are always good ideas if an administrator contemplates an innovative or borderline definition of sanctionable behavior. Durova 273 20:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The punishement seems to be harsh for what was a relatively minor offense. (3 edits in 10 days, i see worse edit warring happening every day i'm on wikipedia coupled with incivility and repeated offenses to boot). Given that Radeksz was not involved in disruptive editing elsewhere and he understands and regrets what he did wrong I think some restriction on only the Nashi article would be better. Loosmark ( talk) 20:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
From what I've seen, Radeksz does indeed edit war a lot. One only has to take a look at his contributions to Johan Bäckman [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] or Historical Truth Commission (where he broke 3RR, but self-reverted his last when requested). Therefore, I think 1RR is a good idea. His edit summary usage is also telling:
I'd like to pose the following question to Radeksz: if you were allowed to revert more than once in a week (which is what you are requesting), how would that enhance your ability to contribute positively to Wikipedia? Offliner ( talk) 23:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I essentially endorse Radeksz appeal, and would extend it to Colchicum too. In my long experience of the Baltic conflict zone there have been many occasions when outside editors such as Radeksz and Colchicum pass by to make some edit, and I feel sorry for them that they got caught in the crossfire. I think Thatcher's heavy 1RR sanction against them, if left standing, would have a chilling effect on any third party wanting to contribute to Baltic topics lest they get collaterally sanctioned.
As a background that led to this 1RR sanction against them, after Jehochman mentioned on this AE page that Shell Kinney was reviewing edits in the Baltic/Russian topic area [107], Thatcher jumped in and imposed some 1RR sanctions before Shell could complete her review, upsetting her in the process. Thatcher's initial sanctions resulted in only a warning for myself, but after representations on his talk by my content opponents UsernamePassport and Offliner [108], my warning was upgraded to a 1RR restriction. After I questioned Thatcher as to why Russavia wasn't given a similar upgrade when I pointed that my behaviour was no worse than Russavia's [109], Thatcher applied additional 1RR sanctions against Radeksz and Colchicum (who were not subject to Shell's exhaustive review) on the basis of a single article Nashi (youth movement). Thatcher's precipitous action, first stepping on Shell's toes to apply initial sanctions, then to impose additional sanctions upon people not in Shell's original review, has resulted in unwarranted collateral damage that is unnecessarily punitive on editors not known for disruptive edit warring. -- Martintg ( talk) 23:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I fully endorse Radeksz appeal. He is a very valuable editor who contributed huge amount of excellent material into this project. Sanctioning him the same way as other editors who clearly were very problematic is unjust, to say the least.-- Jacurek ( talk) 01:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
There are three problems in these sanctions. First problem. According to Arbcom, "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict ... if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia...". That means a warning logged in the case, exactly as Thatcher said [110]. After looking at this Arbcom decision, I honestly believed that I am only a subject to an official EE warning if my behavior was problematic, and Radek probably thought the same. Once receiving the proper warning, one could stop editing in this area or change his editing habits. However, the sanctions and the official warnings were issued at the same time, without giving users a possibility to improve, which goes against the letter and the spirit of discretionary sanctions. Second problem. The 1RR restriction was issued for article "Nashi", although some of the editors (including me and Radek) actually followed 1RR restriction while editing this article. Does it mean that anyone in general can be sanctioned for edit warring even if he follows 1RR rule? I am not quite sure. Third problem. Thatcher used an argument about the "tag-teaming". But this is a controversial concept, and it has been de facto rejected by ArbCom during last EE case, although many users tried to bring it there. Indeed, it is very common that several users revert someone else who fight against consensus. Does it mean tag-teaming? Biophys ( talk) 02:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd be willing to act as an admin mentor of Radek, I agree with his argumentation - it does seem to me like he was an accidental victim of a major wiki clean up operation :) PS. I think it is important to note that neutral editors like Durova, and even some of his less grudge holding content opponents like Malik, support lifting the restriction. PPS. I find Deacon's comment "Piotrus and Radek are long-term edit-warring POV buddies" to violate AGF and NPA, and I hope that it is refactored or commented upon by the closing admin. Regarding Deacon's "evidence" (from May), Radek never got close to 3RR on that page, used the talk page ( [111]) and the fact that he was reverting a disruptive editor, now permbanned, does matter. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Radek is no saint, and has a long history of edit-warring. Evidence of this will be found at
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive38#Dr._Dan. Whether he should get sanctioned on the basis of most recent activity I don't know. Thatcher has made that judgment after extensive evaluation, and commentators should give that more weight than the block campaigning from Radek's allies in this thread. Also, I can't understand why Piotrus would try to present himself as "uninvolved" here. (struck as Piotrus has now agree not to place his comment in the uninvolved admin section again) Piotrus and Radek are long-term edit-warring POV buddies. See
same thread for details of Piotrus and Radek's long relationship (in particular posts from Sciurinae and my quotes from Sciurinae's ArbCom amendment evidence). Besides that, Jehochman and Kirill Lokshin have already declared him involved.
[112] Cheers,
Deacon of Pndapetzim (
Talk) 04:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
An example of recent revert warring I've found is at Tsarist autocracy, acting with Piotrus as a team. He only made one comment on the talk page after having reverted four times. In six reverts, Radeksz reverted not only DonaldDuck but also admin Altenmann twice. The revert war also paints an extremely poor image of Piotrus (and it doesn't matter that DonaldDuck got indefinitely blocked). [113]
And Rad's latest block didn't need to be undone, either. Biophys and Offliner were in a revert war and an admin made a general warning to all editors that he would "be blocking anyone attempting to continue the edit war, regardless of the 3RR rule" ( [114]). Half an hour later Radeksz came, ignored the discussion page again and reverted ( [115]). Radeksz then claimed he just "edited" the page and that it was not correct to block people for one edit without prior history in the edit war and got that unblock request accepted. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 14:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to confirm what Radeksz wrote above. He and I were involved in a dispute last fall that led to his only block. Since then, we have repaired our relationship. He seems level-headed and he hasn't engaged in edit warring on any of the articles we both edit. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 04:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Above Martintg mentions that sanctions should not apply to Colchicum. If this is to be looked at, I would ask admins to look at Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park), in which it is clear that that user has engaged in edit warring. As it turns out egregious original research and violations of WP:V had occurred on that article, with the placement of an epitaph for the monument. -- Russavia Dialogue 00:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I support Radeksz appeal. This user edit warred a lot in the past but his statement sounds fair and, in my opinion, leaves both sides (user and community) satisfied, as it can work as some sort of checks and balances. - Darwinek ( talk) 19:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Thatcher, can you refute this? Is there a diff of a warning? Jehochman Talk 21:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I have also asked Thatcher to comment and believe we should wait with further review until he has done so. To everybody else, please stick to the format now used above (everyone edits only their own subsections) and limit your comments to what is strictly necessary to address this appeal, especially if you are involved in Eastern Europe-related disputes. Sandstein 17:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Without commenting on the sanction imposed itself—placing a restriction on reverts is, indeed, well within the discretion of an administrator acting under this remedy—I will note that the requirement for a formal warning is not meant only (or even primarily) as a way of informing editors of the existence of the remedy, but rather as an opportunity for editors to voluntarily step away from the topic area rather than facing actual sanctions. I understand that few people enjoy paperwork, but I don't think the requirements we have imposed for using discretionary sanctions are particularly onerous, or unsuitable to be followed as written. It is unfortunate, I think, if administrators are imposing these sanctions in ways which are contrary to our instructions; such actions may be slightly more expedient in the short term, but they tend to undermine the overall effectiveness of devolved arbitration enforcement.
(Is there some particular section that arbitrators are supposed to use when they comment on these? If so, anyone should feel free to move my comments to the appropriate place.) Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
All Rawat articles have been placed under an editing restriction:
3.1) The Prem Rawat article and all related articles are subject to an editing restriction for one year. No user may revert any given changes to a subject article more than once within a seven day period, except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations. Furthermore, if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period.
Please check if
have violated the restriction in the sequence of edits given below. Thanks.
JN 466 23:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The IP 190.246.25.14 ( talk · contribs) may have violated the same editing restriction on two articles. He restored two reverted edits within a 24 hours.
But I'll admit that I find the remedy to be unclear. Will Beback talk 07:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I have rv yet another identical removal by new editing IP 166.205.4.137 ,to return the article back to its original condition after reading this thread and noting this action to be acceptable by VS above. -- Savlonn ( talk) 07:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Here is a more complete summary of relevant background:
Of the IPs and accounts involved, the following appear to be single-purpose accounts focused on articles about Rawat, his organisations ( Divine Light Mission, Elan Vital, the Prem Rawat Foundation etc.) and family ( Hans Ji Maharaj), and the talk pages of related WP processes and editors:
The arbitrators included the following among their remedies: 4) The parties and other interested editors are encouraged to resume or restart mediation in relation to Prem Rawat and related articles. Passed 13 to 0, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC) JN 466 09:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
User requesting enforcement:
Grand
master 12:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Gazifikator (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
block, and topic ban on
Moses of Chorene
Additional comments by
Grand
master:
Gazifikator (
talk ·
contribs) has been placed on editing restriction, which limited him to 1 rv per week.
[122] However today Gazifikator made 2 rvs on the article about
Moses of Chorene, removing the quotes from professor
Robert W. Thomson, a notable expert on the subject. This is a clear and deliberate violation of the remedy. In addition, this user has been engaged in disruptive activity on the article in question for quite some time, reverting any attempts by other editors to include the opinion of the western scholarship on the subject of the article. Therefore, in my opinion, a topic ban on editing the articles related to
Moses of Chorene should also be considered.
Grand
master 12:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[123]
User:Grandmaster previously iniciated 3 editwarrings ( [124] [125] [126] etc) with different users at Moses of Chorene article, and despite last time the article was unprotected by the same Nishkid who noted that he will "reprotect if edit warring flares up" [127], Grandmaster continues POV-pushing. At the same unprotection day a 'new user' comes who reverted to Grandmaster's old version again [128]. And as this 'idea' was also unsuccessful, Grandmaster started another unconsensused editwarring. He adds a detailed minority view, which goes against WP:WEIGHT and is a direct continuation of his previous editwarrings. I explained it many times at the talk, as well as provided more reliable sources criticizing Prof. Thomson's view, who was just a translator of Khorenatsi. But Grandmaster continues his POV-pushing to the article, and he is the only user who's topic ban is really justified. Gazifikator ( talk) 13:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Please see my comments here: [129]. Given the context, it seems odd that Grandmaster would intentionally ignore the discussion that he participated in and go ahead with those changes. Strikes me like baiting. Sanctions need to be applied evenhandedly.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 14:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Gazifikator is in violation of his restriction. His statement above does not address this issue. I have blocked him for 72 hours in enforcement of the restriction. Subsequent violations will result in more severe sanctions.
If there is any misconduct by Grandmaster or others, this is not the place to evaluate it and it does not excuse Gazifikator violating his restriction. All editors may make separate enforcement requests against Grandmaster or others if they believe in good faith that the conduct of Grandmaster or others merits sanctions. Sandstein 15:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Ευπάτωρ
Talk!! 23:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Parishan (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Severe edit warring in the past 3 weeks:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
See below, under 'Additional comments'.
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
High time for AA2 restrictions to apply to Parishan
Additional comments by
Ευπάτωρ
Talk!!:
Note that Parishan was informed officially (that is by uninvolved admins) twice of AA2 restrictions,
here and
here unlike most users. While the initial reverts were against AzeriTerroru (probable sock account), they are mostly reverts to recent controversial changes. Rest of the reverts were against other users.
In the recent past, various admin’s have confirmed that Parishan has a tendency to edit war but he's not under restrictions. See Deacon of Pndapetzim 's comment and the following report here.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[174]
What we see here is a random collection of all article reverts (controversial, non-controversial, sockpuppet reverts, anonymous vandalism reverts, and even plain edits) that I happened to perform in the past three weeks presented here as a gigantic list of instances of 'edit warring.'
In addition to not being a revert, edit (1) is merely clarification of non-controversial information. It does not take a wiseman to figure out that being born in the given town physically cannot imply being born in the mentioned region. Mind you, it was never disputed further, so the term edit warring does not apply here.
Edits (2) through (12) are reverts of a sockpuppet who could not think of anything better to do than to stalk edit histories of Azerbaijan-related article contributors undoing all their recent edits. His/her reverts would have to be undone eventually.
Edits (12) through (15) do not qualify as 'edit warring.' The other party removed information without consulting the provided sources, but the issue was quickly resolved on the article's talkpage.
Edits (16) through (18) are definitely not edit warring. In fact, with those edits I expanded the template adding more links that pertained to the topic and are not disputed (they are still in the template), and left a comment on the talkpage. My single revert in edit (19) was triggered by the other party either not having noticed the proposed discussion on the talkpage or not willing to participate in it. With that, I did not engage in any more reverts.
I wish I could comment on edits (20) and (21) but I am clueless as to what User:Eupator meant by posting them here. Are they supposed to qualify as 'edit warning'? Please elaborate.
Edits (22) and (23) are one-time edits in different articles; calling them 'edit-warring' seems too harsh.
Edits (24) to (27) are reverts of an anonymous vandal who 'specialised' in removing references to Azeris and the Azeri language from as many Iran-related articles, as s/he stumbled upon, and specifically in the case with Farah Pahlavi in removing sourced information about the personality's ancestry. I have tried twice [175] [176] to get the page at least temporarily semi-protected in order to put an end to this IP-switching user's disruptive activity, but neither time the administration considered this case of vandalism severe enough. Parishan ( talk) 05:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Eupator, could you please improve the presentation of the evidence so that we can establish more easily whether this is indeed edit-warring? For instance, I am unable to easily determine whether edit #1 is even a revert of somebody. You could complement each entry in the list with the name of the article affected, a diff of the revision reverted to, and the name of the editor who is being warred with. Sandstein 05:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Thatcher, I do not see a need in banning from editing the page Lingua franca. Perhaps you did not notice that the discussion regarding Azeri involved two sections on the talkpage. In the first section, after the third party review of the issue, I discovered another source and restored the deleted information having provided this new reference (as opposed to "reverting Mackrakis' version", as Eupator is trying to present it here). User:VartanM reverted this edit but ignored my proposition to continue the discussion. I let the crippled version hang in there, even though it was no fault of mine that VartanM's disagreement stemmed merely from being uncomfortable with the word "Azeri" being used on Wikipedia (anyone who has read the talkpage can see that he had not cited a single academic source or provided any plausible scienfitic counter-argument in response to about six sources he was presented with). So this is not a case of me insisting on the importance of "Azeri"-ness; really this is a case of VartanM and Fedayee having a problem with the academic use of the word "Azeri" all throughout articles on Wikipedia despite its academic validity (in fact, VartanM has been reported precisely for deliberately stripping Wikipedia of mentionings of Azeris and Azerbaijan [184]). Since February I have discovered two or three more independent pieces of evidence to back up the information he kept removing. This time it did not cause any disagreement or controversy. So I really have no idea why I am being considered for punishment as a result of my activity in this article. I would say, I did my best as an editor having had the patience to spend four months on the talkpage over one sentence backed by six or seven sources (found and cited by myself) reacting on outrageously unacademic statements from someone who was clearly trying either to wear me out or to temporise. I am all for reaching compromise, but compromise is not possible when the other party has literally nothing on the table except speculations: no sources, no stable arguments, not even a clear idea of what they are trying to disprove. Also note that while this discussion is going on here, an anonymous account goes around all of the said articles deleting the information added by me, as if attempting to provoke me to edit warring. Parishan ( talk) 03:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I generally agree with Thatcher's take on the issue, but I think that in the article Lingua franca has been disrupted not by Parishan, but by his opponents, who keep reverting sourced info added by Parishan. Therefore I think that people removing sourced info must be placed on restriction. Otherwise, the problem with Azeri and Armenian names in the leads of articles about locations in Armenia and Azerbaijan is a long standing issue. I even initiated an RFC about that a couple of years ago. Generally, Armenian users insist on inclusion of Armenian names in the leads of articles about locations in Azerbaijan, but revert any attempts to include Azeri names for locations in Armenia. I can cite diffs, but at the moment I'm away on vacation and have a limited access to the Internet. I will pursue this issue when I'm back. But there's a problem of Armenian and Azeri names that should be adressed in general. I think something should be done to resolve this problem. Grand master 09:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Note to Thatcher: Grandmaster has also accused the 'opponents' of Atabek prior to Atabek's topic ban. See for yourself the way Parishan distorts the sources with one clear example. To support his position he quotes from Stephen Adolphe Wurm (see talkpage): The Turkic Azerbaijani language, in the southeastern part of the Caucasus area, has been a very important lingua franca used for inter-ethnic communication. But the actual phrase is this: The Turkic Azerbaijani language, in the southeastern part of the Caucasus area, has been a very important lingua franca used for inter-ethnic communication among speakers of most of the Lezgian languages of the Caucasian Daghestan Group, and also among speakers of some of the Avar languages. He added a period to cut the phrase with the result being to misinterpret the whole sentence. Again, the problem in Parishan's conduct is not that he does not provide the sources, but that he manipulates and misuses sources. Grandmaster's attempt to put on parity Armenian and Azerbaijani for historic places will make any person with the slightest knowledge of the history of the region laugh. This was explained several times, I will not bother bringing this here, more so when it's off-topic. But Thatcher might start here where Baku87 adds the modern Azeri term. Note that over 80% of anything coming from Caucasian Albania came to us from Armenian text, the rest in Persian, Arabic and Greek and that modern encyclopedias do include the Armenian term (see Iranica for example). You get the picture here of the POV pushing in an attempt to include Azeri in every articles where there is Armenian in the picture. - Fedayee ( talk) 16:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
One day for Gazifikator, and how much for Parishan? Sardur ( talk) 00:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Not sure that further is required at this time. Thatcher 01:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
This issue arose at the village pump ( see thread) and I'm bringing this here now before somebody else does, mostly because (while the lameness factor is mystifying) I think I see an easy way out of this dispute:
Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Greg L restricted:
I believe this revert is principally stylistic, and not prescribed by any entity other than himself (see Talk:Kilogram: "It makes the articles look better and any editor worth his salt can easily comprehend why they are there").
While I'm sure no true Scotsman would doubt him, Greg's version contains partially overlapping (i.e. improperly nested) element tags, whereas the most applicable style guideline I can find says that documents should be well formed.
The software (and html-tidy extension etc.) does clean up bad code like this, e.g.:
<b>whoever wrote <i>this</b> ought to be shot</i> |
→ | <b>whoever wrote <i>this</i></b><i> ought to be shot</i> |
I'm sure exactly what Greg is even trying to do here anyway. The extra 0.1em of space is barely visible at normal font-sizes (and I could personally not care less provided they all look the same), but clearly the correct place for it would be in MediaWiki:Common.css:
sup.reference {
font-weight: normal;
font-style: normal;
+ margin-left:0.1em;
}
I think that would make everyone happy here, but personally I'd suggest using the same margin on the right side too. — CharlotteWebb 12:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Since being unblocked, Greg L has reverted a stylistic change to that same article, Kilogram. See [190] [191] According to this he may be intending to appeal. John Vandenberg ( chat) 21:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Does this mean that if I italicize some text to set it off for emphasis, that unless there is some style guide somewhere that says doing so is “prescribed”, then all editor have to do to jerk my chain is change what I’ve been writing and I can’t even oppose it? I might as well as walk away from Wikipedia; I author articles, I’m not a wikignome where I just make spelling corrections on text that is in roman-only font style. What if I link something? If someone goes in and links some totally trivial word in Fuzzball (string theory), such as “mist” in this sentence:
“Whereas the event horizon of a classic black hole is thought to be very well defined and distinct, Mathur and Lunin further calculated that the event horizon of a fuzzball should be very much like a mist: fuzzy, hence the name ‘fuzzball.’ ”
…I can’t change it back? That would be a style change, would it not? Is that the ball and chain on my leg? I can author these articles in which I am the major contributor but if anyone comes in and changes it, I can’t undo that change if it can be argued that was stylistic and isn’t “prescribed” (whatever the heck that means), like a 0.2 em gap to keep a refnote tag from colliding with adjacent italicized text? Just give me the word. For if I am so encumbered, I will not edit anymore on Wikipedia. Greg L ( talk) 01:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
P.S. The “reverting” you mention that I did on Kilogram might well be some sort of trap someone set up for me. That editor didn’t change all the links that refer to the glossary; only four of them ( that edit here) and left the vast majority (there are 24 in the article) in place. Go count them in the article and see for yourself. What a way to kludge up a nice article. So if someone goes in and does an incomplete change in an article like this, I can’t undo it; I just leave the article screwed up? Are you serious? This is the limitation on me; just stand back and watch editors muck things up with incomplete hacks? Greg L ( talk) 02:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
P.P.S. I’ll be e-mailing an appeal in the next 24 hours formally asking for an adjustment to my restrictions. Please advise where I am supposed to send it. Greg L ( talk) 02:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I was hoping not to see arbitrary knee jerks like what was provoked by Charlotte's post here which does great damage to her honest intentions and her credibility as well as those of the admin who leapt up and blocked Greg. It appears to me that the edit concerned should not be considered a 'stylistic' edit. Closing the html tags is a technical matter. What is of greater concern is that it seems to have set Jayvdb off on a witch-hunt of Greg's actions, choosing an an incident which could be viewed as vandalism of article where Greg is the foremost contributor, whiffs of entrapment. I wonder if my defense of Greg here will set off accusation that I am in breach of participating in a discussion on stylistic matter? :-) Ohconfucius ( talk) 03:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Then Jayvdb makes style-only changes to just 4 of 24 links that share a common property in the article, leaving me with awkward choice.
What Charlotte and Jayvdb did—whether by innocent mistake or cunning—amounts in the end to just so much wikidrama and wastes everyone’s time. I have a sprinkler system I’ve been installing and had been hoping to get outside today to work on it early when it was cool. Instead, I spent the whole morning responding to this sort of stuff. I find this whole day’s Wikipedia experience to be distasteful. I never pull childish stunts and always try to edit in good faith. I certainly don’t like being like an ape in a cage at the zoo for all the neighborhood kids to bang their sticks on the cage’s bars for their jollies. Greg L ( talk) 05:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh my. I saw some peripheral reference to the formatting of the kilogram article and went and looked. The massive use of embedded spans is poor form and not in any MOS I've ever seen here; ditto the font-elements. I did a bit of remedial work on the article — removed *all* the green, for example; also fixed heading levels and was about to sort out the spans. I'll wait as it looks like there's a lot to read in this thread. Embedding excessive markup is a bad thing; the whole idea of wiki-markup is that it's supposed to be reasonably 'clean' for unsophisticated editors ('un' in a technical sense). Any such new conventions need consensus first, and MediaWiki/CSS implementations second. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Note, that I’m generally keeping myself logged out so I can visit Wikipedia for information without nagging “you’ve got mail” banners across the top and because I am busy lately in real life. So if anyone has a pressing need for further information, you might e-mail me. Greg L ( talk) 02:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Internal_consistency seems to imply that if 4 out of 24 references are different, they should be changed to match the other ones for the purposes of consistency; in other words, it is supported by a style guideline. Ken Arromdee ( talk) 18:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
User requesting enforcement:
«l| ?romethean ™|l»
(talk) 17:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Thekohser (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Civility Restriction
Purpose of ban suspension
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not applicable
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
Block and / or reinstatement of Community Ban
Additional comments by
«l| ?romethean ™|l»
(talk):
The background of this request is that I made a page with my views and justification before removing Thekohser's BoT candidacy leaving an edit summary inviting him to revert me if he still thought he was an applicable candidate given the damaging evidence that was compiled. Given that the BoT election is a private vote (which i was not aware of), said page was deleted and Thekohs restored his vote. All of the prior occured on meta. For some reason however Thekhos started trolling and harrasing me here after the incident was WP:STICK. Whilst he appears to make an apology for all the above, I feel that he did knowingly and intentionally break his civility restrictions in order to harass and toll me and that the apology (given his recent conduct) may be a ploy to avoid enforcement of his community ban. His excuse is that he "had forgotten the letter of the restrictions" because of the "new article creation, and article improvement efforts since being provisionally unblocked"
[201] (which could be considered a sarcastic dig at my inactivity). Even IF he was negligent of his restrictions, it is no excuse for breaking them. It's worth noting that he alone initiated his uncivil conduct on this wiki and that he was in no way asked, encouraged or forced to move here by anyone, he chose to attempt to feud with me here.
His actions also are against the very nature of why he is has been given another chance (that being "is to help build an encyclopedia and therefore the focus of your editing is to work directly on improving Wikipedia articles."). Not only has he been editing articles in his return, but he has also been Investigating me off-wiki, Inquiring about my name, threatening to feud with me off wiki, feuding with me here, canvassing for a meta issue. One of his 2 reasons for returning was for a "degree of restoration of the earlier good reputation of my original account and my real name" [202]. He was granted this privilege based on that he accepted (and followed) the terms (that are perfectly reasonable) and it would seem he has failed to follow the two most important ones given his actions above.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a
diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.
This all began on Meta when, within a span of a few minutes, Promethean (with whom I had never engaged before) called me a "rat mole", said I was "unhealthy", and then blanked my candidacy statement for the WMF Board of Trustees. One of my best defenses is to simply let Promethean speak for himself on this page, alongside his past record of disruption. I am going to let the following links also speak in my defense:
I am here to build an encyclopedia, and maybe enjoy a few good-natured chuckles along the way. If folks would just let me be, I will get back to that. -- Thekohser 02:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Good Lord. Promethean disrupted the WMF election process and engaged in vicious and often baseless attacks against Thekohser on Meta. Thekohser, as is his wont, responded by lowering himself some distance—though certainly not all the way—towards his assailant. Thekohser ranks at best second on the list of editors meriting sanctions here. Steve Smith ( talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
This request by Promethean for sanctions was made after and in response to an apology by Thekohser as can be seen by the dates.
I apologize for the spiteful comment above. I think it would be best if I politely withdraw my request for mentorship, since that was just an attempt to make a mockery of you being a mentor. Apologies for that, too. -- Thekohser 17:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I half expected this, I was willing to assume good faith however you yourself have admitted to what constitutes feuding, apologies or not. I'm afraid that in the interest of Wikipedia this will likely be referred to the Arbitration Committee for enforcement of the terms of your parole. I wish it didn't come to this but I'm afraid that it is unreasonable for me to bend over backwards for someone who isn't willing to change their conduct. «l| ?romethean ™|l» (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
144.189.100.25 ( talk) 19:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
This could all be one big misunderstanding where both sides didn't handle things well or given the other editor is just barely off a ban, this could be intended to bring that ban back by triggering poor responses. I'm trying to assume the first, but the wikilawyering ("but that was meta!") and disincination to understand your part in the conflict ("he's subject to parole, I'm not") is making it difficult. If you place your hand in a fire and then get angry with the fire when it hurts, others would be right to question your behavior. I am distinctly uncomfortable with the idea of engaging sanctions against someone who was provoked, especially a sanction requested after they managed to get a hold of themselves and drop the issue. Shell babelfish 22:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Promethean, you need to give the appearance of being a grown up. Your actions recently give a somewhat different appearance, at least to this observer. There really isn't much more to say here unless you keep pushing, in which case I think the sanctions that need applying are to you rather than to TheKohser. Baiting shouldn't be rewarded. ++ Lar: t/ c 23:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I haven't looked into Promethean's allegations, but I can report simialr behavior. I participated in a discussion about content created by Thekohser during or prior to his ban (a thread started by an ArbCom member), and he was very adversarial. He demanded a list of articles that I had created, and then followed that list to tag one of the pages of which I was the sole contributor (a subpage which was mistakenly in mainspace) [204] and argued that I was guilty of plagiarism when I split another article. [205] He kept insisting that I act on some obscure issue from 18 months ago. [206] He was required by the ArbCom to list all of this socks accounts, and he omitted an IP that he'd used repeatedly to circumvent his ban. When I reminded him of it he left a bad faith comment. [207] In addition, he's made remarks that are borderline uncivil. He seems to be operating with a large chip on his shoulder. I don't think any enforcement is needed, but he should make sure he really wants to be here and is willing to behave in line with community norms and the ArbCom's conditions. 00:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback ( talk • contribs)
Are we enforcing behavioral issues (hypothetically speaking) that occur on Meta at EnWiki? Shouldn't behavior issues there be reported there, or am I wrong? Baiting an editor under civility restriction and then reporting them is manifest bad faith. I would be inclined to sanction such behavior as a simple administrative action (not arbitration enforcement). If Greg has been instructed by ArbCom not to take the bait, and he has, I think he should be reminded once, especially if his response was moderate. What say others? Jehochman Talk 02:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
User requesting enforcement:
Skäpperöd (
talk) 12:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Radeksz (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
that the accusations against me be removed/stricken from
WP:RS/N and
Talk:Kołobrzeg, that Radeksz stop ABF on my part, and if he cannot, that a mediator be appointed or Radeksz stay away from me.
Additional comments by
Skäpperöd (
talk):
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[221]
Oh Wow. I am really speechless at the brazenness of this. I've never seen an AE report filed on such flimsiest of reasons, and I've seen some pretty darn flimsy ones.
"For me, being called a disruptive forum shopper is not much different to being called a little shit." - and for me having a spurious AE report filed on myself is not much different then you breaking into my house in the middle of the night and stealing my dog. Come on! We can make stuff up all day long and act mutually offended over every word. More completely tenuous connections, and unnecessary drama. Gimme back my dog! radek ( talk) 11:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Skaperod's request should be dismissed, and he should be adviced to stop with these continuous silly complains against Polish editors. As for the Kołobrzeg article the biggest problem seems to be that Skapperod is trying to force a German POV on a Polish city: for example I went to count, out of the 37 References listed, 28 are German. When Radeksz wanted instert something from the Polish Webpage of the city Skaperod immediately started to make huge drama. It's ridiculous. Loosmark ( talk) 13:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
In addition to the "Addtional comments" in the request section:
Are you really saying that removing a statement two days after a positive reponse at RSN justifies to be called "disruptive" in mainspace, and that if a question at RS in part resembles a question that was asked 8 month before without a definite answer justifies to be called "forum shopping" and a call to send me messages to stop it? For me, being called a disruptive forum shopper is not much different to being called a little shit. This is not about a content dispute (Radeksz did not add any content to the article) or a nationality issue, and the amount of bad faith spread here indicates that something needs to change. I am not asking for an indef ban here, not even for a block. Skäpperöd ( talk) 19:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC) On a second thought, you are probably right that this thread just furthers the mudslinging instead of preventing it. Skäpperöd ( talk) 05:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Radek said that removing text without discussing and with a lame excuse can be seen as disruptive. In no way can that be compared to calling somebody little shit which is a direct verbal abuse, so Skapperod please stop making drama, discuss the article on its talk page and work together with Radek on its improvement. Loosmark ( talk) 21:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
This looks like a misuse of WP:AE in order to win the upper hand in a content dispute. The edits cited in the request are not objectionable; rather, they reflect routine disagreements about content. In particular, it is not disruptive to state one's opinion that "Removing a large chunk of text without discussing it first is generally seen as "disruptive"". Unless other administrators disagree, I will close this thread with a warning to Skäpperöd that AE is not a substitute for, or part of, proper dispute resolution, and that he may face sanctions if he files more unfounded enforcement requests. Sandstein 18:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
User requesting enforcement:
Fedayee (
talk) 22:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Baki66 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
Revert restriction as well as a page move ban for this user.
Additional comments by
Fedayee (
talk):
Baki66's account seems to be a single-purpose one with the purpose being unilateral reverts and to move pages. This is obviously non-constructive as it brings nothing but revert wars.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[243]
The history and contribs indicate that it was Gragg who started messing around, so in my humble opinion the bilateral sanctions proposed below could be redundant. Brand t 12:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Note that Baki66 totally ignored Sandstein's warning, waited a few days and moved the articles back without any comments.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 17:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Just a note: the editor Baki66 was move-warring with, Gragg ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is by now already subject to sanctions as described at User talk:Gragg#Sanctions. Sandstein 05:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'm applying the same sanctions. That is, I am hereby sanctioning Baki66 as follows for six months each with respect to pages relating to Armenia or Azerbaijan, broadly defined:
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Skäpperöd (
talk) 15:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Loosmark (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
"Not applicable." But warned anyway:
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
Loosmark makes valueable contributions in the motorsports area, the problems only concern Eastern Europe. Thus, topic ban or some sort of counseling.
Additional comments by
Skäpperöd (
talk):
Situation at
Expulsion of Germans after World War II
For the parallel discussion, read Talk:Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II#Nazi-occupied_Warsaw. Be aware that the thread is not chronological, and that the thread is actually about everything but the controversial line. See my attempts to get the discussion focussed and how they were disregarded.
Now we have a situation that an unsourced, emotional statement, not by a single source connected to the scope of the article, not by a single source shown to be factually acurate, disputed by many editors, remains in the article because of the combined efforts of user:Radeksz, User:Loosmark and user:Jacurek, who are obviously thinking that stuff like this may only be removed "by consensus". I expect the reviewing admins to give some advise how to deal with situations like that. I thought about opening an RfC, but the idea of an RfC on a statement not even complying to WP:RS and WP:V seems pretty ridiculous. My position on this is that per WP:RS and per remedy Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2#Editors_reminded a removal is justified and its re-introduction constitutes a violation of both the policy and the remedy.
Situation at Polish Corridor
Diffs above, here Loosmark exchanged the header of the section "Establishment of the corridor", which is without doubt a very neutral way to title the section dealing with the establishment of the corridor, with "Poland regains independence". Loosmark also altered the first lines of the section, displacing a reference. No discussion.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
notified
Ok I'll to be to brief. The problem we have here is that Skäpperöd gets nervous as soon as somebody has the courage to oppose his POV in various articles. He was creating great dramas all over the Expulsion of Germans after World War II talk page over a single sentence which shortly described German atrocities in Warsaw to explain at least a little why many Poles had anti-German feelings after the war. He also acted dishonestly because it was very clear from the talk page that I opposed the elimination of that sentence but he just lied that nobody was opposing his proposal for 2 days and simply went on with it.
Regarding the Polish Corridor article yes I did exchange the without doubt very neutral title header "Establishment of the corridor" which is in reality an unbelievably hard German POV. The facts are that after World War I the only thing that was established was an Independent Polish State. The area in question was part of the Pomeranian Voivodeship, had a clear Polish majority therefore it was simply and rightfully part of Poland. The German politicians started to push this "Polish corridor" term which then escalated into Hitler and the Nazis trying to wrestle the area from Poland and finally using it as one of the excuses for starting WW2. I stand behind my edit, even more so because the article is still very disbalanced in favor of a German POV, please see the article on Polish wikipedia for comparison: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korytarz_polski
As for the all diffs which Skäpperöd produced and painted in such a dramatic fashion, what is he saying is downright absurd. He was the one who was hysterically trying to get the sentence removed because it didn't suit his POV. About that Elysander, he never edited that specific article before, nor did he participate in the discussion on the talk page, he just came to that page to make reverts, which were, oh surprise, basically the same that Skäpperöd was doing.
What is completely unbelievably that Skäpperöd has the nerve to accuse me of edit warring and battlefield mentality since he's famous for entering countless disputes with Polish editors due to his hard POV. We have a classical case of the pot calling the kettle black, as is clear by taking a look at the articles he edits. I can only conclude that Skäpperöd's only intention here is to get rid of editor(s) which have a different view than his own so that he can shape the articles completely the way he wants. Therefore I propose his proposal for sanctions is dismissed and he is advised to, how shall i put it, stop screaming "calamity, global calamity" if he can't have it his way every single time. Loosmark ( talk) 17:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Another thing, this sentence Now we have a situation that an unsourced, emotional statement, not by a single source connected to the scope of the article, not by a single source shown to be factually acurate, disputed by many editors, remains in the article because of the combined efforts of user:Radeksz, User:Loosmark and user:Jacurek, who are obviously thinking that stuff like this may only be removed "by consensus". is blatantly false. First I reject Skäpperöd's POV claim that is an "emotional statement", second Skäpperöd cannot be the sole and ultimate judge what info belongs to an article and third the only other editor which disputed, indirectly, that sentence is ANNRC. Woogie10w initialy supported the connection between the events in Warsaw and the expulsions and even provided a source but later apparently changed his mind (Woogie10w has ancestors of German Prussian origins and Skäpperöd started to lobby that a single sentence about German misdeeds in Warsaw would introduce the 'collective guilt' concept!?!). Even so Woogie10w, unlike Skäpperöd, still thinks the destruction of Warsaw should be mentioned in the article but just suggests the sentence be rephrased. It's pretty clear that Skäpperöd isn't presenting a truthful picture of what was going on on that talk page. Loosmark ( talk) 17:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Further comments: I find Sandstein's comment bellow that I made "long and rambling statement" offending. I had to explain the situation under which the events happened and since he also doesn't seem to understand my "line of defense".. It is important to understand under which circustances were reverts being made, who started edit warring, who was being dishonest in the discussion etc. But ok if you want me to be more specific, lets look at Skaperod's actions on the Expulsion of Germans after World War II page:
We should all asume good faith and believe that Elysander by some cosmic coincidence found that page in the exact moment Skaperod needed it the most. But down there if you are honest to yourself you all know what was going on there so 2+2=4 for the tag-team Skaperod, and who was breaking the rules here? Loosmark ( talk) 01:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment on AdjustShift's action described in the results section: Seems to me that all editors involved in the dispute on the Expulsion of Germans after World War II page acted responsibly and refrained themselves from making any edits from 27th June. Therefore by protecting the page on 1st July AdjustShift seems to be kicking a dead horse. Loosmark ( talk) 16:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Please amend your request to specify the specific sanction or remedy that you believe this user violated, and/or the remedy under whose authority you request sanctions. Sandstein 17:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I think there is some mild edit warring here; the kind that usually gets one a reprimand to not do it the future, especially for an editor with a clean block log. Furthermore, Loosemark also simultaneously engaged in a LOT of discussion with numerous editors, unlike Skapperod, and as Jacurek pointed out there was a gradual convergence to a consensus emerging on talk, now disrupted by this request. Also, there is just as much edit warring on these articles from User:HerkusMonte so the behavior of the two users should be considered together. radek ( talk) 22:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion it is very necessary to mention what I have to say now, therefore I am doing this. By banning one editor who was involved in discussion/dispute of the above pages, you will only open door to the POV of the editor who is not sanctioned. Either everybody has to stay away from these pages for a while or everybody is allowed to continue to discuss and edit. I am sorry but banning one side only will be counterproductive to the development of these pages resulting with one sided view and highly POV article. -- Jacurek ( talk) 23:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Is this coment in the right place? If not, please move. In response to Thatchers comment, I ask for a clarification on the warning/listing issue:
Loosmark has accused me of having an anti-Polish POV, and provided this diff [39] as evidence. I must strongly object. I do not even believe that there is a German/ Polish/whatever POV, nations don't have a POV. There are only POVs of disagreeing editors, which do not matter for the content but may make consensus and civility difficult to establish, and there are POVs of disagreeing RS, which matter for the content according to WP:NPOV/UNDUE. That's it. You can take this as response to the "German POV" comments above too, to which I cannot respond further because they are not backed up. The diff shown by Loosmark also shows no more than that I edit in this spirit, by changing "Polish view" into "this view" in regard to the preceeding line in the article which already says "especially in Poland". Ethnic generalization must not happen. Skäpperöd ( talk) 06:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment for other admins: The diffs provided as evidence under [1] and [2] are indicative of edit-warring. Loosmark's long and rambling statement does not help his case at all, because it does not address his own conduct that is the subject of this request (except by trying to defend his edit warring with the argument of being right, which, as we know, is not a good excuse for edit-warring). I am about to impose a revert restriction or topic ban with respect to subjects related to Poland and Germany. What do you think? Sandstein 21:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
User requesting enforcement:
Momento (
talk) 01:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Will Beback (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat#Article_probation/ disruptive editing
[47]
" Prem Rawat and related articles, including their talk pages, are subject to article probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivility". In this case "tendentious editing" - disregarding other editors' objections to edits and continues to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors".
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Notice of edit
[48]
Violating edit [49]
Despite an ongoing discussion about the appropriateness of using the term "cult" in the lead (OK in the rest of the article) in which three involved editors are objecting to the use of "cult" in the lead, Will Beback ignored the discussion, ignored consensus and ignored any other form of resolution and changed to lead of the Prem Rawat article to insert "cult". When asked to revert this disruptive edit, he ignored that as well.
Diffs of edits by three editors expressing opposition -
Diffs of edit asking Will Beback to revert but his doesn't. [53]
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
Topic ban of Prem Rawat related articles.
Additional comments by
Momento (
talk) 01:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC):
WillBeback has already been admonished in April for his editing of Prem Rawat articles
[54] and blocked in May for violating remedies.
[55] He assumes his opinion is more important than editors who disagree with him and ignores their input and the ongoing discussion in order to impose his will on the article. Asked to revert his edit, he ignores that as well showing a complete and deliberate disregard of consensus or any other appropriate avenue for resolving the issue.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
Will Beback notified.
[56]
Before I start, is it reasonable that Sandstein withheld judgement for 24 hours in order to allow WB to reply to my comments but then waited only 22 minutes to make his judgement before I had a chance to reply? Particularly since WB claimed support from "five editors" for his edit when three of the editors weren't even talking about the edit in question.
The diffs supplied by WB do not support his claim that they supported his edit.
Conclusion People have tried to follow Wiki rules at Prem Rawat. Instead of edit wars and reverts they've been arguing their points on the talk page to try to get the best result. But it is all in vain. Because following the rules isn't necessary for some. Will Beback gave less than nine hours notice of making an edit that was being discussed and opposed by three editors. He ignored the discussion and consensus and made it anyway. An edit so badly written and incorporated in to the article that two of the three editors who supported it after it was done (no one had time to comment after he said he was going to make the edit) still had problems with the edit. Savlonn commented "a few minor quibbles, such as moving to the end of the paragraph taking the date order out of sync" and Maelefique commented "agree with Savlonn, from a chronological viewpoint, it might be better to put it ...." In short, a bad edit made against opposition without consensus in an article that is supposed to be under probation. Aren't I supposed to bring this here? Apparently not judging by the indecent haste with which Sandstein (22 minutes) and KillerChihuahua (32 minutes) rushed to judgement. Will Beback was given 24 hours to respond to my comments, Sanstein didn't give me 22 minutes to respond to WB's ( I wonder why it's called discussion when no one is allowed to discuss it). They were so quick they didn't notice that Cla68, Wowest and Nik W2 did not support the edit as WB claimed. Or that the"factual inaccuracies or faulty characterizations" WB claimed I made in my request were all his. If Sandstein and KillerChihuahua were serious about this case they would remove their comments and let other admins review this case in it's entirety so as not be influenced by their premature opinions. Sandstein even wonders if it was "prima facie disruptive". Have a look at the Prem Rawat article now, is that an edit war I see. [79] Or look below to Prem Rawat 3.( talk) 07:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I have amended this complaint according to Sandstein's request but note that "You may also choose not to use this template and format your request by hand, as long as you provide all relevant information as described in the template above". Momento ( talk) 01:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
As a result of this discussion, under the authority of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat#Article probation, Momento is hereby banned from discussions related to Prem Rawat. That is, he is banned from initiating or otherwise participating in any discussions related to Prem Rawat in all Wikipedia discussion pages and other fora, including article and user talk pages, WP:AE, WP:AN, WP:ANI and their talk pages, except to the extent necessary to make responses to any requests for administrative action against him. This topic ban shall last as long as his ban from editing articles about the same topic (i.e., currently until 20 April 2010 per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2#Momento topic banned). Sandstein 08:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Note: I've contact the administrator who issued the sanction User:Thatcher off wiki and s/he suggested that I file this appeal. I apologize in advance for the length of this request. I have tried to make this appeal as brief as possible while still covering all the points I feel are relevant.
[82] a 1RR per week limit on all Eastern Europe related articles with the possibility of a review after 6 months.
Per descriptive text of the sanction notice, this stems from the fact that there was edit warring at the article Nashi (youth movement) from June 11 to June 21. During these ten days I made 3 (three) edits to the article, spread out over the ten days (i.e. there was no 3RR or even a 1RR violation).
I was also listed in a very minor, tangential manner by Shell Kinney over at [83] though not as one of the “major players”, and almost in an offhanded manner.
The third relevant aspect here is the Digwuren case. I was not involved in that case, I was not put under any restrictions, notice or sanctions because of that case – unlike most editors who received the same sanction handed out by Thatcher in the past week or so.
I am filing this appeal per: [84] Specifically:
Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement), or the Committee.
(For reasons mentioned above, I am filing this appeal to the appropriate administrators’ noticeboard, ie. currently this one.)
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. (my emphasis)
(I never received any kind of warning. I was completely blindsided by this. I was never counseled, nor was I ever given an opportunity to improve my editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines)
There are three reasons why this sanction was inappropriate and why it should be rescinded:
I request that
I personally volunteer to
Additionally
Yes, I stumbled into an edit war and made three reverts over the course of ten days (not a week). After my first edit I did not bother to check the history of the relevant article - precisely because my edits were so few - and I did not realize the full scale of the edit warring that was going on. This was my fault for not being careful enough. But I think this is an oversight that is very understandable. If you're going to make three edits in ten days, how careful are you going to be about making sure you avoid any potential charges of 'edit warring'? With just those three edits, which follow 1RR/Week, are you going to write a lengthy description of every single edit on the talk page? Or will you, understandably, believe that a simple edit summary is sufficient?
As to the matter of the warning: Yes, I was, of course, aware of the Diguwren case. But as you yourself state here [92] At RFAR/Digwuren, users must be notified of the existence of the case and the possibility of further sanctions, with the notification logged, prior to imposing any sanctions.. To emphasize users must be notified...the notification logged, prior to imposing any sanctions. If at some point between June 11 and June 21 you'd have even said something like "I see that you've made a revert to the page "Nashi". Please try to refrain from making further edits without talk discussion as there is a major edit war going on at the moment" I would have totally desisted from further (uh, from the further TWO edits) edits and probably initiated a talk discussion. But no such warning, or log was made. This was all POST FACTUM, where you issued a sanction to EVERYONE who edited the article, whether they made 3 edits in ten days, or 12 edits in two days. How can you ask for 'neutral editors' when you automatically ban everyone who edits an article? Seriously, if I had any inkling that my edits were problematic I would have done things very much differently. But since I only made three edits in ten days I didn't think myself that that was the case. And you didn't give me any indication that the situation was different. radek ( talk) 23:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Sandstein, I understand your concerns. BUT;
Then if the user continues causing (real) trouble sanctions and restrictions follow. I was never given such a warning (probably because unlike almost everyone else who got the sanction I don't cause trouble) nor was the warning logged - "not effective unless given by an administrator and logged". I would be somewhat sympathetic to Thatcher's argument that such warning was not necessary in my case because I was clearly aware of the case if I had done something extreme, like violated 3RR or been uncivil or made personal attacks. But I didn't, I followed 1RR/Week in my edits and hence had no idea that what I was doing was in any way wrong. A short notice at the time would've been sufficient to make me realize that. I don't understand why users who have behaved much much worse than I have, were first given a warning (sometimes a few) and only after they failed to change their behavior were sanctioned. Whereas in my case, a minor infraction lead to a short-circuiting of the whole process (that was working quiet well) and an immediate restriction. Even Thatcher acknowledge that that was the proper way to proceed in the case above - why not in my case?
Thank you for saying concisely what I've been trying to get across here. I think the voluntary editing limits I propose above in lieu of the sanction demonstrate my willingness to "voluntarily step away from the topic area". I would have been happy to have done so much earlier, if a proper warning that there was something wrong with my editing had been given. radek ( talk) 11:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
My rationale is here, and specifically here. In brief, Radek was the 3rd, 11th and 22nd revert of an edit war that lasted a week and spanned 25 reverts without one single post to the talk page. I have been canvassed off-wiki with the concern that Radek is a good admin candidate but won't pass RFA with a revert limit on his record. In my opinion, a good admin candidate would have realized by the 11th revert, and certainly by the 22nd revert, that approach to the dispute wasn't working and that something else needed to be tried.
As far as I know, Radek was never officially warned "your behavior is bad, you could be sanctioned under the terms of this arbcom case." However, he was clearly aware of the case because he has commented extensively on Diqwuren enforcement requests in April [93] May [94] and June [95]. So it depends on what you think the purpose of "notice" is. Is putting someone "on notice" a way to avoid catching good faith editors who are new to a topic that they weren't aware was contentious, or is it a formality that must be obeyed even when someone is clearly no stranger to the controversy. Thatcher 21:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
It appears that if Radeksz's statement is accurate, then there is solid basis for appeal. Having read Thatcher's comments, [96] there's no denying that the broader topic has been very difficult, yet it also appears that Radeksz had acted in this context with the reasonable belief that three edits over ten days would be safely within policy. If that is a problem then 1RR would not prevent it from recurring.
In the long run it's better to stabilize difficult topics by giving editors incentive to reform. There's a danger of defeatism setting in, and sometimes within mentoring situations I've held long conversations with editors who were saying something like "They're going to come up with excuses to block me no matter what, so I might as well do what I want if that's going to happen anyway." That's not a healthy mindset in one individual, and it's worse when groups of people share it. Warning and dialog are always good ideas if an administrator contemplates an innovative or borderline definition of sanctionable behavior. Durova 273 20:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The punishement seems to be harsh for what was a relatively minor offense. (3 edits in 10 days, i see worse edit warring happening every day i'm on wikipedia coupled with incivility and repeated offenses to boot). Given that Radeksz was not involved in disruptive editing elsewhere and he understands and regrets what he did wrong I think some restriction on only the Nashi article would be better. Loosmark ( talk) 20:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
From what I've seen, Radeksz does indeed edit war a lot. One only has to take a look at his contributions to Johan Bäckman [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] or Historical Truth Commission (where he broke 3RR, but self-reverted his last when requested). Therefore, I think 1RR is a good idea. His edit summary usage is also telling:
I'd like to pose the following question to Radeksz: if you were allowed to revert more than once in a week (which is what you are requesting), how would that enhance your ability to contribute positively to Wikipedia? Offliner ( talk) 23:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I essentially endorse Radeksz appeal, and would extend it to Colchicum too. In my long experience of the Baltic conflict zone there have been many occasions when outside editors such as Radeksz and Colchicum pass by to make some edit, and I feel sorry for them that they got caught in the crossfire. I think Thatcher's heavy 1RR sanction against them, if left standing, would have a chilling effect on any third party wanting to contribute to Baltic topics lest they get collaterally sanctioned.
As a background that led to this 1RR sanction against them, after Jehochman mentioned on this AE page that Shell Kinney was reviewing edits in the Baltic/Russian topic area [107], Thatcher jumped in and imposed some 1RR sanctions before Shell could complete her review, upsetting her in the process. Thatcher's initial sanctions resulted in only a warning for myself, but after representations on his talk by my content opponents UsernamePassport and Offliner [108], my warning was upgraded to a 1RR restriction. After I questioned Thatcher as to why Russavia wasn't given a similar upgrade when I pointed that my behaviour was no worse than Russavia's [109], Thatcher applied additional 1RR sanctions against Radeksz and Colchicum (who were not subject to Shell's exhaustive review) on the basis of a single article Nashi (youth movement). Thatcher's precipitous action, first stepping on Shell's toes to apply initial sanctions, then to impose additional sanctions upon people not in Shell's original review, has resulted in unwarranted collateral damage that is unnecessarily punitive on editors not known for disruptive edit warring. -- Martintg ( talk) 23:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I fully endorse Radeksz appeal. He is a very valuable editor who contributed huge amount of excellent material into this project. Sanctioning him the same way as other editors who clearly were very problematic is unjust, to say the least.-- Jacurek ( talk) 01:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
There are three problems in these sanctions. First problem. According to Arbcom, "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict ... if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia...". That means a warning logged in the case, exactly as Thatcher said [110]. After looking at this Arbcom decision, I honestly believed that I am only a subject to an official EE warning if my behavior was problematic, and Radek probably thought the same. Once receiving the proper warning, one could stop editing in this area or change his editing habits. However, the sanctions and the official warnings were issued at the same time, without giving users a possibility to improve, which goes against the letter and the spirit of discretionary sanctions. Second problem. The 1RR restriction was issued for article "Nashi", although some of the editors (including me and Radek) actually followed 1RR restriction while editing this article. Does it mean that anyone in general can be sanctioned for edit warring even if he follows 1RR rule? I am not quite sure. Third problem. Thatcher used an argument about the "tag-teaming". But this is a controversial concept, and it has been de facto rejected by ArbCom during last EE case, although many users tried to bring it there. Indeed, it is very common that several users revert someone else who fight against consensus. Does it mean tag-teaming? Biophys ( talk) 02:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd be willing to act as an admin mentor of Radek, I agree with his argumentation - it does seem to me like he was an accidental victim of a major wiki clean up operation :) PS. I think it is important to note that neutral editors like Durova, and even some of his less grudge holding content opponents like Malik, support lifting the restriction. PPS. I find Deacon's comment "Piotrus and Radek are long-term edit-warring POV buddies" to violate AGF and NPA, and I hope that it is refactored or commented upon by the closing admin. Regarding Deacon's "evidence" (from May), Radek never got close to 3RR on that page, used the talk page ( [111]) and the fact that he was reverting a disruptive editor, now permbanned, does matter. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Radek is no saint, and has a long history of edit-warring. Evidence of this will be found at
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive38#Dr._Dan. Whether he should get sanctioned on the basis of most recent activity I don't know. Thatcher has made that judgment after extensive evaluation, and commentators should give that more weight than the block campaigning from Radek's allies in this thread. Also, I can't understand why Piotrus would try to present himself as "uninvolved" here. (struck as Piotrus has now agree not to place his comment in the uninvolved admin section again) Piotrus and Radek are long-term edit-warring POV buddies. See
same thread for details of Piotrus and Radek's long relationship (in particular posts from Sciurinae and my quotes from Sciurinae's ArbCom amendment evidence). Besides that, Jehochman and Kirill Lokshin have already declared him involved.
[112] Cheers,
Deacon of Pndapetzim (
Talk) 04:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
An example of recent revert warring I've found is at Tsarist autocracy, acting with Piotrus as a team. He only made one comment on the talk page after having reverted four times. In six reverts, Radeksz reverted not only DonaldDuck but also admin Altenmann twice. The revert war also paints an extremely poor image of Piotrus (and it doesn't matter that DonaldDuck got indefinitely blocked). [113]
And Rad's latest block didn't need to be undone, either. Biophys and Offliner were in a revert war and an admin made a general warning to all editors that he would "be blocking anyone attempting to continue the edit war, regardless of the 3RR rule" ( [114]). Half an hour later Radeksz came, ignored the discussion page again and reverted ( [115]). Radeksz then claimed he just "edited" the page and that it was not correct to block people for one edit without prior history in the edit war and got that unblock request accepted. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 14:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to confirm what Radeksz wrote above. He and I were involved in a dispute last fall that led to his only block. Since then, we have repaired our relationship. He seems level-headed and he hasn't engaged in edit warring on any of the articles we both edit. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 04:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Above Martintg mentions that sanctions should not apply to Colchicum. If this is to be looked at, I would ask admins to look at Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park), in which it is clear that that user has engaged in edit warring. As it turns out egregious original research and violations of WP:V had occurred on that article, with the placement of an epitaph for the monument. -- Russavia Dialogue 00:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I support Radeksz appeal. This user edit warred a lot in the past but his statement sounds fair and, in my opinion, leaves both sides (user and community) satisfied, as it can work as some sort of checks and balances. - Darwinek ( talk) 19:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Thatcher, can you refute this? Is there a diff of a warning? Jehochman Talk 21:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I have also asked Thatcher to comment and believe we should wait with further review until he has done so. To everybody else, please stick to the format now used above (everyone edits only their own subsections) and limit your comments to what is strictly necessary to address this appeal, especially if you are involved in Eastern Europe-related disputes. Sandstein 17:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Without commenting on the sanction imposed itself—placing a restriction on reverts is, indeed, well within the discretion of an administrator acting under this remedy—I will note that the requirement for a formal warning is not meant only (or even primarily) as a way of informing editors of the existence of the remedy, but rather as an opportunity for editors to voluntarily step away from the topic area rather than facing actual sanctions. I understand that few people enjoy paperwork, but I don't think the requirements we have imposed for using discretionary sanctions are particularly onerous, or unsuitable to be followed as written. It is unfortunate, I think, if administrators are imposing these sanctions in ways which are contrary to our instructions; such actions may be slightly more expedient in the short term, but they tend to undermine the overall effectiveness of devolved arbitration enforcement.
(Is there some particular section that arbitrators are supposed to use when they comment on these? If so, anyone should feel free to move my comments to the appropriate place.) Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
All Rawat articles have been placed under an editing restriction:
3.1) The Prem Rawat article and all related articles are subject to an editing restriction for one year. No user may revert any given changes to a subject article more than once within a seven day period, except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations. Furthermore, if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period.
Please check if
have violated the restriction in the sequence of edits given below. Thanks.
JN 466 23:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The IP 190.246.25.14 ( talk · contribs) may have violated the same editing restriction on two articles. He restored two reverted edits within a 24 hours.
But I'll admit that I find the remedy to be unclear. Will Beback talk 07:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I have rv yet another identical removal by new editing IP 166.205.4.137 ,to return the article back to its original condition after reading this thread and noting this action to be acceptable by VS above. -- Savlonn ( talk) 07:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Here is a more complete summary of relevant background:
Of the IPs and accounts involved, the following appear to be single-purpose accounts focused on articles about Rawat, his organisations ( Divine Light Mission, Elan Vital, the Prem Rawat Foundation etc.) and family ( Hans Ji Maharaj), and the talk pages of related WP processes and editors:
The arbitrators included the following among their remedies: 4) The parties and other interested editors are encouraged to resume or restart mediation in relation to Prem Rawat and related articles. Passed 13 to 0, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC) JN 466 09:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
User requesting enforcement:
Grand
master 12:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Gazifikator (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
block, and topic ban on
Moses of Chorene
Additional comments by
Grand
master:
Gazifikator (
talk ·
contribs) has been placed on editing restriction, which limited him to 1 rv per week.
[122] However today Gazifikator made 2 rvs on the article about
Moses of Chorene, removing the quotes from professor
Robert W. Thomson, a notable expert on the subject. This is a clear and deliberate violation of the remedy. In addition, this user has been engaged in disruptive activity on the article in question for quite some time, reverting any attempts by other editors to include the opinion of the western scholarship on the subject of the article. Therefore, in my opinion, a topic ban on editing the articles related to
Moses of Chorene should also be considered.
Grand
master 12:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[123]
User:Grandmaster previously iniciated 3 editwarrings ( [124] [125] [126] etc) with different users at Moses of Chorene article, and despite last time the article was unprotected by the same Nishkid who noted that he will "reprotect if edit warring flares up" [127], Grandmaster continues POV-pushing. At the same unprotection day a 'new user' comes who reverted to Grandmaster's old version again [128]. And as this 'idea' was also unsuccessful, Grandmaster started another unconsensused editwarring. He adds a detailed minority view, which goes against WP:WEIGHT and is a direct continuation of his previous editwarrings. I explained it many times at the talk, as well as provided more reliable sources criticizing Prof. Thomson's view, who was just a translator of Khorenatsi. But Grandmaster continues his POV-pushing to the article, and he is the only user who's topic ban is really justified. Gazifikator ( talk) 13:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Please see my comments here: [129]. Given the context, it seems odd that Grandmaster would intentionally ignore the discussion that he participated in and go ahead with those changes. Strikes me like baiting. Sanctions need to be applied evenhandedly.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 14:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Gazifikator is in violation of his restriction. His statement above does not address this issue. I have blocked him for 72 hours in enforcement of the restriction. Subsequent violations will result in more severe sanctions.
If there is any misconduct by Grandmaster or others, this is not the place to evaluate it and it does not excuse Gazifikator violating his restriction. All editors may make separate enforcement requests against Grandmaster or others if they believe in good faith that the conduct of Grandmaster or others merits sanctions. Sandstein 15:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Ευπάτωρ
Talk!! 23:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Parishan (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Severe edit warring in the past 3 weeks:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
See below, under 'Additional comments'.
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
High time for AA2 restrictions to apply to Parishan
Additional comments by
Ευπάτωρ
Talk!!:
Note that Parishan was informed officially (that is by uninvolved admins) twice of AA2 restrictions,
here and
here unlike most users. While the initial reverts were against AzeriTerroru (probable sock account), they are mostly reverts to recent controversial changes. Rest of the reverts were against other users.
In the recent past, various admin’s have confirmed that Parishan has a tendency to edit war but he's not under restrictions. See Deacon of Pndapetzim 's comment and the following report here.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[174]
What we see here is a random collection of all article reverts (controversial, non-controversial, sockpuppet reverts, anonymous vandalism reverts, and even plain edits) that I happened to perform in the past three weeks presented here as a gigantic list of instances of 'edit warring.'
In addition to not being a revert, edit (1) is merely clarification of non-controversial information. It does not take a wiseman to figure out that being born in the given town physically cannot imply being born in the mentioned region. Mind you, it was never disputed further, so the term edit warring does not apply here.
Edits (2) through (12) are reverts of a sockpuppet who could not think of anything better to do than to stalk edit histories of Azerbaijan-related article contributors undoing all their recent edits. His/her reverts would have to be undone eventually.
Edits (12) through (15) do not qualify as 'edit warring.' The other party removed information without consulting the provided sources, but the issue was quickly resolved on the article's talkpage.
Edits (16) through (18) are definitely not edit warring. In fact, with those edits I expanded the template adding more links that pertained to the topic and are not disputed (they are still in the template), and left a comment on the talkpage. My single revert in edit (19) was triggered by the other party either not having noticed the proposed discussion on the talkpage or not willing to participate in it. With that, I did not engage in any more reverts.
I wish I could comment on edits (20) and (21) but I am clueless as to what User:Eupator meant by posting them here. Are they supposed to qualify as 'edit warning'? Please elaborate.
Edits (22) and (23) are one-time edits in different articles; calling them 'edit-warring' seems too harsh.
Edits (24) to (27) are reverts of an anonymous vandal who 'specialised' in removing references to Azeris and the Azeri language from as many Iran-related articles, as s/he stumbled upon, and specifically in the case with Farah Pahlavi in removing sourced information about the personality's ancestry. I have tried twice [175] [176] to get the page at least temporarily semi-protected in order to put an end to this IP-switching user's disruptive activity, but neither time the administration considered this case of vandalism severe enough. Parishan ( talk) 05:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Eupator, could you please improve the presentation of the evidence so that we can establish more easily whether this is indeed edit-warring? For instance, I am unable to easily determine whether edit #1 is even a revert of somebody. You could complement each entry in the list with the name of the article affected, a diff of the revision reverted to, and the name of the editor who is being warred with. Sandstein 05:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Thatcher, I do not see a need in banning from editing the page Lingua franca. Perhaps you did not notice that the discussion regarding Azeri involved two sections on the talkpage. In the first section, after the third party review of the issue, I discovered another source and restored the deleted information having provided this new reference (as opposed to "reverting Mackrakis' version", as Eupator is trying to present it here). User:VartanM reverted this edit but ignored my proposition to continue the discussion. I let the crippled version hang in there, even though it was no fault of mine that VartanM's disagreement stemmed merely from being uncomfortable with the word "Azeri" being used on Wikipedia (anyone who has read the talkpage can see that he had not cited a single academic source or provided any plausible scienfitic counter-argument in response to about six sources he was presented with). So this is not a case of me insisting on the importance of "Azeri"-ness; really this is a case of VartanM and Fedayee having a problem with the academic use of the word "Azeri" all throughout articles on Wikipedia despite its academic validity (in fact, VartanM has been reported precisely for deliberately stripping Wikipedia of mentionings of Azeris and Azerbaijan [184]). Since February I have discovered two or three more independent pieces of evidence to back up the information he kept removing. This time it did not cause any disagreement or controversy. So I really have no idea why I am being considered for punishment as a result of my activity in this article. I would say, I did my best as an editor having had the patience to spend four months on the talkpage over one sentence backed by six or seven sources (found and cited by myself) reacting on outrageously unacademic statements from someone who was clearly trying either to wear me out or to temporise. I am all for reaching compromise, but compromise is not possible when the other party has literally nothing on the table except speculations: no sources, no stable arguments, not even a clear idea of what they are trying to disprove. Also note that while this discussion is going on here, an anonymous account goes around all of the said articles deleting the information added by me, as if attempting to provoke me to edit warring. Parishan ( talk) 03:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I generally agree with Thatcher's take on the issue, but I think that in the article Lingua franca has been disrupted not by Parishan, but by his opponents, who keep reverting sourced info added by Parishan. Therefore I think that people removing sourced info must be placed on restriction. Otherwise, the problem with Azeri and Armenian names in the leads of articles about locations in Armenia and Azerbaijan is a long standing issue. I even initiated an RFC about that a couple of years ago. Generally, Armenian users insist on inclusion of Armenian names in the leads of articles about locations in Azerbaijan, but revert any attempts to include Azeri names for locations in Armenia. I can cite diffs, but at the moment I'm away on vacation and have a limited access to the Internet. I will pursue this issue when I'm back. But there's a problem of Armenian and Azeri names that should be adressed in general. I think something should be done to resolve this problem. Grand master 09:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Note to Thatcher: Grandmaster has also accused the 'opponents' of Atabek prior to Atabek's topic ban. See for yourself the way Parishan distorts the sources with one clear example. To support his position he quotes from Stephen Adolphe Wurm (see talkpage): The Turkic Azerbaijani language, in the southeastern part of the Caucasus area, has been a very important lingua franca used for inter-ethnic communication. But the actual phrase is this: The Turkic Azerbaijani language, in the southeastern part of the Caucasus area, has been a very important lingua franca used for inter-ethnic communication among speakers of most of the Lezgian languages of the Caucasian Daghestan Group, and also among speakers of some of the Avar languages. He added a period to cut the phrase with the result being to misinterpret the whole sentence. Again, the problem in Parishan's conduct is not that he does not provide the sources, but that he manipulates and misuses sources. Grandmaster's attempt to put on parity Armenian and Azerbaijani for historic places will make any person with the slightest knowledge of the history of the region laugh. This was explained several times, I will not bother bringing this here, more so when it's off-topic. But Thatcher might start here where Baku87 adds the modern Azeri term. Note that over 80% of anything coming from Caucasian Albania came to us from Armenian text, the rest in Persian, Arabic and Greek and that modern encyclopedias do include the Armenian term (see Iranica for example). You get the picture here of the POV pushing in an attempt to include Azeri in every articles where there is Armenian in the picture. - Fedayee ( talk) 16:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
One day for Gazifikator, and how much for Parishan? Sardur ( talk) 00:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Not sure that further is required at this time. Thatcher 01:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
This issue arose at the village pump ( see thread) and I'm bringing this here now before somebody else does, mostly because (while the lameness factor is mystifying) I think I see an easy way out of this dispute:
Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Greg L restricted:
I believe this revert is principally stylistic, and not prescribed by any entity other than himself (see Talk:Kilogram: "It makes the articles look better and any editor worth his salt can easily comprehend why they are there").
While I'm sure no true Scotsman would doubt him, Greg's version contains partially overlapping (i.e. improperly nested) element tags, whereas the most applicable style guideline I can find says that documents should be well formed.
The software (and html-tidy extension etc.) does clean up bad code like this, e.g.:
<b>whoever wrote <i>this</b> ought to be shot</i> |
→ | <b>whoever wrote <i>this</i></b><i> ought to be shot</i> |
I'm sure exactly what Greg is even trying to do here anyway. The extra 0.1em of space is barely visible at normal font-sizes (and I could personally not care less provided they all look the same), but clearly the correct place for it would be in MediaWiki:Common.css:
sup.reference {
font-weight: normal;
font-style: normal;
+ margin-left:0.1em;
}
I think that would make everyone happy here, but personally I'd suggest using the same margin on the right side too. — CharlotteWebb 12:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Since being unblocked, Greg L has reverted a stylistic change to that same article, Kilogram. See [190] [191] According to this he may be intending to appeal. John Vandenberg ( chat) 21:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Does this mean that if I italicize some text to set it off for emphasis, that unless there is some style guide somewhere that says doing so is “prescribed”, then all editor have to do to jerk my chain is change what I’ve been writing and I can’t even oppose it? I might as well as walk away from Wikipedia; I author articles, I’m not a wikignome where I just make spelling corrections on text that is in roman-only font style. What if I link something? If someone goes in and links some totally trivial word in Fuzzball (string theory), such as “mist” in this sentence:
“Whereas the event horizon of a classic black hole is thought to be very well defined and distinct, Mathur and Lunin further calculated that the event horizon of a fuzzball should be very much like a mist: fuzzy, hence the name ‘fuzzball.’ ”
…I can’t change it back? That would be a style change, would it not? Is that the ball and chain on my leg? I can author these articles in which I am the major contributor but if anyone comes in and changes it, I can’t undo that change if it can be argued that was stylistic and isn’t “prescribed” (whatever the heck that means), like a 0.2 em gap to keep a refnote tag from colliding with adjacent italicized text? Just give me the word. For if I am so encumbered, I will not edit anymore on Wikipedia. Greg L ( talk) 01:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
P.S. The “reverting” you mention that I did on Kilogram might well be some sort of trap someone set up for me. That editor didn’t change all the links that refer to the glossary; only four of them ( that edit here) and left the vast majority (there are 24 in the article) in place. Go count them in the article and see for yourself. What a way to kludge up a nice article. So if someone goes in and does an incomplete change in an article like this, I can’t undo it; I just leave the article screwed up? Are you serious? This is the limitation on me; just stand back and watch editors muck things up with incomplete hacks? Greg L ( talk) 02:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
P.P.S. I’ll be e-mailing an appeal in the next 24 hours formally asking for an adjustment to my restrictions. Please advise where I am supposed to send it. Greg L ( talk) 02:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I was hoping not to see arbitrary knee jerks like what was provoked by Charlotte's post here which does great damage to her honest intentions and her credibility as well as those of the admin who leapt up and blocked Greg. It appears to me that the edit concerned should not be considered a 'stylistic' edit. Closing the html tags is a technical matter. What is of greater concern is that it seems to have set Jayvdb off on a witch-hunt of Greg's actions, choosing an an incident which could be viewed as vandalism of article where Greg is the foremost contributor, whiffs of entrapment. I wonder if my defense of Greg here will set off accusation that I am in breach of participating in a discussion on stylistic matter? :-) Ohconfucius ( talk) 03:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Then Jayvdb makes style-only changes to just 4 of 24 links that share a common property in the article, leaving me with awkward choice.
What Charlotte and Jayvdb did—whether by innocent mistake or cunning—amounts in the end to just so much wikidrama and wastes everyone’s time. I have a sprinkler system I’ve been installing and had been hoping to get outside today to work on it early when it was cool. Instead, I spent the whole morning responding to this sort of stuff. I find this whole day’s Wikipedia experience to be distasteful. I never pull childish stunts and always try to edit in good faith. I certainly don’t like being like an ape in a cage at the zoo for all the neighborhood kids to bang their sticks on the cage’s bars for their jollies. Greg L ( talk) 05:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh my. I saw some peripheral reference to the formatting of the kilogram article and went and looked. The massive use of embedded spans is poor form and not in any MOS I've ever seen here; ditto the font-elements. I did a bit of remedial work on the article — removed *all* the green, for example; also fixed heading levels and was about to sort out the spans. I'll wait as it looks like there's a lot to read in this thread. Embedding excessive markup is a bad thing; the whole idea of wiki-markup is that it's supposed to be reasonably 'clean' for unsophisticated editors ('un' in a technical sense). Any such new conventions need consensus first, and MediaWiki/CSS implementations second. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Note, that I’m generally keeping myself logged out so I can visit Wikipedia for information without nagging “you’ve got mail” banners across the top and because I am busy lately in real life. So if anyone has a pressing need for further information, you might e-mail me. Greg L ( talk) 02:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Internal_consistency seems to imply that if 4 out of 24 references are different, they should be changed to match the other ones for the purposes of consistency; in other words, it is supported by a style guideline. Ken Arromdee ( talk) 18:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
User requesting enforcement:
«l| ?romethean ™|l»
(talk) 17:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Thekohser (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Civility Restriction
Purpose of ban suspension
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not applicable
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
Block and / or reinstatement of Community Ban
Additional comments by
«l| ?romethean ™|l»
(talk):
The background of this request is that I made a page with my views and justification before removing Thekohser's BoT candidacy leaving an edit summary inviting him to revert me if he still thought he was an applicable candidate given the damaging evidence that was compiled. Given that the BoT election is a private vote (which i was not aware of), said page was deleted and Thekohs restored his vote. All of the prior occured on meta. For some reason however Thekhos started trolling and harrasing me here after the incident was WP:STICK. Whilst he appears to make an apology for all the above, I feel that he did knowingly and intentionally break his civility restrictions in order to harass and toll me and that the apology (given his recent conduct) may be a ploy to avoid enforcement of his community ban. His excuse is that he "had forgotten the letter of the restrictions" because of the "new article creation, and article improvement efforts since being provisionally unblocked"
[201] (which could be considered a sarcastic dig at my inactivity). Even IF he was negligent of his restrictions, it is no excuse for breaking them. It's worth noting that he alone initiated his uncivil conduct on this wiki and that he was in no way asked, encouraged or forced to move here by anyone, he chose to attempt to feud with me here.
His actions also are against the very nature of why he is has been given another chance (that being "is to help build an encyclopedia and therefore the focus of your editing is to work directly on improving Wikipedia articles."). Not only has he been editing articles in his return, but he has also been Investigating me off-wiki, Inquiring about my name, threatening to feud with me off wiki, feuding with me here, canvassing for a meta issue. One of his 2 reasons for returning was for a "degree of restoration of the earlier good reputation of my original account and my real name" [202]. He was granted this privilege based on that he accepted (and followed) the terms (that are perfectly reasonable) and it would seem he has failed to follow the two most important ones given his actions above.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a
diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.
This all began on Meta when, within a span of a few minutes, Promethean (with whom I had never engaged before) called me a "rat mole", said I was "unhealthy", and then blanked my candidacy statement for the WMF Board of Trustees. One of my best defenses is to simply let Promethean speak for himself on this page, alongside his past record of disruption. I am going to let the following links also speak in my defense:
I am here to build an encyclopedia, and maybe enjoy a few good-natured chuckles along the way. If folks would just let me be, I will get back to that. -- Thekohser 02:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Good Lord. Promethean disrupted the WMF election process and engaged in vicious and often baseless attacks against Thekohser on Meta. Thekohser, as is his wont, responded by lowering himself some distance—though certainly not all the way—towards his assailant. Thekohser ranks at best second on the list of editors meriting sanctions here. Steve Smith ( talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
This request by Promethean for sanctions was made after and in response to an apology by Thekohser as can be seen by the dates.
I apologize for the spiteful comment above. I think it would be best if I politely withdraw my request for mentorship, since that was just an attempt to make a mockery of you being a mentor. Apologies for that, too. -- Thekohser 17:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I half expected this, I was willing to assume good faith however you yourself have admitted to what constitutes feuding, apologies or not. I'm afraid that in the interest of Wikipedia this will likely be referred to the Arbitration Committee for enforcement of the terms of your parole. I wish it didn't come to this but I'm afraid that it is unreasonable for me to bend over backwards for someone who isn't willing to change their conduct. «l| ?romethean ™|l» (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
144.189.100.25 ( talk) 19:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
This could all be one big misunderstanding where both sides didn't handle things well or given the other editor is just barely off a ban, this could be intended to bring that ban back by triggering poor responses. I'm trying to assume the first, but the wikilawyering ("but that was meta!") and disincination to understand your part in the conflict ("he's subject to parole, I'm not") is making it difficult. If you place your hand in a fire and then get angry with the fire when it hurts, others would be right to question your behavior. I am distinctly uncomfortable with the idea of engaging sanctions against someone who was provoked, especially a sanction requested after they managed to get a hold of themselves and drop the issue. Shell babelfish 22:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Promethean, you need to give the appearance of being a grown up. Your actions recently give a somewhat different appearance, at least to this observer. There really isn't much more to say here unless you keep pushing, in which case I think the sanctions that need applying are to you rather than to TheKohser. Baiting shouldn't be rewarded. ++ Lar: t/ c 23:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I haven't looked into Promethean's allegations, but I can report simialr behavior. I participated in a discussion about content created by Thekohser during or prior to his ban (a thread started by an ArbCom member), and he was very adversarial. He demanded a list of articles that I had created, and then followed that list to tag one of the pages of which I was the sole contributor (a subpage which was mistakenly in mainspace) [204] and argued that I was guilty of plagiarism when I split another article. [205] He kept insisting that I act on some obscure issue from 18 months ago. [206] He was required by the ArbCom to list all of this socks accounts, and he omitted an IP that he'd used repeatedly to circumvent his ban. When I reminded him of it he left a bad faith comment. [207] In addition, he's made remarks that are borderline uncivil. He seems to be operating with a large chip on his shoulder. I don't think any enforcement is needed, but he should make sure he really wants to be here and is willing to behave in line with community norms and the ArbCom's conditions. 00:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback ( talk • contribs)
Are we enforcing behavioral issues (hypothetically speaking) that occur on Meta at EnWiki? Shouldn't behavior issues there be reported there, or am I wrong? Baiting an editor under civility restriction and then reporting them is manifest bad faith. I would be inclined to sanction such behavior as a simple administrative action (not arbitration enforcement). If Greg has been instructed by ArbCom not to take the bait, and he has, I think he should be reminded once, especially if his response was moderate. What say others? Jehochman Talk 02:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
User requesting enforcement:
Skäpperöd (
talk) 12:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Radeksz (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
that the accusations against me be removed/stricken from
WP:RS/N and
Talk:Kołobrzeg, that Radeksz stop ABF on my part, and if he cannot, that a mediator be appointed or Radeksz stay away from me.
Additional comments by
Skäpperöd (
talk):
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[221]
Oh Wow. I am really speechless at the brazenness of this. I've never seen an AE report filed on such flimsiest of reasons, and I've seen some pretty darn flimsy ones.
"For me, being called a disruptive forum shopper is not much different to being called a little shit." - and for me having a spurious AE report filed on myself is not much different then you breaking into my house in the middle of the night and stealing my dog. Come on! We can make stuff up all day long and act mutually offended over every word. More completely tenuous connections, and unnecessary drama. Gimme back my dog! radek ( talk) 11:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Skaperod's request should be dismissed, and he should be adviced to stop with these continuous silly complains against Polish editors. As for the Kołobrzeg article the biggest problem seems to be that Skapperod is trying to force a German POV on a Polish city: for example I went to count, out of the 37 References listed, 28 are German. When Radeksz wanted instert something from the Polish Webpage of the city Skaperod immediately started to make huge drama. It's ridiculous. Loosmark ( talk) 13:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
In addition to the "Addtional comments" in the request section:
Are you really saying that removing a statement two days after a positive reponse at RSN justifies to be called "disruptive" in mainspace, and that if a question at RS in part resembles a question that was asked 8 month before without a definite answer justifies to be called "forum shopping" and a call to send me messages to stop it? For me, being called a disruptive forum shopper is not much different to being called a little shit. This is not about a content dispute (Radeksz did not add any content to the article) or a nationality issue, and the amount of bad faith spread here indicates that something needs to change. I am not asking for an indef ban here, not even for a block. Skäpperöd ( talk) 19:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC) On a second thought, you are probably right that this thread just furthers the mudslinging instead of preventing it. Skäpperöd ( talk) 05:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Radek said that removing text without discussing and with a lame excuse can be seen as disruptive. In no way can that be compared to calling somebody little shit which is a direct verbal abuse, so Skapperod please stop making drama, discuss the article on its talk page and work together with Radek on its improvement. Loosmark ( talk) 21:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
This looks like a misuse of WP:AE in order to win the upper hand in a content dispute. The edits cited in the request are not objectionable; rather, they reflect routine disagreements about content. In particular, it is not disruptive to state one's opinion that "Removing a large chunk of text without discussing it first is generally seen as "disruptive"". Unless other administrators disagree, I will close this thread with a warning to Skäpperöd that AE is not a substitute for, or part of, proper dispute resolution, and that he may face sanctions if he files more unfounded enforcement requests. Sandstein 18:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
User requesting enforcement:
Fedayee (
talk) 22:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Baki66 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
Revert restriction as well as a page move ban for this user.
Additional comments by
Fedayee (
talk):
Baki66's account seems to be a single-purpose one with the purpose being unilateral reverts and to move pages. This is obviously non-constructive as it brings nothing but revert wars.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[243]
The history and contribs indicate that it was Gragg who started messing around, so in my humble opinion the bilateral sanctions proposed below could be redundant. Brand t 12:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Note that Baki66 totally ignored Sandstein's warning, waited a few days and moved the articles back without any comments.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 17:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Just a note: the editor Baki66 was move-warring with, Gragg ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is by now already subject to sanctions as described at User talk:Gragg#Sanctions. Sandstein 05:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'm applying the same sanctions. That is, I am hereby sanctioning Baki66 as follows for six months each with respect to pages relating to Armenia or Azerbaijan, broadly defined: