Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
→Statement by Varsovian: Added link |
|||
Line 358: | Line 358: | ||
====Statement by Varsovian==== |
====Statement by Varsovian==== |
||
# I do not make any allegation or insinuation of socking. |
# I do not make any allegation or insinuation of socking. |
||
# My comment regarded apparent possible off-wiki communication. Off-wiki communication is not misconduct. Therefore I am not required by my sanction to supply diffs and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight#Casting_aspersions] does not apply either. |
# My comment regarded apparent possible off-wiki communication. Off-wiki communication is not misconduct. Therefore I am not required by my sanction to supply diffs and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight#Casting_aspersions] does not apply either. |
||
# I made no comment on any matter related to EE and specifically stated "I can/will not comment on Raseksz's article edits or this request"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Statement_by_Varsovian]. |
# I made no comment on any matter related to EE and specifically stated "I can/will not comment on Raseksz's article edits or this request"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Statement_by_Varsovian]. |
||
# This amendment request involved me and the actions that another editor had taken towards me and thus comes under the classification 'necessary dispute resolution'. |
# This amendment request involved me and the actions that another editor had taken towards me and thus comes under the classification 'necessary dispute resolution'. |
Revision as of 09:46, 16 September 2010
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
![]() | Important information Please use this page only to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
Petri Krohn
Petri self reverted, accordingly sanctions aren't required. PhilKnight (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Petri Krohn
The page is clearly marked as being under 1RR, and that the Digwuren sanctions apply. It states that revers are to be posted on the talk page, which was done in neither case. The notice is prominent on the edit page, talk page, etc, hence is (per the notice) sufficient warning in the first place. Petri refused to revert at [5] which makes the far later "self revert" not applicable as an excuse (which was then reverted <g> by TFD at the two minute mark!) Petri is, moreover, expected to be especially mindful of all Digwuren sanctions. Collect (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC) See also [6] inter alia and is well familiar with multiple bans. Collect (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Petri KrohnStatement by Petri KrohnNeither of my two edits to the article today constitute edit warring as in Wikipedia:Edit warring. My first edit to the article, in accordance of WP:BRD, was a giant leap forward for the article, as it removed the heavy POV-tagging from the article, that had hampered it for wiki-years. My second edit only restored minor chances and improvements that were lost in User:Collect's summary revert of the article. There has been a clear argument made in the the long discussion at the talk page that the deleted content is off topic. Its inclusion is the main reason why the page is marked with multiple tags. As per WP:BOLD I suggested a new status quo where the tags could be removed. I also introduced a new lede to the article. The article was then edited by users Paul Siebert (talk · contribs) and Fifelfoo (talk · contribs). My edits and those of Raul Siebert Fifelfoo were then reverted by User:Collect, who reverted the article to a version by Marknutley, who again had reverted the article earlier today. The two "reverts" included in my edit were to totally unrelated sections of the article. When I made the edit I was fully aware of the existence of the 1 revert limitation and carefully limited my edits not to break it – although I would not brake 1rr even if it was not mandatory. I now checked the article behind the WP:3RR and find that it now states "on a single page within a 24-hour period". This is new to me – the last time I remember reading the page was in May 2007 when I intentionally led user Digwuren into breaking 3RR. I now see that my edit have been against the letter of the new 3RR policy and have reverted myself (only to be reverted 2 minutes later with my changes restored.) I am now going through the edit history to see when the "single page" definition was added. Unlike Collect and Marknutley I have never edited the article before during its probation, (most likely never – but have not checked full history.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2010
Collect and Marknutley?I am surprised to see that users Collect (talk · contribs) and Marknutley (talk · contribs) have not been given a formal DIGWUREN notice as logged here. It is clear that their edits today have been edit warring and part of a long pattern of similar behavior. Also note, that Marknutley has volunteered to leave the Climate change topic area as a result of the on-going ArbCom case, so his future participation here is more then likely. Also I find their actions awkwardly teamish, as their common interests seem to extend from the Category:Koch family to climate change to commies. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC), expanded 21:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Petri KrohnMass killings under Communist regimes Is under a 1RR restriction "per Digwuren", with a requirement that reverts be discussed on the talk page. User:Petri Krohn is well aware of Digwuren (having been under its restrictions specifically, and has made reverts as [12] without posting the revert on the article talk page (copying a "bold" edit by Fifelfoo of deleting more than half the entire article, and which had been reverted) and then making a separate second clear revert at [13], The page is clearly marked on the talk page about the 1RR restriction, and has a huge red warning about the 1RR on the edit page. As Petri knows about Digwuren, I doubt that any excuse can be made. The 1RR is set as a bright line, not even an entitlement, and Petri has crossed it in spades. Thanks. The template is simply incomprehnsible, alas, for making this into the official format. Collect (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Paul Siebert (taken from [15] mutatis mutandi)
Result concerning Petri Krohn
While it is true Petri was an original party to Digwuren the case was amended with discretionary sanction powers during his ban. It's conceivable he was not aware of them and I did not see any previous warnings or a log of the warning. Therefore I have now warned him [26] and logged the warning [27] so it is now clear he has been notified. I see no further action needed in this case as he self-reverted. This article may need a watchful eye for edit warring. --WGFinley (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
|
Athenean
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Athenean
- User requesting enforcement
- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Athenean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy that this user violated
- Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Purpose of Wikipedia
Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Decorum
Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Editorial process
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- [28] Labeling all comments made by Albanian editors as arguments of low quality.
- [29] Accusing admin as not impartial because he made a suggestion about the previous dif
- [30][31] Personal attacks against me(although I supported the decision to reduce his sanctions when he was topic banned)
- [32] Deleting sourced content from the lead with summary Only an Albanian nationalist would place this in the second sentence of the article.
- [33] Deleting sourced content with idontlikeit arguments about the reliability of the source(on RSN it was approved as rs)
- [34] Further comments on the author herself that as I have read in some other reports might be considered BLP violations.
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- [35] Warning by The Wordsmith (talk · contribs)
- Latest sanctions:User talk:Athenean#Sanction notice extended to User talk:Athenean#Banned
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- Indefinite topic ban from all topics and discussions related to Albania, Albanians. He had already received a two-week topic ban on Balkans a couple of months ago.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Athenean has received already two times sanctions for his editing behavior in Balkans related articles. The latest that expired was a four-month 1RR and expired about two-weeks ago. I have seen him many times while taking part in discussions with other users who edit the same articles making aggressive comments about the users themselves like Such behavior disgusts me, it's called backstabbing in English. I am done with you, and I am withdrawing from your stupid "collaboration" board. Since the sanctions ended he returned to his previous behavior and even when he was warned by The Wordsmith to ease up on the accusations against other users he didn't stop. Some users who have received the same sanctions as Athenean and also blocks may make comments against other users to defend him. A decision should be taken quickly to avoid any kind of disruptive behavior during this AE.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.
Discussion concerning Athenean
Statement by Athenean
Comments by others about the request concerning Athenean
Result concerning Athenean
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Nableezy
Nableezy and Ynhockey advised to be careful in their future interactions. No further action taken. PhilKnight (talk) 23:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||
Request concerning Nableezy
Discussion concerning NableezyStatement by NableezyThis is somewhat ridiculous. Ynhockey says here that "If you feel that the legality is another important fact, feel free to mention it in 8 words or less". I did that in the next edit, using only 6 words instead of 8 to address his somewhat inane argument that the 10 words that had been used was undue weight. Yn seems to think I am obligated to add any information that I can find about these settlements. The information that I am interested in is the information on the legality and so I add that information to these articles with sources that back my edits. I have emphatically not edit warred at this article. Yn removed the material as unsourced here (from an article that has no sources at all!). I reinserted the material and added a source here, addressing the cause for his removal. A "new" user removed it and I reverted the edit. The "new" user removed it again, again without commenting on the talk page as to why they were removing the content. The only user besides myself on the talk page talking about the content was Yn who said at this time "If you feel that the legality is another important fact, feel free to mention it in 8 words or less." I did exactly that and he brings me here? What is happening here is relatively transparent, but I think if I were to explicitly say why Yn brought this request he might call it a "personal attack". The first 2 diffs are not personal attacks, the 3rd one is but happened on my talk page after an editor did something somewhat stupid. nableezy - 21:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Yn, no such implication is made, and I take some things you say seriously. The topic under discussion was you claiming that calling Israeli settlers "settlers" is dehumanizing. No, I do not take your view that calling settlers "settlers" is dehumanizing seriously. nableezy - 23:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning NableezyStatement by Supreme Deliciousness, this is really ridiculous, Ynhocky (an admin) complains about Nableezy adding the only sourced material to the Psagot article. Why does Ynhocky want the only sourced material in that article removed? If an Israeli settlement is illegal under international law, isn't that a pretty huge deal? He first complained about it being unsourced: [44] and then when source is added, he instead says at the talkpage that the sentence is "superfluous" [45]. I have also seen Ynhocky push a very strong non neutral pov at the First Battle of Mount Hermon article: "the claim that it's in Syria is just as "valid" as the claim that it's in Israel." (remember, this is a region that is internationally recognized as a region in Syria) [46]. Its unfortunate that an admin edits in such a non neutral manner. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Cptnono It looks like the requester and I are on similar pages. I recently opened up a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues#Legality and edit warring. Of course it is a problem when Nableezy returns from a ban partially based on the same exact line in other articles to make reverts/partial reverts[61][62][63] without consensus. We all know a ban or block will not come from this request but I certainly hope editors will see that discussion since it is a hot button issue that has not been properly addressed. And Nableezy should at least be reminded that his behavior might be a problem. And civility is an ongoing problem. I think that is a broader issue that would only serve to muddle up this request since it deals with other article's. I would like to remind Nableezsy that it is not OK to comment on why he believes people are making edits when it is done in a pointed fashion. I was sanctioned for it and Nableezy is fully aware of the issue.Cptnono (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Zero0000 Despite being on opposite sides of the fence, both Nableezy and Ynhockey are editors who edit with integrity, a valuable commodity in a part of Wikipedia where such editors are outnumbered by pure POV-pushers. This particular episode seems to me like a storm in a tea-cup. Nableezy's words might have been better chosen, for sure, but I don't see an offense that can't be handled by a cooling off and calm discussion. Zerotalk 00:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Comment by Shuki Integrity and nableezy? Zero, please read more of the case here and what is surrounding it. Ynhockey brought up that Nableezy is a quintessential POV pusher uninterested with improving WP. In this case, Nableezy seems to be showing his trademark lack of collaboration, and consistent post topic-ban POV pushing. WP is hoping that these repeated topic bans and warnings would motivate Nableezy into a being collaborative editor, but I guess not yet. --Shuki (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment by JRHammond I'm not involved in this. I was just curious seeing Nableezy here, as we've encountered each other elsewhere. So I took a moment to examine the claim. There simply are no personal attacks by Nableezy in the diffs provided (1) and (2), period. As for (3), "edit-warring", at a glance Ynhockey has quite a few more edits than Nableezy. How are Nableezy's edits "warring" but Ynhockey's own not so? The claim is made, but no actual argument or facts to support it are presented. As for (4), on Nableezy's own talk page, he says, "I really did not think you were that stupid." At a glance, I don't understand the context for that remark. Perhaps Nableezy could explain it. In any event, so what? Has Brewcrewer himself filed a complaint? Why is Ynhockey speaking for him? If this is about someone having their feelings hurt by "personal attacks", real or alleged, I would suggest if people can't take the heat, they get out of the kitchen. Toughen up and don't be so extremely sensitive. I hardly think Nableezy's comment on his own talk page, which is the only thing even remotely substantive here, warrants any punitive action. But it's pretty clear this isn't about Nableezy violating Wikipedia standards. This is clearly the heart of the issue:
Ynhockey doesn't like Nableezy pointing out the indisputable facts (and it is a completely uncontroversial point of fact under international law that the settlements are illegal), and so is trying to silence him by seeking punitive action. This itself is abusive behavior. JRHammond (talk) 03:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Comment by BorisG Looks like a routine content dispute. I disagree with Nableezy on many issues but I do not see a problem here. He is interested of putting certain material from the sources but not all of it? Fine, Ynhockey can add more. Indeed a storm in a teacup, in my view. - BorisG (talk) 04:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC) 'Comment by Sol Goldstone "I propose that you use the source to improve the article (write about its winery) and in the process we can think of something regarding the legality issue. Until you make it clear that your goal is improving the article, I will have trouble supporting your edits about legality. —Ynhockey (Talk) 16:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)" So the bulk of the accusation is that he refused to meet arbitrary criteria? If the information satisfies policy standards how can you set conditional requirements on its inclusion? Never mind why the editor's intent is important. Sol Goldstone (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Nableezy
The first 2 diffs show Nableezy and Ynhockey criticising each other on an article talk page. I've formally notified Ynhockey of the WP:ARBPIA sanctions, however beyond suggesting they use WP:RFC/USER for personal criticism, I don't think any further action is required. The 3rd link isn't a diff, and I'm unsure what it's supposed to be showing. The 4th diff is uncivil, but was over a week ago, so I don't see why it's being dredged up now. PhilKnight (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Are we ready to close then? I would be in favor of no action with a warning to both to mind their interaction lest further sanctions be needed. --WGFinley (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC) |
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Edith Sirius Lee
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
- Appealing user
- Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Administrator imposing the sanction
- Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Notification of that administrator
- [88]
Statement by Edith Sirius Lee
The AE request [89] and sanction statement [90] refered to Tag Team and use of Wikipedia for propaganda. From a general standpoint, I want to say that I am against Tag Team and I object to any use of Wikipedia for propaganda. For example see [91], which I wrote when I was still anonymous before I created my account. I made an informal appeal [92], but received no response at all. In the following, I present my formal appeal to that sanction.
The warning. The "warning" [93] that is mentioned in the Arb Request Enforcement was about a content dispute and has been presented to me by an editor that was involved in that dispute. We had a disagreement about what are the main findings and conclusions of a meta-analysis. My understanding progressed in that discussion, for example see [94]. At the end, my edits were basically taken from the summary of results in the source and reflected my honest understanding [95] of this source. In any case, there were no mention of any thing closely related to Tag Team and collective restriction in that warning.
The edit. The specific edit for which I am sanctioned is [96]. This was a revert to material [97] [98] that I wrote alone. Except for a possible and natural overlaps in the views (on sources) of editors, it was not material advanced by a team. It did not violate the Wikipedia policy. Even if it did, there were no warning specific to whatever rule would have been violated (e.g. Tag Team). I hope that the sanction I received based on that revert will be reconsidered.
Consensus in a Rfc. Part of the argument presented to support the sanction is that I would not have accepted a concensus in a Rfc [99]. The Rfc was presented as a vote between two options. I did not realize that other editors could perhaps see this Rfc as a definitive survey. If editors sees a Rfc as a survey, policy about survey [100] should apply. I was interested in all the comments expressed by outside editors in the talk page, especially when a comment came after what could be interpreted as a vote. No definitive conclusion could be drawn from the comments. For example see [101] where Yobol is one of the two external editors. After the Arbitration Request Enforcement started, at the request of Doc James [102] [103], Yobol made additional comments (e.g. [104]), but they came after the sanction was closed [105] and are thus irrelevant to determine whether I accepted consensus or not.
The preceding statement was written on 18:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Response to Doc James and Future Perfect at Sunrise
The quiet environment [106] or success [107] that Doc James and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise are referring to is the following [108]. Basically, a new article about Transcendental Meditation, named Transcendental Meditation Technique, has been created without any consensus [109]. As a justification for the new article, it was suggested that the main Transcendental Meditation article can be used as some kind of "disambiguation page" and a parent article [110]. Actually, the new article is a fork to remove peer reviewed scientific research, including many systematic reviews, from the main Transcendental Meditation article [111]. Note the explanation "moved from the main article" given by Doc James. This important fork of the main article was done without any consensus and very little discussion while the question how to present research in the Transcendental Meditation article was accepted for formal mediation [112]. Moreover, if this parent article is like a disambiguation page, this also violates the guideline regarding disambiguation [113] since it clearly also requires a consensus amongst the editors:
- There are no absolute rules for determining which topic is most likely to be sought by readers; decisions are made by discussion between editors, often as a result of a requested move.
Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Updated Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Response to Cirt
If I was mislead about the procedure to follow to appeal [114], please accept my apology. I asked help to make sure that I do it right but no help was provided [115] because it was assumed that I have a lot of experience with arbitration [116], which I do not have. I even originally misplaced my appeal in the amendment section of Arb Requests because I thought an appeal was an amendment [117]. This is why it was moved. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Response to WGFinley
Actually, I did not violate 1RR, since I only did one revert. Moreover, there are side consequences to a sanction. It suggests to other editors that I have strongly and repeatedly (even after warning) violated policy. I have the right to clean myself from such accusations. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- I never said you violated 1RR, I'm saying it's good for you. --WGFinley (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise
Sorry for the late response. I believe these sanctions have been overall successful, as they have reduced the unacceptable level of edit-warring on the pages in question. As such, I believe they should not be overturned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Statement by User:Jmh649 (Doc James)
Wikipedia should be written by people independent of the subject at hand (see WP:COI and by those who contribute broadly to the encyclopedia. Having a 1R policy on this collection of SPA definitely has made a historically controversial page easier to edit on as can be seen with the more quite quiet editing environment recently. User:JamesBWatson an editor not involved with this topic provides a clear summary of matters here [118] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Will Beback
FWIW, another party covered by this enforcement, Littleolive oil (talk · contribs), has requested a clarification of the enforcement process at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Transcendental Meditation movement. Will Beback talk 06:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Cirt
- Chronology of recent appeals
- 18:29, 12 September 2010 - Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs) files appeal, was moved and currently located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Edith_Sirius_Lee.
- 20:24, 12 September 2010 - Littleolive oil (talk · contribs) files appeal, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Transcendental_Meditation_movement_Arbitration_and_Enforcement.
- Notes
- It seems quite odd that both of these two Transcendental Meditation-focused accounts (see [119] and [120]) filed appeals, at two different locations, on the same day, within less than two hours of each other.
- This seems like forumshopping of very similar requests to multiple Wikipedia-process pages at the same time, and also possible meat-puppetry as a tactic, initiating multiple debates about what is substantively the same issue.
- Question
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Edith_Sirius_Lee
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Transcendental_Meditation_movement_Arbitration_and_Enforcement
- Can these two processes be consolidated into one page somewhere? Do these two separate processes filed by these two Transcendental Meditation-focused accounts need to be ongoing at two different pages at the same time?
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Fladrif
The appealing party is a SPA who claims to be a new editor, other than for series of IP edits for 10 days prior to registering this user name. While no SPI has been commenced, a number of editors have questioned the assertion that ESL is a new editor. The claim that there was inadequate warning is meritless. The editor was repeatedly warned that s/he was violating the TM ArbCom decision in a number of respects, including for improper reversions of sourced material (the same editing behaviour which resulted in the sanctions) well prior to the further warning by DocJames, the commencement of AE, and the imposition of sanctions.[121] This was not some rogue admin imposing meritless sanctions without proper justification or process. Three univolved admins strongly concurred in the imposition of these sanctions. They should not be lifted or modified. [122][123][124] Fladrif (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- ESL's most recent round of arguments [125]are irrelevant to the appeal, but are telling nonetheless. The complaint is that other editors are making edits with which s/he disagrees. How is that relevant to whether the sanctions should be lifted or modified? It isn't. But ESL's "solution" is that the 1RR collective restriction on ESL, LOO and TG be lifted. Why? The only conclusion is that ESL, and LOO, who filed a separate request for "clarification" that has been denied as an appeal filed in the wrong forum,[126] want the power to repeatedly revert edits with which they disagree - up to 3 times per day individually and 9 times per day collectively (counting TG) in a single article absent the restriction. Fladrif (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Statement by (involved editor 3)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Edith Sirius Lee
Result of the appeal by Edith Sirius Lee
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I'm going to let FutPer comment before I put in a formal position but to be honest I am going to have a difficult time accepting these appeals. Many editors, myself included, hold themselves to WP:1RR voluntarily and follow WP:ROWN as a way to demonstrate good faith and avoid edit warring. If you need to revert something more than once for anything other than vandalism then there is a good chance you are fermenting an edit war. In short, 1RR is good for you and shoudn't be anything to file an appeal over. --WGFinley (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Varsovian
Request concerning Varsovian
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Varsovian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy that this user violated
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy
With this bold allegation of sock puppetry [127] user Varsovian violated his restrictions [128] as discribed below:
"..whenever he alleges misconduct by another editor, he must with the same edit provide all diffs that are required to substantiate his allegations, or link to the place where he has already provided these diffs, if he has not already provided them in the same section of the discussion at issue." Failure to comply with these restrictions may be sanctioned with escalating blocks or additional sanctions [129]
- Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to
- [130]
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
Block and extension of his topic ban [131] from the topic of Eastern Europe, broadly construed.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [132]
Discussion concerning Varsovian
Notice from WGFinley
As an uninvolved admin trying to sort out this mess I am instructing all parties here to only post if they have something directly related to this complaint. Further, I don't want to hear about any previous complaints, filings, findings, hurt feelings, etc unless there is a claim a user is in violation of a standing sanction against him/her. If that's not the case I don't want to hear about it. Finally, I will remind all here that you had best not post here if you come with unclean hands as you risk being sanctioned yourself. Given that almost all the parties here have been involved in one sanction or another I would warn you that patience among admins is wearing thin with these constant disturbances and further squabbling could result in bans from the Eastern Europe topic altogether. Wikipedia is not a battleground and the constant attempts to turn it into one with partisan editing needs to stop. --WGFinley (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Varsovian
- I do not make any allegation or insinuation of socking.
- My comment regarded apparent possible off-wiki communication. Off-wiki communication is not misconduct. Therefore I am not required by my sanction to supply diffs and casting aspersions does not apply either.
- I made no comment on any matter related to EE and specifically stated "I can/will not comment on Raseksz's article edits or this request"[133].
- This amendment request involved me and the actions that another editor had taken towards me and thus comes under the classification 'necessary dispute resolution'.
- I am banned from taking part in EE-related AE not from Amendment requests.
- I do try very hard to AGF but it is near impossible to do so with posters who have repeatedly harassed and attacked me ([134], [135], [136], [137]).
It is a well known fact that Jacurek and Radeksz are not the same person. The allegation made by Jacurek is little more than using AE as harassment, precisely the kind of disruptive request that can be meet with a block for the filing party (see here for an example, although not an example that involves Jacurek). Jacurek has in the past been blocked for harassment, harassment of me (see this log). Jacurek has also been blocked for socking as User:Cvc42 and other accounts have been blocked as suspected socks of Jacurek (User:Ambor and User:Mamalala and User:Tommy_on_Theems). If I wanted to accuse Jacurek of having used socks, there wouldn't be any shortage of evidence to support it. However, I did not accuse him of it: my comment was actually a reference to apparent possible off-wiki communication. As far as I am aware, off-wiki communication is not considered misconduct (unless one is socking for a blocked user) and as such, I am not required to provide diffs.
As for the claim made by Chumchum7 (how fascinating that a semi-retired user should stumble upon this request within 8 hours of it being made) that I have violated my topic ban, I clearly state that "I can/will not comment on Raseksz's article edits or this request": I make no comment on any post or article related to the area of my topic ban; my comment is regarding Radeksz's failure to offer any defence with regard to his actions regarding me after Skäpperöd pointed them out. With regard to Sandstein's comment about "necessary dispute resolution", it is not necessary that Radeksz ceases to engage in the attacks and behaviour pointed out by Skäpperöd?
It's also interesting how two posters Radeksz has worked with in the past (see for example how Radeksz and Chumchum7 worked together on the London Victory parade article) now wish to make sure that I am not able to even comment on an Amendment case which involves me (or at least somebody's behaviour towards me). Varsovian (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Reply to WGFinley
My understanding is that off-wiki communication is not considered to be misconduct: am I wrong in thinking that? As for AGF, I do try very hard to do that: however, given that Chumchum7 in his last post about me called me a troll four times ([138]) and has in the past filed a 2,000 word report described by an admin as "too long and argumentative and contains too few relevant diffs", despite being told "We are not interested in opinions, we are interested in evidence." Chumchum7 then posted the whole text again here and Jacurek has a history of bans for attacking me (this log), sometimes no amount of effort will work.
Comments by others about the request concerning Varsovian
I read the "diff" [139] concerning the "Bold allegations of sock puppetry made by Varsovian", offered here by Jacurek. That's a little scary, because either I'm losing it, or my wayward youth is giving me flashbacks. Does any one else see such an assertion made in that "diff" brought forth as evidence? Dr. Dan (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- There is no "bold allegation" in that diff, but there is a clear insinuation of sockpuppetry. "What are the chances" carries the unstated (but obvious) implication "unless they are sockpuppets". What this means in terms of arbitration enforcement against this editor I have no opinion about, since it would seem to turn on whether an insinuation is an example of the user "alleging" something or not, and I stopped counting angels on the heads of pins some years ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Wgfinley has asked me to comment here as the admin imposing the original sanction. That sanction is based on the principle recognized by the Arbitration Committee that routinely casting aspersions on others is prohibited (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight#Casting aspersions). In the instant case, Varsovian's comment at issue, [140], violates his instruction not to allege misconduct on the part of others without at the same time providing relevant diffs, although I do not think that this particular violation is grave. Since I'm currently taking a break from AE, I'll leave it to others to decide what sanction, if any, is appropriate. Sandstein 05:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- But at any rate, Varsovian's contribution to a Eastern Europe-related request for amendment violates his recent topic ban from Eastern Europe, as imposed here, unless the comment was made in the course of necessary dispute resolution, about which I have no opinion. Sandstein 05:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- As Sandstein says, Varsovian is banned from the Eastern Europe topic area here. This strict restriction was applied after many months of time consuming disputes and personal conflicts involving Varsovian, and after many milder warnings, sanctions and restrictions had failed. Varsovian has now posted on the subject of the Eastern European Mailing List [141]. As Sandstein says, by doing this Varsovian has ignored the strict sanction imposed on him. This supersedes any concerns about (i) his possible allegations of sockpuppetry or (ii) his involvement in AE in a possibly disallowed manner. As it happens, his post at EEML Amendment engages in personal conflict again. For the WP community to remain confident in the the WP enforcement process, and to send a clear message to restricted editors not test authority, further sanctions must be applied on Varsovian now. One option is that his sixth-month ban from Eastern Europe topic areas is restarted from today. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- I wish to repeat that I read the "diff" [142], and do not see a bold accusation of "sockpuppeteering" (sic). And Ken, there is also not a clear insinuation of sockpuppetry there either. Specifically, I saw it as suggesting that the two had collaborated on the issue in question. Varsovian's statement here seems to substantiate my impression. Actually it's Jacurek who has made wild accusations about myself and sock puppetry that have never been retracted or apologized for. In this post [143], Jacurek claims, in the most offensive and obscene manner, that Varsovian and I are one and the same person. Talk about throwing stones within glass houses. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
1 - Reminder of Dr.Dan's recent sanctions [144].Please focus on the misconduct of user Varsovian and cease attacks of your own.--Jacurek (talk) 00:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)2 - Link to one of many copmlaints filed against user Varsovian for those who are not familiar with the history of his editing [145].
- I wish to repeat that I read the "diff" [142], and do not see a bold accusation of "sockpuppeteering" (sic). And Ken, there is also not a clear insinuation of sockpuppetry there either. Specifically, I saw it as suggesting that the two had collaborated on the issue in question. Varsovian's statement here seems to substantiate my impression. Actually it's Jacurek who has made wild accusations about myself and sock puppetry that have never been retracted or apologized for. In this post [143], Jacurek claims, in the most offensive and obscene manner, that Varsovian and I are one and the same person. Talk about throwing stones within glass houses. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
(OD) Jacurek, I don't have to "cease any attacks" here, because none have been made. Just like there haven't been any "bold" (or not bold) accusations of sockpuppetry made here by Varsovian either. If you consider commenting on your "evidence" to be an attack on you, that's unfortunate. As for the other matter, your obscene and vicious attack on Varsovian and myself [146] was simply putting your M.O. into perspective. Actually, I would have been surprised if you took this opportunity to retract your statement and apologize for it. Would you like me to translate it here for those who do not read Polish? I'd be happy to do so. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed all of us here, myself included, could take another look at WP:BOOMERANG and WP:KETTLE. To date I've never been sanctioned and I think it might be thanks to hearing about a very cool idea called WP:DENY. There is a limit, of course, to how much dickery can be ignored; but when faced with someone itching for a fight (for whatever reason), sometimes non-engagement really works. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Accusing other editors here of acting like dicks may well be precisely what WGFinley was cautioning against in his notice. Might I politely suggest that you follow my example and strike out the content which he correctly points out as having no place here? Varsovian (talk) 09:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed all of us here, myself included, could take another look at WP:BOOMERANG and WP:KETTLE. To date I've never been sanctioned and I think it might be thanks to hearing about a very cool idea called WP:DENY. There is a limit, of course, to how much dickery can be ignored; but when faced with someone itching for a fight (for whatever reason), sometimes non-engagement really works. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Varsovian
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
I've asked Sandstein, the admin who made the ban, to take a look and chime in. It's not clear to me if this skirts the AE ban he placed on Varsovian or not. The "diff" provided is spotty, yes he infers that someone is socking but it's not a blatant accusation. --WGFinley (talk) 04:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Varsovian is right, actions directed at him were referenced multiple times in the filing of the Request for Amendment, therefore I believe he is involved in that case and has not violated his ban concerning commenting on AE matters.
- Varsovian is not doing himself any favors overcoming a ban on casting aspersions by responding to this AE request by, yes, casting aspersions. Saying you weren't accusing him of using socks but you were referencing "apparent possible off-wiki communication"? Pretty disingenuous. He then continues "how fascinating that a semi-retired user should stumble upon this request". Varsovian seems to have a general disregard for WP:AGF and wants to disregard that portion of his ban. It appears some action is needed there, what type, I will ponder and welcome input.
- It seems some type of interaction ban needs to be looked at. --WGFinley (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)