Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:35, 20 October 2010 editLooie496 (talk | contribs)25,746 edits →Question about notice: remove section that is not a request for enforcement and therefore belongs on talk page← Previous edit Revision as of 20:45, 20 October 2010 edit undoT. Canens (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers2,585 edits →Result concerning Jo0doe: cmt.Next edit →
Line 279: Line 279:
<!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.--> <!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.-->
I am inclined to impose a 1 year block, which is the maximum that the discretionary sanctions permit. This editor has already been blocked for most of the past two years, with little improvement to show for it. Given the weak English skills and difficulty getting facts straight, this editor cannot be seen as a net positive for Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 18:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC) I am inclined to impose a 1 year block, which is the maximum that the discretionary sanctions permit. This editor has already been blocked for most of the past two years, with little improvement to show for it. Given the weak English skills and difficulty getting facts straight, this editor cannot be seen as a net positive for Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 18:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
:I cannot read the source claimed to have been misrepresented, and therefore I cannot evaluate the factual basis for this request (the claimed misrepresentations are sufficiently subtle that I do not consider it appropriate to make a determination based on Google translate). However, assuming '']'' that the claims of misrepresenting sources are true, I am of the view that the user should be blocked indefinitely under administrators' general power to prevent disruption. Few things are more disruptive to encyclopedia building than abusing the good faith of other editors by misrepresenting sources, and the history of lengthy blocks here strongly suggests that anything short of an indef will not address the problem. The first year of the block can be taken as imposed under the authority of the discretionary sanctions, and subject to the usual restrictions on overturning. ] (]) 20:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:45, 20 October 2010

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Misplaced Pages:AutoEd.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

    Click here to add a new enforcement request
    For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
    See also: Logged AE sanctions

    Important informationShortcuts

    Please use this page only to:

    • request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
    • request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
    • request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
    • appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

    For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

    Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

    To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

    Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

    All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

    The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

    1. ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

    Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

    A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

    Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

    An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

    • The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or
    • The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
      • the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
      • the restriction was an indefinite block.

    A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

    • a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
    • a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
    • a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

    Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

    Standard of review
    On community review

    Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
    3. the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.
    On Arbitration Committee review

    Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
    3. compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
    1. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
    2. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
    Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

    Appeals by sanctioned editors

    Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

    1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
    Modifications by administrators

    No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

    1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
    2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

    Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

    Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

    Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

    Important notes:

    1. For a request to succeed, either
    (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
    (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
    is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
    2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
    3. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
    4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
    Information for administrators processing requests

    Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

    A couple of reminders:

    • Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
    • When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
    • Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
    • More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

    Closing a thread:

    • Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
    • Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
    • You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
    • Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

    Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

    Arbitration enforcement archives
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
    341342343344345346

    mark nutley

    Marknutley (talk · contribs) blocked 1 week; Petri Krohn (talk · contribs) blocked 24 hours.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    User requesting enforcement
    The Four Deuces
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Marknutley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy that this user violated
    Digwuren case 1RR on Mass killings under Communist regimes.
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

    First revert: 17:45, 13 October 2010 (remove POV pushing "Some anti communists"? Seriously?)

    Second revert: 15:37, 14 October 2010 (rv this is being discussed, why insert it before a consensus is reached?)

    Third revert: 17:12, 14 October 2010 (rv BLP exemption you can`t call a BLP an anti communist without solid reliable sourceing)

    Enforcement action requested (block).
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    mark nutley is well aware of the 1RR restriction on this article having earlier warned another editor.
    TFD (talk) 16
    22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    Reply to mark nutley
    There are two discussion threads concerning this edit, in which you and I and other editors have participated, and as your comments there make clear is a continuation of the ongoing disagreement over neutrality of the article, particularly the lede. TFD (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    Yes there is is a continuation of the ongoing disagreement over neutrality of the article, so why did you choose to make matters worse by reinserting contentious text which was under discussion? mark (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    Comment
    Following mark nutley's reply below, he has now reverted a third time, which I have added to the list above. TFD (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    You think removing a BLP violation ought to be sanctioned? How peculiar mark (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    If you believed that referring to a specific scholar was a BLP violation, you could have merely removed his name. TFD (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    Or better yet, you could have simply removed the word "anti-communist" you objected to. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
    Reply to SPhilbrick
    Three other editors have also reinserted the sentence. While the sentence is unsourced so is the rest of the lead with one exception. I realize that I should have added sources and in fact provided them in the discussion pages. TFD (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    Reply to 2over0
    This article is under a 1RR restriction and you have now complained about editors on both sides who made one edit. If you believe the article should be under a 0RR restriction then please add one, rather than penalize editors using a retroactive ruling. Also, editors new to the article may not realize that 1RR will be interpreted as 0RR. The best way to impliment a 0RR restriction is of course to lock down the article. It is further unfair that you have listed editors who have had no opportunity to reply. If you do not remove these warnings I will complain at the ANI noticeboard. TFD (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

    Statement by Mark Nutley

    Well obviously i made a mistake here and seeking a block over this is petty beyond belief, blocks are meant to be preventative not punitive and i am obviously not edit warring here. The first diff shows when i removed the text. However i went straight to the talk page to begin discussing what is obviously a contentious addition. The only remark TFD has made in this debate was This is a topic that does not exist in the academic mainstream and the article should not pretend that it does. TFD (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC) then he proceeded to reinsert the text knowing full well it was contentious and under debate. This is disruptive behaviour. This was an honest mistake on my part and i think a block is a bit much mark (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

    One other thing, two editors recently broke the revert someone go straight to talk rule, i told them of it and even though they did not go to the talk page to explain i did not seek enforcement against them. Because everyone makes the odd mistake. Trying to get someone blocked because you disagree with them is a bit much for me. mark (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

    Statement by Collect

    The insertion of an unsourced claim involing living people into the lede is the real problem. I would suggest the "some anti-communists" phrasing was to indicate that only a minority of an extreme class of some sort supported the statement. Nikita Krushchev is clearly, in this context, an "anti-communist." I suggest the seven or so AfD discussions about the page are germane in understanding the conflict between those who have iterated desires to delete the page as being "anti-communist" and (the prevailing view) that the article is proper in Misplaced Pages mainspace. Collect (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

    WRT any belief that only the person being complained about can be sanctioned - such has not been the prior rule. Collect (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    WRT "mechanical enforcement" it is clear that User:Petri Krohn is in the category of "two reverts in under ninety minutes" per at 18:22 today and at 16:57 today (the Rummel addition was in addition to a specific revert - not just an addition to extant text). Collect (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    WRT any claim that introducing the same sentence twice after it had been removed is somehow not two reverts bends the definition of "revert" as used in WP on its head. There is no question that the reverts each introduced the same language which had been removed - though the second also added a few more words. That does not, however, change the fact that each was, indeed, a revert under WP policies. Collect (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    WRT "Digwuren" - I would suggest that the use of Digwuren as a piece of lycra may be stretching it further than the arbitrators who desiced that case ever intended. Digwuren was primarily about Estonian history, and was stretched to be for Eastern Europe. The further stretching to encompass primarily pre-WWII Soviet history and post war Asian history seems like having a person put a size 12 foot into a size 2 shoe. Further Digwuren states " if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." Where a 1RR exists on an article which should not even be under Digwuren, that "normal editorial process" has been abrogated as a standard. Also the actual behaviour dealt with by the decision was "in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies " which has not occurred on the article in question. Indeed, Digwuren does not anticipate 1RR restrictions being placed on an article but refers to restrictions on editors after warning has been given. Indeed zero articles were placed under general restrictions until three years after the decision - thus it is clear the original arbitrators did not anticipate this as a "solution" at all. I would note that for some odd reason I am now banned from editing anything about the London victory parade of 1946 as an example of the lycra being used. Clearly the use of Digwuren has now reached "reductio as absurdam" to be sure. Collect (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

    Discussion concerning mark nutley

    • The original insertion of the sentence Some anti-communists assert that these mass killings in communist states are a direct result of communist doctrine. could charitably be construed as the first step of BRD cycle, although most editors would realize such a statement requires a solid reference.
    • Nutley's first revert is the logical next step in a BRD cycle.
    • Nutley's post to the talk page, two minutes later is the initiation of the third step of the BRD cycle, in a timely way.
    • TFD's reinsertion of the material is quite inappropriate, given the lack of consensus of the discussion. Had TFD not seen the discussion, perhaps it could be forgiven, but TFD participated in the talk page discussion.
    • Nutley's removal of the material, under current discussion, but not yet agreed to, is technically a violation of the1RR, because, while the next calendar day, it is less than 24 hours later. For that MN should be admonished lightly, but the edit summary (this is being discussed, why insert it before a consensus is reached?) makes clear that MN was trying to follow the BRD cycle. TFD deserves more serious admonishment for knowingly re-inserting unsourced contentious material even while a discussion is in progress.--SPhilbrickT 17:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    SphilBrick is correct and i withdraw this, now has another thing in it mark (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Petri has reinserted the same basic stuff again so has also broken 1r by the looks of it mark (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    This is a total missrepresentation of my edits. I have not made i single blind revert. My first edit addressed the weasel words issue objected to by Collect and others, My second edit introduced totally new content. The "basic old stuff" referred to "Some anti-communists". My version refers to Cold war propaganda "some scholars" and R. J. Rummel. Linking communist ideology to mass killings is the subject of the article, so I cannot understand why you object to it being included in the lede. WP:BRD allows me to make more than one edit to the article per day, even when it is subject to a 1RR limitation. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    There better be doubt, that is not my IP address at all. And i resent that accusation mark (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    And looking at the ip`s talk page Lawrence of Arabia (film) he was warned for making PA`s on that article, i have never even edited that article mark (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    And the first edit to mass killings was in an edit war over the POV tag which i was not involved in mark (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    And the guy edit Reefer Madness i never even heard of that never mind edited it. Please retract your allegation mark (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    Fully convinced, I retract my allegation. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks, i`m going to move this to the hatted area above mark (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

    <-I urge avoidance of Misplaced Pages:Coatrack. The action of Mark are clearly relevant, as are the actions of The Four Deuces, both because TFD brought the action, and because the TFD insertion and revert of the insertion are the edits in question. While others are involved in what is shaping up to be an edit war, if not there already, dragging in Petri's edit should not be done here. If someone find's problems with Petri's edits (and I do not), I think they should be addressed separately, to avoid turning this into a tar baby.SPhilbrickT 19:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

    • I'm not a fan of those who block shop to get the upper hand in content disputes, particularly when they themselves have also been involved in edit warring. FWIW, recent practice on this board has seen the requesting party and other involved parties sanctioned. Given that there is no evidence of any formal warning having been previously logged (discretionary sanctions explicitly require a formal notice to be placed on a user's page before being blocked under the provision), the best course of action is to formally warn both TFD and Marknutley via formal notice and protect the article for a month. --Martin (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    There seems to be a raging edit war at that article right now. Participants should be summarily blocked for disruption. Those who have previously been warned should get a logged block under the sanction. Edit wars like this should never happen on articles under discretionary sanctions, because they shouldn't be allowed on any article. Tasty monster (=TS ) 19:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree that a case can be made, that we would need a source in the lede section if we were to imply, as I did, that R. J. Rummel is an anti-communist. If this truly was the issue, it would have been remedied by removing the word "anti-communist" from "some anti-communist scholars". Instead, Mark chose to make the third blind revert to his preferred version in less than 24 hours. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    None of the reverts were blind reverts petri, in fact on the one were i erred (the second) i went straight to the talk page to explain why. As i had with the first. If you wish to imply the a BLP writes anti communist propaganda then you need solid sources, it was a clear BLP violation and you should not have added it in mark (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    1RR doesn't mean "no blind reverts." I don't know why these arguments are being made. I cannot believe that participants in this edit war are still discussing it here now and have not been blocked. --TS 21:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    I was not edit warring tony, i made a mistake is all. And i believe people ought to be allowed to say their piece before being blocked, don`t you? mark (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    Strangely enough. no. Participation in edit wars is a trigger for a block. Participation in edit wars when you've been warned of discretionary sanctions is a trigger for a good long block. --TS 21:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    I was`nt warned about discretionary sanctions, just the 1r restriction and that if you revert you have to go to the talk page mark (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


    It's now two days after the original report so if the bad behavior has stopped suggest that a warning is appropriate, but obviously not a block. If he does this again I suggest a summary block will be adequate. No need to have yet another turgid discussion. --TS 11:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

    Comment by Petri Krohn

    Some people are making very serious accusations against me, namely that I have

    1. edit warred
    2. broken the 1RR rule

    Both claims are unfounded. My edits fall within WP:BRD, as I will demonstrate with diffs. Per Misplaced Pages:Edit warring, BRD is not edit warring: This is known as the bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle, and is not edit warring. My edits were intended to produce a compromise version everyone could agree on, and thus end the revert cycle. I was also fully aware, that if I failed to stop the edit warring by a suitable compromise, the article would be protected from editing.

    Here is a list of edits today, with a diff to the previous version closest to the new version:

    My two edits. Both edits introduce new content.

    • 1 – introduces R. J. Rummel, addresses weasel words issue objected to by Collect
    • 2 – totally deferent content: "Cold War anti-communists propaganda", + new reference.

    For comparison, here is a list of edits by other editors today. All are blind reverts to a previous version.

    With eight blind reverts (+ Mark's original revert), it is clear that an edit war has been going on. I have not been involved in this edit war.

    -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

    Comment by Zloyvolsheb

    Collect's accusation that Petri Krohn has violated 1RR appears to be unfounded. The two diffs he provides and for Petri Krohn's edits on that day are simply showing us that Petri made two different edits to one section of the article.

    The first is a general statement that "Some anti-communists assert that these mass killings in communist states are a direct result of communist doctrine", the second the referenced assertion that "Linking communist ideology to mass killings became a recurring theme in Cold War anti-communists propaganda. " These edits are actually expressing two semantically different propositions, however otherwise related thematically they may be. (No terrible wonder, given that they are both propositions inserted into the same article by Petri Krohn, whose background, personality, and interest in history are much the same as Petri Krohn's.) It's very true that Petri's earlier edit is partially a revert to text that someone inserted earlier, but that, unlike Marknutley's editing, still counts for only one revert. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

    Comment by SandyGeorgia

    I note that ten minutes after The Four Deuces reverted Marknutley, Jrtayloriv made his first edit ever to this article to make the same revert. This is similar to the editing that occurs at the Venezuela/Hugo Chavez articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

    Yes, I made my first edit to the article after being involved in the talk page discussion for a week, to revert a non-consensual change by a long-term disruptive editor. I'm not sure what you mean by "This is similar to "editing that occurs at the Venezuela/Hugo Chavez articles". Were you trying to say that there has been a time where myself and TFD have agreed that an edit should be reverted? (GASP!) -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Response to EdJohnston, given that all participants have all been formally notified on their talk pages as a consequence of the AE report and the notifications logged, your proposed additional blocks appear to be somewhat punitive in nature and serves no real purpose since the page in question has now been protected for a month. --Martin (talk) 04:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
    I am inclined to agree with Martin. In addition, the very way the term "revert" is defined frequently creates a situation when a good faith editor violates a 1RR only technically. I agree that this rule makes the administrator's life easier, however, since the administrators are just a service personnel who provide normal conditions for good faith editors' work, something is definitely wrong with this rule. In any event, I doubt technical 1RR violation should be taken into account in the situation when the editor has no opportunity to self-revert.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

    Result concerning mark nutley

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

    Arbitration sanctions are not negotiable, and marknutley has clearly violated this one after acknowledging that it applies. Misbehavior by other editors is not at issue here: if they have violated the sanctions, a separate enforcement request should be opened. My inclination is to impose a 1 week block. Looie496 (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

    Agree with Looie496's comment above. It's hard to see how we will get people to respect an article-level Digwuren sanction unless it is mechanically enforced. (Also, most people who are editing this article would know this is a hot-potato article that has caused lots of trouble in the past). So I support the 1-week block of Marknutley for a 1RR violation. It is hardly shocking to put down R. J. Rummel as an anti-communist even though the wording about him might be tweaked. BLP is not usually accepted as an excuse in 3RR situations unless it is blatant defamatory material. Even if we were to accept the BLP excuse then Nutley's three reverts in 24 hours would be reduced to two, which is still a violation of 1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    Agree with one week block. I also notified MN formally about the discretionary sanctions. Note that notification is not required for the 1RR block; the editnotice on the page serves as the warning, per ArbCom clarification. T. Canens (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    Also note that I have blocked 72.20.28.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 24 hours for 1RR violation. That's the only two 1RR violators I can see from the history. T. Canens (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    I missed the one Collect pointed out. I'm inclined to impose a 1 week block on Petri Krohn (talk · contribs) as well, given the history. T. Canens (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    Let me note that, having been an admin for all of four days, I don't yet feel quite ready to take actions in cases like this, so in spite of the wording of my initial statement, I am going to leave this to somebody with more experience to resolve. Looie496 (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    So far as I can tell, the disputed clause first appeared in the article in this edit by Rick Norwood (talk · contribs) as part of a largely stylistic update to the lead. Marknutley (talk · contribs) removed that sentence three times over the next day, claiming the BLP exemption on the third. As noted above, no attempt was made to edit the remaining text to bring it in line with policy; reading Rummel's article, I do not think that the characterization qualifies for the exemption, but I think that its assertion is credible. The some anti-communists sentence was added today by The Four Deuces (talk · contribs), Jrtayloriv (talk · contribs), and Rick Norwood, and was removed by Marknutley, Collect (talk · contribs), and the IP noted above. Petri Krohn (talk · contribs) attempted compromise wording twice, responding to both the weasel words and the lack of sourcing. He might have been better served with a little more patience, but I do not find fault with Petri Krohn's edits here, despite his history with the article. T. Canens has already added Marknutley to the Digwuren case, and I am adding Jrtayloriv, Rick Norwood, The Four Deuces, and Collect as well for participating in an edit war.
    I protected the article earlier today unrelated to this thread. That protection was not taken under the auspices of discretionary sanctions, and may be reversed without invocation of wheel warring (though I would appreciate a note letting me know). - 2/0 (cont.) 22:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    is a revert because it restored text removed by Collect; and is a revert because it reintroduced the reference to R. J. Rummel, which has been a disputed point. I agree though that there is an attempt at compromise wording here - which ought to be encouraged - but the proper way to do so is to propose such wording on the talk page, especially after the first attempt was reverted; I would agree to a shorter block here, say, 31 hours? T. Canens (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    I think that the change in context and attempt at compromise in the second edit are enough to get him off the hook, but only marginally. I would not object to your proposed block if you think it best. An article-but-not-talk ban might also work, but I worry about dragging this case out too much. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    I agree this is edit warring, but I am concerned this is stretching Digiwuren beyond its intent. The sanction was written somewhat broadly, but the infractions that generated it were much more narrow. The aspects of this article that relate to the Digiwuren related topic material more specifically, I can see a case for applying it to, but this was a generic section in the lede of an article which covers much more ground than Digiwuren applied to.
    I'm willing to go with consensus on this, but ... Let's think it through a bit, ok? Whacking everyone for edit warring a bit is fine, I agree that happened. But we shouldn't stretch AE out of whack on marginal cases. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    In response to the other admin comments, I suggest one week to MN, but a shorter block (24-31 hours) to Petri Krohn who technically violated 1RR, but was trying to add new material to address others' objections. (In response to him, BRD does not confer an exception to 1RR). The month of full protection imposed by 2over0 would be maintained unless peace breaks out. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
    Agree. T. Canens (talk) 12:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
    Agree. --WGFinley (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
    This has dragged on long enough. Since there does not appear to be objection from uninvolved administrators, I've implemented the blocks. T. Canens (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
    Hmm, this is an interesting question. We know that discretionary sanctions may be applied to an editor editing in a topic area regardless of whether the specific action barred by the sanctions falls within that area, at least as long as the action has some connection to it (e.g., interaction bans). We also know that article-level sanctions, such as 1RR, are permitted. So the question, then, is whether an 1RR imposed on an article that has some parts, but not all, within the area of conflict, for good cause, applies to the entire article or only the related parts? I think it is preferable to apply it to the whole article, for otherwise we might get countless disputes over whether a specific edit is "related" enough to trigger 1RR when it is supposed to be a bright-line rule that is easily administered. This would be utterly unworkable in practice. T. Canens (talk) 12:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

    User:Flower taster

    various socks blocked; no active request for enforcement here
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    The user posts WP:COPYVIO attack material (see e.g. , ), and this series of edits makes it fairly plain that they are a sock of blocked User:Jones.liam. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

    I blocked them as vandalism-only and locked JL's talkpage. I am not familiar with this user - is it worth an SPI? - 2/0 (cont.) 16:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
    If we get similar socks in the next few days it may be worth filing a SPI so that the checkusers can work up a log that may be useful going forward. I don't like to think of these chaps going rogue and wasting their time socking forever, but it's a dismayingly common hobby. --TS 14:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

    More socks did turn up. See this discussion of three other probable socks that were active between 15th and 19th. If more show up with the same pattern over the next few weeks I'll open a long term abuse case. --TS 11:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    And another. --TS 11:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    Newcomers Rendahl and Poznan edit warring on climate change articles

    Rendahl blocked indef as SciBaby sock, Poznan given notice of discretionary sanctions
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    This is a delicate one. There are two new editors:

    Strictly speaking Poznan's account goes back a couple of years but in that time he had only made 18 edits on two articles, one about an Aberdonian artist and the other about a researcher in psychology from Dundee, which latter article Poznan himself created.

    I've warned Rendahl about his edit warring on Scientific opinion on climate change. Now he is joining in with complete newcomer Poznan in what looks like an incipient edit war on The Hockey Stick Illusion. For new editors this is especially fraught activity in a topic area that has so recently been a battlefield. I suggest that an uninvolved admin might notify them of the discretionary sanctions and ask them to use the talk page more. --TS 21:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

    Neither one appears to hit "edit war" status from this vantage point. Perhaps seeing two new people in the area intrinically evokes "they must be up to something" type gut reactions? And they do not appear to be avoiding talk pages - perhaps AGF has been neglected in that area a bit too much. Collect (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
    Both accounts have very similar styles of writing. Both support the "negative bias" school of thought on the most recent dispute at The Hockey Stick Illusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), with one supporting that "side" by reversion and the other by talk page argumentation. There is good cause to suspect that these are the same account, and I would recommend filing a suspected sockpuppet report in order to receive verification from users more experienced with sock puppetry or from a checkuser. (Sock puppetry is not, I am sure, a matter for AE, although if it is discovered that the sockmaster is a regular editor of the climate change topic, then it would then become one.) AGK 23:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
    What you say has been rather obvious but may in principle be just an accident. In another contentious area I found that the most effective approach in such cases was to give suspicious new users quite a bit of rope and learn a bit more about them. Occasionally they become productive members of the community after a while, putting Misplaced Pages above their own bias. And sometimes they don't, and at the point when they are blocked after all we have enough behavioural information to deal with further incarnations reliably, efficiently, and without false positives.
    The main problem with this approach is that every established editor has a de facto veto right, so that for it to break down it takes only one who panics because he thinks he is the only one who sees the problem, and that it's being ignored until after the deadline for interventions. Hans Adler 00:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
    Perhaps we can all use this style of communication. I hope it's not too off-putting for genuine new users. At the same time it is a more or less subtle sign for established users that someone has noticed the potential problem and is assuming responsibility for monitoring it. Apparently it was too subtle to work without explanation, or maybe my ideas for dealing with such situations are too eccentric. Hans Adler 00:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

    I'm less worried about the possibility of socking. They're rather less aggressive than socks we've had in this area, and a little more communicative. However their editing is still rather more aggressive than our editing guidelines for the sanctions area, having both restored disputed material, and so I think it would be good to inform them and advise them on how to proceed without getting into edit wars (albeit rather minor ones) on the topic. --TS 09:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

    As another indicator of the potential problems going forward, see this edit which is blatantly incorrect. The cited source does not refer to alarmism at all. And in this edit a description is removed with the edit summary "could not find in reliable source" for a journalist's retired status although in fact the writer himself in the cited source says he retired in 2000. They really do need to discuss things more. These mistakes indicate a boldness that is inappropriate in view of their failure to check for basic errors. --TS 09:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
    The quality of Rendahl's editing seems to be improving since we engaged with them on their talk page. Of the last four edits, one removed a potentially problematic description from an environmental organisation (seems to originate from the organisation's website; the fact that many books uncritically reprint that shouldn't give more weight to it; we would need an intellectually independent source). Another removed what does in fact appear to be original research. (I tried to verify it but only found several competing explanations in reliable sources.) Let's not do anything that could keep the user from continuing to learn at this pace. A lot of users first come here with the expectation that Misplaced Pages is a disorganised heap of crap and quality editing is wasted. Some become valuable members of the community once they have understood how things really work. Hans Adler 11:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
    I have notified Rendahl and Poznan of the discretionary sanctions, and invited them to respond here. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks. --TS 19:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

    Another one, this guy Squiddy has reverted three times today at The Hockey Stick Illusion . I've warned him about edit warring and the probation, but official notification might be good. --TS 21:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

    One of the accounts, Rendahl, has now been checked and found to be a sock. It is blocked. This does not reflect on the other editors, who I don't doubt are editing in good faith. --TS 11:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
    I have no idea who "rendahl" is, was or will be. I have a professional interest in the topic of climate change and was trying to improve some entries. Each attempt has been almost instantly changed (although in one case my change to another entry was eventually restored, in a rather lofty way). The article on the book "The Hockey Stick Illusion" is very poor - it reads like a rather childish attempt to denegrate the author of what is, in fact, rather a clever book, quite well written, informative and, given the complexity of the issues, containing remarkably few errors. Indeed, I can find only trivial technical errors. It ranks very high indeed, therefore, as a contribution to public understanding of science - my own field. My opinions are echoed by those of many others. I have plently else to do, however, and I am well aware life is short. I will go away. Poznan (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
    I've notified User:Squiddy of the discretionary sanctions, and logged his name at WP:ARBCC#Notifications, since he reverted one of the hot-button articles, Hockey Stick Illusion, three times in one day. If there are some words that simply have to be in the article to assure neutrality, in your opinion, opening an WP:RFC on the article talk page is the right thing to do. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

    Edit war at No Pressure (film)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Thanks to those who intervened on the talk page. The squabbling over how to describe the source ended amicably when somebody pointed out that the source was a blog being used in the absence of a pressing need to source from blogs. --TS 11:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    This falls under the climate change sanctions (they're specially written for the case so please do read the text).

    There is an ongoing edit war here with all parties apparently blaming one another. I've put up what amounts to a "cease and desist" notice on the talk page but more eyes would be welcome. Possibly action needs to be taken at this point. Several editors are behaving abominably. --TS 13:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Hammer of Habsburg reported by User:Taivo (Result: Blocked through WP:AN3 request)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    Closed per a report at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

    Note: I'm not sure whether this belongs here or at WP:3RR so I have placed it in both places. Croatian language has been placed under the 1RR restrictions of WP:ARBMAC.

    Page: Croatian language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Hammer of Habsburg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Croatian language is under the 1RR restrictions of WP:ARBMAC

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Comments:

    User:Hammer of Habsburg has now violated 1RR again after he was blocked here yesterday for the same thing. --Taivo (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

    User:Hammer of Habsburg was blocked by the WP:3RR request. This can be closed. --Taivo (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Jo0doe

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

    Request concerning Jo0doe

    User requesting enforcement
    Faustian (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Jo0doe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy that this user violated
    Digwuren case Scrolling down you will see: *Jo0doe (talk · contribs) banned permanently from all pages relating to Holodomor, broadly construed. This is due to persistent vios of WP:TALK and WP:SOAPBOX. Moreschi (talk) 10:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. See here for the full discussion. In this case he wrote ""At early days of it appearance People's Militia involved in the extermination of the soviet civil specialists which originated from East regions of the USSR." Jo0doe (talk) claimed that this info was on page 229 in the source. This is completely false. There is nothng about this on page 229. However, on page 232 in the same source, at the top ""first of all the duty was to defend the local population from attacks by the shattered and undisciplined remnants of the Red Army, they also killed organizers of Communist uprisings or Soviet parachutists caught behind the German lines, maintained order by confiscating weapons, registering former Communist officials and specialists that had been sent from the eastern regions of Ukraine, returned things that had been stolen from state warehouses and stores, defended important points, destroyed symbols of Soviet power and were involved in solving criminal cases. In line with brutal wartime policies, members of the People's Militia shot on site people caught looting, theft of personal or state property, hiding unregistered firearms or Soviet sevants, officers or diversionaries. Not rarely, there were also cases where the militamen took part in German anti-Jewish actions. It's known that militiamen took part in obligatory registration of the Jewish population, making sure that Jews wore identification with the star of David and that they worked without getting paid at community jobs." He changed the words "registered former Communist officials and specialists that had been sent from the eastern regions of Ukraine" (on page 232) into "At early days of it appearance People's Militia involved in the extermination of the soviet civil specialists which originated from East regions of the USSR." Please see the link to the talk page for the link to the original source (which is online) and feel free to verify translation with googltranslate.
    2. Same passage was misused. JD used the origianl source's statement "Not rarely, there were also cases where the militamen took part in German anti-Jewish actions. It's known that militiamen took part in obligatory registration of the Jewish population, making sure that Jews wore identification with the star of David and that they worked without getting paid at community jobs." to support the phrase: "Members of the Ukrainian People's Militia took part in round-ups of Jews for mass executions and participate in it, escorted Jews to their forced labour sites and create an early ghettos." As a source he used this: "Full discussion, including links to the original article that had been misued, and translations, are here: .
    3. On an article's talk page. An author writes about how Ukrainian nationalist extremists had motivation to murder Polish profesors and describes these motivations. The author then states tht the Germans had better motivations to commit this crime and after that devotes pages to describing how the German Nazis, rather than Ukrainian nationalists, most likely did it. Yet in the talk page JD just translates the first part and proposes putting it into the article. He states about that source: "He conclude that the personnel of the Nachtigall_Battalion (the Ukrainian nationalists - Faustian comment) have all reason to murder them - becouse they are 1) Poles 2) Intelligentsia and as a last - they interract with regime. That's the full scholar text." No, it wasn't the full scholar text because the scholar, in the next sentence, wrote: "But even more reason for their elimination had the German spetshrupy that followed the orders of the chief Nazi security police and security services, SS Obergruppenfuhrer R. Heydrich on June 2 and July 1, 1941 which stressed the need to destroy the communist functionaries, the commissioners of Jewish officials, propagandists, and Polish intelihentsiyu7" see the talk page for details that include translations and a link to the article that was misused: . Basically, JD tried to use the source to support claims that were the very opposite of what the source was actually describing.
    4. Here he removed the information in an article about the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Ukrainian) about units of that division massacring hundreds of people. According to the source, at the time of those crimes the units were removed from the Division and placed under police command. This information is removed by JD. See the talk page here for translations, links, etc. In this case he seems to be pushing the idea that the division as a whole was responsible for war crimes and altering inconvenient information.
    5. Thi example is a bit different fromthe pattern outliend above. Here we see him removing info which he doesn't like. This was removed: "John Paul Himka, a specialist in Ukrainian history during World War II, notes that although units such as the 201 Battalion were routinely used to fight partisans and kill Jews, no one has studied the specific activities of the 201st battalion from this perspective and this ought to be a subject for further study." It was referenced to : True and False Episodes from the Nachtigall Episode Op-Ed by John Paul Himka. Ironically he accused another editor of blanking in that case: .

    The above exmples are merely a sample of the pattern he engages in on article edits and talk pages. Essentially JD's M.O. is to find obscure foreign language sources and then falsely describe what they say in order to push his POV. It's quite time-consuming to check his "facts" which is very disruptive to the project but also shields him from sanctions because not many people want to wade through everything.


    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
    At least, a topic ban from areas involving 20th century conflicts and Ukraine to be added to his ban from articles involving the Holodomor. A full ban from wikipedia might not be necesaary, he seems to have been relatively harmless here: (although who knows, I haven't tried to verify what he put in).
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    Basically, he seems to be pushing a pro-Soviet POV with respect to Ukraine, by his history not only on topics related to World War II but earlier related to Holodomor (he has a lifetime ban on that topic for just the sort of behavior he is enagaging in now). And he used dishonest means when pushing his POV, creating a battleground rather than a collaborative environment. Here he is trying to lure a previously topic-banned editor into his fight: . This is a pattern he has engaged in persistently since coming to wikipedia and has been blocked for in the past. He is also prmananetly banned from Russian-language wikipedia for that sort of behvior: . It doesn't seem that previous blocks here have worked, except to make him a little more subtle or careful to use sources not as easily accessible.
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
    Here is the diff: .Faustian (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    Discussion concerning Jo0doe

    Statement by Jo0doe

    Comments by others about the request concerning Jo0doe

    I just want to throw my hat in the ring in support of the measures Faustian is proposing. I've also had to deal with Jo0doe and his falsifying of information. Ultimately, you can go through his history and find that in every article he edits, he follows the same pattern of inserting false information with obscure, non-English sources that can't be tracked down (or if they can be, we usually verify hat he falsely used the information to push his POV) / he then tries to put us on a wild goose chase to prove him wrong. He just loves wasting other people's time. Here's an example 1, it just turns into a headache trying to read what he's saying. He tries to throw around PROVEIT and RS and will delete content unless you appease him, but his questions are so generic and reek of copy/paste that it seems he just wants to stir up as much trouble as possible and isn't genuinely interested in editing to make articles better - just push his POV and piss off anyone else involved.--Львівське (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    Result concerning Jo0doe

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

    I am inclined to impose a 1 year block, which is the maximum that the discretionary sanctions permit. This editor has already been blocked for most of the past two years, with little improvement to show for it. Given the weak English skills and difficulty getting facts straight, this editor cannot be seen as a net positive for Misplaced Pages. Looie496 (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    I cannot read the source claimed to have been misrepresented, and therefore I cannot evaluate the factual basis for this request (the claimed misrepresentations are sufficiently subtle that I do not consider it appropriate to make a determination based on Google translate). However, assuming arguendo that the claims of misrepresenting sources are true, I am of the view that the user should be blocked indefinitely under administrators' general power to prevent disruption. Few things are more disruptive to encyclopedia building than abusing the good faith of other editors by misrepresenting sources, and the history of lengthy blocks here strongly suggests that anything short of an indef will not address the problem. The first year of the block can be taken as imposed under the authority of the discretionary sanctions, and subject to the usual restrictions on overturning. T. Canens (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)