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 18:51, 22 November 2010 editRolandR (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers32,326 edits →Comments by others about the request concerning SlimVirgin← Previous edit Revision as of 18:53, 22 November 2010 edit undoMastCell (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators43,155 edits →Result concerning Captain Occam: warned User:Woodsrock; no comment on other aspects of this request at presentNext edit →
Line 721: Line 721:
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.--> <!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.-->
<!-- 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've formally warned {{user|Woodsrock}} of the ], as even a cursory glance through his contributions reveals numerous causes for concern. No comment at this point on the other aspects of this request. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 18:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:53, 22 November 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
    Shortcut

    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

    Vecrumba

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

    Request concerning Vecrumba

    User requesting enforcement
    Offliner (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Vecrumba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy that this user violated
    *Misplaced Pages:EEML#Vecrumba_topic_banned: 18.1) Vecrumba (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This topic ban is consecutive with any editing ban
    • Misplaced Pages:EEML#Editors_restricted: 11A) The editors sanctioned by name in this decision are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia (talk · contribs) on any page of Misplaced Pages, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. Despite his indefinite ban on interacting with and commenting on Russavia, saved a comment by Russavia, probably in order to use it against Russavia later.
    2. Arrived in an EE-related process discussion to make accusations
    3. Followed User:Petri Krohn to WMC's talk page and attacked him. Vecrumba has already been reminded that ban covers his attacks on Petri Krohn:
    4. Participates in a POV dispute at Communist terrorism. ArbCom has clearly stated that the ban covers Communist terrorism
    5. Accused Petri Krohn of "ardent anti-Estonianism"
    6. Participates in a process discussion about a WP:EEML member and attacks Petri Krohn
    7. Attacks User:Ghirlandajo, and only retracts the comment after Ghirlandajo reminds Vecrumba of his topic ban
    8. In another personal attack, after the mandatory notification about this thread, Vecrumba insults me with "Get a life".
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. Warning by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs)
    Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
    Block and extension of topic ban. Perhaps also a sanction forcing Vecrumba to seek admin approval on this noticeboard before participating in any ArbCom or dispute resolution actions not directly related to him, similar to what was issued here.
    Addition: I ask that an interaction ban be placed on Vecrumba on interaction with me, especially noting that he should stop following my edit history. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    Vecrumba has already been blocked 3 times for his continuing violations of the topic ban (see block log). Offliner (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Request by Vecrumba

    I request a clear statement of policy:

    1. If an editor singly or as a former EEML participant, that is: "X" (specific); "EEML" (group); "X and company" (specific or group); "X and their supporters" (specific or group),... is attacked in comments, is response to those comments prohibited, or not prohibited, by the EEML topic ban as any such attack is surely related to the subject matter encompassed by the topic ban? As I recall, only Mathsci has personally attacked me for EEML in an unrelated topic area.
    2. If such response to such an attack on an EEML editor or group of EEML editors is indeed a violation of the topic ban, then what is the on-Wiki procedure for responding to/reporting the attack without violating the topic ban? I regret that expressing concern through recommended off-Wiki channels (i.e., ArbCom mailing list) is, given the state of affairs here, not a viable option.
    3. Whatever the policy statement is, I request that all affected editors (per notification or sanction in prior enforcements) be notified and not be considered to be aware of the policy until they have confirmed back in writing, on-Wiki or off-Wiki to the ArbCom mailing list, that they are aware. There is too much quoting of decisions handed down to request bans and blocks assuming editors are aware and are therefore, by definition, willfully and fragrantly disregarding sanctions. Where there is no such confirmation of awareness, there should be an on-Wiki warning to the individual editor for the first "infraction", then only to be followed by discretionary sanctions. (Quite frankly some of the "article specific" bans are news to me; as I think back I'm not sure I recall the ruling regarding Communist terrorism —not that it applies herein below. Can someone refresh my memory with a diff pointing to a notification on my talk page? Such a notification I would expect would be mandatory per DIGWUREN or EEML as my name would be on the "list" as being directly affected by the ruling.)

    Thank you. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

    Request by Vecrumba II

    I am traveling and will only be back after the Thanksgiving Day weekend. I regret ArbCom's (my perception) upping the stakes here per the proposed findings, but I will only be able to offer a response to what I consider ArbCom's errors in interpreting my actions and as they relate to my topic ban until my return. Best wishes to all who will be celebrating Thanksgiving with family and friends. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

    Discussion concerning Vecrumba

    Statement by Vecrumba II

    My apologies for an inadvertent save without completing my edit comment. Having considered what BorisG and Biophys have had to say, let's try this again. I invite Petri to similarly disengage and nullify our conflict here which was precipitated by Offliner's bad-faith accusations against myself which unfairly involved him.

    Regarding Offliner's bad faithed and cynical attack designed only to foment conflict, not the first attempt at block shopping: prior being at Sandstein's talk, seeking sanctions because I was attempting to move forward from conflict (!):

    1. Despite his indefinite ban on interacting with and commenting on Russavia, saved a comment by Russavia, probably in order to use it against Russavia later. — If you must know, I hope to make a gallery of best denunciations when my topic ban expires; I was inspired by someone else's gallery of quotes. I have neither interacted nor commented.
    2. Arrived in an EE-related process discussion to make accusations — no, to set straight Offliner's blatant misrepresentation of a conversation I had with another editor with no comment regarding the proceeding itself
    3. Followed User:Petri Krohn to WMC's talk page and attacked him. Vecrumba has already been reminded that ban covers his attacks on Petri Krohn: — no, I was merely tired of Petri's denouncments of EEML, read the entire section and look for EEML
    4. Participates in a POV dispute at Communist terrorism. ArbCom has clearly stated that the ban covers Communist terrorism — Malaya is about as far away as you can get from the area of dispute, these were anti-Japanese who then turned anti-British, nothing to do with Soviet communism in any way. Quite frankly I didn't follow the proceedings once I made my statement there, and I also quote from ArbCom: "though Vecrumba's point that Communist highjinks != USSR is well taken"; the case was regarding what was a prior incarnation/title of the article; and as Communist terrorism doesn't exist at all other than a dab it's rather a silly point to contend I was active on content as was originally envisioned in any manner in scope to the decision.
    5. Accused Petri Krohn of "ardent anti-Estonianism" — I merely state facts and without hyperbole; when an editor (strenuously) maintains that Soviet occupation was invented as a myth following Estonia regaining her independence to justify Estonia's leaders turning Estonia into a fascist apartheid state, there's really no wiggle room to see that as a positive. Not to mention Petri calling myself and others an ethno-fascist gang; this is not a Baltic love-fest. I'd like to make the point that I have not stated Petri is not entitled to his opinion, if you read the entire thread misrepresented as an attack, you will see I am seeking to understand the basis for Petri's position.
    6. Participates in a process discussion about a WP:EEML member and attacks Petri Krohn — sorry, states the simple case regarding Petri
    7. Attacks User:Ghirlandajo, and only retracts the comment after Ghirlandajo reminds Vecrumba of his topic ban — no, I extricated myself leaving his provocative re-litigation of the past behind and suggested moving on at his talk page. I would parenthetically add that when Ghirla was (subsequently, I had the page on my watch list in case of a response) rude regarding a request on his own user page, I had responded without having thought of the ban (oops!)—and so contacted the editor with the information they required off-Wiki. So, exactly who has WP's best interests at heart?
    8. In another personal attack, after the mandatory notification about this thread, Vecrumba insults me with "Get a life". — My advice stands. "Mandatory"? Rather ignores Offliner's choice to do this in the first place.

    I regret Offliner chosing to involve Petri, who has nothing to do with matters here, knowing it would only escalate matters. Whatever this is, it has nothing to do with Petri. The last time we exchanged on our difficulties at my talk we left matters as cordially as could best be expected. I look forward to debating Petri on the sources once my topic ban expires. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

    Response to Ed Johnston

    Mine in red.

    1. Despite his indefinite ban on interacting with and commenting on Russavia, saved a comment by Russavia, probably in order to use it against Russavia later.

    • Saving a comment is not an interaction. Fine with this

    2. Arrived in an EE-related process discussion to make accusations

    • Vecrumba was already named by a previous contributor in the process request, though the request did not assert he was misbehaving, and did not call for any sanctions on him. At first glance Vecrumba's response is in defence of Biophys. But if that's all he's doing he has no business being here. This was an A/R/A filed by Biophys about the Russavia/Biophys arbcom case. I do have business being there as if Biohpys is accused of battlefield mentality at my talk and I engage with Biophys in appearing sympathetic to his comments in any manner, then I am open to the same accusation of battlefield mentality. In fact, I consider it (a) baiting on Offliner's part to cite anything on my user talk page, and (b) a reflection of his battlefield mentality that he completely misrepresents a conversation I am engaged in. I am entitled to respond.

    3. Followed User:Petri Krohn to WMC's talk page and attacked him. Vecrumba has already been reminded that ban covers his attacks on Petri Krohn:

    • Yes, Vecrumba nagging Petri at WMC's talk page seems to a process discussion about EE, widely construed. Petri is not entitled to attack EEML with impunity as he did on WMC's talk page. If you would rather I file an enforcement request every time, please let me know. I was rather hoping to move on from the need to do that.

    4. Participates in a POV dispute at Communist terrorism. ArbCom has clearly stated that the ban covers Communist terrorism

    • Participating at Talk:Communist terrorism (disambiguation), where he should not be commenting due to his topic ban. The article contents no longer existed at the time; more to the point, this was a DAB page, not the original article. My contribution had absolutely nothing to do with the conflict area which is the subject of my topic ban, nor with the article actually placed within the scope of the EEML decision.

    5. Accused Petri Krohn of "ardent anti-Estonianism"

    • This happened on Vecrumba's own talk page. Any discussion of anti-Estonianism is a discussion about Eastern Europe, unless it's a purely social conversation which it clearly is not. So, what are you stating here, that my so-called accusing him violated my topic ban or not? This was a conversation looking to get past Petri's false accusations against me. If this is violating my ban, then next time I will simply open arbitration requests and enforcement requests and quote and judge everything out of context the way it is here.

    6. Participates in a process discussion about a WP:EEML member and attacks Petri Krohn.

    • Vecrumba may be OK here because his name was just mentioned in an AE statement by Offliner. He is entitled to comment on how a diff on his own talk page is to be interpreted. Fine with this. Note, I am responding only to Petri's blatantly false contention regarding his behavior regarding Martintg and his supporters, meant to include myself.

    7. Attacks User:Ghirlandajo, and only retracts the comment after Ghirlandajo reminds Vecrumba of his topic ban

    • Vecrumba should not have been participating in that A/R/A, since it was about Eastern Europe and his name was not mentioned. I did strike my participation as noted. It's difficult not to say something when people are repeatedly attacked with years-old allegations. Note that I had responded to Ghirlandajo because he denounced Piotrus and company—which includes myself. Ghirlandajo had no need to add "and the rest of them".

    8. In another personal attack, after the mandatory notification about this thread, Vecrumba insults me with "Get a life".

    • Vecrumba was commenting about this AE. We have to allow that. It was still a personal attack, but that doesn't break a specific sanction of this case. It might be considered to be behavior worthy of consideration for a block in its own right under regular Misplaced Pages policy. Personal attack? Come now! I'm set upon and block shopped against when I seek to move on from conflict and I'm the attacker? If this enforcement request were brought against me by someone other than an editor who presented a litany of gross misrepresentations of his own editorial misconduct in his attempts to paint me as a disruptive editor, per my responses to his evidence at EEML, I would take this in a more constructive vein. Sorry, I only see this as a continuation of the conflict, specifically: Offliner's attempt #2 to get me blocked after his attempt #1 was ignored by Sandstein. Recall, both Offliner and Petri Krohn went block shopping against me in specific instances where I was looking to move on from conflict. Apparently that counts for nothing.

    If my tone is testy it's not personal. I haven't even returned to my area of interest and I'm already being subjected to the most grotesque of allegations, see next. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

    P.S. More generally to ArbCom, it was your decision to allow Offliner to participate again after he was so eager to attack EEML participants off-Wiki that his actions got him permanently banned. You reap what you sow. That is advice and an observation, not an attack. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

    Response to Petri Krohn's addition of SAFKA denounced as neo-Stalinist

    Matters here have nothing to do with Petra's SAFKA membership and what others say about SAFKA, and I object in the strongest terms possible to Petri's associating me with a litany of evils.

    • I have repeated only what Petri himself has said: The occupation of Estonia by the Soviet Union is a post-Soviet myth created by Estonia's leadership to justify their turning Estonia into the fascist apartheid state it currently is. Petri's political affiliations are immaterial.
    • I have only defended myself against Petri's false accusation of outing. Not only has he refused to acknowledge his false accusation, he continues denounce me for attempting to out him. If Petri can't stop lying and attacking other editors with his lies, he has no place contributing on Misplaced Pages.
    • Petri's association of me with everything untoward said about SAFKA is completely immaterial, seeking only to misdirect ArbCom with sensational allegations. Petri as member of SAFKA, self-outed on Misplaced Pages, has posted his personal contact information on the Internet for years. He has no business laying the fruits of his activities at my doorstep and painting me as somehow allied with a global conspiracy against him putting his very life at risk. His contentions here are utterly grotesque and offensive lies.

    As I've stated I've also been accused of murdering Transnistrian children, so I am used to sensational and vitriolic allegations from editors pushing a POV born of their personal opinions and allegiances, that is nothing new. But even with that in mind, Petri's victimology here has set a whole new standard for lies, attacks, and hysterical polemics.

    The only threat I present to Petri is of countering his editorial contentions, the only weapon I have is what reputable and reliable scholarship states. Which activity I hope to resume when my topic ban expires. This is little more than a cynical and opportunistic attempt on Petri's part to "take me out" even before my topic ban expires. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

    Addendum

    I hope Petri takes advantage, my "renounce Offliner's actions and disengage" proposal is a limited time offer. Otherwise, as I've committed to NOT fuel the tempest in the teapot, I request specific direction from Arbcom on whether Petri's points or Offliner's points (in more detail) require response on my part.

    That said, I do request ArbCom deal with Offliner's disruption here as evidenced from the very beginning of this sordid affair which starts not with me, but with Offliner block shopping against me (at the talk of an admin who he felt would be sympathetic to blocking me) because I participated in a conversation on putting conflict in the past. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

    I regret Petri has made a choice to refine his accusations (which he himself terms Wikilawyering here) rather than engage in de-escalation of conflict. More grasping at circumstantial straws he can use to promulgate his personal victimology fantasy. As for SAFKA, I only brought the whole thing up because he stalked and accused me of bad faith in seeking to put conflict aside and then compounded it by falsely accused me of outing him, his choice. As I have regrettably unstruck, I am not responsible for the choices people make, nor have I initiated any attack against any editor that I'm accused here of stalking, attacking et al. I'd suggest adding in murdering children, but that accusation has already been taken.
    As for the latest outrageous accusation, that I stalked Petri to Sandstein, sorry. I had already been following activity dating to Biophys' inquiry regarding an AE request at the end of August. An AE request which admin-wannabe and partisan Petri closed (which he references as "saving my butt"). Sandstein remarks Petri's closure is "highly questionable". (skip forward) Petri inserts himself in the conversation in progress stating, hey, nobody complained. Well nobody complained because anyone who would wish to complain would be accused of violating EEML topic bans, restarting EEML battleground mentality, blah blah blah as we have a barge-full here. Sandstein admonishes Petri to leave arbitration-related actions to ArbCom. And then we have Petri's "BOLD" (which contention he has used to claim immunity from edit warring elsewhere, I can go find diffs if need be). Sandstein then tells Edward321 and Petri to take a (different!) conflict they are waging at Sandstein's talk elsewhere. I appear starting my own section, not injecting as part or continuation of the conversations I've been watching—which to me all signal that conflict is still alive and well—on any thoughts from Sandstein regarding an idea I had. And why Sandstein? Well because everyone runs to him with their conflict crap block-shopping; I thought it would be a nice change to contact Sandstein (and yes, with whom I had block-conversations regarding myself in the past, so all the more appropriate) about taking some positive action.
    But according to Petri I stalked him to Sandstein's. I am forced to observe that lack of admonition of Petri for his inappropriate so-called BOLD actions in the area of conflict and other conflicts in which he has inserted himself and inaction on Petri's false accusations regarding myself, my presentation of evidence in defense of myself which he continues to harp on as my attacking him, has only emBOLDened Petri to attack me further. I haven't even returned to editing and I'm being set upon like some plague. Deal with this. My assumption of good faith well runs dry, it's quite evident to me that anyone who has attacked me in the past only wishes to continue the conflict because I'm not dead yet. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    In light of Petri choosing conflict over concilitation, I must also view Petri's contact at my talk, submitted at an AN/I by another editor (see thread), as baiting. Note also Petri's derisive description of the dialog here has Wikilawyering by both himself and myself. I'm sorry, I'm not "Wikilawyering." And it that's all Petri is doing to see what mud he can make stick, action should be taken to dissuade such behavior in the future. Again, I suggest at least a hiatus on these sordid affairs. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    Lastly because I've had to waste far too much valuable personal time here fending off ever-mounting spurious accusations, I respectfully request arbitrators do their job here and not simply wait for this to age off, WHEW, glad that went away without us needing to do soil ourselves. You all wanted to be elected to deal with this crap to make WP a better place for participants, so please do so. To BorisG and Biophys, I'm sorry Petri appears to have taken my offer as a sign of weakness and added to his pile of so-called evidence. My offer to disengage and acknowledge it was Offliner's accusations that started the mess here was sincere and is still on the table, but Petri has taken my striking my comments against him here off the table for now by piling on more accusations. He should rather be thankful that until Offliner's fray here I had let pass a veritable cornucopia of disruptive behavior. In true WP fashion, no act kindness goes unrewarded. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

    Statement by Vecrumba

    (Unstruck based on more spurious accusations being filed.)

    I regret I'm not going to give credence to Offliner's personal attack here by responding to it point by point as this is not Ofliner's first attempt at block shopping (prior being at Sandstein's talk, seeking sanctions because I was responding on moving forward from conflict (!), note Sandstein's terse and graceful self-extraction in not taking the bait).

    Offliner quotes my talk page as an example of battleground mentality and responding that it's nothing of the kind is a violation of my ban? I made sure to limit my response only to what Offliner blatantly misrepresented having to do with my interaction with another editor, nothing else.

    With regard to Malaya, whose "communists" were largely re-aligned anti-Japanese now against the British, that has nothing to do with the area of the ban; indeed I commented to Paul Siebert that I will be glad to discuss the topic of "communist terrorism" more widely (which would include consideration of scholarship where it pertains to Soviet-related communism) when my ban expires. I don't think I could be more clear.

    Lastly, regarding "attacking" Petri Krohn, his membership in SAFKA (self-outed on Misplaced Pages) speaks for itself. And my so-called attack here simply states the facts. It was only my wish to move on from past conflict that I did not act to have Petri permanently blocked for stalking me and knowingly falsely accusing me of outing him—after which he quickly covered up his self-outing at the diffs I had cited as best as he could with edit summaries indicating "verifiability" (!) concerns.

    (Please also read the entire thread of my conversation with Petri which Offliner quotes out of context in his attempt to defame me.)

    Perhaps I should have filed to have Petri blocked as not doing so is (my perception) only fueling others to attack me: that Offliner's evidence takes my factual statement that Petri stalked and falsely accused me and turns it into an attack by myself on Petri speaks for itself.

    That I did not request enforcement against Petri rather demonstrates who is the editor more committed to moving on from past conflict. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

    I should mention my position regarding Petri (let sleeping dogs of false accusations lie) still stands as there's been no provocation on Petri's part since. I can't debate him upon my return from my topic ban if he's unavailable, now can I? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
    Well, since Petri has requested an interaction ban (didn't notice), I suppose I'll have to retract the above as Petri appears to be supporting Offliner's contentions here. Hmm... stalk me (accusing me of acting in bad faith while seeking avenues to put conflict in the past), falsely accuse me, and then ask for an interaction ban? Can you say "victim blaming"? And that certainly gives the lie to Petri's purported (my emphasis) "absolutely no interest" regarding my activities. I too regret the turn things have taken here, Petri did not have to escalate by making himself out to be a victim and asking for sanctions against me. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
    @Petri, I suggest you consider disengaging here. If you have issues with anyone, it is with Offliner for bringing up my statement of fact regarding your conduct as an attack upon your person. You will note I still have not filed any enforcement request in connection with your block-shopping based on blatantly false lies, but my kindness has limits if your response to this all is to join in escalating conflict. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 23:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
    P.S. Regarding Ghirla, I extricated myself leaving his provocative re-litigation of the past behind and suggested moving on at his talk page. I would parenthetically add that when Ghirla was (subsequently, I had the page on my watch list in case of a response) dismissive of a request on his own user page, I had responded without having thought of the ban (oops!)—and so contacted the editor with the information they required off-Wiki. So, exactly who has WP's best interests at heart? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

    @BorisG: I would point out that I'm only responding and of the editors choosing to accuse me here (Offliner and Petri Krohn) I'm the only one who has made any attempts to move on from the past and been attacked by both of them for it. (See Sandstein's and Shell Kinney's talk history.) Only on WP is seeking an olive branch ignored or attacked as being a sign of weakness. And you will also note I've asked this be nipped in the bud so as not to escalate or encourage more of these in the future. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

    Formal response to Petri

    (replacing prior response)

    Unfortunately Petri has assembled such a quagmire of charges against me—pretty much all completely off topic—that I need to make quite a number points to silence this charade.

    To the charge of OUTING: Petri has chosen to continue pretending he is some other Petri, discussed below

    To the charge of HARRASSMENT by continuing attempts to "OUT" Petri: If he'd stop with his charade, blatant lies, and false accusations there would be no need for further comment

    To the charge of STALKING: Seeing what editors are doing and if it is something interesting is not stalking. Even the editor whom I must not name has stated they "follow edits." Making positive contributions in areas of my own interest is not a crime the last I checked.

    • I am a telecommunications (among numerous Information Technology disciplines) professional
    • I have been visiting the East-West bookstore here in New York going back now on nearly 40 years

    So if I contributed somewhere positively, do we care how I got there? Unfortunately, rather than putting conflict in the past, EEML is dredged up like some stench, as here by Petri, at every turn at places totally unrelated, even at the still fairly recent race and intelligence arbitration (Mathsci); earlier by Viriditas (I should note Viriditas and I have long since "made up" and are on good terms—proving reconciliation is possible when editors practice good faith instead of giving it lip service).

    What Petri cites is neither disruption nor stalking. If it were, Ludwigs2 would have reported long ago for my continual "stalking" him at the Humanities desk. As for the Paul Siebert affair, his talk has long been on my watchlist, Petri wasn't even involved in the conversation which took place there for the diff he cites. More grasping at any straw to accuse me.

    What is a disruption is Petri's egregious conduct at Shell Kinney's talk which I would have gladly let pass with only mention, but based on Petri's escalation here I am forced to review it in detail lest Petri's mud-slinging stick:

    There is also my parallel conversation with Petri at my talk, see here.

    As for what OTHER people say about SAFKA, about SAFKA's raging Internet feud with Kafkaz Center (SAFKA accusing the Finnish government of harboring terrorists; said terrorists allegedly making death threats in return; all fascinating reading in the Finnish press) there is no place for that here unless Petri's contention is to say:

    1. here is Vecrumba, he is against me;
    2. here is Kafkaz Center, et al., they are against SAFKA and Petri;
    3. ergo Vecrumba is equally malevolent in every way (bringing up neo-Nazi charges et al.)

    I am sorry, but I see no need to be the dumping ground/lightning rod for Petri's political woes and victimization mantra via guilt by association which stretches even Misplaced Pages standards for conflict.

    Yes, I've stated Petri has an anti-Estonian POV. When someone (strenuously) maintains that Soviet occupation was invented as a myth following Estonia regaining her independence to justify Estonia's leaders turning Estonia into a fascist apartheid state, there's really no wiggle room to see that as a positive. Not to mention Petri calling myself and others an ethno-fascist gang—I regret having to remind Petri of that tawdry unpleasantry.

    Lastly I regret that, contrary to Petri's compendium of false contentions, the only place Petri has been attempting to bury the hatchet is in my head based on his woe-is-me conspiracy theories portraying himself as a victim. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

    P.S. If Petri's real life activities cause him concern, his self-outing, his activities, his associates, his not using his WP right to disappear and come back fresh (and maintaining his original ban was persecution for his political views, not a sanction for his disruption, et al.) are his choice. I've also been accused by paid propagandists on WP of murdering Transnistrian children when I stood in their way—by the vitriol of their attack having affected their paycheck, I suspect. I am not responsible for the choices others make, nor will I have others make themselves or others out to be victims at my hand when they suffer the consequences of their own conduct. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


    End it now

    I suggest closing this tawdry affair before it gets uglier. I have let provocations pass to this point, but my patience wanes. I had rather hoped that not appealing my topic ban and sitting it out for an entire year would lead to a reduction in conflict, giving all a chance to put the past behind us; clearly (being attacked here and being set upon for conversations elsewhere for how to put conflict in the past) it appears I am heading for grave disappointment: the personal attacks appear to be escalating the closer we get to the majority of the remaining EEML topic bans expiring. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 23:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

    So much for that. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 04:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    And now Dojarca chimes in below, rather proves my point about my detractors (that would include Dojarca) escalating the conflict the closer we get to the majority of the remaining EEML topic bans expiring, doing all the block-shopping they can to try to extend the bans. (I should add, purely my perception as someone on Dojarca's receiving end in the past.) I should be flattered by the attention here; on the contrary, I'm quite sad that the passage of time has, for some, aged and refined animosity as if it were a fine wine. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    I'm hurt, I was obviously left off the notice list advertising the fire sale on EEML-related enforcement requests. Perhaps ArbCom might consider my long-standing oft-repeated proposal: enforce at least a 6-month hiatus on any topic-area involved editors filing AN/I's or enforcement requests against each other (including on- and off-Wiki block shopping wherever someone thinks they'll get harshest sanctions) to force them to work things out at articles. Gun control works, arbitrators. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

    Statement by Petri Krohn

    I have absolutely no interest in Vecrumba or his current activity on Misplaced Pages, However, given the precedent, I feel I have a responsibility to comment on process discussions where my name is mentioned.

    I seldom edit in the topic areas of known interest to Vecrumba or others involved in the EEML arbitration case. Yet some former EE mailing list members have a strange fascination with my personality. This is is evident from the pattern of behavior shown; following my edits and engaging in disputes or discussions where I am involved – or just simply editing articles I have edited or linked to. (I will not name others, as this discussion is only about Vecrumba.)

    I suspect this interest in me stems from my suspected real life activities – which, although possible important or interesting, are not notable. Because of the constant attempts at OUTING, this interest is becoming a form of HARASSment.

    (I reserve the possibility to present more evidence.)

    I ask that an interaction ban be placed on Vecrumba on interaction with me. This ban should cover following my edit history. On a personal level, I harbor no ill feelings against Vecrumba and am saddened that the problem behavior has forced me to make this request. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

    (The above comment was written before Vecrumba posted his initial statement, but only posted afterwards – after an edit conflict. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC))
    Response to Vecrumba

    It is interesting and indicative of the situation, that instead of responding to the accusations made by Offliner Vecrumba posts the above rant against me – and someone in real life he wants to associate with me. Note, that this happened before I ever took part in this discussion.

    Vecrumba has again repeated his allegation, that I have stalked him. In the last half year I have once checked Vecrumba's edit history and reacted based on it. This was after I made him a proposal to end all past hostility, outlining what I expected him to do (a specific type of apology) I fully expected him to react positively to the proposal or at least give it a thorough consideration after discussing the issue with others involved. Checking for his response or reaction, I saw that he had posted a rant similar to the one above on the talk pages of two an administrator. I was shocked to find that one of the talk pages had in fact turned into EEML rant central, with repeated accusations and innuendo against me and my supposed real life politics.

    I do not need to comment on what on or off-wiki information may have led Vecrumba and Co to link me to SAFKA. Even if the connection was true, I have no obligation or desire to discuss or display my real life political opinions or affiliations on Misplaced Pages.

    To those uninformed about the politics, let me enlighten you: Vecrumba is basically repeating the old accusation, that I am a member of a neo-Nazi organization engaged in Holocaust denial – or something equally bad – and should therefore be banned or restricted from editing Misplaced Pages. This time Vecrumba is not asking that me editing rights be restricted, but the request was first made by Margintg in 2008 on the same grounds.

    You may also note the following: The internationally know propaganda organ (Kavkaz Center) of an Islamic terrorist organization (Caucasian Emirate) has repeatedly claimed that “SAFKA” is in fact a “murder squad” with a mission to murder human rights activist. This information has been widely redistributed on Al-Qaeda web sites. At the same time terrorist leader Doku Umarov is reported to have ordered that SAFKA members and their families be killed. I believe Vecrumba is fully aware of these aspects. Whether he knows or not, he should understand that linking my name to such organizations puts my life in danger. I have no desire to be linked to any of this. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

    Some evidence

    A look at Vecrumba's rather short recent edit history shows that a large part of his edits outside the Race topic are in response to my edits. I will leave out the cases already pointed out by Offliner

    Not all of Vecrumba's WP:STALKing behavior is confrontational. The pattern however shows that a major part of Vecrumba's Misplaced Pages activity is monitoring my edits. This has to stop! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

    Comment on EdJohnston's proposal

    Yes, I fully support a mutual interaction ban. It should however be made clear that this is based on my request and not on a finding of fault in my behavior. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

    Statement by EdJohnston

    I'm commenting as an uninvolved admin, but since my views are lengthy I'm creating a new section. This is a point-by-point assessment of what Offliner said at the top of this enforcement request. My answers are in green.

    1. Despite his indefinite ban on interacting with and commenting on Russavia, saved a comment by Russavia, probably in order to use it against Russavia later.

    • Saving a comment is not an interaction.

    2. Arrived in an EE-related process discussion to make accusations

    • Vecrumba was already named by a previous contributor in the process request, though the request did not assert he was misbehaving, and did not call for any sanctions on him. At first glance Vecrumba's response is in defence of Biophys. But if that's all he's doing he has no business being here. This was an A/R/A filed by Biophys about the Russavia/Biophys arbcom case.

    3. Followed User:Petri Krohn to WMC's talk page and attacked him. Vecrumba has already been reminded that ban covers his attacks on Petri Krohn:

    • Yes, Vecrumba nagging Petri at WMC's talk page seems to a process discussion about EE, widely construed.

    4. Participates in a POV dispute at Communist terrorism. ArbCom has clearly stated that the ban covers Communist terrorism

    5. Accused Petri Krohn of "ardent anti-Estonianism"

    • This happened on Vecrumba's own talk page. Any discussion of anti-Estonianism is a discussion about Eastern Europe, unless it's a purely social conversation which it clearly is not.

    6. Participates in a process discussion about a WP:EEML member and attacks Petri Krohn.

    • Vecrumba may be OK here because his name was just mentioned in an AE statement by Offliner. He is entitled to comment on how a diff on his own talk page is to be interpreted.

    7. Attacks User:Ghirlandajo, and only retracts the comment after Ghirlandajo reminds Vecrumba of his topic ban

    • Vecrumba should not have been participating in that A/R/A, since it was about Eastern Europe and his name was not mentioned.

    8. In another personal attack, after the mandatory notification about this thread, Vecrumba insults me with "Get a life".

    • Vecrumba was commenting about this AE. We have to allow that. It was still a personal attack, but that doesn't break a specific sanction of this case. It might be considered to be behavior worthy of consideration for a block in its own right under regular Misplaced Pages policy.
    You made two important nontrivial points. (1) Comments about editors who contribute a lot in EE area (as Petri and Ghirlandajo) can be interpreted as a process discussion about EE, widely construed. (2) Discussing a redirect to "Communist terrorism" article was a violation of the topic ban, even though he talked about an Asian country. Vecrumba probably did not realize that he violated the ban. I would not. And even you, an experienced administrator, did not realize it after looking at the diffs first time. Biophys (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
    @EdJohnston, I disagree with your assessment, response above. You have missed or misinterpreted a number of items. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

    Comments by others about the request concerning Vecrumba

    Alas - not much here. As for "saving comments" - that is precisely what is permitted WRT dispute resolution. The bit about "arriving" at a discussion was after a link relating to Vecrumba was introduced by Offliner - once Offliner introduced Vecrumba as a topic, it was clearly proper for Vecrumba to appear, as Vecrumba noted. Mountains from moleholls really do not belong here, IMHO. Collect (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

    Where exactly in my statement to the Biophys thread did I "introduce Vecrumba as a topic" as you say? The diff by Biophys is only tangentially relevant to Vecrumba, being a comment posted in a "BTW" sense. If one examines all the previous topic ban violations of Vecrumba, it becomes clear that Vecrumba often uses things like this as an excuse to get involved in where he should not. The diff is good example of the poster's battleground mentality, and the fact that it was posted on Vecrumba's talk page is irrelevant to the reason it was mentioned. Offliner (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
    One potential violation might be his discussion of a redirect page , but he talked about Malaya , which is obviously outside Eastern Europe. As about his comments on this noticeboard and elsewhere, he commented about users other than Russavia, which is not a violation of his bans.Biophys (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
    It appears to an uninvolved editor that all of these guys have battleground mentality. This request is part of this battle. This needs to stop. - BorisG (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    This is becoming beyond ridiculous (on both sides). I think urgent action from experienced admins to calm this down is required. - BorisG (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    @BorisG: Both sides? You're not being attacked with blatant lies. I'm still glad to close these unfortunate unpleasantries with no further action as a sign of good faith. The sooner this closes the better. If there are no more attacks here upon my person, I'll commit there will be no further responses by myself. Having dealt with Petri's diatribe, I was next planning to respond to Offliner point by point simply because mud sticks, but I will (gladly, I detest these proceedings) forgo that if we can put this out of our misery. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    Sorry, I clearly see that both sides have engaged in strong personal attacks. Attacks that would make the Israeli-Palestinan debate look like a friendly conversation if not romance:). - BorisG (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    I've only responded, not one thing I have stated regarding Petri is a "personal attack." That Offliner has chosen to portray my statements of fact (including Petri's nearly successful attempt to get me blocked) as such is part of his MO at these affairs. In particular, you will note I have filed no retaliatory enforcement action against Petri for his actions even though I am more than well within my rights. And if you follow the thread on my talk, you will see that (actually, on both our parts) matters were left off as cordially as they could be under the circumstances. Unfortunately, those circumstances have deteriorated, not of my doing. As an old Latvian saying says, taught to me by my mother (and this would be to your point), "When you stomp on shit it only spreads and stinks." Regrettably, a certain amount of stomping is sometimes necessary to bring the smell to attention. That said, I do fervently hope there will be no further stomping here and we can all go home, clothespins still attached to our collective noses. But not my call. Best regards, PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    P.S. I see you've added some outside observations to more than one of these, I commend you for your interest in making WP a better place. Having also peeked into the conflict you mention (e.g., West Bank versus prior but still recent place names), the real value is not in observing that, "Gee, these two parties are attempting to smite each other mightily," it's in going back through the conflict, reading sources, and (on occasion) changing sometimes long-held beliefs when confronted with unbiased scholarship. (Even biased sources make for informative reading as long as you know what to look for.) Perhaps we can discuss relevant subject matter when my topic ban expires, I'd be interested in your perspective. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    @BorisG, I trust you find my reformulation more appropriate, thanks for your observation, you are, after all, here as part of the solution. My apologies for getting defensive, it's simply from years of being assaulted and vilified—although no one has yet shown where I have been less than fair and accurate in representing reputable and reliable sources. Maybe that's the problem. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

    P.P.S. And what is presented as "stalking" would, under circumstances of good faith, be taken as proof positive that editors can cooperate outside their area of conflict—and in fact has been suggested in the past for this very conflict. I just thought it was a bit silly to leave a fact tag when I knew the answer. (Generally I look upon fact tags as editors boosting their edit count without doing the work to answer the question, which also counts as only one edit.) Done, now. (!) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

    Peters, I think you and Petri fell victims of an artificially created battleground. Such requests do tremendous damage to the project. I can only imagine how you both feel. This is especially regretful since you and Petri are good content creators.Biophys (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    The sooner we forget this and get back to moving on, the better. I can't unilaterally help editors mired in past conflict—that Offliner's and Petri's prior block-shoppings were both in relation to my attempts to move forward from past conflict is evidence enough—evidence I am more than glad (and I would hope they are as well) to leave behind by having this closed. And to your point, agreed, if Offliner hadn't created fresh wounds, there would have been none of the subsequent unpleasantness between Petri and myself. If Petri agrees and indicates that he regrets Offliner citing my comments as an "attack" on him—an accusation against which I had to defend myself—I am more than glad to for Petri and myself to agree to (a) assume good faith first, and (b) if having difficulty in doing so that we contact each other on our respective talk pages to discuss constructively and stay away from enforcement requests, which are little more than a wormhole to a year ago. The answer is not a ban on interaction, rather, it's promoting positive interaction.
       Once this is closed I expect I'll open a motion following up per earlier encouragement to have all personal copies of EEML-related evidence deleted, as the point appears to have been missed by some that the conflict is over. (I thought I had seen some in Petri's name space subsequent to the incident at Shell Kinney's talk, having been puzzled by his actions, but not there now, so that's a good sign at least.)PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks to you for your advice as well. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    @ T.Canens. Vecrumba does not edit in the area covered by Digwuren case remedies because he is topic banned from this area.Biophys (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

    @Johnston. Unfortunately, I must comment because this entire story was in part my fault, as explained in this statement. The only sanction that seems to be warranted at this stage is the mutual interaction ban for Vecrumba and Petri. Note that inappropriate comments by Vecrumba at different talk pages (including this page) are related to his conflict with Petri.Biophys (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

    Comment by BorisG

    I think we should close the above with WP:TLDR before we can rationally proceed. As for Ed's proposal, I support 1 and 3 but 2 sounds a bit harsh. Both sides are at fault here and it seems that neither is learning any lessons on civilised interaction. - BorisG (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

    Result concerning Vecrumba

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

    I'm having trouble seeing what enforcement is needed here. The main issue seems to be personal attacks, and in the EEML area we know there are plenty of disputes and lots of attacks. EEML as a decision does not seem to leave much room for AE admins to take any further action (unless someone violates a topic ban on an *article*), and the things which Offliner thinks are violated seem not to be violated. I left a note at User talk:Offliner#WP:AE#Vecrumba, to see if Offliner can say more to help the admins focus their attention. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

    The topic area is under WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions. T. Canens (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
    • In #Statement by EdJohnston, I list the eight charges by Offliner and found five of them to be valid (items 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7). Only one of these is on an article talk page, #4. The rest are on user talk or on noticeboards. I find these to violate the 'process' part of the topic ban imposed by Arbcom on the EEML participants: Misplaced Pages:EEML#Vecrumba topic banned:

      "18.1) Vecrumba (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year."

      I see Vecrumba following people to their talk pages to join in conversations that he believes are in some way relevant to him, though he is not named, or at most some general EEML issues are discussed. To ensure that this should not continue, I propose that we issue further restrictions under the WP:DIGWUREN discretionary sanctions:
    1. Vecrumba must seek admin approval on this noticeboard before participating in any ArbCom or dispute resolution actions not directly related to him, similar to what was issued to Varsovian here. This ban includes comments on user talk pages if he plans to discuss any Eastern Europe issues.
    2. Vecrumba's topic ban from Eastern European topics is extended another six months from its current expiry on 22 December 2010. (See WP:EEML#Vecrumba topic banned). This includes (as before) articles, their talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed.
    3. Vecrumba and Petri Krohn are are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with each other on any page of Misplaced Pages, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.
    Other editors -- please comment on this proposal. EdJohnston (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
    The only real reservation I have is about extending a topic ban due to expire in about a month an extra six months based on the above. Most of them seem to have occurred in the past few days, and if someone has been successful in following the restriction for most of a year, I would question adding another half-year to that initial year based on the above. Some additional time, maybe, but six months might be a bit excessive. John Carter (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    There is more that could be said about Vecrumba, but I think this AE request may have already used up its time on the board. Vecrumba's recent edits give the impression of someone who is constantly stoking the flames of grievance. This has been going on since the closure of the EEML case in December 2009, and throughout 2010. Vecrumba has managed to get himself blocked three times in 2010 which is more than any other EEML participant. (Martintg is in somewhat the same league as Vecrumba in terms of the continuing trouble that seems to follow him, but I think his case is less serious). I believe there would be some logic in a three-month extension of Vecrumba's topic ban, if you consider six months excessive. I welcome comment by other admins on this. I admit that Offliner being the person who filed this AE made me nervous, since his block log is alarming, but I followed this complaint up with my own research. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


    Martintg
    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.
    No action taken. AE does not need to intervene on requests that are made directly to Arbcom, such as a posting at WP:A/R/A. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2010

    Martintg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently under topic ban following the WP:EEML case. . Martintg is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This ban is consecutive to any editing ban.

    A recent arbitration enforcement request filled against Martintg was closed without any action conditionally to the promise by Martintg to "voluntarily agree to absent yourself from any unblock review proceedings (or in ANI discussions or on any admin talk pages) where the person involved has recently edited any article or subject matter on your banned list.".

    Today Martintg broke his own promise by intervening into a USSR-related topic ban review request by Biophys, another EEML member and violently attacking other users. Biophys recently participated in heated discussion in article Communist terrorism which is in the scope of Martintg topic ban list which literally contradicts the mentioned promise by Martintg.

    Ironically Martintg claims in this post that the arbitration enforcement request against him as "unsuccessful" apparently forgetting that he was pardoned only conditionally.

    Note also that Martintg has been blocked October 3 this year for a week for violation of his topic ban.

    That's why I suggest an increased block duration to make him clear that the topic ban violation and outright breaking his own promises is not tolerated. --Dojarca (talk) 09:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

    Result concerning Martintg

    • I see no reason for any enforcement. Martintg's posting at WP:A/R/A is being presented to Arbcom directly. That is not an 'unblock review proceeding.' If Arbcom sees any impropriety in Martintg's comment there, they can take whatever action is necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Agree. It is unnecessary - one may even say inappropriate - for AE to intervene in a matter that is being presented directly to arbcom. T. Canens (talk) 01:36, 18 November 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.

    Sherif9282

    No block. Sherif9282 is warned not to violate 1RR on I-P articles in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Request concerning Sherif9282

    User requesting enforcement
    Jiujitsuguy
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Sherif9282 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy that this user violated
    Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

    The Yom Kippur War is currently under a 1r restriction per recent enforcement action and warning of same is amply noted on the article. Sherif9282 has now violated the 1r restriction by making two reverts in rapid succession. He has been warned by PhilKnight to Self-revert but has failed to comply. I issued him a last chance warning as well

    Previous version reverted from

    Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
    Block or topic ban
    Notification

    Discussion concerning Sherif9282

    Statement by Sherif9282

    I was not been given sufficient time to respond to PhilKnight's notification on my talk page. I had been prompted to reinsert my edits after they had been reverted without explanation. I have already self-reverted myself where I have violated 1r, in accordance with PhilKnight's notification. --Sherif9282 (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

    I would like to point out something here. There is a difference between what are presented as my first and second reverts. The first one, you will notice, was not an explicit revert. True, I had reinserted information, but this was as part of a larger edit in an attempt to solve a dispute in the article talk page. I then made an explicit revert. Bearing this in mind, is my first edit to be considered a revert nevertheless? --Sherif9282 (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    Response to Jiujitsuguy and Cptnono

    I had self-reverted when I was in breach of 1rr. I'm not aware that I was thereafter prohibited from ever reinserting the disputed information into the article, or that I had to wait for the AE to finish. I was not in violation of 1rr when I made the fourth edit – 24 hours had passed since any relevant edit I had made to the article, so the space of time it and the other edits were made in is irrelevant. In fact, I don't see how this last edit is related at all here. --Sherif9282 (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

    Comments by others about the request concerning Sherif9282

    Is this the first request for enforcement since the template was added? It does say that blocks can be done without warning. I think a block here would seem pretty lame since he already self-reverted but there is the principle. I am curious to see if enforcement is actually going to be done with the 1/rr rolled out across the topic or if it was all just a bunch of talk. Let me know if this comment would be better at the other discussion page.Cptnono (talk) 03:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

    The self-reversal is a mitigating factor. Nevertheless, the warning was present when he made the edit and he knew what he was doing when he made it. Moreover, this is the first test case of the new ARBPIA guidelines. Others should be made aware that the ruling has teeth. I think a 12hr block is warranted.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

    After self-reverting, Sherif could contain himself no longer and again reinserted the same edit, the fourth time he's done so in the past two days. Moreover, he didn't even wait for closure of this AE, which is very telling. In light of this, I believe that a block of longer duration is warranted.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

    4th time in 2 days? 1/rr breached with a dash of borderlining. You added the template didn't you, PhilKnight? Enough is enough.Cptnono (talk) 04:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

    Result concerning Sherif9282

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

    It's a clear enough violation, however I think we could give him a little while to self-revert. Otherwise, I guess around 24 hours for a first offense. PhilKnight (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

    • I tend to agree with Phil, especially in light of the self-revert. Of course this user can consider themselves more than adequately warned not to repeat this action in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • It should be normal to allow a person to self-revert to avoid a sanction under 1RR. But: (a) You should get a free pass only one time. (b) The person might not be excused if they were individually notified before they violated the 1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

    Collect

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

    Request concerning Collect

    User requesting enforcement
    TFD (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy that this user violated
    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. Edit-warring at Communist terrorism
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. Warning by 2over0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    2. Warning by The Four Deuces (talk · contribs)
    Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
    block
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    Arbcom has determined that Communist Terrorism is an article which relates to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted. Collect participated in that arbitration request for clarification as an univolved editor. I reminded Collect a week ago that this article was included, after he had joined edit wars on Nov. 4th and No. 9th. Collect is further knowledgable having applied for enforcement of Digwuren sanctions (along with mark nutley) two months ago.
    Reply to Collect: It is not helpful to claim "coordination between The Four Deuces and Petri Krohn to undertake this "rename by deletion" plan". I did not ask Petri Krohn to do anything or did anything that he asked me to do. I have not made any edits to Communist terrorism at all since you and I received warnings about the Digwuren sanctions, which is what warnings are for. In any case, edit-warring cannot be justified by the actions of other editors, even when you believe that they have acted in bad faith. TFD (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    Reply to Biophys: The recent AE filed against Marting "in connection with the same article" was closed after Martintg "agreed to abstain from unblock discussions in the area of his ban". Also, your editing restrictions may prevent you from participating in this discussion. TFD (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    Reply to Cirt: I do not think it is correct that Collect was "striving to engage in talk page consensus, as well as recommending the pursuit of dispute resolution". Petri Krohn recommended his changes at least by November 8. and made them on Nov. 11. The talk page shows lots of discussion. According to Collect, Andy the Grump, Ludwig2, Snowded, Igny and myself agree to the changes, while he and Mamalujo disagreed. IOW 6 editors favored the move, while 2 opposed. (There were of course other editors who commented, but this shows the general level of acceptance of the move.) Between then and November 17, when Collect reversed Petri Krohn's edit, he made no attempt to set up an RfC or pursue any other type of content dispute resolution. It seems that lengthy discussion resulted in agreement to the changes and Collect resorted to edit warring instead of dispute resolution. In fact Collect's bogus claim about "coordination between The Forur Deuces and Petri Krohn", which he has repeated over several talk pages and at ANI is hardly collegial. I do not see why he should be allowed to continue to spread this. TFD (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
    Question for Cirt: Are you saying that if there is an edit war that any editor may make 1RR on the article per week without the threat of Digwuren sanctions? TFD (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Collect

    Statement by Collect

    An article was by design deleted and essentially renamed when the discussion to rename failed. My claim is that an RfC was called for, anfd I have at no time exceeded 1RR per week on it, and made sure that the edit was specifically referred to on the talk page. This complaint is totally without any merit. I would like to also add deffs as follows: Andy the Grump deleting the entire article, Snowdad ditto, Ludwigs2 ditto, Petri Krohn ditto, Snowdad ditto, Igny ditto, and so on.


    My continued and proper use of the talk page is shown at , , , (which is of interest as it shows coordination between The Forur Deuces and Petri Krohn to undertake this "rename by deletion" plan), , , , and most recently and where I specifically state than an RfC is needed for "rename by deletion" methodology. In short, I have simply defended current WP policies and guidelines, and not gone over 1RR per eek on an article which is not formally under Digwuren in the first place!

    I suggest further that RTFD's acts at and where he argues that a term not found in his google searches is improper for any article in the first place, but is used by "political extremists", and so on. Petri is sufficient well-known that his acts surprise no one.

    In short: The claim is malicious. 1RR per week has not been exceeded, and the article is not even under Digwuren on any notice at all. Further, that if Digwuren were applied, Petri and TFD would be the ones under the microscope here. Collect (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

    Further note that I specifically sought advice from Beeblebrox at (wherein I note Andy's move by deletion), wherein I note Igny's participation in this affair, wwherein I notified Beebleborox about Ludwig2's acts, asking him to examine the talk page, notifying him of the excision of the article, in short I kept an admin fully apprised at all stages of this. Heck - what more can an editor do when faced woth people who insist that consensus is less important than "being bold" on the rename by deletion system? Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


    WRT the claim that a "consensus" exists for the rename by deletion: Per Andy " The consensus in question is that of the participants involved in the discussion, and need not include those who choose not to take part in the debate."

    Clearly several editors who were active on the talk page, who most certainly took part in the debate, and who demurred were not "counted" by that system. Which I consider to be an odd sort of consensus indeed, and one which I reported to an admin several times. I consider a "consensus" to require at least noting that a number of editors demurred, and that the "move" was denied by clear consensus earlier. Collect (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


    Again we have the assertion this decision cannot be superseded by editorial consensus which I suggest is the root cause of the ills here. At all times I kept a prominent admin approised of the article status, which is more than those who assert that 1. they had consensus 2. Consensus does not include any provision for many editors opposing it and 3. Consensus does not even count in the first place. An amazing claim, but one which is made here. Collect (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

    @Mathsci - the comment about blocks is ill-founded. One was basically deemed a "bad block" at ANI, and should not be held against me here. Second, the article at issue was not listed as under Digwuren. The article which was under Digwuren was Mass killings under communist regimes. I was blocked for not abiding by a warning which was placed after the block when editing. A Catch-22 block. So let's deal with what this case is: a merge effort failed Request disabled due to lack of consensus. If there is support for redirecting this article to Left-wing terrorism please replace the request and it can be done which was not done properly by seeking consensus, as User:MSGJ stated, but by stealth , so a new article was written, and all the content was moved to the new article. Simple. And without a consensus, to boot. I managed to make under 1RR per week which is more than reasonable. I kept a major admin apprised at all points. Repeat: a major admin was apprised at all points. It is impossible to have done more to avoid edit war than this! Collect (talk) 11:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

    Comments by others about the request concerning Collect

    Does it mean that any user who makes a single revert in any article in the area of discretionary sanctions (and we have many such areas) can be brought to this noticeboard? If so, let's also bring all other edit warriors in the same and other articles here. Biophys (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

    • I have been watching the page Communist terrorism for a while now. I requested full page protection for a week when two users edit warred against an apparently established consensus to change the page to a disambiguation page after moving a large part of the material elsewhere (to Left-wing terrorism). Collect's revert followed two reverts by Mamalujo (talk · contribs). 2/0 gave Collect a formal warning on October 15th (logged here ) about joining in on edit wars on articles connected with EE. Mathsci (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    I agree with Mathsci. It's not the single revert in itself that is the problem, but rather the fact that the single revert contributed to an ongoing edit war of which Collect was clearly aware. The 2over0 notice in particular warned against precisely that kind of contribution to an ongoing edit war. "When you note that an edit war is in progress, please do not join in even if you are in the right." --TS 03:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    against an apparently established consensus to change the page to a disambiguation page. Incorrect. There was no consensus for move. In fact quite the opposite is true. Here is the relevant move discussion , which was closed "no move" by an outside editor. At that point two editors, TFD and Petri Krohn decided to try a different tactic, of moving article content little by little and then turning the article into a disambig page, in order to explicitly circumvent the results of that RM , (added) which he outlined on TFD's talk page. TFD has then appeared to support Petri in this endeavor through his actions on the article . (/added) There's a group of editors who want one thing. There's a group of editors who want another. One group says it's got "consensus" and keeps repeating it, despite the fact that there's obviously no consensus. So it's understandable that outsiders may have gotten confused. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    VM, your accusation based on Collect's postingn is totally unfounded and I request that you strike it out. TFD (talk) 06:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    Could you please explain what you mean by "TFD has then appeared to support Petri in this endeavor through his actions on the article". Your link does not go to any edits I have made. TFD (talk) 06:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • The article has been fully protected for the second time in a month. Its probably a better idea to discuss any issues concerning the future form and content of the article directly on its talk page instead of here. Mathsci (talk) 07:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    As someone involved in this whole sorry saga, can I add that personally I don't give a f*** about arbitration, enforcement etc. All I'd like to see is that those wishing to determine how the issue should be treated in Misplaced Pages should take part in discussions, rather than engaging in endless arguments over process, over the meaning of 'consensus', and all the other off-topic amateur bureaucratics that goes on. I'm sure we'll never reach an agreement over the substantive issue here, but it would be nice to talk about it sometimes... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    A lot of people were making reverts, you including . It takes two or more to tango.Biophys (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    Yes, I reverted Mamalujo, with the following edit summary: "Please take part in discussions, rather than edit-warring afterwards". Given his actions, can you suggest how else I could have asked him to 'tango'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • A consensus was reached based on the evidence. Then we get two editors coming along who don't like it and instead of raising the issue again and presenting a case proceed to edit war. It may take two to tango, but once a decision is reached editors should abide by it. --Snowded 12:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Let's separate two things: the move of the significant part of the article's content to the more appropriate article and conversion of this article into a disambiguation page . As I already noted on the article's talk page, this two edits are not directly related to each other, and, accordingly, they should be discussed separately. Let me abstain against the discussion of the later edit and focus on the first edit instead. The move, which has been done by me, was preceded by a long discussion on both talk pages where I persuasively demonstrated that, since the content's move is required per WP:NPOV, this decision cannot be superseded by editorial consensus. I described the procedure I used to find the most appropriate article where the content was supposed to be moved, and I proposed to everyone who disagreed with that to demonstrate any flaws in this procedure. No serious counter-arguments had followed, however. After waiting for more than two weeks (from Oct 24 to Nov 9) I moved the content (and that my step was supported by majority of users). Please, correct me if I am wrong, but these steps were in full accordance with all possible WP policies. In connection to that, it is not clear for me if any explanation exists for these edits , , , (made without any attempts to discuss on the talk page) other than a blatant edit warring?
      Note, I excluded this Radek's edit , because the latter can be explained by his unfamiliarity with preceding talk page discussion. In addition, by contrast to other editors he joined the talk page discussion and now he seems to accept my arguments.

    My proposal is that Collect or Mamalujo have to request Nev1 to unprotect the article and to self-revert. It would be good if the article will return to this version (as a temporary measure), after which all parties can return to the discussion about the proper article's subject and the possibility to turn it to the disambiguation page. If either of these two users will agree to do that, I see no need in further sanctions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

    I'm fine with the article being reverted to that version. I'm basically fine with anything (within reason) but the disambiguation page, which is clearly extreme and against consensus. Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    @ Collect.
    Re "the assertion this decision cannot be superseded by editorial consensus", this is a direct quote form the policy ("The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.") Therefore, the issue was not is whether consensus existed over the content move, but in if the procedure to find the most appropriate place for this concrete content was neutral and correct. Let me also note that in actuality the consensus (if we understand it not as a right of veto, but as a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised) had been achieved. My point was that it that situation it even was not necessary.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • In his response, Collect has gone into fine detail about what was happening on the article. That, however, seems to miss the point. The article is already listed among those considered problematic from the EE perspective. Twice this year Collect has been blocked for reverting, with unblocks conditional on not revert warring. Since the last block in October, Collect was explicitly warned about not joining in an edit war on this kind of problematic article. That official warning was logged on the Digwuren case page, as indicated above, and was unambiguous. Although he says that over a week beforehand he consulted an administrator (Beeblebrox) and had discussions on the talk page on related matters, his edit history on the day shows that he made the third revert in this edit war with no prior discussion on the talk page. He requested help from Beeblebrox and Jclemens around the same time that he responded here. In those requests as here, he has failed to take responsibility for his own actions (joining in a revert war instead of engaging in discussion), pinning the blame on others who were not actively editing the article or its talk page at the time. Mathsci (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
    • @Cirt. It is not clear for me what your conclusion that Collect "is striving to engage in talk page consensus" is based on. He re-inserted the content, that I moved to another article after providing exhaustive evidence followed by extensive discussion (during which most editors supported my proposal, and no serious counter-arguments have been proposed), and completely ignored my proposals to agree to self-revert as a sign of his good faith. In my opinion, he clearly interprets the concept of consensus as a right of veto, which directly contradicts to the WP policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
    Comment by Biophys

    The lack of consensus is clear from multiple reverts of the article . There is obviously a content dispute here, and one of the sides removes a lot of sourced content without consensus and repeatedly demands sanctions for their "opponents" to gain an upper hand in a content dispute. Note that the previous AE claim by TFD was made about another editor (Martintg), but in connection with the same article. It's noteworthy that these editors have little interest in the terrorism-related subjects, judging from their editing history.

    A disclaimer. Yes, it was me who contributed to many terrorism-related articles including this one on a regular basis and tried to keep irrelevant materials where they belong . But all materials sourced to books have been removed and not included even in the current version restored by Collect. Biophys (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

    Not seeing the need for action against Collect in this matter. ++Lar: t/c 23:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

    • Fully protecting the article should theoretically have encouraged collaborative discussion on the talk page. This does not seem to have happened yet amongst all those participating. While a stable form of the page is still under discussion, perhaps it might be a good idea to extend full protection to one month. (Current full protection runs until next Wednesday.) Mathsci (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    Agree with Lar and Mathsci. Biophys (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    "Andy's move by deletion"

    I don't suppose Collect could back that statement up with a proper diff link so I can respond? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

    Result concerning Collect

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
    • Comment: It appears that Collect (talk · contribs) is striving to engage in talk page consensus, as well as recommending the pursuit of dispute resolution - and is being careful about the amount of reverts enacted during the discussion process. Dispute resolution in the form of the suggested WP:RFC at the article's talk page, should be encouraged, not discouraged. I am not certain that sanctions are merited at this point in time towards Collect (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
    • My inclination would be to full-protect the page indefinitely. Failing that a global 1RR/week sanction might be the best solution. Looie496 (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
    Global, to be applied to whom and/or which pages? -- Cirt (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
    To be applied to everybody, for communist terrorism. Looie496 (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    That sounds reasonable, rational, and logical. Agreed. A prominent notice should be placed at the top of the talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

    SlimVirgin

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

    Request concerning SlimVirgin

    User requesting enforcement
    Tijfo098 (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy that this user violated
    Warning: active arbitration remedies

    The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this page:

    • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
    • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

    Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

    Further information
    The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
    1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
    2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

    With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

    • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
    • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

    After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
    Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

    If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!


    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. She removes a section without an edit summary. Other similar changes by SlimVirgin can be found before and after this diff in the edit history.
    2. She removes it again less than 24hrs later, without waiting for discussion on talk and RfC to conclude.
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. "Not applicable." SlimVirgin is clearly aware of the remedies, because she added the template to the article's talk page.
    Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
    At administrators' discretion.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    I was concerned about the large amount of text removed from the article (about 17Kb) so I asked SlimVirgin to discuss the proposed changes. She has posted a large reply on talk, but she avoided discussing the section I explicitly noted . The article's talk page is also tagged with {{controversial}}, advising editors against making large unilateral edits.
    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.

    SlimVirgin was notified as requested in this template.

    Discussion concerning SlimVirgin

    Statement by SlimVirgin

    I'm not sure what the basis of the complaint is. I've just started editing this article after a break of several years (writing from memory), and I've reverted once only. Otherwise I'm removing BLP violations, material sourced to primary sources (an image of Dershowitz's family's identity papers, for example), material sourced to poor sources, to websites, to dead links. Very poor writing, and the usual Israel-Palestine thing of adding every single point that could possibly discredit the person. It has been a problematic article for years, so I'm going to try to bring it up to FA standard (even if not submitted, which I probably won't do). There's an RfC about it on talk, in which I'm so far supported. SlimVirgin 19:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

    In response to the discussion about what counts as a revert, we can't interpret reverting in a way that precludes normal editing. A revert has to take place within the context of a dispute. It needn't be an immediate dispute; it could be that the last time that same material was removed was months ago, but the editor removing it now is aware of the context. That would arguably make the removal a revert. But if that context is entirely absent, it can only count as an edit. Otherwise, everyone who ever removes a single word from an article is reverting, even if the page hasn't been edited in years. SlimVirgin 19:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    Roland, I don't think there's a way to pin it down any further. Admins at the 3RR board have to deal with this all the time—interpreting which of a series of edits counts as the first revert. That's why editors reporting violations are asked to supply the version reverted to. If that version was from yesterday or last week, or even last month, especially if by the same editor, then the next edit that reverts to it is likely to count as a revert. But if the version reverted to was from two years ago, then not, unless perhaps it was the same editor and the dispute was a memorable one. Everything depends on the context. SlimVirgin 21:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

    Comments by others about the request concerning SlimVirgin

    I'm not seeing the issue with SV's edits to this article. It's problematic and much in need of fixing. I think thanks are due rather than censure. ++Lar: t/c 23:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

    Responding to EdJohnston on how reverts should be counted:
    WP:3RR is a redirect to Misplaced Pages:Edit warring, i.e. there is no "revert rule" on Misplaced Pages apart from edit warring. The way I understand this is that for some edit to fall under 3RR or 1RR it must first constitute edit warring. I cannot possible see, how the comprehensive rewrite started by SV would constitute edit warring.
    If we were to adopt EdJohnston's interpretation, it would make following 1RR almost impossible. Practically every edit that touches existing content will revert part of someones contribution. In practice this would limit editing to not 1 edit per day instead of 1 revert per day. This would make any WP:BRD process impossible. I do not think this is the intended purpose of 1RR. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    P.S. – As pointed by PhilKnight, there is something called 0RR. EdJohnston's interpretation would efectively turn 1RR into 0RR. When applied to 0RR, it would make any copy editing impossible, only adding new material would be allowed :-( Petri Krohn (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    The argument I used was first articulated by Nableezy in a similar discussion on this board. PhilKnight (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
    That definition opens up the possibility of some clever gaming. In regards to this request, take note of "If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first." It looks like SV did not consider that but it is clear from the discussion that at least a couple editors see how the removal could be problematic. Maybe it is not in violation of the underlying principle of 1/rr (not sure) but it is certainly gray enough enough that SV should have shown more caution and could have used the talk page first. I think SV would definitely need to be sanctioned if BRD was disregarded since the first removal would have kicked off the edit war. It does not look like that occurred. Cptnono (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
    As far as I can see, nobody has objected to the actual content of SV's edits. This discussion has been entirely about process rather than substance – whether the first edit constitutes a revert, not whether it is an improvement. So I do not see that any question arose, or could have arisen, as to whether or not the edit was appropriate. RolandR (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
    Re EdJohnston's "The advantage of the definition of a revert given at WP:EW is that it's easy to understand, and the exceptions are well-defined." In actuality, this rule is counter-intuitive. I would say, its advantage is that it is easy to implement, and disadvantage is that is easy to violate. Therefore, this rule is administrator friendly and editor unfriendly. Since the administrators are just a servise personnel, and WP exists and develops primarily due to the contribution of users, something is definitely wrong with this rule. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

    Comment by BorisG

    I tend to agree here with Petri Krohn. It seems a stretch to classify a partial rewrite of an atticle after months of silence as a revert. Then almost any edit is a revert. I think the spirit of the policy is that a revert is reversal of another editor's edit; presumably soon after that edit was made. EdJohnson says Removal of material added by someone else (no matter how long ago) should still be seen as a revert but I fail to see this statement in the policy. - BorisG (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

    Comment by RolandR

    We have already had exactly the same discussion about what exactly, in the context of this ruling, constitutes a revert, and what an edit, in a groundless complaint against Nableezy. In that case, too, EdJohnston argued that an edit which removed even one word previously added by another editor constituted a revert, regardless of whether the edit was justified or improved the article. The consensus was clearly against this interpretation. Common sense, too, suggests that such a rigid interpretation would make normal editing virtually impossible. Since it seems likely that this issue will arise again and again, I think that we need a clear policy decision, which must be communicated to all editors, explaining exactly when an edit is considered a revert. I don't thin that this is the place for such a discussion, but it seems vital that we resolve this urgently in order to enable normal editing and to prevent conflicting decisions and countless appeals. RolandR (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

    Closure request by Tijfo098

    Wow, I'm surprised this request is still open. The matter has been resolved amicably by communication on the article's talk. When I filed this request my main worry was the lack of clear discussion there; that issue is moot now. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

    I agree that some policy clarification with regard to what constitutes a revert would also be helpful; this is what seems to have kept this discussion going. The current description in WP:3RR ("Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert.") does not seem to reflect the general practice on this board, but this request doesn't seem the appropriate venue to discuss that larger issue. I have started a RfC on the policy talk page, particularly with respect to WP:0RR, which doesn't have a simple and clear definition in policy, but which has been used on this board (several times I understand, but surely was just above) as a base case for inductively redefining what a revert means. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

    Result concerning SlimVirgin

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

    SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) has made two large blocks of edits to that article in the past few days, and before that nothing since June 2007 except a minor gnoming edit this past April (history). Per the standard definition of revert, consecutive edits are not counted as multiple reverts. This is to help maintain the clarity of the article history - consecutive edits could have been made simultaneously, but may have different underlying rationales. In order for this to be a violation of 1RR, then, we would need to count hir first series of edits as a revert. There does not seem to have been an active edit war at the time of hir first edit, seven days after the article had been edited previously, nor do I see an active talkpage discussion that would have contraindicated bold editing. I am at a loss, then, to see why the first series of edits should be counted as a revert, unless there is some specific prohibition in the sanctions. SlimVirgin is actively participating on the talkpage and is clearly aware of that this can be a contentious article, so I see no need for further action here. Please be aware that topic area discretionary sanctions exist to promote the creation and maintenance of encyclopedic content, and may not be used as a weapon in content disputes. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

    Broadly concur with the above, particularly the last sentence. There's no case for imposing sanctions here, SlimVirgin's only edit that I would actually classify as a revert is this one, and one revert is not against the restrictions. Courcelles 19:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
    Agree with above comments. SV has made a bold edit, followed by a single revert. Given the restriction is 1RR, not 0RR, there hasn't been a violation. PhilKnight (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
    It still looks to me that SV made two reverts within 24 hours (22:49 on 19 November, "can't see the point of this section..", and 17:50 on 20 November, "restoring changes.."). The advantage of the definition of a revert given at WP:EW is that it's easy to understand, and the exceptions are well-defined. If we start to make allowances based on whether there was an active edit war at the time of the first revert, then admin actions which are based on the counting of reverts will be harder to do. Removal of material added by someone else (no matter how long ago) should still be seen as a revert, no matter how much improved the new material is, unless it meets one of the listed exceptions in WP:EW. Keep in mind that a 1RR restriction was decided upon recently for all the I-P articles, and how we choose to count reverts in this case could have a ripple effect on future AE filings. People who supported the 1RR in the community discussion presumably had in mind the definition in WP:EW. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    To me, it looks like one edit, one revert. Removing an existing section is not a revert. Reverting the removal is, as is SV's revert of the revert, but that's one revert each and the restriction is 1RR, not 0RR. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    @EdJohnston - I fully support the principle that revert covers more than just pushing the undo button, but I think there also must be room for normal editing, including removal of material an editor regards as superfluous. This is especially true when the section in question was immediately moved to the talkpage.
    There are several conditions under which I might regard a superficially similar edit as a revert (list may not be exhaustive):
    • if there had been a hot or cold edit war over this topic, at this or a closely related article.
    • if there were some indication on the talkpage that the removals were against a clear and active consensus. There is some ancient discussion in /Archive 2, but I do not see anything that would indicate that SV should have any reason to regard that edit as anything other than a normal edit.
    • if SV had been systematically and tendentiously removing related content or the contributions of another editor without engaging in meaningful discussion.
    Put another way, I think that reversing another editor or editors' contribution is a higher bar than simply making an edit that removes some material.
    As a separate issue, I generally consider it poor form to revert back when someone reverts you, but that has no bearing here. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Taken literally, the first edit reverses this series of edits (and all subsequent edits to the section), and is therefore a revert. However, I think there is a point where an edit is buried so deep in the history of an article that one cannot fairly characterize a subsequent edit that reverses it as a revert without at least some evidence that the edit is intended as a revert (for example, use of undo function or the word "revert" in the edit summary). A brief review of the page history suggests that the content has essentially remained in the article since its addition, and regardless of where the line should be drawn (or whether there is such a bright line), something added more than a year and 250 edits ago, which has not been seriously challenged since, is definitely on the buried side of the line. In the absence of evidence that SV intended the edit as a revert, then, I agree that there is no 1RR violation. T. Canens (talk) 09:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

    AndresHerutJaim

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

    Request concerning AndresHerutJaim

    User requesting enforcement
    RolandR (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    AndresHerutJaim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy that this user violated
    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Name of remedy
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. Reversion of edit, with false claim of vandalism removal
    2. Repeated reversion of same edit
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    Not Applicable
    Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
    Block or topic ban
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning AndresHerutJaim

    Statement by AndresHerutJaim

    My intention was to remove unexplained and arbitrary changes on the Givati Brigade article. I never meant to offend anyone.--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

    It seems that, after all, I wasn't so wrong. The tendentious information was removed from the article.--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 03:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

    Comments by others about the request concerning AndresHerutJaim

    Clearly this user is not that knowlegdable in the inner workings and slick moves that prevail in the I-A conflict, but I don't think we should act consistently with three threads above, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Sherif9282. We should take full advantage of this opportunity and atleast block him if not ban him. Then we should block his sockpuppet. All kinds of exciting stuff in the pipeline.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

    Question and comment - The article didn't have the 1RR notices at the time the reverting was happening. AndresHerutJaim, would you have made the 2nd revert if you had seen the notices ? The reason I ask is that you refer to reliably sourced information as "Ridiculous anti-Israel bias", "vandalism", "anti-Israel accusations" and "tendentious information". I would like to see you confirm that you would not have made the second revert if the notices had been in place. The information itself is about the IDF putting things right according to their rules so I really have no idea where the "anti-Israel" is coming from and it's being reported by the BBC, AFP, the Israeli press and probably many other sources so I'm not sure what all the wiki-edit-war fuss is about either but I guess it will be sorted out on the talk page now. I do think it would help though if you confirmed that you are willing to follow 1RR in cases like this in future. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

    Speedy close with no sanctions Sherif9282 was only warned, doing something different to the user in question will be more than unfair.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

    Result concerning AndresHerutJaim

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

    Captain Occam

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

    Request concerning Captain Occam

    User requesting enforcement
    Mathsci (talk) 07:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Captain Occam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy that this user violated
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Captain Occam topic-banned
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

    This user is discussing matters concerned with

    1. his views of the content and quality of articles covered by his topic ban
    2. how other users should manage imposing restrictions on others editing the articles covered by his topic ban
    3. the close of WP:ARBR&I and his battleground attempts to have sanctions applied to other users

    Whether or not his editing history prior to his topic ban is being discussed, he should not intervene or attempt to exercise influence in any way whatsoever. This is a violation of his topic ban.

    Recent harassment-only accounts

    There is also a concern that two recently created accounts are acting as proxies for Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin, during their topic bans. The evidence of meatpuppetry so far is purely circumstantial. Like Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin, both users are targeting WeijiBaikeBianji (talk · contribs). Both are following his edits and and lobbying for editing restrictions. For recently arrived wikipedians, this does not seem quite normal.

    • SightWatcher (talk · contribs) has misquoted and misrepresented the findings of the arbitration case on multiple occasions, in the same way as Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin. He has added identical material to Race and health that was previously proposed unsuccessfully by Ferahgo the Assassin for Race (classification of humans). He has lobbied on her behalf. Here in his user space is a draft RfC/U, as suggested by Captain Occam. The statements in this draft RfC/U continue to voice the same misunderstandings of the outcome of WP:ARBR&I. For a user to start discussing sanctions against another user within a week of arriving on wikipedia after less than thirty edits is concerning. Like Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin, he has been given advice by administrators (Maunus and RegentsPark) which he chosen to ignore. He has, with Captain Occam's advice , started an RfC/U on WeikiBaikeBianji. One of the main topics contained in the RfC/U concerns the removal of spam links on an article High IQ society (an article not connected with WP:ARBR&I). On that article Dirk Beetstra, the WP expert on spam and blacklisting, has been removing link spam in exactly the same way as WeijiBaikeBianji.
    • Woodsrock (talk · contribs) has made a series of personal attacks on WeijiBaikeBianji in postings and edit summaries (here is one example ). Apart from the template he created very soon after the creation of his account and its use, his other edits to articles consist entirely of splitting paragraphs or moving images: no content is being added or modified. In a number of cases, probably without realizing it, he has made these arbitrary changes to the ledes of articles which have already been selected as GA and FA (examples include RNA, DNA and evolution). In this cosmetic change to DNA sequencing , the change indicates that Woodsrock does not read the text he is editing (which refers to an image on the left, which he moved to the right without altering the text). Today he made yet another unprompted personal attack on WeikiBaikeBianji, coordinated with the RfC/U.
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    Not applicable
    Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
    Block of account for one week or more for Captain Occam; official warnings for SightWatcher and Woodsrock for harassment-only accounts; possible block of Woodsrock for personal attacks.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    There are other issues of off-wiki harassment, possibly connected with these incidents, which ArbCom has been informed of. A checkuser has confirmed that the two accounts above are not sockpuppet accounts. I have discussed some of these matters with a member of ArbCom.
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Captain Occam

    Statement by Captain Occam

    This report seems completely frivolous. Mathsci and I were both topic banned from these articles by the same arbitration case, and he and I have both been engaging in the exact same type of discussions about other users’ conduct on these articles. Recent examples of this from Mathsci are , and . More importantly, there was recently a request for clarification about this case in which the arbitrators specifically stated that topic bans from this case do not apply to dispute resolution about user conduct issues. In that thread, Mathsci actually defended the right of topic banned editors to engage in these discussions! Quoting what Mathsci said there: “I have twice communicated in private when irregularities have occurred connected with WP:ARBR&I. On both occasions the irregularities were not of my making, but I had what I perceived to be useful input to offer in discussions. Misplaced Pages processes are not covered by my voluntary but binding topic ban.”

    Now, do the diffs that Mathsci provided of me purportedly violating my topic ban show anything other than what Mathsci has done himself, has defended his right to do, and what the arbitrators have given both of us permission for? The first is me pointing out to Maunus that he had misquoted me; in response Maunus apologized and struck out the part of his comment which was a misquote. The second and third were a follow-up to a discussion between myself and Coren, in which Coren suggested starting an RFC about WeijiBaikeBianji, and also that I bring this suggestion up with the other editors who have been involved in disputes with him. These diffs are from the discussions that I initiated with these editors at an arbitrator’s suggestion. This certainly does not have any resemblance to the behavior for which I was topic banned, which according to my finding of fact was edit warring and false claims of consensus. Mathsci, on the other hand, has been described by ArbCom as engaging in behavior that is “unduly aggressive and combative”, and seems to be displaying the same attitude here and in the earlier diffs of his behavior provided above.

    There are three important questions that need to be asked here:

    1. In his effort to demonstrate that I am violating my topic ban, why has Mathsci not linked to the discussion between me and Coren in which Coren was suggesting this RFC, and also that I contact other editors about this suggestion? Is it because it does not help his case to show that the second and third diff are from discussions that I was asked to initiate by one of the arbitrators?
    2. Why has Mathsci defended his own ability to participate in discussions related to these articles, including posting this arbitration enforcement request, but claims that it is a topic ban violation when other topic banned editors act similarly?
    3. How did Mathsci get a checkuser to be run on Sightwatcher and Woodsrock without starting an SPI? Is it acceptable that he apparently has privately contacted an administrator with checkuser permission, and persuaded them off-wiki to run a checkuser on these accounts?

    Echoing VsevolodKrolikov’s comments below, when one considers the number of editors who have taken issue with WeijiBaikeBianji’s recent behavior, it should not be such a surprise that this includes a pair of relatively new users. From the links and diffs provided in the RFC/U which was recently started about WeijiBaikeBianji, I can identify at least four other users who feel similarly about WeijiBaikeBianji’s editing. In addition to VsevolodKrolikov himself, there is also Andy Dingley, Victor Chmara and TrevelyanL85A2. All four of these users have been registered for over three years.

    I’m reminded again of this principle from the recent Climate Change arbitration case: “An editor who brings forward the same or similar view as a blocked or banned user should not automatically be assumed to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet in the absence of other evidence.” On these articles, Mathsci and a few other users who share his viewpoint seem to consistently ignore this principle. When a pair of new users are among six users disagreeing with someone whom I’ve also disagreed with in the past, should sockpuppetry or meatuppetry be considered so likely that admins are privately canvassed to run checkuser, and after checkuser fails to find evidence of sockpuppetry, the accusation is brought to AE? --Captain Occam (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

    Comments by others about the request concerning Captain Occam

    Comment by VsevolodKrolikov

    I have been part of these discussions through being caught up in WeijiBaikeBianji's editing campaign against template:human intelligence. I agree that there is something slightly suspicious about the sudden appearance of the two new users and their familiarity with wikipedia. That said, WeijiBaikeBianji is being rather disruptive and it's not only these two who have problems with WBB's continual reverts and slow edit warring, so I don't know how much can be read into their behaviour there. (But certainly Woodsrock has been uncivil.) VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

    Comment by WeijiBaikeBianji

    Certainly something very odd is going on here. I have no trouble discussing issues calmly with VsevolodKrolikov, and I expect that discussion to result in further improvements in several articles we both are watching. As Mathsci, the moving editor, notes, some of the edits by the two presumptive meat-puppets don't do anything at all to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. I invite multiple editors to take a look at this, especially editors who are experienced with what are at bottom conduct disputes, and I am happy to learn from any conscientious editor how best to respond to this situation. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

    Comment by Tijfo098

    This request appears to be a sort of SPI investigation. What is alleged here is essentially that two accounts who recently opened a RfC/U on WeijiBaikeBianji are meat-puppets of a topic banned user. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

    Yes, of course this belongs at SPI rather than here. But since Mathsci has apparently already gotten someone to run a checkuser on Sightwatcher and Woodsrock, and determined that they’re unrelated both to me and to everyone else who’s topic banned from these articles, I think he already knows that an SPI would be unlikely to produce the result he wants. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
    =Comment by Maunus

    I don't see how this can be enough evidence to sanction Occam. I am also suspicious about those two editors, but I could not possibly support any sanctions on Occam untill there is actual positive evidence that he has any part in their sudden arrival. It is not a crime to arrive at wikipedia with prior knowledge of its workings and it is also not a crime to agree with topic banned editors. Nothing we can really do here except keep the argument based on sources and policies going.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

    Result concerning Captain Occam

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