Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) at 02:58, 2 May 2011 (→talknic: Closing. Three-month ban from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AE

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 WP:AE WP:ARE 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: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and 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: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or 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: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. 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: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and 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-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or 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: 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. 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. 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. 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.

Imalbornoz

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

Request concerning Imalbornoz

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Pfainuk talk 21:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar#Discretionary_sanctions

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

1. A long discussion in which users repeatedly refuse requests to explain objections to proposed edits, which is described by WP:DE as disruptively refusing to engage in the consensus-building process (January 2011).
2. A long discussion in which users repeatedly refuse requests to explain objections to proposed edits (March 2011).
3. A long discussion in which users repeatedly refuse requests to explain objections to proposed edits (March 2011).
4. 19:18, 30 March 2011 Wikilawyering over the precise definition of "prevalence".
5. 19:18, 22 April 2011 Includes a direct accusation of bad faith against me (that I take my position purely through some kind embarrassment about the conduct of my country's soldiers 300 years ago, as opposed to the genuine concerns about the weight, neutrality and accuracy of certain points in the paragraph concerned that I have repeatedly expressed).
6. Edit warring to a two-week old version of the article.

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

1. Warned on 01:43, 16 December 2010 by Vassyana (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on 20:37, 18 December 2010 by Vassyana (talk · contribs)
3. Warned on 19:33, 15 January 2011 by Vassyana (talk · contribs)

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

Discretionary sanctions to be imposed on User:Imalbornoz.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This has proved a particularly intractable content dispute, but its intractability is made far worse by the fact that Imalbornoz (and fellow editor Richard Keatinge) have proven themselves unwilling to engage in the consensus-building process. You'll see several things in the discussions I linked above. There's WP:OWN violations (see the title of this section for a typical example - Curry Monster is essentially told that he is not allowed to be WP:BOLD). You will see in the discussions above lots of times when asked for objections, these editors cite lack of consensus consensus. When pushed, they state that things are "required", or "very notable and relevant" with no argument whatsoever backing that up.

It takes literally weeks of asking to get an argument of any kind objecting to any proposal - which would seem to be exactly the "roadblocking" that Vassanya described in the warnings provided. And even then it is generally couched in the sort of bad faith accusations that you saw in the diff from this evening.

Today, Imalbornoz has twice reverted a work in progress because, he said, the Great Siege of Gibraltar took up one third of the history scetion. That was the only objection expressed. Never mind that it was very much a work in progress and that the Great Siege would not have been a third of the length in the end (and Imalbornoz had been told that). Never mind that the Great Siege was one of the most significant things to have happened to Gibraltar in the last three hundred years (and thus given lots and lots of weight by reliable sources), and that the reverts remove it from the article altogether.

Note in that diff that there is no constructive criticism. It's all about "hat I think isn't reasonable at all is WC Monster's current History section" and "omeone should convince WC Monster to be reasonable". This is entirely typical of the sorts of responses we get. The article is at a standstill because of this egregious "roadblocking", and I and Curry Monster have asked repeatedly that it stop, but as you can see, it has not.

For me, that accusation of bad faith this evening was the straw that broke the camel's back. Even taken alone, this is something that I should not have to put up with on an article under Arbcom discretionary sanctions, particularly when the editor concerned has been warned under those sanctions. But I believe the above demonstrates that it is not the only problem with this editor's behaviour here. As such, I would now like to ask that discretionary sanctions be applied.

Note that I will be going away on Sunday for a week, and during that time will almost certainly not respond to discussion. Note also that Curry Monster has a bereavement to deal with at the moment.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

21:02, 22 April 2011

Discussion concerning Imalbornoz

Statement by Imalbornoz

There has been a discussion in the Gibraltar article since October 2009 (one year and a half!), in which PfainUK and WC Monster have tried to avoid mentioning certain events in Gibraltar's history, while Richard Keatinge and myself have thought it reasonable to mention them.

About the ARBCOM:

I see he mentions a previous ARBCOM ruling during which WC Monster (then calling himself "Justin A Kuntz" or "Justin the Evil Scotsman") received a 3 month topic ban (in spite of PfainUK's defense) for...

Many of these niceties were directed at me, while PfainUK kept defending WC Monster. After the 3 month topic ban, WC Monster returned to edit warring and received a 0RR ban (PfainUK, again, defended WC Monster in the Arbitration Enforcement Noticeboard).

You can see that Pfainuk has never critisized his fellow WC Monster's extreme abuse, but -on the other hand- finds my behavior so disruptive as to start here an accusation. I would call that partisanship or one-sidedness. Myself, I have tried to keep a cool head and assume good faith (I think that mostly successfully), which as you can imagine has not been easy at all in face of all this abuse (from WC Monster) and one-sidedness (from Pfainuk).

About the dispute:

The issue here has been (for 1.5 years!) whether to include or not the widespread violence that British and Dutch soldiers used on the civil population of Gibraltar during its capture, and the subsequent exodus of the population to a place called San Roque (keeping the curious tradition that they are the "real" Gibraltar). Those are facts that have been used by Spanish nationalists to support their irredentist claim on Gibraltar, and have been called "embarrassing" by British historians, but no one disputes their factuality.

WC Monster and PfainUK have been trying to:

• not mention these facts in the article, first trying to impose a theory that completely misconstrued the sources (that's when I came in the discussion). Please take a look at what they were trying to say in the article: "much of the population chose to leave Gibraltar fearing reprisals following the murder of English and Dutch soldiers. Parts of the town were then plundered by the occupying forces." Actually the soldiers raped, plundered and desecrated churches, and then the civilians felt fear and decided to leave.
• (when I finally convinced them that their theory was wrong) they tried to remove any reference to these facts. They argued that the article was already too long and UNDUE weight (curiously, only to remove mention of these events, while they don't care about other episodes in the history of Gibraltar, that are given a much lower weight by sources).
• now, they are trying to inflate the article by FIFTY PERCENT talking about the siege that Spaniards and French held on Gibraltar after its capture (forget about the article being too long!!).

About PfainUK's accusation:

• I have not accused anyone of bad faith in the talk page. I have limited myself to mentioning the facts I summarize above (although I must admit that with them one could have a good case for saying that these two editors are consciously or unconsciously motivated by nationalist motives rather than by WP's ultimate goals and policies).

• PfainUK accuses me of not engaging in discussion (after 1.5 years!!), not mentioning policy-related arguments (when I've even made lists of sources, of arguments...), ... I really think that this accusation is self-defeating if you take even a general look at the discussion.

Conclusion: I actually think that this is a very sensitive dispute and we are not able to find a solution by ourselves. Now that the matter has been brought to this noticeboard (for the 2nd or 3rd time in 1.5 years) I would ask for admin intervention in the discussion and (especially) some opinion on WC Monster's and PfainUK's behavior (and my own behavior as well, of course). We need help!!!

Thank you. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think T. Canens' proposal is just great. Please, do go ahead! I don't think we can solve this by ourselves, and the longer we keep going, the fewer editors remain interested (many editors, like The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, Ecemaml, Cremallera..., have been bored into exile during the last 1.5 years...) -- Imalbornoz (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein and T. Canens, 2 comments:

• I would agree to the topic ban as well if that helps de-monopolize the article. The only problem would be if someone comes and completely changes the decision reached after the RfC. What would be the role of the incumbent editors?
• Regarding the procedure for the RfC: one of the usual fears from the editors involved in a long and detailed discussion is that an outside mediator/admin does not grasp the main points in it; another danger is an almost irresistible drive for the inside editors to keep adding comments in the RfC that usually drive outside editors away (I have seen this happen in this discussion time and again). My suggestion would be that the two sides in the dispute have an initial statement with a word limit (like the 500 words limit in the ARBCOM initial statements, for example) to explain the essentials of the dispute from each POV and then they are only allowed to comment by invitation by the admin or mediator.

What do you think? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Imalbornoz

I'd like to support Imalbornoz's comments and commend his patience in an intractable dispute; I suggest that this particular request is not worth further attention. While I'm here, I would like to record my thanks to NebY for recent helpful edits which may actually break the logjam on this article, and if any editors are prepared to follow his bold example I'd be really grateful for further substantive help. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I have some acquaintance with this controversy through a peripheral discussion we are having at the NPOV noticeboard; I am not otherwise involved in the Gibraltar article.

It appears to me that this controversy is mainly about the four principal editors of that article (Imalbornoz, Wee Curry Monster, User:Pfainuk, and Richard Keatinge) tending to reach a "critical mass" too quickly and railing away at each other. I don't know that any of them is significantly any more (or less) at fault for this than any other; I think the matter needs to be considered in terms of the group situation, and not just in regard of a single editor.

I think also it would be unproductive to get into detailed recitals of "he said, she said", as there is a long history here not readily unwound. I don't think there is any deliberate bad behavior; it seems they sometimes just get too wound up about an issue. I wonder if it would be more useful to coach the involved editors in how to avoid the triggering behaviors. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein suggests a break from this article for all of us, an idea that I've previously suggested and would support now. But note that NebY may have managed to get things moving already. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

  I strongly recommend against any across the board topic banning. These editors are having difficulties working together, but banning them does nothing to remove the difficulty, and would deprive the article of four interested, knowledgeable editors. It appears to me that the difficulties are not irresolvable, and working out how to resolve them would be a great benefit to Misplaced Pages far beyond this article. Perhaps they could be banned from making any unilateral changes to the article, but with an exception for any changes they all agree to on the talk page. Other conditions are needed, but an across the board topic ban would do little good, and likely deprive us of greater good. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I happily bind myself only to make changes that are supported by all of the others. If that's enforced on all of us by an admin prepared to follow-up long-term, I think we have a solution. All four have more to offer Misplaced Pages, and indeed this article, than arguments about our long-standing content disagreements. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

  I have seen the prior very thorough analysis by Vassyana (essentially the same situation as here, but focused on another editor), but suggest that this current flare-up does not disaffirm the possible effectiveness of "lesser measures". It appears the editors involved have been advised in general terms to to work together better, but have not yet addressed the specific behaviors that cause the problems. Draconian measures won't help, they need assistance at a finer level. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  Regarding T. Canens' proposals: Could #4 be broadened such that the concerned editors may also participate in our discussion at WP:NPOVN? That discussion is not about those events as such, but is relevant to them, and I would not want any incidental discussion to trigger a ban. Perhaps the exemption could be qualified as where an uninvolved editor supervises or moderates? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

(Moved from below Pfainuk talk 15:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC))

I would very much welcome a binding RFC - we very badly need closure on this point - but part of the reason why RFCs have not worked before is the enormous walls of text that have generated by some editors. These are not written as debates between involved parties but as arguments for the supposed benefit of readers. There is simply no point in having an RFC if involved editors are allowed to post such massive walls of text to the RFC. My other suggestion would be that editors be encouraged to ignore the existing text when determining a new one, and instead try to work out something new.

I have some hope for JJ's process, and would also like to see it continue.

I'd ask what, in the above, constitutes an "objection". Does this include the sorts of vetoes without reasoning that are Imalbornoz and Richard's normal response to a proposal in this part of the page?

Finally, I'd encourage editors to we wait until Curry Monster is able to comment. He has serious family issues to deal with at the moment, and he tends to avoid Misplaced Pages when these issues, as well as his health issues, arise. He avoids Misplaced Pages at these times precisely because these kinds of issues were a major factor in his bad conduct in the lead-up to the Arbcom case (conduct that I have never condoned, despite Imalbornoz's claims). I would hope that editors here would understand the position: better to stay away from Misplaced Pages for a few days than to risk a repeat. Note also that we are still currently in the middle of a holiday period in the UK, and that it is reasonable to expect slow responses from any UK-based editor at the moment. Pfainuk talk 15:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding to the above, on a more general note, I am very disappointed that it seems to have been decided that Imalbornoz is allowed to accuse other editors of bad faith editing. If he's allowed to tell me outright that my concerns are not based on genuine concerns regarding neutrality and on the clear errors in fact and false implications in the existing text, but instead are purely based on some bizarre notion of embarrassment for an event that is relatively minor when compared with other incidents that my country has been involved in during the 307 years since, then it is difficult to see why he will not continue to do it. Shoot, he even tells you I'm a nationalist in his own statement.

Going on about "PfainUK" also doesn't help here - yes, there happens to be a "uk" at the end of my user name. It seems rather presumptuous to assume that this has anything to do with anything, other than the fact that I like the sound of the word "Pfainuk". If I called myself "Tokusa" (to cite a non-existent account name), would he go about calling me "TokUSA"? Again, he seems to be trying to present me as some kind of nationalist - an assumption of bad faith.

If we are now saying that Imalbornoz is allowed to assume bad faith in other editors, this would poison future discussions on the subject, not just of this particular point, but of all future discussion in which he is involved. If he's allowed to call me a British nationalist, then what is to stop another editor from calling him a "Spanish nationalist" - I make this point because it's one of the things that mentions in his repackaging of his case from the original Arbcom (and never mind the facts that - despite his claim - I never condoned Curry Monster's language, Curry Monster repeatedly apologised for it, and the whole thing was considered by Arbcom).

I won't go into the detail of the dispute, other than to mention that the problem with any text that goes into significant detail about certain aspects of the 1704 Capture of Gibraltar (even if it was accepted that this was neutral in and of itself), but then entirely fails to even mention the Treaty of Utrecht or the Great Siege (as per Imalbornoz's most recent edits) should be obvious to any reader with even a passing knowledge of Gibraltar history.

I would finally note that I find Imalbornoz's contention that I am not allowed to change my position based on new evidence from sources rather bizarre but not terribly productive. What I said in September 2009 was accurate based on the limited sources I had seen at the time, and you will note that I was happy not to have the words "fearing reprisals" in it. As such, I would like to give admins the opportunity to confirm my impression that changing one's position with a changing understanding of the sources is not just allowed, but an inherent part of the consensus-building process. Pfainuk talk 15:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Wee Curry Monster

I appreciate Pfainuk's concern for my health but I have never and will not ask for my mental health problems to be an excuse for my conduct. I do have some serious family problems to deal with right now but if I am permitted the indulgence I will return over the next couple of days to flesh this out with diffs.

I note that yet again Imalbornoz has raked up a great deal of comments from the past that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. Yet again with the resulting wall of text he deflects attention from his conduct.

Like Pfainuk I am intensely frustrated by the repeating of the same accusation that the British, and by inference British editors, are embarassed by the events of 1704. Similarly I am tired of the accusation of suppressing material, removing material or censoring the article. I am also disappointed but not surprised that these bad faith accusations are dismissed and no action is taken.

Similarly yet again we see the same accusation from Imalbornoz on content that had nothing to do with Pfainuk or myself but the rebuttal to the accusation takes up more space, more walls of text and attention is sucessfully deflected again.

In fact he seems the past master at deflecting attention from having his conduct examined too closely.

On the previous occasion this came to AE, I complained that no action was taken over the constant baiting that was taking place. No action was taken and it has continued.

I find it so extraordinary that an editor can openly state that he continually reverts my edits because for him its a laugh and giggle to frustrate my edits. And this isn't actionable?

But really I genuinely do not believe that this is a true content dispute. It is perceived as a dispute between two parties and with blame equally apportioned to both sides. It is not.

Pfainuk and I have tried every possible compromise and accommodation to meet halfway between what Richard and Imalbornoz demand. Each and every attempt has been vetoed with the comment "No Consensus".

I have tried WP:DR. I started a mediation case, I tried to get outside opinion on the various noticeboards, I tried to start an RFC. It seems clear that maintaining the status quo is the object.

The problem with the status quo is that it violates a fundamental policy of WP:NPOV. I'm sure someone will tell me that is a content matter and not one for AE - I know that but there is no forum for dealing with editors who remain civil but WP:OWN an article. The problem is that the content supports the Spanish claim to Gibraltar and it does not reflect the weight of opinion in the literature.

There are also fundamental behavioural problems that have not been addressed here.

Richard and Imalbornoz do not reliably source their edits. They do not read the sources and compose an edit that reflects the range of opinion in the literature. They do not in fact have access to sources at all.

Imalbornoz admitted during mediation that he did not have access to any of the principal sources. He still doesn't, he claims to have access but this is solely because he has contacted another editor on the Spanish wikipedia to provide him and Richard with copies of relevant parts of sources to support the edit he wishes to make. Note that he decides the edit, then looks for the source. Imalbornoz also maintains in his user space a number of selected quotes, useful for convincing editors without domain knowledge his edit has merit but they're carefully cherry picked.

In addition during arbitration it emerged that he frequently makes use of Google Snippets to source an edit. He decides the edit, then looks for a fragment of text to support it. But has no knowledge of context and as we found in mediation this does produce some very misleading results.

I have also found that Imalbornoz quoted from Encyclopedia Britannica, when the content was changed that very same day to support his edit. Co-incidence?

He argues WP:DUE on the basis of raw hit counts in searches in Google Books. Richard has described this as "ingenious Bibliometry". It is nothing of the sort, since the searches are "structured" to support a particular result at best it is simply Confirmation Bias. Worse these structured sources are claimed to so overwhelmingly establish due that anyone who disagrees is unreasonable.

I don't think that an RFC as suggested will work. Look at the last RFC I tried, Richard and Imalbornoz deterred outside opinion with walls of text. Richard completely rewrote it to scramble the issues so thoroughly they simply weren't even looked at from the outside. Look at the notice boards, Richard and Imalbornoz intervened to deter outside opinion on several occasions.

Neither do I think you will ever get Richard or Imalbornoz to agree with any alternative that I or Pfainuk proposes, whilst their objective is to maintain the status quo. Look at Imalbornoz's contribution history it is nothing but reverts on Gibraltar articles.

I don't see any of the proposals as actually addressing the problem of disruptive editing or ownership that is making the entire Gibraltar article set moribund and stagnant. The coverage of Gibraltar is appalling, no mention of the Great Siege and it is claimed Gibraltar's role in the Battle of Trafalgar was insignificant, no one with any real knowledge of history would make such a ridiculous claim.

In summary, I don't beleve the proposals address the problem here. Misplaced Pages's policies are being manipulated to maintain a status quo and the proposals for topic bans are throwing the baby out with the bath water. Editors with real domain knowledge and expertuse will end up topic banned bcause they can't agree with editors who are not operating within wikipedia norms but using policy to maintain a status quo that violates wikipedia's policy of WP:NPOV.

I have over 10,500 edits to my credit, I like to think I am a good content editor. In the Falklands articles I have worked hard to ensure that my edits do not reflect my own POV. I have a number of Argentine editors with whom I have formed good working relationships and as I'm sure many will acknowledge I was instrumental in ensuring good relations between both sides. Does it not strike anyone as peculiar that Gibraltar is so far so intractable? Wee Curry Monster talk 20:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Imalbornoz

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

I don't see anything in the request that would, on its own, clearly require admin intervention. From a brief look at the issue it seems more likely that J. Johnson's guess is correct and that we have a problematic group editing situation. I'm not sure that AE is equipped to deal with it, though. Discretionary sanctions are more suited for addressing clearly identifiable misbehavior by individuals. Consider trying more formal content dispute resolution, such as a content WP:RFC or mediation.  Sandstein  05:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• We might try long term protection (in the three month range) if it keeps up, but mostly this just looks like a minor flare-up between editors with long memories who are basically trying to work within the system. The talkpage looks like a lot of let us use *this* version while we wait for consensus to magically materialize, but it stays basically civil and I am not convinced by the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT assertion. 1RR for the article is also an option, but I think that that would miss the point. Recommend content-focused dispute resolution, and closing this report if there are no objections. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
• This is basically a case of two groups of two editors each arguing back and forth. This dispute has gone to such an extent that Talk:Gibraltar has been essentially monopolized by them since October 2010 (). This is not good at all.

  The applicable discretionary sanctions provision states that:

  Editors wishing to edit in the area of dispute are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Misplaced Pages's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. Any editor who is unable or unwilling to do so may wish to limit his or her editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions. (Emphasis added)

The dispute here should have been resolved, one way or another, a long time ago. As a principle in the case pointed out, "sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes". Intractable disputes that monopolize a talk page is unhelpful to the project.

It appears to me that those users, for whatever reason, are unwilling or unable to resolve this dispute through the usual channels on their own; a MEDCAB case was opened in January and closed in March, but then the dispute flared up again; there was apparently an attempt at an RFC, but that seems to have gone nowhere, either. As Sandstein and 2over0 observed, there is a need for content-focused DR, but I don't think telling them to pursue that and then leaving them to their own devices is a good option here. These are experienced editors, who know all about DR; there's no reason to believe that they would miraculously find a way to resolve this dispute when they have failed to do so in more than six months.

I propose, therefore, that we enact the following discretionary sanction, which I believe to be "reasonably necessary to ensure the proper collegial editing of these articles and the smooth functioning of the project":

1. Within 15 days after the sanction is imposed, the four users at issue (Imalbornoz, Wee Curry Monster, Pfainuk, and Richard Keatinge) must either:
   • agree to a compromise wording with respect to the dispute at issue, which will be binding upon them, unless and until a community consensus decides otherwise; or
   • submit the dispute to a binding content RFC, which is to be supervised by an uninvolved administrator (to avoid issues like Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 23#RFC restart); the outcome of the RFC will be binding upon them, unless and until a community consensus decides otherwise.
2. Any of the four users who fails to comply with #1 will be topic banned from Gibraltar, and all related articles, discussions and other content, broadly construed across all namespaces, until such time they comply with #1.

I think this is a fairly novel approach, but it's the best I could think of under the circumstances. Comments are welcome. T. Canens (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this analysis. The proposal is novel, but might be worth a try. Have the other editors been previously warned of sanctions and notified about this thread?

If we want to do this, we might want to tighten it as follows: All four are banned right now from the Gibraltar article and its talk page (except for any RfCs) until (A) an administrator has closed an RfC as establishing a community consensus about the wording that is to be used, and (B) the banned editor has agreed to abide by that consensus by (B1) not making changes contrary to it or (B2) not trying to change the consensus by any method other than another RfC in no earlier than one year. This would reduce the scope for wikilawyering ("yes I agreed to the proposal!" "no you did not!" "It's their responsibility to start the RfC, not mine!" etc.).  Sandstein  10:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Technically, the idea is that the instruction in #1 (either compromise or go RFC) would be the requisite warning and "specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines". If any of the four fail to comply with it, then the sanction (a page/topic ban) can follow. T. Canens (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Three of the editors concerned have commented here, and Wee Curry Monster was notified by the filer. I have added Vassyana's formal notifications to the log. Vassyana's old statement certainly indicates that requiring rather than requesting content-DR is a good idea, and this focuses the attention where it belongs without closing off the article to any other interested editors. It might also be a good idea to limit the involved editors' comments to the RfC to prevent it from becoming just another section where the same people make the same points at each other, as is too often the case with RfCs. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I support the idea of T. Canens that the four editors should be required to join in a binding content RfC if they want to continue to edit the article. While I could accept T. Canens' version, Sandstein's version sounds more enforceable. Since the dispute over Gibraltar has been running for so long, I don't think it is excessive to place the topic bans at once and then have them be lifted as a consequence of good-faith participation in the RfC. Anyone who is still hoping that lesser measures will suffice should take a look at the very thorough analysis by Vassyana in the December 2010 AE request. The 23 archives at Talk:Gibraltar show that national disputes about the content of that page have been going on since 2005. EdJohnston (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

After considering the inputs above, I propose the following:

1. Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs), Imalbornoz (talk · contribs), Pfainuk (talk · contribs), and Richard Keatinge (talk · contribs) are placed on the following restriction: they may not make any substantive edit to Gibraltar unless they post on Talk:Gibraltar explaining their proposed edit, and 48 hours have elapsed since the time of the posting, and no editor objected to the proposed edit. For the purposes of this restriction, "substantive edit" means any edit that is not purely a typo fix, formatting change, or an exemption to the 3RR rule.
2. Except as exempted in #4, the four editors listed above are further banned from starting or participating in any discussion regarding to any events, occurrences, or incidents that occurred between 1600 AD and 1900 AD, if such event, occurrence, or incident took place in, or is related to, Gibraltar, broadly construed.
3. Violations of either of the above restriction will result in an immediate ban from Gibraltar and its talk page.
4. Item #2 does not apply to participation in a binding content RFC regarding their present disputes. The RFC is to be supervised by an uninvolved administrator, who may set limits on statements and/or other limitations as necessary to ensure its smooth functioning.
5. Restrictions #1 and #2 will be lifted upon the conclusion of the content RFC referred to in #4, if such RFC yields a consensus on the wording to be used, provided that the editor accepts the outcome of the RFC and conform their future edits to it. They may not attempt to change the outcome except by initiating a new RFC no less than one year after the original RFC concludes.

Comments are welcome. T. Canens (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

How about allowing an uninvolved administrator to grant an exemption to #2 on a case-by-case basis? T. Canens (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think your proposal is good enough to enact even without that change. The actual discussion at WP:NPOVN did not seem very productive. I wish we could tell editors not to draw conclusions from sources without having access to the full text (as Imalbornoz and Richard Keatinge apparently do not, according to Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 23#RFC restart) but I'm not sure how to phrase that. There is plenty of reason for admin action, since there was a full arbitration case devoted to this article in mid-2010 and since that time the entrenched parties have continued their dispute. If the T. Canens proposal does not work I think some number of full topic bans might be considered as the next step. EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion at NPOVN is not yet productive; I have hope, and am patient. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave this open for 48 more hours, to see if Wee Curry Monster and Pfainuk have anything to add. T. Canens (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

JonathanGo

Paul Bedson

Biblbroks

talknic

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

Request concerning talknic

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction and Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. 19:38, 27 April 2011 1st revert
2. 17:12, 28 April 2011 2nd revert

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

1. Warned on 05:25, 3 April 2011 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)

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

Block or topic ban.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There are two issues here. First the 1RR violation. Talknic has previously violated 1RR on this article (see my report ]) for which he received notification of the case. This is the second time within less than a month.

The second issue is that he has been edit warring against consensus on 1948 Arab–Israeli War for the past week+. And when I say against consensus I mean that three different editors reverted him and an additional 5 said they object to his edit on the talk page, while no other editor supported the change he made 6 times in 8 days. The discussion is here, his multiple reverts can be seen on the article history. Let me know if diffs are necessary. The discussion and history look self explanatory to me.

@T. Canens - Unfortunately the IDHT is not limited to al-Husseini (if you have a couple of hours to spare, you can read the previous 4-5 topics on the same talk page). If someone doesn't explain wikipedia policy and guidelines to this editor, we'll be back here in a couple of weeks. I think he needs a mentor, as I tried to suggest here a few weeks ago. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning talknic

Statement by talknic

Edit warring goes both ways and is started by someone, for a reason.

The reasons for my being reverted have been rather less than substantial. None have challenged the validity of the source. Consensus is by a familiar and predictable rally and seems to be vaguely based on 'I don't like it'. Were there an actual policy based reason other than the blatant misuse of consensus in order to stop information...

I'll leave the Talk pages to do the rest of the talking. talknic (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning talknic

Result concerning talknic

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

Blocked 31 hours for the 1RR violation. I'll look into the other aspects of this matter when I get some time. T. Canens (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've read though the material. That's some pretty obvious WP:IDHT there. Barring objections, I plan to impose a 3-month topic ban from all articles, discussions and other content related Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, broadly construed. T. Canens (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't got the time to read through the discussions yet, but I did take a quick look at the edit summaries they are using. Looks like a broader sanction may be needed here. T. Canens (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• User:Talknic's participation at Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War does not show any good-faith effort to respond to others' objections. This must be what the WP:IDHT comment is referring to. I support T. Canens' suggestion of a three-month topic ban but propose that it apply to the whole area of conflict under WP:ARBPIA. There are problems with Talknic's conduct on the talk page of 1948 Arab-Israeli War that go beyond the mufti issue. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, as I said in my subsequent comment above, that a broader sanction is needed. Three month ban from the entire area sounds like a good starting point. T. Canens (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'm closing based on the reasoning in this discussion with a three-month ban of Talknic from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed. This includes talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Vecrumba

Atabəy

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

Request concerning Atabəy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Note the enforcement requested is not against only Atabəy but the whole article.

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

The Safavid article needs AA2 remedies like Caucasian Albania where all people under AA1 and AA2 were sanctioned permanently, and the article had semi-ip protection for at least one month. It has been both ip attacked from the outside and also has seens its share of WP:SOAP, and WP:NOTBATTLE from some users, specially Atabəy (talk · contribs) (Atabek (talk · contribs)). It shares of archives shows that some users have repeatedly ignored sources as shown belown.

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

Note Atabəy (talk · contribs) had the previous name Atabek (talk · contribs) and has been in two arbcomms, as well as banned permanently from some topic.

1. "You're only weakening your Iranian identity by claiming Safavis as Kurds or Armenian or anything else, because any reference that you make up 500 years after, when there are pages of Ismail's poetry in Azeri Turkic, will be laughed at." (It should be noted that I am of partial Kurdish heritage and Iranian also, but I believe constantly referencing ethnicity outside of the topic of discussion is harmful).
2. ] "Armenian user Nareklm has once again abused the consensus version with help from Mardavich. It's clear that both users make no contribution to either this discussion or the main page, but are only involved in making reverts to my editions." (It should be noted that referencing a user because of his background and then association them with negative actions is against policy)
3. "general pattern demonstrated by Iranian/Persian groups to attack and remove, dereference and POV every article related to Turkic groups shall also be noted as nothing more than hateful and disturbing development" (again against policy)

Also I should note that recently, there was an Azerbaijani Russian wikipedia list that was exposed in Russian wikipedia to do coordinating editing: A similar English wikipedia list was also found with some still active participants (who if they remain active should be exposed to more admins and users). I can forward to the admnistration, evidence of the off-wiki coordination (the same evidence used for the Russian case) and hateful comments by Atabəy (talk · contribs):

Here are some highlights from the list, the messages pertaining to Atabəy (talk · contribs): <redacted, T. Canens (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)>

See my comments below. Admins already know about the list as well as arbcomm which has been emailed about it. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

More recent comments Atabəy (talk · contribs) on Safavids talkpage

1. 25 April, 2011 Atabəy (talk · contribs): "It is noteworthy that the two sides engaged in this edit conflict were always one side (like myself), which was and is open to incorporation of any referenced material to provide a breath of knowledge in the article, and another side, which prefer to write pages of emails with selective references to either deny Turkish identity or disassociate it from dynasty, push POV that dynasty was Iranian/Persian/Kurdish anything but unrelated to Turks or Azeris, when the founding king used the language as his mother tongue"

• Here Atabəy is describing me as "writing pages of email with selective referencing" whereas I have consistently said that we need to include all sources about the Safavids. What I said is this: "So the only person that has been actually working to make sure all sources are included in the article is me, because I have absolutely no problem with any RS source that is specific to the Safavids written by Safavid scholars(Roemer, Mathee, Savory, Minorsky, etc.). "

1. 28 April, 2011 Atabəy (talk · contribs): "Now, Kasravi held neo-fascist views, so his fringe Hitleristic theories about everybody having "Aryan stock" are not scholarly.".

• We should note that Kasravi's usage of Aryan here means indo-Iranian and had nothing to with Hitler. Atabəy fully knows this concept, but brings up hitler to enflame the discussion as Hitler has nothing to with an article about 500 years ago. I should note the theory of Kasravi is reviewed by several respect scholars (Roger Savory, Vladimir Minorsky) and accepted.

1. 28 April, 2011 Atabəy (talk · contribs): "Khodabandeh, I don't have to read pages of selective sourcing that you like posting in talk pages.",

• This not only violates WP:NPA, but the references I posted are from well known Safavid scholars and I asked Atabəy to incorporate them into his suggestions for change in the introduction. Furthermore, I have said repeteadly that we need to look at wikipedia guidelines on the introductatory names, and until that is done, we should include all relavent names and all possible alphabets (Persian, Azeri-Turkish, Kurdish and Georgian). One should note my method has been all inclusive because of what I see is a lack of clear guidelines about Misplaced Pages foreign names.

1. 21 April 2011, even when adding a simple template, the user makes such a comment (which shows a battlefield mentality if you are familiar with his edits): "as much relevance to Azerbaijan Wikiproject as it is to Iran one".

• This might seem like a harmless comment, but there is no need to mention "Iran" here, and I believe is a aspect of the violation of wikipedia is not battlefield which has been going on for a long time in the article.

violation of 1rr by Atabəy on article

Per AA1/AA2, Atabəy is on 1rr

1. 28 April 2011 Atabəy, removes the Georgian and Kurdish names.

• This has been an ongoing discussion in the talkpage, and until there is a new concensus, I had restored the old four names

1. 28 April, 2011 Atabəy, violates his 1rr revert patrole by removing Georgian and Kurdish names (which are under discussion).

Other problems of poor behaviour including accusing others of being anti-Turkish

Throughout the talkpages (and I can bring numerous examples) user Atabəy has accused others of Turcophobia (even authors who have been falsely accused of being anti-Armenian at the same time (and are not !

1. "Kanas Bear..So please, follow WP:NPOV, show us how the dichotomy of your opinions is NOT based on anything other than Turcophobia".

1. "removed historically Armenian POV, no references were provided, see talk for discussion"

I can cite numerous examples where the user constantly and falsely accuses others of being anti-X or anti-Y. This sort of comments as well as numerous comments bringing ethnicity of users into his comments are hard to report to AE, but if the admins have patience, they can look at the users edits to see numerous such examples.

I would also mention that several years ago, Atabek went totally out and removed all references to Armenian Genocide..

• Removing every reference to the Armenian genocide in many articles or putting words such as "alleged" in front of it: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
• This was discussed in the admin board here: .

• The other very irritating bad pattern which was the cause for me to finally make this report is Atabey simply ignores the sources I have repeated 10x times and repeats statements without any RS support. Of course to show this violation is much harder, but it can be done by combing through the Safavid archives as well as other articles.
• Of course he had used a sock ] as well, and then in the off-line wikipedia coordination list, the blocking admin was called a "bigot Kurd" (although he is not a Kurd, whereas I am partially).

Final comment on Atabəy (talk · contribs)

A search in the archives of AE shows clearly how much Atabəy (talk · contribs) (previous name Atabek (talk · contribs) has wasted the communities resources. The wikipedia coordination list which was exposed in the Russian wikipedia actually has more unfortunate information that such users are actually lobbyist for regional governments which makes their neutrality 100% questionable.

floating ip with the starting address 75/76

The ip is different than Atabəy (talk · contribs), but it is about the same topic, showing why I am requesting severe sanction on the topic. The ip has not enganged in the talkpage once (except in an article on the Orontids) and has constantly removed any references to Turkish names and background. I have tried to revert him and ask him to discuss, but to no avail. I do not want to engage in an edit war, and the article is an AA1/AA2 related article, so I will report his actiivies here. He has easily broken 3rr as noted in the here:

1. . Note the floating ip seems to be also engaged in Orontids and removing the word "Persian".
2. . Ip is removing Azeri/Turkish because he claims:" response previous comments are factual and can be proven by constant vandalism in "Karabakh" <-Armenian Arstakh articles vandalized by Azeri's and their claims of Armenian lands".

This is an unrelated topic.

1. the same ip that is in Safavids also removing terms in another article.

• more reverts..

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

1. Warned on (Atabəy (talk · contribs) former user Atabek (talk · contribs) has been in two arbcomms, and topic banned temporarily or permanently by several admins including Moreschi (talk · contribs).

1. I have warned the floating ip that he needs to use the talkpage, but with no avail. The ip is definitely not a new user.

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

I ask the same remedy that was applied to Caucasian Albania to be applied to Safavid dynasty. Furthermore, given some of the comments by Atabəy (talk · contribs) which violates all norms of Misplaced Pages, I request the user be permanently banned or topic banned from editing all Armenia/Azerbaijan/Iran/Turkey (broadly construed) pages. The ip with floating number 75/76 should be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages as it is a SPA.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Some of the xenophobic comments are from couple of years ago, but nevertheless, they have an effect on the general atmosphere of editing. One can hardly assume good faith given the above attacks on people's background and nationalities. The off-line English wikigroup can also be sent to the relavent admins (just like it seems it was done in the Russian arbcomm case), but since it has personal names, I will not divulge it here.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User has been notified

Discussion concerning Atabəy

In response to Atabəy's comment, I did not accuse him of being the ip as the ip is reported separately and right here. But the issue is not topic disagreement and I have provided both online wikipedia evidence and also off-line to relavent admins about extreme nationalist viewpoints and battlefield mentality which has been part of the reason that Atabəy has been topic banned already from several articles. I believe this is the reason why he ignores sources as mentioned above. The online evidence is sufficient to show battle field mentality and also poisoning of the atmosphere of the Safavid talkpage (recently and in the archives). The ip has also been reported as well, and it is the ip that edited Orontids (while removing the word Persian in Orontids and Turkish in Safavids). The ip has also concurrently caused trouble for the article. I believe as the evidence shows, both users (the floating ip and Atabəy) have violated the main principles of wikipedia, which is wikipedia is not a battlefield and the Safavid article should be sanctioned like Caucasian Albania, as well as other remedies I mentioned. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't see why IP discussion is brought up under the thread about myself? Another major issue is why "offline evidence", without any proof of connection to myself, has been posted in a Misplaced Pages AE board, even if removed later after a note by admins. Does not that along with any potentially private information, falsely attributing to my identity, constitute a violation of WP:HARASSMENT? And how are those not a waste of community's time? Atabəy (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• The thread is about the article Safavid dynasty, and misbehaviour by various users making soapbox comments and nationalistic POV (the ip being half the problem). I believe the ip as well you have violated wikipedia guidelines and I'll let the admin decides. Besides the commonality of ignoring sources both users do not like, both users are intent on removing WP:RS material, and introducing soapbox and battlefield comments.
• The off-line evidence has been used already in Russian wikipedia almost a year ago. 28 ethno-nationalist users were sanctioned. Furthermore, private wiki-lists like the East European case have been used as evidence in the English Misplaced Pages.
• It was brought to my attention very recently that my name has been mentioned among the discussions in that wiki-coordination list a few times.
• I do not plan to divulge any comments about me from there, but I do plan to sift through the material and bring to the attention of English wikipedia Arbcomm since I do not edit Russian wikipedia. I still have not sifted through the Russian material as I do not speak Russian and google translator hangs up, but I am slowly doing this. However, if a list mentions the names of admins, my name and is coordinating in Misplaced Pages, then it is important matter for Misplaced Pages like the East European list. However, since it is not public to general wikipedia, it must be posted privately to arbcomm.
• Similarly, the English wikipedia-list has been mentioned several times before me by other users, and after pursuing the Russian matter, the English list address was provided to me. In it, several admins including Khoikhoi, Dmcevit and New York Brad have been mentioned and talks about manipulation of these admins. Thus it is a matter of Misplaced Pages and the mentioned admins as well. That discussion was sent to arbcomm, and wether they plan to take any actions or not, it is my responsbility to mention that Khoikhoi, Dominic and New York Brad were mentioned in the list. I believe these admins have the right to know if a group is coordinating regarding them.
• As per what concerns this thread. Some of the posts on that list discuss the Safavids, off-line wiki coordination voting and etc. However, I did not divulge any personal names in public wikipedia, but usernames who made comments. However, these were deleted by admins as I was instructed to send it to arbcomm which I did.
• I am allowed to mention is that the off-line wikipedia list (in both English and Russian) talk about Safavids (the current AE problem) and ethnic coordination. I will not discuss the off-line wikipedia list any further than this in this thread as that matter which was very recently brought to my attention (my name being mentioned on that list) has been forwared to arbcomm and the appropriate admins whose names were listed.
• Again, I am not going to further talk about this wikipedia off-cordination list (as its content cannot be copy & pasted publically as mentioned to me by admins here) except to mention that the English version overlaps with the current AE problem article of Safavids where various users and ips have been violating wikipedia guidelines. So the article and the problem users need special remedies, such as Caucasian Albania and other remedies. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

And what does any of this have to do with requesting to enforce ArbCom against myself? You are ignoring two important factors:

• 1)information that you are trying to publicize was obtained in violation of U.S. privacy and copyright laws (i.e. hacking and forging of someone's private email account in Russia), it is not an admissible evidence for Arbitration by default, whether you post or email it, because hackers can put any name in there;
• 2)even if forged information is ever considered by Arbitration, then Arbitration has to prove that the forged correspondence is connected to me, the Misplaced Pages User:Atabəy;

None of the above can be accomplished without severely violating WP:HARASSMENT and a number of other Misplaced Pages policies, which is exactly what you are doing by assuming bad faith along. This entire thread here is a one big disruption of Arbitration's time. Again instead of solving topic problems in talk page, you are trying to target contributors in arbitration boards making frivolous reports. Atabəy (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• The inline evidence and archives of Safavids are sufficient to show the bad behaviour, 1 ) specially calling out users by their identity and ethnicity, while making negative comments or soapbox comments about them, 2) soapboxing about users being anti-X or trying to deny identity, while it is a vandal ip, but conflating them with other users. 3) Not looking at read references of other sides per admission. 4) Constantly having a battle-field mentality (i.e. having problem with the term "Safavid dynasty of Iran" or "Safavid Iran" while it is used 240+ and 6500+ times in google books with many scholarly citation ), and the problem is due to battle field mentality, as one cannot oppose something that is used by 6500+ google books (scholarly) sources. Maybe 10, okay. Maybe 50 okay, but not 6500+. 5) and yes the ip who is removing Turkish in Safavids and Persian in Orontids needs to blocked from the article and all of wikipedia as well, and I have already discussed him.
• If Arbcomm used such lists in Russian wikipedia as evidence, then it was not forged. It also concerns the Safavid dynasty article (as there are discussions related to it there) which has had constant problems by behaviour. Information about the list is not a concern to the thread, but the fact that clear battle field mentality has been present in the talkpages can be gleamed by looking at the archives and I have just shown some of the examples above. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• These are already known by arbcomm as they have been exposed several times in Misplaced Pages (both English and Russian). I think it is relavent to this discussion that someone has said: ""Turkic people were always glorious in their history, ruled many kingdoms and were masters of Armenians, Persians, Greeks and others." "I hate Armenian infection ever more passionately as many of you do. " "Armenians should always be kept as servant/dependent people".. These are very relavent to this request and they have also been sent to the admins in question. However, unlike the Russian wikipedia case , only a small portion of the English list communication is available, and mainly from 2007-2008 it seems. Unlike the Russian one which has close to 4000-5000 wikipedia coordination messages (it had my name in it too as I just became aware very recently and is one of the reason I posted the information), the English list has about 20 or so posts (the rest were not posted online it seems). Of course the groups title had wikipedia in it. Few of the relavent users are still active, but the list has been emailed to Sandstein, Khoikhoi, Moreschi, Dmcevit, New York Brad, Dbachmann and Golbez as well as arbcomm. So it is not new information for Misplaced Pages, but the main point is to show that the ultra-nationalistic thoughts get projected in Misplaced Pages by seeing it as a battle-field and here is a clear case of one member of the list who sees wikipedia as a battleground rather than a place for common human knowledge. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Important Side note, I did not know that one cannot post off-wiki communications (since I gave no address) involving the coordinated wiki-list and I apologize for any inconvience. Those have been instead sent to relavent admins including Sandstein as well as arbcomm. Thank you --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Atabəy

I would like to draw Arbitration's attention to the fact that most of the links that Khodabandeh14 posted in this notice refer to January 2007, while conclusions in regards to my editing were made by the later ArbCom in August 2007. It's quite sad to see though how much bad faith User:Khodabandeh14 assumes over my current talk page opinion (I don't see which Wiki rule I have violated in my comments on Talk:Safavid dynasty), if independent arbitrators can see, please, indicate those WP rules. Yes, Safavid dynasty page right now is full of POV and selective referencing in introduction, that's my opinion, and I expressed it on the talk page, without attacking or accusing anybody, neither engaging in identity search of users.

Khodabandeh14 is bringing about all kinds of accusations without any solid proof at hand, posting off-wiki comments which are totally misattributed to me, are pure intimidation, violating WP:HARASSMENT.

And all of this, simply for what? Disagreeing with my talk page comments, inability to come to consensus without side line attacks against the user. Arbitrators are welcome to check Safavid dynasty page history, to see what IPs are doing there, and for some reason, Khodabandeh14 is less concerned about their behavior, instead focusing on attacking only contributor who takes time to comment and provide references on talk page. And above all, Khodabandeh14 shows interest to get rid of opposing view by suggesting to topic banning me from range of subjects based on talk page discussion in one article.

As I am currently on travel, I don't have time to spend on these empty assumptions of bad faith, simply based on topic disagreement of the user on a single page. Especially the ones accusing me of ever editing Orontids, be my guest, run all IP checks and logical comparisons and prove it is me. I have no interest in that article to edit it. And I always did, do and will edit under my own user account, regardless of where I am.

In short, my position is that current Safavid dynasty article is a complete POV pushing starting with the first sentence: "Safavid dynasty of Iran was one of the most significant ruling dynasties of Iran.", which apart from disputed POV duplicates the same statement twice. And since when removing (or closing eyes on anonymous IPs removing) neutrality tags from a page is considered appropriate per Misplaced Pages rules? Regards. Atabəy (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Atabəy

Result concerning Atabəy

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

I have redacted the alleged off-wiki communications. These should be sent directly to the arbitration committee via email. It may be necessary to open a new arbitration case ala WP:EEML. T. Canens (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by The Four Deuces

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

The Four Deuces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – TFD (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

banned indefinitely from editing articles which relate to minority peoples of the Soviet Union

Administrator imposing the sanction

Fred Bauder (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

Statement by The Four Deuces

This is an arbitrary decision by one administrator with no input from other administrators. I do not wish to criticize the administrator, but would ask the arbitration committee to review the discussion thread and determine whether they agree or whether they have any questions. TFD (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Fred Bauder Despite extensive searching, I have been able to find only the following mention of Looveer in published books or articles:

1. Ian Hancock, The Liberals: a history of the NSW division of the Liberal party of Australia, 1945-2000 (2007), pub. by "The Federation Press", supported by the "Sesquicenternary of Responsible Government in NSW Committee".
2. Mark Aarons, War Criminals Welcome: Australia, a sanctuary for fugitive war criminals since 1945 (2001), pub. by Black Inc.. Aarons is an Australian journalist, who worked for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and whose articles have appeared in The Australian and the Wall Street Journal. From 1969 to 1978 he was a member of the Communist Party of Australia and his father was a leading Australian Communist.
3. Lachlan Clohesy, Australian Cold Warrior: The Anti-Communism of W. C. Wentworth (2010), doctoral thesis, Victoria University, Australia. This thesis cites War criminals eleven times.

1. mentioned that Loover accompanied Lyenko Urbanchich when the Liberal Party heard a request to expel him. 2. mentions that when Ervin Viks disappeared he issued a statement through Looveer, and also that she was a prominent member of the Liberal Party's Migrant Advisory Council, which included Laszlo Megay. 3. says that Looveer was secretary of Advisory Council and mentions other prominent members Laszlo Megay and Constantin Untaru. It also mentions William Wentworth, Douglas Darby, Col. J. M. Prentice, Eileen Furley and Arleen Lower. (p. 172) There is no other information about her in any of these sources. It says that ASIO, the Australian security intelligence service, reported to the Liberal Prime Minister and cabinet unfavorably on the activities of the council a group to which Megay and Untaru belonged.

I would not expect a lot to be written about the secretary of these organizations. However the sources are consistent about them. I see nothing wrong with adding information from these sources, and in fact other editors agreed to include information from the first source last year. I would welcome additional published sources, however none have been found. None of this in any way is critical of ethnic minorities and in fact most of the members of the council were of British ancestry. All of these sources appear to be reliable, and there are no sources that provide a different set of facts.

TFD (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

(Note - I summarized what I wrote on the talk page incorrectly and have now corrected it. TFD (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC))

Since this sanction involves "generalized accusations... against a particular national or ethnic group", I would like to clearly state my opinion on that topic. I do not subscribe to collective responsibility. No nationality bears responsibility for actions that were taken by their compatriots. I realize first hand the unfairness of this characterization as my father was German and my girlfriend's father was a police officer in Latvia during the war. Neither were Nazis and both took personal risk in opposition to the German government. I have started several articles on right-wing and conservative topics, including: Radical right, Right-wing terrorism, Willi Schlamm and Kenneth Goff and made substantial revisions to Right-wing populism and Conservatism. None of those articles imply that right-wing ideology is more associated with a particular national group and none even mention Eastern European minorities. TFD (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Fred Bauder

Please note that I was one of the arbitrators who participated in drafting and adopting the original arbitration decision.

The decision was based on Section 8 and 12 of the remedies in the arbitration decision:

Section 8: All editors are warned that future attempts to use Misplaced Pages as a battleground—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies—may result in the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee. This applies both to the parties to this case as well as to any other editor that may choose to engage in such conduct.

Section 12: Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Attempts to discuss the problems involved with tarring members of the emigre community by citing information from sources which conflate anti-communism with Nazi collaboration were ineffective. During the arbitration enforcement discussion he advanced additional material of the same nature that provoked the original dispute. This behavior predictably provokes other editors and results in a great deal more heat than light. See Talk:Lia Looveer and note the prevalence of talk about Nazism with respect to a respected member of the Liberal Party of Australia.

I think the decision is reasonably limited, affecting only the ethnic populations which were victims of the Soviet gulag and the confusion resulting from the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and Soviet and Nazi occupation. User:The Four Deuces does not seem to understand the inappropriateness of ascribing Nazi views to this population by utilizing guilt by association and until he grasps the matter should not be engaged in ideological struggle on Misplaced Pages with respect to articles about members of ethnic minorities in the former Soviet Union. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

A clarification

Is the indefinite ban on TFD editing articles relating to any minority peoples in the Soviet Union inclusive of article talk pages or user talk pages where such issues are discussed, or only to actual edits on those articles proper? And is the term "minority peoples" broadly defined (that is, including nations where were formerly part of the USSR, but where the peoples are not "minority" in the current nation? I am not trying to be a nudge, but wanted to be entirely clear. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The trouble originated at Talk:Lia Looveer which is an excellent example of the sort of trouble which results from TFD's acting in this way, so, yes, it includes talk pages. The term minority peoples of the Soviet Union includes every nationality other than Russian which was included in the Soviet Union such as Latvians, Estonians, Karelians, Baltic and Volga Germans, Crimean Tatars, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, particularly those who were impacted by mass deportation and the Nazi invasion. By its literal terms it includes all Soviet minorities, but many were not affected by those events and would be unlikely to be the target of ideological attacks against anti-communist emigres. Actually it probably should include Russian emigres also who are also potential victims of this sort of guilt by association, sometimes simply because they were prisoners of war. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by BorisG

Fred, could you please point out where TFD made generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies. I only see that he used sources that do that, but did not repeat these generalized accusations, but rather quoted specific (not generalised) statements from such sources about behaviour of specific individuals, rather than a particular national or ethnic group. - BorisG (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, he insists sources that do that are reliable sources. User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Bottom line: playing pin the Nazi tail on the emigre donkey is a dirty game that has no place in Misplaced Pages. It causes a great deal of bad feeling especially among Soviet nationalities. User:Fred Bauder Talk 8:27 pm, Today (UTC+8)

Fred, Russavia has a point below. Aarons is a respected researcher of Nazi war criminals here in Australia. The deliberately provocative title of his book suggests that Australia, not necessarily by design, has become a relatively safe place for those guys. I am not aware that he made accusations against entire ethnic groups. - BorisG (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that he does, it is TFD who uses his work in this way to tar emigres who are mentioned in the book as being associated with Nazi collaborators or sympathizers. The book is not easy to get, but I suspect is is both useful and accurate with respect to its subject matter despite its provocative title. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Russavia

Sources by communists can be used on WP in the same vein that sources by nationalists can be used. So f'ing what if someone was a member of the Aussie Communist Party. Does this make them unreliable? Yes, F.B. says! And anyone who disagrees with him will have the ban hammer brought down upon them.

Did he even bother to read the sources presented? Of course not, he just saw the word communist and hit the ban hammer coz he doesn't like it. Well, well, let's see. Mark Aarons was a member of the CPA until mid 70s. He was then a political adviser to a NSW Labor Premier.

However, according to this link:

From 1973 to 1993 Mark Aarons was a broadcaster and reporter in the ABC Radio Special Projects Department (later the Radio Talks and Documentaries Department). During that time he was Executive Producer, Producer, Presenter and Researcher on a series of programs broadcast on ABC Radio Two (later Radio National), including Lateline (1973-76), Broadband (1977-1980), Tuesday Despatch, Background Briefing (1980-1993) and several others. In the late 1970s he began research into claims that there were numerous World War II war criminals living in Australia and that this was known by US, British and Australian intelligence agencies. The results of this research led to his 1986 radio documentary series 'Nazis in Australia' which prompted the Hawke government's inquiry into war criminals and the establishment of the Special Investigations Unit.

What's that? He was also a journalist and a researcher, and as a result of his research and journalism Bob Hawke initiated an enquiry into Nazi war criminals in Australia. He was profiled and interviewed by the Sydney Morning Herald. The N.S.W. Board of Jewish Education uses his works. That the LP allowed Nazis into this country has also been profiled and written about. He has been published by the Aussie-Israel and Jewish Affairs council. His book "Nazis in Australia" is widely cited . And on it goes.

Yet, we on WP have editors simply throw out "he's a communist" and all of a sudden anything this guy has done and any professional positions he has held, become totally irrelevant!

Fred, you would be best advised to overturn your own ban and apologise for your mischaracterisation of both TFD's questions and also the potential WP:BLP characterisation of Mark Aarons. --Russavia 11:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Additionally look at this book, which is published by a scholarly publisher and what the author has to say about Mark Aarons.

The final contribution in this part of the volume is from Mark Aarons who, as an investigative journalist in the 1980s, single-handedly did more than any other person to expose the presence of former Nazis in Australia who ought to be investigated and prosecuted for...

At NO stage has TFD insinuated or even stated that Balts are Nazi sympathisers/collaborators/war criminals, and neither has Mark Aarons. All that TFD has stated, and I will post it myself (and wait for a ban), is that material on Looveer is very thin (i.e. she is not notable), and that her article is built upon directory-type sources and sources which only mention her in passing. And here we have sources which also mention her in passing, and when this has been done it has brought to light that she associated herself with people with shady pasts. But some editors want to keep this out of the article. Why? There is nothing wrong with saying that she was on "this" council, which also included JoeBlow and BillyBob. Then we let readers decide for themselves whether she was a Nazi sympathiser. We don't whitewash articles to conform with Baltic histiography, just as we don't do it for Soviet histiography. --Russavia 12:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Below it is possibly being insinuated that TFD has misrepresented sources because one is not able to find reference to Looveer as a result of a Google book search. TFD has stated that the book is only available in snippet view. That one can't find the text in snippet view is not unusual. Take for example the article tibla - which is a vile ethnic slur used against Russians in Estonia - it is suggested that it also refers to "Soviet" and it used a source which is only available offline - the same type of search on Google yields no results, yet it is possible that it is contained in the book.

In fact, I have just noticed a discrepancy in what I posted earlier, in relation to this book. What I posted as the quote is not what is written in the book, but it is what was written in the Google book result, hence why I was able to copy and paste it. Why this discrepancy? Have I wilfully misrepresented anything? Or have I presented what I have been presented by way of a google search? Should I be perma topic banned for this?

We should be careful 1) before accusing editors of bad faith, because Google snippet view is not infalliable, and 2) before entering into articles anything that may be contentious based purely upon what one sees in Google snippet view, as it may not necessarily match up with what is actually contained in the text itself. We don't ever need a repeat of Talk:Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park) I am sure everyone can agree. TFD has done the right thing here by bringing the issue to the article talk page first, and he has made it clear it is a snippet view only, and that it would need to examined physically to see what is said, etc. There is nothing wrong with this, and he has not claimed that any significant portion of any ethnic group harbours Nazi sympathies, nor has he even stated Looveer herself was a Nazi sympathiser. Mark Aarons also has not said any such thing, but he has written that people who are either suspected of committing war crimes or of harbouring Nazi sympathies are people whom Looveer has possibly been associated with. There is nothing sanctionable in anything that TFD has done in this regard. --Russavia 13:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Having read comments by numerous editors here, it would be best to topic ban all editors who are pushing fringe views on all sides of the equation. We hear about "official Russia" this and "official Russia" that. Fact of the matter is, "official Baltics" is no better than "official Russia", and it takes not much time to see who the extremist editors on both sides of the equation are. Whilst "official Russia" POV may not be supported 100% around the world, neither is "official Baltics" POV widely accepted. Perhaps all editors would be advised to read this from the EU-Russia Centre and take note of what is written there. --Russavia 14:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. To address the question of Mark Aarons's work and related work as not reliable sources, the problem is not they are not scholarly, or accurate, but that there is an obvious conflict of interest. A book by a scion of a family prominent in the Australian Communist Party about emigre politics has such a strong appearance of bias due to conflict of interest that regardless of its intrinsic qualities it can not be accepted as a reliable source, especially not by emigres. Doubtless emigres to Australia did not consider whether Australian communism might represent values different from those they encountered in Europe, but that is understandable. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I am giving notice that I am going into the city this week and when there I will go to state library and take note of what is stated about Looveer in the book, and will add it to the article myself. If you want to ban me for this, then go ahead. You say that the book nor author are reliable. I say that the material more than qualifies as a reliable source in terms of WP:RS. Whether this source is accepted by the emigre community means nothing to me nor to WP in general. We aren't here to present an encyclopaedia which is sanitised to conform with the opinions of any interest group, but we are here to present an encyclopaedia which includes info on what sources say and then let our readers decide. This is then clearly a content dispute; an area in which you obviously hold strong opinions. --Russavia 01:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Tammsalu

TFD has a tendency to distort what the sources actually say, just above in his appeal statement TFD claimed that ASIO reported unfavourably on the activities of the Liberal Party's Migrant Advisory Council, which Looveer was the secretary. After reading the source what ASIO actually reported on was the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations, which Laszlo Megay and Constantin Untaru were prominent members but not Looveer. Almost every discussion with TFD is similarly tedious, having to check sources only to find that he had misrepresented them. Mark Aarons and his book which TFD introduced here isn't the issue, but try as I might, I cannot find the quote TFD claims is in the source: ""Viks immediately disappeared, issuing a public statement through Lia Looveer of the Estonian Association. Looveer was also a prominent member of the Liberal Parry's Migrant Advisory Council, which included Laszlo Megay, the mass killer …"", I cannot even find a reference to Looveer.

Other claims made by TFD not found in the sources include adding material claiming Looveer supported alleged Nazi war criminal Lyenko Urbanchich., stating on talk "The article should mention that the subject was on the executive of the Liberal Ethnic Council and supported the president Lyenko Urbanchich when the Liberal Party tried to suspend him." even though there is nothing published that she had done so. TFD makes an edit claiming that Looveer "defected" to Nazi Germany, claiming on talk "Looveer gave up her allegiance to the USSR when she went to work for the Third Reich.", "In other words, she "defected"." without any source to back that politically loaded term.

Add in the fact that TFD recently accused me of right wing extremist ethnic nationalist POV and then he stated he wasn't referring to me but claimed his remarks were directed at a respected professor of international law at Tartu University during the subsequent discussion, violating WP:BLP in the process, then claimed he didn't. So who did he direct his remarks too then? TFD would have received a three month topic ban, but promised he will avoid implied slurs against others (and against large groups of people) on contentious talk pages in the future.

This is already a difficult topic area without having to contend with the added disruption caused by TFD, one only has to read threads on Talk:Lia_Looveer to see this apparent ongoing campaign to tar Lia Looveer. --Martin (talk) 13:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I failed to find where concretely on this page did TFD accuse Malksoo in extremism. In any event, since TFD openly recognised Malksoo as a reliable academic sources, and, importantly, since Malksoo himself expressed a viewpoint that was closer to the TFD's (and my) views than to your (and which had been rejected by you), it is highly unlikely that TFD could give him such a characteristic.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Paul, TFD states in the very first line of his statement: "My comments were about the POV of the quote that Martintg presented rather than his personal point of view." The quote I presented was Mälksoo's quote from his monograph. The fact that he later retracted that after a long discussion on EdJohnston's talk page exemplifies the essential dis-WP:HONESTY of TFD. So the question remains unanswered as to who TFD was referring to with his comments, first he said he wasn't referring to my personal POV, but to Mälksoo's POV, then later claimed he never did that either. FWIW, I think you may be breaching AE etiquette by threading discussion in in other people's statements rather than confining them to your own. --Martin (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Cannot agree. If I understand it correctly, the TFD's statement was about the quote, not about the source, which, btw, rejects the idea that the period of Soviet dominance in Baltics had absolutely no legal consequences. As I already pointed out, position of prof. Malksoo (expressed in his books, and in his e-mail, where he explains his viewpoint for us explicitly) is closer to the position of TFD, than to your position (let me remind you that TFD, I, and some other users stick to the viewpoint that, whereas the annexation of the Baltic states was illegal, and that it had many traits of occupation, it cannot be characterized using the latter term solely, and it had some legal consequences that cannot be totally ignored. By contrast to your views, this position is closer to what majority sources say, and it is more incyclopaedic and neutral.). In connection to that, could you please reserve your comments about dishonesty for more appropriate cases?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into detail about a content discussion that is better suited to the appropriate article talk page, where I have already explained what I see are the issues of your interpretation of particular sources. I'm not sure I understand this subtle distinction of TFD directing his comment at the POV of a quote of Dr. Mälksoo but was not directing it at Dr. Mälksoo's POV. I don't know what to make of that, some may conclude this is just wiki-lawyering, but certainly I was not alone in that impression as admins patrolling AE at the time where preparing to impose a 3 month topic ban when TFD finally reversed his position apologised at the 11th hour.

Another apparent case of dis-WP:HONESTY was when TFD then proceeded to mis-represent the facts about the renaming of Mass killings under Communist regimes when he stated "The reason we only have this mass killings article is that the article was original created by User talk:Joklolk who has been permanently banned as a troll, and called "Communist genocide". When the article was nominated for deletion because it was original research, editors decided to change the title". This is not true, and TFD claimed this previously and it was pointed out to him before. The move discussion started ten days before the AfD, being in two parts here and here The move discussion closed and the article was moved on 24 (or 25 depending upon time zone) September 2009, on the same day as the AfD was opened . TFD fully participated in the move discussion and was virtually alone in opposing it, so I don't know how he could claim it came after the AfD. --Martin (talk) 06:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Paul, I am confused. TFD called someone's POV extremist ethnic nationalist POV. It is not entirely clear who or what earned that honor, but someone or something did. Do you think it's ok to call either fellow editors (or their edits) or other living persons (or their statements) in this manner? This of course is old news, its relevance to the present case is only to th extent that TFD made a promise to refrain from such behaviour in the future. - BorisG (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course, I do not think to call someone's POV "extremist nationalist POV" is correct, and I do not think TFD's wording is always correct and appropriate (although in this concrete case TFD didn't blame anyone concretely in extremist ethnic nationalism). However, taking into account that the opposite party also resort to such statements "Soviet apologist POV", "apologists of Marxist terrorism", this TFD's characteristic (which I do not support) is more a demonstration of the overall level of the debates, rather than the sign of TFD's own non-politeness. In addition, taking into account the history of many of his opponents (many of whom have been subjected to various sanctions for disruptive activities, including sockpuppetry, edit warring etc.) I do think the "physician, heal thyself" dictum is quite appropriate in this case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, got your point. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I've never used the phrases "Soviet apologist POV", "apologists of Marxist terrorism", so I reject Paul's mitigation of TFD's unjustified comments. --Martin (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Paul Siebert

Please, correct me if I am wrong, but the initial Fred Bauer's rationale was as follows:

"I think it is possible that User:The Four Deuces believes in good faith that the work of Mark Aarons exposing Nazi collaborators and war criminals admitted to Australia is a suitable reference, and it may be in some contexts. However its broad use with respect to other members of the emigre community in Australia is a violation of the warning in Section 8..."

Whereas it sounds quite reasonable per se, I still cannot see what was the concrete ground for his decision. I believe it would be correct to state that most participants of the dispute, including FB and TFD agree that the source used by TFD is reliable. Therefore, the only question is if TFD used the source correctly. Concretely, I would like to know what concrete generalisations has been made by TFD which were not present in the source used by them.
I believe, it would be correct if TFD presented extended quotes from the sources they used to give us an opportunity to judge if the statements made by them correctly reflected what the sources say.
Similarly, I it would be correct if FB explained in more details what concrete TFD's edits (or talk page posts) violated the AE decision, and what this violation consists in.

Let me also point out that the discussion has deviated from the initial point. It was initiated by the TFD's report, which was somewhat frivolous. I can understand the FB's rationale, and I agree that TFD use enforcement request tool too frequently, and usually without success, so we probably can speak about imposing of some moratorium on the usage of AE requests by TFD (which will save the time of both TFD and of their opponents, thereby providing them with an opportunity to switch to somewhat more useful). However, instead of discussing this issue, BF switched to the TFD's edits, and, I failed to see any satisfactory evidence in the FB's posts that prove that any violations of the Section 8 did occur. Without seeing these evidences it is hard to conclude if FB's sanctions were justified, and since the burden of proof rests with FB in this case, I expect him to present these evidences.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Well, this does appear to fall under section 8 of that remedy, as Fred says (and since he helped draft it, he should know). Part of the problem here is that TFD has a history of suggesting that some individuals hold views or ideologies which they do not possess - which is what that remedy's about. This is true at the Looveer article and also with respect to Misplaced Pages editors (calling editor's edits "pro fascist, calling editors "far right anti-Russian", insinuate that another editors is "right wing extremist ethnic nationalist"). Sometimes this is just barely disguised insinuation so that they can be denied, but the there is a pattern.

The other problem is TFD's frequent over use of the AE board as if it was a dispute resolution process (with the "resolution" being "get people I disagree with banned"). Someone else can do an actual count of how many AEs TFD has filed or participated in .Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Please, be more accurate when you quote others' words. Whereas the first link confirms that TFD characterized some edits (but not the editor) as pro-fascist, other two have been misquoted. The first quote is: "contributed to by a group that calls itself the Eastern European mailing list and collaborates to insert a far right anti-Russian bias into ethnic articles." Although I prefer not to return to the WP:EEML issue, because that can still be painful for someone, I have to remind to everybody that, according to the ArbCom decision, the EEML members did coordinate in order to protect each other and their point of view in articles against a perceived "Russian cabal", and that many edits of the former EEML members were really anti-Russian. Therefore, although this concrete TFD's can contain some exaggerations, the fact that it was correct at least partially is hard to deny. The last quote in actuality says: "While I have sympathy for Martintg's ethnic nationalism, articles must be written from a neutral point of view, not a right wing extremist ethnic nationalist POV" Although I agree that the language used by TFD could be less inflammatory, I do not think this quote can be interpret as a direct accusation of Martin in "right wing extremist ethnic nationalism". And, finally, I would like to suggest all participant of the dispute to avoid partisan behaviour: I noticed that some users participating in this dispute have a tendency to support (or at least not to condemn) the behaviour of non-polite (or even blatantly rude) editors who push certain viewpoint, whereas similar, or even less rude, behaviour of the users pushing the opposite viewpoint is being strongly condemned by them. The recent story of User:Marknutley (aka User:Tentontunic) is a clear example of that.

Anticipating a possibility that the same accusation can be directed against myself, let me re-iterate that, whereas I frequently support TFD's edits, I do not support his behaviour when it is inappropriate. Thus, I think that the AE request filed by TFD against Peters was somewhat frivolous, and I don't think TFD ought to do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Paul, like I said, sometimes TFD's statements take a form of (pretty blatant) insinuation, but their meaning's clear so I'm not going to get into a pedantic discussion about the details here. Also I can't speak for anyone else, but I've supported appeals and defended editors on "both sides", according to their individual actions. I'm generally of the opinion that there's too much banning going around these parts, that most of it is counter productive and that AE often serves to inflame battlegrounds rather than calm them. However, in this particular case I think the sanction is warranted.

And for the record, as I've stated before, I never had any problem with any of your comments or edits, aside just from a plain ol' disagreement with them (which happens all the time in real life, it's not a big deal). So if anyone files a report against you or proposes a sanction against you, I will sincerely speak up against it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The question if TFD's characteristics of other users were rude, of if the AE report was frivolous are irrelevant to this discussion. The sanctions have been imposed because "... its (source's) broad use with respect to other members of the emigre community in Australia is a violation of the warning in Section 8 ...", until the examples of these "broad use" have been presented, we cannot speak seriously about appropriateness of the sanctions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba

Two points, first that TFD did not approach me in any way prior to his filing an enforcement request for me to be blocked permanently. In that regard, I should mention that quite recently I contacted Nanobear regarding his calling my character into question and he refactored his on-Wiki post to remove the part I found most offensive. There are editors who are seeking to put conflict behind them whereas other editors look on conflict as an opportunity to permanently silence editorial points of view contrary to their own.

Second, regarding TFD and contentions of Nazism at Lia Looveer, this has been a pattern from the very beginning. TFD's first three contributions at Lia Looveer consisted of:

• tagging for notability
• tagging for COI
• nominating for deletion

after which I added her being the recipient of a British Commonwealth award, category and link. (The deletion nomination eventually failed.) TFD's next contribution was to

• "NPOV" (!) my edit describing her escape from Estonia, indicating she "fled" to "Nazi" (added "Nazi") Germany (i.e., ran to safety with the Nazis) ahead of the "liberation" of Estonia (so, on two fronts, the Soviets did not reoccupy Estonia but liberated it, also, that Looveer feared the Soviets as enemies of the Nazis, not as enemies of the Estonian people).

TFD's next contribution was to

• indicate Looveer's support of a Nazi war criminal, Lyenko Urbanchich. Urbanchich was an inaugural member of the Liberal Ethnic Council along with Looveer, Liberal Party NSW branch. The Council was formed of 100 members of ethnic communities across Australia. The source mentions Looveer in (1) the caption of a picture in which she appears and (2) in a footnote as being one of a number of other individuals (in addition to the ones meriting mention in the main body of text) who accompanied Urbanchich to a subcommittee meeting at which allegations against him were to be discussed. Urbanchich's Nazi connections were eventually confirmed although Urbanchich was never arrested, tried, or convicted, and remained active in politics for the remainder of his life. One cannot maintain that the individuals accompanying Urbanchich the day Loover and others did, did knowingly supporting a Nazi war criminal in support of Nazism. This is the most vile manner of character smearing.

These are followed by examples of Looveer was member of X which also included member Y.

As clearly documented by TFD's initial activities at the Lia Looveer article, TFD has been out to either delete the article or, failing to do so, paint Looveer out to be an ardent supporter of Nazism, including

• "fleeing" to safe haven in Nazi Germany when the enemies of the Nazis were descending once more upon Estonia to "liberate" it and
• supporting Nazis at inquiries regarding allegations against them.

These article content edits date from November-December 2009. I did not review further edits, TFD's initial contributions sufficiently establish his intent. The point is not to bring up stale edits, but rather, to point a particular POV from TFD's inception of involvement at this particular article. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

As for the sanction currently in place regarding TFD, my understanding is that "indefinite" can be appealed after 6 months. I harbor no ill will, as evidenced by my recent support of YMB29's appeal. That said, editors need to understand that smearing those of a national origin with whose politics you disagree is not acceptable behavior, nor is attempting to control content debates through enforcement requests. I am not, however, advocating for any particular remedy. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

As for Mark Aarons, per Prof. Ieva Zaķe's research, "Such statements subsided after 1988 and were revived again in 1994 by John Loftus (a former OSI staff attorney) and Mark Aarons who wrote that Eastern European 'Fascist immigrant groups' had 'a ready-made network,' which had been effectively transported from Eastern Europe to the United States by the CIA and established here in the form of such Right-wing émigré organizations as the Latvian Daugavas Vanagi. These ideas about American Latvian organizations originated already in Blum’s assertions that Daugavas Vanagi, which was openly anti-communist, existed mainly so that the 'war criminals' from 'the Latvian SS regiment (Legion)' could survive until the day their countries such as Latvia 'would be again a fascist, anti-Jewish, anti-Communist state.'" She cites John Loftus and Mark Aarons, The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People, 1994. Howard Blum was author of Wanted! The Search for Nazis in America, published in 1977. I should note that the fiction that the Latvian Legion were Waffen SS Nazi war criminals convicted at Nuremberg is a (discredited) position that the Russian administration maintains to this day. The Legion were stationed as guards @ Nuremberg. I would parenthetically add that Daugavas Vanagi was founded as a self-help welfare organization among Latvians confined at the prisoner camp in Zedelgem where the Belgians shot and killed them for live target practice until they were informed the Latvians weren't Nazis. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

1. Tagging the article for notability is a normal practice and is not a demonstration of bad faith per se.
2. The same is true for COI;
3. taking into account that gscholar gives zero results for "Lia Looveer" , and google books gives less then 9 the nomination for deletion does not seem so unreasonable, and also is not a demonstration of bad faith.
4. To add "Nazi" to the name of Germany in 1944 is not a demonstration of bad faith: that, along the Third Reich was a common name used throughout the world during this time.
5. The TFD's edit you refer to state that " Looveer was part of the inaugural executive of the Liberal Ethnic Council", Ubranchich was a member of, which is in a full accordance with what the cited source (p. 180) says. Of course, that is an indication of Looveer's close ties with of Lyenko Urbanchich, although that does not mean that the primary reason of their close ties was Ubranchich's Nazi past. Nevertheless, I agree that the second part of the sentence ("supported Nazi war criminal Lyenko Urbanchich when the state Liberal Party attempted to expel him") needs to be supported by a direct quite, which I failed to found so far.

In summary, let me point out that many editors I interact with have clear intent, and that fact is not a crime per se: we all have our own POV, and this in actuality is prerequisite for creating of really neutral content, which usually a result of a collision of two or more different viewpoint. The second prerequisite is a civil and respectful behaviour of the party towards each other. Sadly, TFD is not able to maintain such relations always and with everyone. However, I can tell the same about their opponents, therefore, you, Peters, complains are not fully clear for me.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, you have also accused me of equating the Holocaust to the Soviet occupation, an equating you bring up here elsewhere in an attempt to make this out to be simply related to a content dispute as opposed to the smearing of Baltic individuals.

I am merely stating that the current issue re: TFD at Lia Looveer article talk dates all the way back to TFD's initial involvement at the article. When I find an article lacking sources or one that is tagged as lacking sources, I go out to find sources to support content. My first action at an article is not tag it then nominate it for deletion. More specifically, I don't troll WP for articles on nationals of countries with whom I disagree regarding history (TFD's "liberated" per the USSR and official Russia, whereas the world says "occupied") to delete WP articles about them; or when those attempts fail, then move on to smear individuals with constructs such as "Nazi war criminal" with "supporting" to synthesize claims designed to tar someone's memory (i.e., smear those who contend not "liberated"). This has nothing to do about any "balancing" of POVs to achieve neutrality. Do not classify me regarding TFD as "also their opponents" as if I am some sort of mirror opposite on the other side of an "opinion." In this case that would be like my trolling Russia and Russian-related articles advocating for deletion of articles on lesser known historical personalities, and failing that, to resort to smearing their historical memory. Don't equate smearing someone as a Nazi war criminal supporter with a so-called content dispute. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully suggest you disengage here. The discussion here is not about our, as you would put it, "collision" of viewpoints, your own POV of late expressed elsewhere in response to mine (my emphasis) as:

"Re "USSR invaded and occupied... " Not correct. The Soviet actions can be better characterised as intervention, not invasion.""

This is not a forum to proselytize your personal historical perspective or to make the case this is all simply about equally reputable and valid historical POVs in conflict. That is not the locus of discussion here. Lastly, your (my emphasis)

"your post is in actuality a word in support of TFD, because it demonstrates what kind of opponents TFD have to deal with"

meaning TFD's so-called WP editorial "opposition" advocates to "rehabilitate Nazi collaborators, villianize the Jews whom they connect with Communism and encourage discrimination against Russians living in their countries", steps over the line.

And I regret your resorting to personal attacks, per "In addition, taking into account the history of many of his opponents (many of whom have been subjected to various sanctions for disruptive activities, including sockpuppetry, edit warring etc.)". PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Re my accusations, I do not remember I ever threw so general accusations against anyone, although I recall I did characterise you edits, which equate German occupation of the Baltic states with the Soviet regime there as inappropriate.

Re my post about "intervention", I took that from the Malksoo's monograph. I did that from memory, and I used not the original but the Russian translation made in the Tartu University (which, by contrast to the English original was available free of charge) so I cannot fully guarantee that I transmitted the author's idea fully correctly, however, I am almost certain that I didn't distorted the author's thought. In connection to that, I found your statement about my attempts "to proselytize my personal historical perspective" false and insulting, and I respectfully request to reword it. Moreover, taking into account that you frequently resort to such wording, dismissing your opponent's sources as minority or fringe (despite the fact that you have got a numerous evidences that my sources are reliable and almost always mainstream), this your post just makes your own positions weaker.

Re Lia Looveer article, as I already explained, I found the TFD's AE request against you frivolous, and I see no major problems with your edits. However, as soon as you started to comment on my editorial behaviour, I believe you will not mind me to tell few words about yours. I found your tendency to suppress the information that connects the Baltic nationals with Nazi regime not fully correct. Thus, it is quite correct and necessary to write "Nazi Germany" when we talk about Germany in 1944, and the fact that we do that in the article about some Baltic national is not the reason for not doing that. It is quite correct to write that many Baltic nationals had close contacts with Nazi authorities (including their voluntarily or semi-voluntarily service in WaffenSS, participation in the Holocaust, and especially in Jewish pogroms, which were almost spontaneous in Vilno, Riga, and some other Latvian and Lithuanian, but not the Estonian cities), and it is true that some of Central European war criminals continued to maintain contacts with other members of the immigrant community, which at least did maintain ties with them. And your attempt to attenuate these facts are hardly correct: anti-Communism in mid XX century was almost inevitably connected with Nazism/Fascism (especially in Central Europe), and to deny this fact absolutely incorrect.

Re personal attacks. Although I have no desire to develop this theme, you left me no choice. During last year, at least two users user:Justus Maximus and user:Marknutley (with his sockpuppet user:Tentontunic) have been engaged in various disruptive activities in Communism related articles, which eventually resulted in their prolonged blocks. These users expressed strong anti-Communist and anti-Russian attitude and none of the users who share the anti-Communist views (and I believe you don't mind me to describe you as anti-Communist based on the position you express openly and clearly) tried to stop them. By contrast, most anti-Communist users defended those two editors persistently and vehemently, thus demonstrating purely partisan behaviour. Moreover, taking into account the previous story with the notorious mail list (you probably noticed that I am trying to avoid any mention of this story as much as possible, but you force me to return to that), this partisan behaviour seems to have long tradition, so the discussion about the TFD's behaviour, which, again is not always appropriate, cannot be considered separately from this context.

For the records. I really don't like any references to EEML, and I think it is dishonest to refer to this list during talk page discussion. Moreover, I myself advised others not to do that, because the overwhelming majority of the ex-EEML members, whom I sincerely respect, learned due lessons from it. However, as soon as you characterised my post as "personal attack" I simply have no other choice than to provide the examples of disruptive behaviour of TFD's opponents during last two years.

And, finally, I totally agree that the dispute is not about you or about me. This dispute is, as I have outlined in this section about the question if the sources about Nazi collaborators and war criminals were used by TFD redundantly broadly, and if they were, than what concretely is wrong with the TFD's edits. Please, provide concrete quotes from the TFD's sources to demonstrate that TFD misinterpreted these sources and thereby portrayed some Baltic nationals as Nazi supporters. Everything else is irrelevant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe I addressed your last point with TFD's portrayal of Looveer supporting a Nazi war criminal, which as you recall, you agreed was not what was stated in the source.

In no particular order:

• You harp on my "equating" things I do not, should I not defend myself?
• I'll thank you not to use "notorious."
• I am not "anti-Communist" or "anti-communist," I am merely opposed to Soviet versions of history which are not in keeping with verified facts.
• Your bringing up sock puppets is what? Guilt by association?
• That individuals, groups, and regimes have given communism a bad name reflects solely on those who perpetrate crimes against innocents in the name of an ideology. I rather thought I made that clear when I stated that "'X' Terrorism" cannot be discussed in the abstract divorced from those purporting to follow ideology "X" in justifying their acts of terrorism.
• Malksoo also describes the USSR as crushing and occupying the Baltics. An objective source can always be invoked in a non-objective fashion.

We've already agreed that TFD's edit of Looveer supporting a Nazi war criminal which I reference initially was not supported as such by the source. As we are largely no longer on topic here, I suggest we disengage and return to potentially more constructive discourse in progress elsewhere. The alternative is we continue to respond to each other. Feel free to respond with a simple "Agreed" and we can close (and perhaps hab/hat as closed) this discussion. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Re "equating". If you do not "equate" them, you will probably agree, for instance, with the description of the events in the Baltic states made by an (uninvolved) editor using the following terms:

"...incorporated in the Soviet Union in 1940, then occupied by Nazi Germany in 1941, and reconquered by the Red Army in 1944."

Such a terminology was being rejected by you in the past, however, by supporting it you have a good chance to demonstrate that you really do not equate the German Nazism and Soviet Communism.

Re "notorious". Again, as you already noticed, I always try not to return the EEML story, because I hate to remind peoples about their past sins, especially if they learned due lessons from them. And I would be grateful if you give me an opportunity to completely forget this sad incident. Unfortunately, the recent events do not allow me to do that.

Re "anti-Communist". I am glad that I was wrong. Let me point out, however, that your constant accusations of me in pushing certain POV, which is based on minority sources, sounds odd taking into account that I use primarily (if not solely) the top quality English scholarly sources, which do not present history from the Soviet viewpoint. I this situation your claim that you "opposed to Soviet versions of history" does not explain why do you reject my edits.

Re "Your bringing up sock puppets is what? Guilt by association?" No. For several months the sockpuppet of a very rude user, who formally observed WP policy had been active in the articles you and I are working on. This sockpuppet systematically and persistently reverted my edits, which were made based on the best quality English secondary sources, added the edits that directly misinterpreted the sources he used, insulted me, and forced me to waste my time in fruitless disputes, and this user was 'much more disruptive than TFD is. I agree that you didn't have to stop them, and I do not blame you in not doing that. However, you persistently and vehemently supported him, and the only reason was that he was pushing the POV you seem to share. That is I am blaming you (and Martin). And, please, note, that I do that not voluntarily: I have been forced to articulate this accusation clearly by absolutely provocative considerations about "Guilt by association". Please, note also that it is not a report, and it is not a request for any sanctions against you: I never requested for, I will not request for, and I will oppose to any sanctions against you.

Re ""'X' Terrorism" cannot be discussed in the abstract divorced from those purporting to follow ideology "X" in justifying their acts of terrorism." Partially agree. That may be a base for future consensus. Let's return to this issue in a more appropriate place.

Re "Malksoo also describes..." Malksoo explained his position in his e-mail. This position is closer to the position of Igny, Jaan and me. This position has been rejected by you, so for you it would be hardly correct to refer to Malskoo in this situation.

Re TFD and Looveer. The library of my university does not have this book. I need to read it before making any conclusions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Note to Fred Bauder and Jd2178

Aside from yourselves, you should be aware that whether or not they are uninvolved in this particular incident, all those participating here to date have been involved in the area of purported ideological conflict whether as proponents-antagonists or in a WP administrative capacity. (I should note that BorisG is familiar with the conflict having followed it and commented in the past mainly when the conflict has escalated into one of these affairs, but has not been a protagonist for either "side.")

@Jd2178, I thank you for your taking the initiative to investigate and comment and trust you will not be dissuaded or discouraged by what anyone says here, including myself. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't honestly say I'm not involved. I've just been here so long you never heard of my involvement, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Shorne and Fred Bauder. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That Shorne edited almost like User:Jacob Peters or maybe even like User:172. No, I do not think this makes anyone involved. Besides, it is a perfectly reasonable idea to look at the sources in dispute and comment about them. A lot of other uninvolved administrators (including FPS and Moreschi) did just that in other cases, and rightly so. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about the appeal by The Four Deuces

• Having just read the Talk page of the article, I can't reasonably see TFD making an argument of guilt by association at the talk page. What I do see is TFD quoting reliable sources that make guilt by association arguments without actually stating a claim of guilt by association. I think Fred may have mistaken quotation and paraphrase of sources for editor conduct here. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I am now convinced of this, TFD quotes reliable sources going towards the article's subject's notability, and summarises, "Seems funny to create an article about someone who is interesting because of her connection with colorful characters, then remove all the references. TFD (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)". TFD does not make any generalisations about Baltic-Australians, nor about Balts, nor about the article subject. I believe Fred has misstepped here. The article probably needs a nice cup of tea and a good lie down, but that is connected with mediation which ought to be requested, not WP:A/R/E. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC) (I'm not involved by the way, I believed I commented in this section when it was for uninvolved editors, but involved editors commented here after my comments) Fifelfoo (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
    • OTOH, characterising a person as someone who is interesting because of her connection with colorful characters, is a tendentious WP:SYNTH at best. - BorisG (talk) 04:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
      • That seems to be a content / notability judgement which ought to stay on Talk: or go to a noticeboard; it isn't an ethnic or Nazi connection slur. And I think it is a reasonable thing to infer from Aaron's book and the PhD thesis; both of which discuss the article subject in relation to politically colourful characters. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

@Fifelfoo, I disagree with you. I think characterising a person as someone who is interesting because of her connection with colorful characters, is a notability statement in form, but a thinly vailed guilt by association slur in substance. - BorisG (talk) 09:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• @Fifelfoo and Boris. Please notice that relevant Arbcom decision prohibits using wikipedia as a battleground, rather than anything else ("guilt by association", etc). Do you really believe that no one created battlegrounds after looking at all these diffs and AE request submitted by TFD? If so, then administrative action was not required.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 05:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

@HN, I agree with you on this point. But for better or worse, this page has become that, battleground, for many participants. Admins don't seem to mind, often considering such requests in substance. Yes I agree TFD went sort of over the top in requesting a permaban on Vecrumba for mere sharp rhetoric. - BorisG (talk) 09:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this page and many other pages have become a battleground. They should not be. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

TFD requested the treatment he himself is being given. The current ArbCom work on AE seems to back Fred Bauder here entirely. What I find most problematic is the aggressive battleground sort of wording. Collect (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC) (Note: this section previously stated "uninvolved editors" and in the matter at hand I am "uninvolved") Collect (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

He requested "an indefinite block of Vercrumba." What his is getting is essentially a warning that there are limits to political struggle on Misplaced Pages and being restricted from an area he doesn't seem to be able to understand; he still thinks he did absolutely nothing wrong. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

If I understand Fred Bauder's statement right, TFD got topic banned because he discussed in an article's talk page about the possible association between a member of the Australian Liberal Party and Nazism and, moreover, he brought a source to back this assertion. Did the powers bestowed upon admins extend so that they can unilaterally asses sources as unreliable (despite the lack of evident signs to point to that conclusion) and censure editors because they cite a source that the admin personally finds unacceptable? Anonimu (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

No, this case seems to have very little to do with sourcing or other content issues, but mostly with behaviour of users, as usual. The content issues should be debated at article talk pages, not here, even though some participants are doing just that. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Fred Bauder's statements makes it very clear that this is about content: "tarring members of the emigre community by citing information from sources which conflate anti-communism with Nazi collaboration" (note the unilateral assessment of the source by Fred Bauder), "he advanced additional material of the same nature" (followed by a link were TFD cites a doctoral thesis). "talk about Nazism with respect to a respected member of the Liberal Party of Australia" - again Fred Bauder's personal judgement about content. So basically, according to Fred Bauder's own admission, TFD is topic banned for presenting content and sources on a talk page. Anonimu (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not read all rants at this page, but in his official notice Fred Bauer refers to enforcing this Arbcom decision which prohibits using wikipedia as a battleground. Indeed, this entire story looks very much as a battleground to me. That's the problem. You should also remember that any individual administration can impose sanctions in this areas based on his personal discretion (hence the "discretionary" sanctions), according to Arbcom remedies in this case.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

So you claim Fred Bauder lied in his statement above? ArbCom declined several times to give admins the power to unilaterally enforce content, and I doubt that the discretionary provision of the DIGWUREN case was meant as such a tool. The topic ban on the other hand amounts to exactly that: TFD's privilege to edit a large amount of Misplaced Pages articles is suspended because in a talk page discussion he cited some sources an admin considered wrong. Anonimu (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

To everybody: please respect the rules of this page and keep this section for truly uninvolved voices. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• I suggest to look at this proposed decision by Arbcom. It should soon be accepted, although no one has an obligation to follow it yet. It tells: "an administrator should clearly specify the basis of the action and the reasons it is being taken... A sanctioned editor may respond by asking the sanctioning administrator, in a civil fashion, to explain or to reconsider the imposition or scope of the sanction. The administrator should respond to appropriate questions raised by the sanctioned editor", and so on. Was it done? No. After making this notification, TFD just submitted this AE request, exactly as he submitted his request about Vecrumba. There was no "asking", no discussion with administrator, no suggestions to reconsider, and no promise to improve. This is a clearly problematic behavior. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• one of the reasons I've pulled back editing wikipedia actively has been that behivor like TFD's has been openly tolerated on Misplaced Pages for quite some time. I mean, if people don't edit wikipedia according to Soviet apologist sources they basically get labeled as a "right wing extremist" . This nazi nonsense by TFD has been going on for a while, I first came across it on Mass killings under Communist regimes...after quick browsing on talk archives over there it wasn't difficult to find also what this here at the moment is all about: For ex The Four Deuces has claimed that The political implications in Eastern Europe have been to rehabilitate Nazi collaborators, villianize the Jews whom they connect with Communism and encourage discrimination against Russians living in their countries.
  etc. It can't get more close to warning in Section 8 of the decision than that. Yet, nobody has done anything about it until now.

--Termer (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Taking into account that, according to the first TFD's post cited by you the far right extremists are the people, who:

"equate communism with fascism, deny the holocaust, trivialize it by comparing it with Ukrainian famines and promote the same conspiracy theories as the Third Reich?" , it is not clear for me what kind of "Soviet apologist" sources do you mean.

Taking into account that the second TFD's post you refer to tells nothing about far right extremism, and just explains that, according to TFD their opponents' views are fringe and extremist because they "have no recognition in mainstream thought and giving them any sort of attention turns the article into propaganda," I do not understand what problems do you see with that: if TFD's statement is wrong, one can easily refute it by providing mainstream academic sources that refute TFD's claims. In any event, this is a pure content dispute.

Taking into account that many scholars expressed a concern about a tendency to equate Nazism and Communism, which became prominent in some post-Communist countries, I do not see how this your post can serve as an argument against TFD. Equating Nazism and Communism sometimes really goes too far, and closely resembles Holocaust denial, so I again do not understand this your point.

In addition, if you imply that all not openly anti-Communist sources (in other words, most scholarly sources) are "Soviet apologist", your post is in actuality a word in support of TFD, because it demonstrates what kind of opponents TFD have to deal with. However, if I am wrong, and you do not claim that, please, explain me what was you actual point.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

what kind of opponents TFD have to deal with? TFD has opponents? Opponents can be only on a battleground. And according to TFD their opponents' views are fringe and extremist and you Paul don't see what the problem is? So you're advocating for editors like TFD to just go ahead an call their "opponents" views fringe and extremist? And Equating Nazism and Communism sometimes really goes too far, and closely resembles Holocaust denial? So if lets say somebody thinks that Nazism and Communism are really just different sides of the same coin it basically translates into Holocaust denial? I'm speechless, and not because I haven't seen such statements on wikipedia before but mostly because nothing has changed, it's seems such political rhetoric is completely acceptable on wikipedia.--Termer (talk) 05:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Paul, I am not sure the sanction against TFD per section 8 is warranted, but I also take issue with your logic. Comparisons between Nazi and Stalinist atrocities are absolutely legitimate things to do, and is done in many reliable sources. It has nothing to do with Holocaust denial. The logic of these comparisons is that Stalin's atrocities were (almost) as appauling as Hitler's, not that both were OK. In the Baltic states in particular, after the Soviet occupation of 1940, Germans were seen by many as liberators, and German occupation was (or was perceived as) less brutal than the Soviet one (except for the Jews of course, who were nearly all killed or deported to death camps). This was the context in which some of these people collaborated with the Nazis and some even took part in Nazi atrocities. This is different from Nazi collaboration in places like Norway or France. If you called me an extremist for holding such views, it would be a personal attack. TFD has a pattern of calling editors, edits, sources extremist, nationalist, fascist, and I would suggest that he should cease such behaviour. (Disclaimer: I haven't checked if all these statements predate TFD's promise to refrain from such labelling). - BorisG (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't write about comparison, I wrote about the attempts to equate these two. Whereas the former is quite acceptable and correct, the latter may lead to trivialisation of the Holocaust, which is a form of Holocaust denial.

With regard to German "liberators", taking into account that (with exception of Czechoslovakia and Finland) most Central European countries by 1939 had authoritarian or semi-Fascist nationalist regimes, there were some categories of population in each central European country who had serious reasons to expect that foreign invaders may liberate them from the oppression. For instance, Ukrainian, Jewish and Belorussian population of Eastern Poland saw Soviet troops as liberators in 1939.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No one is equating anything. Please refrain from raising the spectre of Holocaust denial you and other editors appear to cast any time editors point out Soviet aggression and Stalin's partnership with Hitler in starting WWII. (Odd that Russian state media's account of Russian history on Novosti's Russia Today English language site goes from Stalin coming to power right into the Great Patriotic War.) Shall I remind you of Moscow's premature telegram to Berlin congratulating Hitler on the fall of Warsaw—a pattern, Moscow also released the results of the Baltic "elections" prematurely—or that Stalin wound up with 51% of Polish territory in completing its partition with Hitler? Perhaps not, that's not the issue that we're supposed to be discussing here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct, the point of the ban is to discourage continuing to re-fight these old battles. We do have articles about them. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Fred, we discuss not the point of the ban, but the reason. You still provided no concrete examples of incorrect (redundantly broad) usage of the sources by TFD, which, according to your post was a reason for a ban. I respectfully request you to do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

He repeatedly advanced point of view sources as reliable sources of evidence of guilt by association in furtherance of ideological struggle and continues to do so. The principle "Misplaced Pages is not a battleground" has been repeatedly re-affirmed in Arbitration Committee decisions. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem to confuse reliable and biased sources. In actuality, most sources are more or less biased, and WP policy does not request the reliable sources to be neutral, because neutrality is just an internal WP principle, which describes the way the sources should be represented in WP. Therefore, your responce should be understood as that you blame TFD in presenting unreliable sources as reliable ones. In connection to that, could you please explain, which unreliable sources have been used by TFD, and which of them TFD advanced as reliable? You again respond with just general considerations.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You Peters contradict to yourself. You claim that noone is equating anything, and simultaneously this your post (as well as many other talk page posts and the edits) imply directly opposite: that the USSR and Nazi Germany were essentially the same.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not continue your thinly veiled line of personal attack that I equate the Holocaust with anything, aka a form of Holocaust denial. The simple fact that the Baltic states were continuously occupied by two foreign powers over three contiguous occupations equates nothing, implies nothing. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

There is not personal attacks here: it is easy to see from your numerous posts and edits, including the previous one, that you believe that the USSR and Nazi Germany were essentially the same. In connection of that your claim that "No one is equating anything" is in a direct contradiction to the viewpoint you express openly and unequivocally.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You contend that my stating "triple occupation" is "equating occupation." It is not. Nothing equates to the methodical, planned extermination of Jews, from arrest to incineration, that we know as the Holocaust. Do not accuse me of "equating" again. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Request and Commentary by jd2718

Request: I am preparing a comment, and trying to sift through both the DIGWUREN decision, the scores of enforcement actions, and the diffs provided here. I understand that there are several years of conflict, but I am certain that I am interested in current behavior rather than bad interaction or behavior from 2009, and actually find the old diffs make it harder to sort through what's going on. I assume other uninvolved editors may feel similarly. Would editors bear this in mind as they choose how far back to document their claims? Thank you. Jd2718 (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion was not easy to follow, as much of it rehashes behavior from two years ago, and much of it argues emigre politics through the lens of how are editors here have portrayed them or attempted to portray them, meta-content if you will. It is worth stepping back and remembering what makes this area tricky.

For two hundred years prior to World War I, Estonia was part of the Russian Empire. After WWI Estonia gained independence, only to be incorporated in the Soviet Union in 1940, then occupied by Nazi Germany in 1941, and reconquered by the Red Army in 1944. Much of the nation, and the vast majority of the nationalist intelligentsia, yearned for independence, and found the greater threat in the East, as there was widespread repression (and much more recent history of domination).

Much as there is gray area when we consider if the Soviets were acting as communists or as Russian nationalists, so there is some gray area as we look to whether many Estonians were acting as nationalists or as anti-communists. Attempts to tar the entire nation as right-wing nationalist or fascist-sympathizing are repugnant, it's just not true. Yet there certainly were individual right-wing nationalists and fascist sympathizers. Especially in emigre communities (US, Australia, among others) during the Cold War, a blind eye was turned from the minority who had questionable politics, or who had actively collaborated with the Nazis. The post-war deportations only served to harden the hostility and resentment against the Soviets.

Estonia regained independence in 1991, after a four year popular campaign. Complicating the current conflicts (both here and external to Misplaced Pages), with independence, and with a large Russian minority, language and citizenship laws were adopted that promoted learning the Estonian language, but which were widely perceived by non-Estonians as discriminatory. It is also worth noting that far right wing parties do not play a major role in post-Soviet Estonian politics.

The decision singles out collective guilt by association arguments as sanctionable. The Four Deuces has come very close to that line. Some argue (I disagree, I don't see the "generalized accusation") he crossed it this month at Talk:Lia Looveer. Fred Bauder so reasoned when he banned TFD from a range of articles. But the decision does not say that there are no right wing Estonians, and that no Estonians were fascist sympathizers.

However, with this edit on the Lia Looveer talk page, TFD trolled Estonian-sympathetic editors. He was not proposing an edit. He was not proposing a deletion. He seems to have been trying to get a rise out of nationalist edit-warriors. "Today," this edit says to me "would be a good day for a fight..." And Vecrumba sank to the challenge. TFD tries to guilt Lia Looveer by association, and Vecrumba responds to the trolling by accusing TFD of smearing all Estonians.

Fred Bauder is an uninvolved administrator, and the sanction was within his discretion. Remedy 8 of DIGWUREN allows him to sanction for "generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group"..." harbor Nazi sympathies" - that has not happened here. However it also allows any uninvolved admin to sanction for "future attempts to use Misplaced Pages as a battleground" - and that seems clearly to have occurred.

Looking just at the recent events, both The Four Deuces and Vecrumba displayed battleground mentality, though there is no question that initiating the brawl, as TFD did, is far more concerning. I would recommend Fred or another admin look again at how TFD's report of Vecrumba was closed, but with little sympathy for either editor. Edit warriors harm the project. Jd2718 (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Good summary of the situation. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

One way or another TFD needs to quit engaging in ideological struggle in the context of ethnic minorities of the Soviet Union, and if he won't quit voluntarily because he has insight into its effect we will cause his behavior to cease involuntarily. By the way, indefinite means until he decides to change, not forever. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, I do not believe this was ideological struggle. And I think you miss when you apply the "generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group... harbor Nazi sympathies." Rather, it appears to me that TFD was taunting. He found Aarons, and used it to reopen a discussion that had been closed for a year, with no goal, as far as he indicated, to change the article. The source is reliable, and he knew or should have known it would provoke a fight with those who are loath to admit there are Estonians with unsavory connections. And, sure enough, despite no article's content being at stake, Vecrumba joined that fight. It is the battlefield mentality on both sides that is problematic. They were not even struggling over article content. Jd2718 (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

My detractors will label me as combative for responding, still,... I would remind Jd2718 that I am not the one here who decided to escalate conflict by attempting to ban an editor who didn't agree with their smearing Baltic nationals or émigrés as Nazi supporters. Complaining about such conduct on the part of an editor as "trolling" on an article talk page, in the absence of any other proposed contributions by said editor and based on their past content edits at the article in question, is rather mild, I think, when I've been told to my face by at least one editor on WP that a "majority of Latvians were happy for Nazi rifles to kill Jews." I had no desire to escalate the conflict and take TFD to arbitration enforcement. I don't subscribe to controlling WP content by attempting to ban the so-called opposition. I can't debate someone I don't agree with if I get them banned, now can I? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

But when he trolled with Aarons, which is what I think he was doing, you responded badly. First, you didn't need to reply, though you certainly had the right to. Second, when you wrote that he was "implying that all Estonian-Australians were Nazis" - that is certainly not what he had done, you were escalating. Look, I am not trying to equate the behaviors: he initiated this latest battle without cause, but what you did is not good. And even what you have written here, 2 year old diffs, and just above, an anonymous complaint about an unnamed editor... I think you are making things worse. Perhaps you should be reminded that Misplaced Pages is not to be used as a battleground.

(I began reading yesterday thinking I would recommend that TFD's appeal be partially granted. After reading, I am unable to make that recommendation). Jd2718 (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Peters here. Whereas the TFD's behaviour is not something outstanding as compared to that of many users they interact with, one feature is specific to TFD: they resort to AE too frequently, and files the reports that are usually are somewhat frivolous. By doing that they waste their own time, the time of their opponents, the time of their supporters, and the admins' time, which leads to nothing useful. In connection to that, the correct measure would be not topic ban, but AE ban. I seriously suggest to discuss this opportunity.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could agree, and some sort of AE ban might make sense, but this edit was gratuitous, it served no purpose other than to stir the pot. It was not made in the heat of the moment - the conversation was a year stale. The page is already in a known area of conflict, and the editor is well-aware of that. I really do wish I could agree. Jd2718 (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

In addition, although I see some problems in Peters' editorial behaviour, to request his ban is toooo much...--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree re Vecrumba. Perhaps, though, he needs to be cautioned; it was far too easy to reignite this, and he bears some of that responsibility. Jd2718 (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a pattern of rotating articles pertaining to the Soviet legacy at which certain historical and other contentions are made generally by the same editors, with the same debate being had in line with Medvedev's truth commission countering "increasingly harsh, depraved, and aggressive" attempts to rewrite history on the one side and those who would generally be seen as representing the receiving end of the Soviet legacy on the other. The same debate can rise up anywhere at any time at any article that's otherwise been stable for quite some time, sucking that article into a debate that's likely current somewhere else, in this case, I believe, current editorial conflict at Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states being taken to an article which the same community editors would have on their watch lists, Lia Looveer. That is how the conflict is played and escalated. You will note that the proceedings here have degenerated into the same said debate. Let us not lose sight of the particular issue here going back to TFD's very first edits of article content including misrepresenting sources as indicating Looveer "supported" a (known, indicated by presence in same sentence) "Nazi war criminal." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The recent edit by TFD cannot be taken in isolation, but is part of an ongoing pattern of an ideological struggle articulated as opposing "The political implications in Eastern Europe have been to rehabilitate Nazi collaborators, villianize the Jews whom they connect with Communism and encourage discrimination against Russians living in their countries". jd2718 is correct in stating this recent edit trolled Estonian-sympathetic editors. For some reason TFD thinks this idelogical goal is best served in trolling the article Lia Looveer, why that article and not some other? Well apparently he believes that a Wikipedian is connected to Lia Looveer, so the implication of this trolling is clear. Almost the entire talk page is filled with this type of trolling. It is tiresome and it is offensive, so much so that Looveer's son felt compelled to comment during the AfD discussion. While TFD may think he is just carrying on some kind of ideological struggle, his actions do impact real people. The very fact that TFD has focused his ideological struggle this and related articles is itself an insinuation that Estonia-sympathic editors are engaged in "rehabilitate Nazi collaborators, villianize the Jews whom they connect with Communism and encourage discrimination against Russians living in their countries". TFD has already been cautioned numerous times, the last time TFD would have received a three month topic ban, but promised he will avoid implied slurs against people and groups in the future. --Martin (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• I am surprised that Fut.Perf sees only a simple legitimate content dispute on Lia Looveer. Given his own ethnicity/nationality (as assumed by the fact that he indicates he is a native German speaker on his user page) one would think he, if anyone, would see the problem of slurring edtors, sources and public figures based upon association. Evidently it seems Fut.Perf thinks it's okay if someone trolled pages he worked on and labelled his edits as far-right ethnic nationalist POV of "rehabilitating Nazi collaborators, villianizing Jews and encourage discrimination", not on the evidence of his actual edits, but on the basis that his grandfather's uncle may have been one of the 43.9% that actually voted for the National Socialists in the 1933 general election, that today a tiny minority of his fellow German-speaking compatriots are neo-Nazi skinheads or that his government for a long time denied citizenship to the children of the longstanding Turkish immigrant propulation and even today require those German born of immigrants to naturalise by age 24. I thought Misplaced Pages was beyond that? But apparently it appears Fut.Perf is ready to turn a blind eye to editors who want to carry on the ideolgical fight by trolling article talk pages. I suppose it is easier to just dismiss this as "the usual in fighting and tag teams" rather than get to the root cause as Fred Bauder, who particpated in the original WP:DIGWUREN case that examined this same issue as an Arbitrator, has. --Martin (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by The Four Deuces

• Having followed some of the discussion here, I must say I agree with uninvolved Fifelfoo above, and partly with Russavia. Especially seeing Fred Bauder's latest contributions , I find he has been venturing far too much into the area of his own POV judgment of what is, in essence, still a simple legitimate content dispute, for me to be comfortable with him handing out this sanction. I also find the evidence of disruptive behaviour on TFD's part slim, certainly as regards the specific Lia Looveer episode under discussion here. I am also rather unimpressed with the way this whole process has again been derailed by the usual in-fighting by the usual tag-teams (one would expect they should know by now that turning up together at AE threads to support their friends or press for sanctions against their foes is not a good idea.) Right now, I'd tend to oppose this sanction. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that this represents a better approach than where I was heading. I also agree in particular about Fred's use of his own judgment in evaluating a source. However, I still see no content dispute, just talk page trolling and flaming, and that should not be happening. If TFD's appeal were granted, do you believe a warning (or reminders to both editors) about talk page decorum and WP:Battleground would be sufficient? Jd2718 (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• I think the topic ban is justified for dubious use of sources, which even his friend Paul Siebert admits, and for repeatedly soapboxing on the talk page for nearly two years. Simon Wiesenthal only called Urbanchich a "Nazi collaborator" in that source (Hancock), which is a bit short of "war criminal". Urbanchich was revealed to have been an anti-Semitic propagandist for a Nazi radio station during the war. Not even Mark Aarons calls Urbanchich directly a war criminal, but only uses the convoluted sentence "He was also the last, and most powerful, of the central and eastern European Nazi collaborators and war criminals." As the latest example of TFD's soapboxing, the so-called "new evidence" is nothing more than a 2001 book by (same old) Mark Aarons, whose 2006 newspaper article was already (improperly) cited in the Misplaced Pages article. In that diff TFD launches at the bait-takers: "Seems funny to create an article about someone who is interesting because of her connection with colorful characters, then remove all the references." But at the time when he wrote that, the article had the (improperly sourced) phrase "Lyenko Urbanchich (a right-wing politician who was later exposed as a Nazi war criminal)." in it! The incorrect information had been added by TFD, and had been continuously in the article for about two years . That summarizes TFD's contributions to the article. By the way, I have tagged the article Lyenko Urbanchich for massive copyright violation, but that's my level of involvement here. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by The Four Deuces

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

Meliniki