User requesting enforcement

radek (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

[8][9]

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

1. [10]. Matthead was topic banned from Poland and Poles, broadly construed, by Sandstein [11] but is discussing, and indirectly (?) participating in the current proposed move of Johann Dzierzon to Jan Dzierzon. In fact this is the very article which led to Matthead´s topic ban I believe.

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

Not applicable. AFAIK, first violation of topic ban, but see my comment below

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

Block, extension of topic ban. The fact that the user is violating his topic ban on the very article that led to it is especially problematic, as it is evidence of entrenched battleground mentality.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I might as well add here that I suspect that the User Tropical Wind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tropical_wind who has recently showed up on Johann-Jan Dzierzon is Matthead´s sock puppet. The user talks about Poles trying to claim Nietzsche as Polish - the only user who I know who has complained about this in the past is Matthead [12]. There is also the reference to ´"Polish nationalists" which is also one of Matthead´s favorite terms.The comment to ¨this happening all over the place¨ is also something that Matthead used to gripe on. The user is of recent vintage (from around the time of Matthead´s topic ban) and he arrived on Wikipedia with full knowledge of Wikipedia formatting, editing and even voting rules - like Athena from Zeus´head. Finally a cursory look at the users contributions shows a close similarilty in terms of topic interests between Tropical Wind and Matthead. For example, they both share an interest in Polish-German footballers - TW [13], Matthead [14] and TW [15], Matthead [16]. Finally, for what it´s worth, according to my wife, who doesn´t edit Wikipedia but who sometimes looks over my shoulder, "Tropical Wind" sounds like an obvious sock name (ok, that was a bit of humor, though she did say that).

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[17][18]

I saw the topic pinned up at the bottom of WikiProject_Germany, that I'm a member of. There is no connection between me and Matthead; however, while the sysops are at it, perhaps one should investigate whether any of the accounts who voted at Talk:Johann Dzierzon are sock puppets of Radeksz? MyMoloboacccount, in particular, is suspicious and they both edit similar pages and assail users by articulating and seconding "suspicions" against them.

Last time I checked your wife said she likes my name. Are you some kindof trickster? A Wikipedia user with a user name like "raid X" should not complain about my name." Tropical wind (talk) 09:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Matthead has replied to this request on their talk page, but their reply don't address the edit at issue. The request has merit; the edit violates Matthead's Poland topic ban. Taking into consideration that I advised Matthead that "any violations of this ban may result in immediate long blocks", I am blocking Matthead for one week in enforcement of the ban made pursuant to WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  06:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is too circumstantial for me to feel confident calling this a sock, but I'm leaving this open for other admins to comment. This case may be more suited for WP:SPI where they can run a checkuser if necessary.  Sandstein  06:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPI might be useful, although on a first review of the editing time patterns I find socking rather unlikely. If an SPI were filed, it might be appropriate to conditionally unblock Matthead so he can comment there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

User requesting enforcement

Varsovian (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Chumchum7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions (specifically Arbitration enforcement 1R/week article level restriction (WP:DIGWUREN))

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

1. [96] With this edit, made at 06:40, on 23 July 2010, Chumchum7 reverted this edit of mine.
2. [97] With an edit made at 07:10, on 23 July 2010 Chumchum7 reverted this edit of mine (which was partially altered by edits such as this one by Radeksz).

All editors are under the following restriction with regard to this article: “You may not make more than one revert of this article within one week (i.e., any period of 168 hours). A revert is any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.” As shown about, Chumchum7 made two reverts in the space of 30 minutes.

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

1. Not applicable

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

Editor formally warned notified of DIGWUREN Discretionary sanctions

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Apologies for the lateness in making this request, I've been away for the last week and limited to non-PC access to WP.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[98]

I wasn't going to post here as per relevant guideline WP:DENY, but now see Varsovian has just been blocked by SarekOfVulcan for 55 hours [99] so this AE should be put the wider context of our community.

This AE filing is, as the administrator FPAS indicates, pretty bogus; my first response is to refer to WP:KETTLE as well as the never ending WP:GAME, WP:TE and WP:DE issues with the filing user.

If I am not mistaken, there can be penalties for inappropriate AE filings, especially by editors subject to DIGWUREN deterrent such as this one [100]

This AE on me was filed after WP:1RR was applied to WP:London Victory Parade of 1946 "because of long-term multiparty edit warring". Looking at the diffs on that article prior to the imposition of the 1RR, I can see that one editor does add or revert the same block of text 4 times in a relatively short period of time. That behaviour remains actionable by any party at any time. Any interested party can see the diffs with their own eyes.

This combative situation has now spilled over onto AE, with this AE on me. It was filed after discussion of the WP:1RR (that has been applied to WP:London Victory Parade of 1946 ) on Sandstein's talk page. EdJohnston contributed to that discussion. When making my edit at WP:London Victory Parade of 1946, I linked to that Sanstein/EdJohnston discussion here [101] to indicate that my edits were specifically based on administrator guidance. Varsovian knew that perfectly well before making this filing. Prior to that, I had self-reverted an edit [102] as a precaution, while the technicalities of the WP:1RR were being clarified. Varsovian also knew that perfectly well before making this filing.

FPAS has made a neutral and diplomatic request for Varsovian to withdraw this AE, to which Varsovian responds by saying he wants clarity on the 1RR: "This request is basically a request for the restrictions to be clarified", he writes below. AE is not the appropriate forum to learn about WP policy, especially not at the expense of other editors' reputation. Instead, questions about policy can be raised with editors and admins.

For what's it's worth, my feeling about this AE is that it is an attempt to damage my reputation rather than to make a constructive and collegial contribution to our project. This kind of thing will continue to rob us of our time, until admins take stronger preventative action.

Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot see how either of these edits is a revert. Number one is a rewording (keeping one crucial element of V's previous edit, namely the grammatical information that the "not invited" didn't apply to all), and number two seems entirely unrelated to the previous edit that V claims was reverted. It also appears to be merely a re-ordering of text without adding or subtracting any, whereas V's edit was an addition, and I can't see any of his text affected by edit number two at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, the two claimed reverts are in fact two successive edits, and hence would only count as a single revert anyway, even if they both were reverting something. Looks like quite a groundless complaint to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This request is basically a request for the restrictions to be clarified. Either the restriction is that an editor can make only one revert per week or it is that one editor can make only one restriction per week to any one element of the article. I have no doubt, given the endless stream of threats to report me here which come from various editors who would prefer to harass another editor away as happened in the glory days of EEML, that if I were to make more than one revert per week, I would be reported here. So I want to have crystal clear guidance about what is and is not acceptable under the restrictions. Your comment above raises another issue: is changing the order of text a revert? Varsovian (talk) 09:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"one restriction per week"? You mean "revision", right? No, the rule is not about making so many revisions, it is only about reverts. A revert is an edit that "undoes, in whole or in part, a previous edit by another editor". For purposes of revert counting, edits made in direct succession always count as one, no matter whether they affect several issues or several previously disputed elements. Changing the order of elements is normally not a revert (unless, of course, that order of elements was previously already an object of contention.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that mistake. I actually mean "revert" (as stated in the restriction quoted from above). Your interpretation of what is 'one' revert is interesting but I've learned to be cautious in my interpretation of what terms mean here (having been restricted because I didn't know that what is clearly called a "post" on a talk page is also an edit) and doubly so given that there are editors so keen to misrepresent my words (one has already called this request "harasment" and only temporarily withdrawn the accusation). The paragraph ordering has indeed been discussed before (see, for example, my talk page post of 11:42, 28 April 2010). Varsovian (talk) 09:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with EdJohnston: this case should now be closed with no admin action. I brought this here because I have no doubt at all that if I had made two reverts inside seven days, I would have been brought here. Despite Chumchum7's accusations and insinuations, it was he who first spilled over things to here with a 2,000 word report described by an admin as "too long and argumentative and contains too few relevant diffs". Despite being told "We are not interested in opinions, we are interested in evidence." he then posted the whole text again here. But nevermind, let's all move on. Varsovian (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The question here is a simple one, for any editors who frequent the 3RR noticeboard. The two edits that Varsovian suggests break the 1RR/week rule are two consecutive edits made by Chumchum7, which are 30 minutes apart. There was no intervening edit by anyone else. The rules that apply here are:

• WP:1RR:

A "one-revert rule" is analogous to the three-revert rule as described above, with the words "more than three reverts" replaced by "more than one revert". ('Above' refers to the rest of the WP:3RR policy).

• WP:3RR:

A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.

The two reverts by Chumchum7, listed by Varsovian as possibly breaking the 1RR/week rule, are consecutive. Hence those edits add up to at most one 'revert' for purposes of the 1RR. They do not break the rule. This case should be closed with no admin action. I'll wait a bit to see if there are any other comments. In general, it is quicker to present any violations of a 1RR rule at the 3RR noticeboard for action, since admins there are familiar with how this works. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per my above summary, I'm closing this enforcement request without giving any sanctions to Chumchum7. I do not see that he violated the 1RR/week restriction on the article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Anonymous editor on 41.32.* range at Bulgars and related articles, most recently 41.132.178.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions (incivility, edit-warring, POV-pushing)

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

1. Edit-warring against consensus of multple editors, OR-pushing, on Cumans: [108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117]
2. Same on Bulgars: [118][119][120][121][122][123][124]
3. Incivility: [125][126][127][128] (and see also the edit summaries of those above)
4. Refuses to heed WP:V and other policies [129]

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

1. [130] "DIGWUREN" warning by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs)
2. [131] patient attempt to engage in discussion by Cplakidas (talk · contribs)
3. [132] 3RR warning by Fut.Perf. (latest rv's [133][134] were after this warning)

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

Topic ban from all articles relating to Bulgaria, the Bulgars, and other Turkic groups

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is a highly persistent anon POV-warrior who has been pushing nationally motivated OR/fringe positions on Bulgaria, Bulgars, Bulgar calendar, Cumans, Kipchaks and other related articles for several months, revert-warring against a consensus of multiple expert editors. Most of his edits are to remove or argue against the scholarly consensus that the ancient Bulgars and other nomadic group in early medieval Europe were Turkic peoples. He edits from semi-dynamic IPs in an easily recognisable range. We need a topic ban, i.e. a blanket license to revert and block new IP appearances on sight.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

1. 15:23, 8 August 2010

• Fully agree with Fut Perf. This is a highly disruptive, combative, uncivil and opinionated editor, who doesn't seem ready to ever sit down and discuss, not when it is about The Truth. Constantine ✍ 16:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems to be a hopeless case. A cautionary post from at the anon's talkpage[135] resulted in a reply on my talkpage with heading "Ignoramus".[136] And I should point out that I haven't even hinted at any kind of opinion about the subject issue. Peter ^Isotalo 17:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural note: the IP has been blocked for 24hrs as a short-term measure against the ongoing edit war, by Courcelles [137]. That of course means he can't comment here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've notified the IP about this and pointed out that it's possible to make a comment or appeal at the talkpage (I'm assuming that the block doesn't cover that too). Peter ^Isotalo 23:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Future Perfect, Sandstein and PhilKnight that a topic ban should be applied. Since this editor hops IPs, it may help to clarify where he usually edits from. All his edits so far come from the range defined by 41.132.178.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). The individual IPs that are clearly him are

• 41.132.178.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 41.132.178.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 41.132.178.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 41.132.178.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 41.132.178.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(His earliest edit is 14 May). IPs from this range who *may not* be him are 41.132.178.229, 41.132.178.11, 41.132.178.180, 41.132.178.183, 41.132.178.237, 41.132.178.192, 41.132.178.217, and 41.132.178.132 (this is going back to 22 March). In case there is any trouble getting him to observe a topic ban, I think a block of the above range for up to two months might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I agree that this seems to be a persistent and disruptive WP:TRUTH-pusher and am inclined to impose the requested topic ban, unless the user makes a very convincing statement why that should not be done, or another admin objects, in the next 24 hours.  Sandstein  19:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that a topic ban should be applied. PhilKnight (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions, the person who made the anonymous edits from the 41.132.*.* address range discussed above is hereby indefinitely banned from making edits related to the topic of Bulgaria, the Bulgars and Turkic peoples; this includes edits to articles, talk pages and other discussions related to these topics. Notification of this sanction is made to the talk page of the most recently active IP address listed above, User talk:41.132.178.5. This ban may be enforced by range blocks if needed.  Sandstein  22:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

67.80.250.138 (talk) 08:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

term portion "1. You edit under only one username" of the provisional suspension of his community ban as recorded at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 4#Provisional_suspension_of_community_ban:_Betacommand

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

1. [138] First edit
2. [139] Log of all 78 edits
3. [140] Last edit

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

1. [141] and [142] Explanations in no uncertain terms by Xeno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. [143] Explanation by Jack Merridew (talk · contribs)
3. [144] and [145] Explanations in no uncertain terms by Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
4. [146] and [147] Explanations in no uncertain terms by Anomie (talk · contribs)

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

block and rescind provisional suspension of community ban (reinstate community ban) for Betacommand, Δ, Δbot, and their doppelgangers

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Between 22:14, 15 July 2010 and 15:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC), Δbot (talk · contribs) made 78 edits at the direction of Δ (talk · contribs)/Betacommand (talk · contribs) and in violation of term portion "1. You edit under only one username" of the provisional suspension of his community ban as recorded at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 4#Provisional_suspension_of_community_ban:_Betacommand, before doing so was approved in the motion Enacted at 07:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC) and recorded at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2#Motion. Furthermore, the last of those edits appears to have been an automated task emulating DumZiBoT (talk · contribs) and linking to User:DumZiBoT/refLinks, which automated task was not one of the "automated tasks directly related to the clerking of sockpuppet investigations only as specified and authorized by the Bot Approvals Group" per Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2#Motion, and was therefore unauthorized.

@Future Perfect at Sunrise the last edit [148] was not authorized by the Committee, BAG, or the Community. 67.80.250.138 (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[149]

I wish people would come to my talkpage before coming to places like this that just stir up drama. I was given a three day trial for the bot, (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/%CE%94bot&diff=373692824&oldid=373680411) which covers all but one edit. The last edit was an accident, I am working on a wikitext parser/cleanup tool and was attempting to include the features of reflinks.py (a pywiki script) into my parser and I made a mistake with a single edit that was logged under the bots name. Its was nothing major and wont happen again. So instead of trying to stir up a drama over nothing lets just get back to improving wikipedia. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Why on earth let the opportunity to continue the lynching go by??? Way to go, anon-IP! <cough> --Hammersoft (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This seems evidently stale, given that the rules have been superceded by the new Arbcom motion, which has explicitly authorized Δbot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

Mbz1 (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Link to topic ban decision Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions>#<Name of remedy>

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

1. [150] Changing/removing the content that falls directly under his topic ban.
2. [151] Files edit warring request for content that falls directly under his topic ban.
3. [152] Edit on Tourism in Israel

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

Not applicable. .

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

block, extended topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Nableezy is reverting other editors in the very contagious articles, reverting the very same content that talks about the places in Israel and West bank. If it is not topic ban violation what is? Nableezy should know quite well that he is not allowed to file and/or comment on the edit warring report about the article of his topic ban. Please see here. Nableezy tells other editor: "And why are you here? And arent you topic-banned?". --Mbz1 (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein, It is only my second AE request ever. This article is about the war, and about the places too. If Nableezy edited the numbers of troops, the casualties etc, it would not have been a topic ban violation, but his was about the places: West Bank,Judea and Samaria. I was banned for I/P conflict articles, and I was blocked 3 times for my ban violation. First time for editing Rothschild Family [153], second time for absolutely innocent edit on AE appeal [154], and the last time for the message I left at your talk page [155], that supposedly is exempt from topic ban violations. All three times I was blocked by you. Gilabrand was blocked by you, Sandstein, for topic ban violation for editing an edit warring request [156]. So although your comment about my conduct is highly unfair, I do thank you for it. It helped me to get rid of some illusions. You know what I am talking about. I am not afraid of any ban, and besides I am missing seeing your blue signature at my talk page ☺ --Mbz1 (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I did ask Stifle about AE, and from their response I understood it was OK to file this AE. Besides Stifle did not comment on this--Mbz1 (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notified

The topic ban specifically covers articles on places in Israel and surrounding countries, not any article that discusses such places and not any edit that discusses such places. Articles about places in Israel and surronding countries. Stifle, the admin who imposed the article has said that my edits do not violate the topic ban. In the AE thread that Stifle imposed the ban a question was asked if the talk pages of such articles are off-limits, Stifle's response was no. If the talk pages of articles covered by the ban are not included I cannot see how a page in the WP namespace is. The other editor that Mbz1 is referencing was banned from all pages on Wikipedia from discussing the topic area (Gilabrand's topic ban covered "all pages or discussions related to the topic, broadly construed"), my ban was not that broad. Stifle's ban specifically is on articles about places in Israel and surrounding countries. As much as a few users would like to expand the scope of that ban, none of my edits have violated it. This can be seen in two sections on Stifle's talk page, User talk:Stifle#Nableezy_Topic_Ban_violation and User talk:Stifle#Is_this_a_violation_of_the_topic_ban.3F. The admin that issued the ban has said that the edit in question is not a violation of the topic ban. In fact, Mbz1 asked one of the questions about this issue so there really is no excuse for her not knowing this. nableezy - 21:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The request does not currently link to the topic ban that Nableezy is alleges to have violated. Please remedy this or this request will be closed soon.  Sandstein  21:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link to topic ban [157]--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by cptnono

I think there is some confusion here. Stifle said ""An AE can be filed to extend the topic ban or issue alternative sanctions if Nableezy's conduct since the topic ban is still creating issues." So I'm not sure if Mbz1 is doing anything wrong in principle. I do believe he misunderstood Stifle's original intent in the writing up of the partial topic ban, though. This came up at Stifle's page since Nableezy was making edits to the Tourism in Israel article related to how and if to address locations such as East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights that were very similar to the edits that got him topic banned. This would often be under the topic ban if it was broadly construed but Stifle later made it clear that was not what he was going for. So problem solved regarding that article and the Six Day War (more occupation based edits). And Stifle did say "articles" and did not specify talk and other pages. It seems a little odd to me that he is receiving such leeway again but that isn't my call to make. So is Nableezy still being problematic when it comes to articles discussing occupation and all that? If so, extending the scope of the topic ban would be appropriate. I am usually annoyed with his behavior but even I don't know if he has crossed any lines recently so anything further may not be necessary. Instead of jumping down Mbz1's throat, the editor should be given the chance to add some diffs or retract the AE due to the misunderstanding.Cptnono (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, Cptnono. I did understand Stifle's response as "OK" for filing this AE. In my understanding all three differences I provided were made in the violation of the topic ban, and that's why I cannot retract this AE. I believe that, if it were me, who made such edits while under the same topic ban as Nableezy is now, Sandstein would have blocked me with no mercy. If Sandstein believes I've done something wrong by filing this AE, and wants to sanction me, I honestly cannot care less. I was enjoying my last topic ban, and spending time much better than trying to get a fair trial for myself and others. Sandstein, I know you do not like, when somebody provides such examples as I did (while talking about Nableezy compared it to my own situation). Honestly I do not like it myself either. I have done it only because I believe everything should be fair, and I am afraid it is not. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any admin would have blocked anyone since Stifle clarified it. I do believe that an AE report instead of a mention on Stifle's page would have had people saying: yes, broadly construed, he violated the topic ban. But that is all meaningless since Stifle did clarify it. It shocked me that he intended it to be so limited but hopefully it drives the message home as is. Not sure if it does or not yet so if you have diffs that show that Stifle's worded enforcement is not doing enough then provide them. I'm seeing the same type of edits and a little reverting but don't know if that is enough to warrant further restrictions at this point.Cptnono (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The topic ban covers "articles about towns, cities, settlements, and other places or locations in Israel and neighbouring countries". The first cited edit is to Six-Day War, which is an article about a war and not about such places or locations, and the second edit is not to an article. Consequently, the request is without merit. As the discussions with Stifle linked to by Nableezy show, Mbz1 was in a position to understand this before making this request. I expect Mbz1 to stop making unfounded AE requests or they may be banned from making Middle East-related AE requests altogether.  Sandstein  22:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Brews ohare (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

<This action by Sandstein is appealed. Following upon a request by Blackburne, Sandstein concluded that I was in violation of “normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum”. I have three objections: first, the duration of Sandstein's penalty extends beyond the expiration date of the restriction used to authorize that action; second, the violations of decorum etc. authorizing action did not occur; and third, the warning required by the authorizing restriction was not provided.>

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

Sandstein notified with this diff; Blackburne (instigator of original request for action) notified with this diff.

<The motion was this. It refers to expiration of topic ban and restrictions upon posting on physics pages and talk namepages. However, it remains that any uninvolved editor on their own discretion can decide that I have “repeatedly or seriously failed to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum”, and following a warning can “impose sanctions”. This situation prevails until 20 October, 2010.

This statement suggests conditions for reinstatement of the remainder of the initial ban, but does not authorize an individual editor to take action without a proper hearing.

This suggest that an individual uninvolved editor may impose sanctions “if, despite being warned, Brews ohare repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum.” Apparently it is this restriction that Sandstein has invoked.

I would raise the following points:

• Although the restriction does not contain wording limiting the nature of sanctions to be imposed, I would take it as implied that any such sanctions are to run co-extensively with the authorizing motion; that is, until October 20, not indefinitely. Sandstein has exceeded the authority granted by this remedy. To extend a sanction beyond the time of the authorizing restriction itself requires a full arbcom hearing.
• I was not, IMO, properly advised that such action was going to be taken. I believe that claims by Blackburne that I was warned that arbcom action would be taken are erroneous.
• I immediately desisted when advised that arbcom was to become involved.
• There was no warning of impending arbcom action; Blackburne's diffs that he interprets as warnings do not specifically indicate that unless I desist in talking about things on the Talk page, action would be initiated. In some cases, these remarks are simply bad tempered expressions of old wounds.
• There was no violation of Talk page decorum or standards of behavior. What did happen is that extended discussion of a number of points took place, in an entirely civil manner. As a result some improvements of some topics on the article page were made by a variety of editors. Some issues remained open on the Talk page at the time of Sandstein's action. They did not involve Blackburne, who brought the request. It is probable that these matters would have been abandoned in due course due to lack of agreement, and there was no need to intervene with sanctions.
• In view of the bad tempers and impatience exhibited by many on the Talk:Speed of light page, I volunteer that any future contributions to a thread that I might offer upon this Talk page will be limited upon request of any editor actively involved in that thread.

Brews ohare (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC) >[reply]

Response to Blackburne on civility: As pointed out, these remarks were commentary upon actions participated in by many, and were not personal comments directed at yourself or any other edtior. Brews ohare (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll not comment on the merits of this appeal at this time for two reasons:

• I doubt that the appeal is admissible. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light does not provide for appeals to the community against administrative actions taken according to that case's provisions. The only venue of appeal available, therefore, is to the Arbitration Committee.
• The appeal raises some of the same issues as the outstanding request for clarification in this matter. To avoid parallel discussion, I recommend that the processing of this appeal is suspended until the request for clarification is resolved.  Sandstein  17:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the wikilawyering begins; procedures, formal warnings, etc... Brews the truth is admins have the authority and mandate to stabilize Wikipedia and fix problems. Full ARBCOM hearings aren't required everytime someone farts, and warnings don't need to come form the top before you need to heed them.

Also, I want to echo's Elen of the Roads statement "[W]hy does he have to be warned formally EVERY TIME he starts this up. Why can't he remember from one time to the next not to do this shizz, like most of us do with things we're not supposed to do." I and other editors told him several times (see the diffs provided above) to drop the stick in the last weeks (and this behaviour started more or less on the day of topic ban expiry, give or take a week).

I'll doubt, I'll involve myself in yet another ARBCOM nightmare more than this statement (and now that the advocacy ban has been repealed, you can bet your ass that this will be long). I don't feel like debating the obvious with someone who can't grasp it.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs were provided to show that a number of editors - most of the participants of the talk page - had objected to Brews' editing over the space of a only a few days. That some reference the previous arbitration case is unsurprising as it concerned the same page and is hardly "old wounds" as it is still in force. I'm not sure why you expect them to show a "warning of impending ArbCom action".

On civility I again point to [158] and [159], your characterising other editors' contributions as "stupid" and "lazy" respectively. Or only yesterday, perhaps more typically, three good faith attempts by different editors to address your concerns were dismissed like so: [160]. Whether any of this is bad tempered or impatient I'm sure editors can judge for themselves.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to note, from reading Talk:Speed of light. Brews, you were repeatedly advised to take the extra content to the article on the Metre, which all agreed could do with the expansion. You are still able to do that - Speed of Light is the only article you are barred from. Why don't you do that, make it work, and you'll be in a much better position to convince people that sanctions are no longer required. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural notes:

• Sometimes there's a legitimate concern over whether a discussion at AE has enough community input - the best way to avoid this issue is by notifying AN of the existence of the appeal.
• In essence, it would reflect poorly on the community if this appeal was hijacked because "we shouldn't be considering it" - in fact, we should be where we are asked to. That's part of the community's obligations in treating the parties fairly. But that doesn't mean we'll necessarily come to a consensus one way or another. One must remember that any sanction imposed is reviewable by the community, especially where it is an enforcement action. Even if the action is pursuant to an ArbCom remedy, this method of appeal doesn't need to be specified explicitly in the remedy - on the occasions where it has been, it's mere guidance. Even with this, the drafter of this particular decision, Vassyana, would have specifically wanted the community to try to address the issue first. If there is a clear community consensus to support, modify, or lift an action from an appeal, then that's what will happen. Should anyone be unhappy with the outcome of the appeal discussion, an appeal can be made to ArbCom.
• This appeal could proceed on the basis of the substantive issues that Brews is raising or trying to raise, but some people are in an awkward situation with respect to the procedural issue: whether an admin can impose an enforcement action that substantially outlives the original sanction. Although the original sanction was set to expire in October, Sandstein imposed an indef article ban. If Brews wants the appeal to proceed and ArbCom have not voiced an objection at this discussion, the community should go ahead with what it thinks about this situation - it should consider the circumstances that existed at the time of the action being taken and whether or not it is supported, or whether or not it needs to be modified/lifted. In the meantime, if ArbCom want to modify the original sanction, they can do so without affecting this appeal.
• These notes should not be seen as commenting on the content of the appeal. Instead, it notes that the appeal is permissible (to be fair to aggrieved parties and not exacerbate any perceived unfairness due to excess red tape, which in reality doesn't apply anyway). Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I am of the opinion that this appeal is out of order as the decision does not provide for an appeal here. The appeal would need to go to ArbCom. Stifle (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the clerks can move this appeal section to the appropriate venue?? Brews ohare (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk comment: This thread is not actionable as an appeal and so it would form no part of any complaint you submitted to the Arbitration Committee. You should simply file a new request, using the old statements and such if you like. AGK 22:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I need advice on how and where to file the new request, as I cannot understand the procedure. Brews ohare (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why appeal of an enforcement action by Sandstein does not fit into this form of the appeal process. The suggestion by AGK to file under amendment of an existing sanction confuses me, as the template for such action doesn't seem to fit this appeal. I have requested some assistance in this matter from AGK, but so far he has been unable to help. Brews ohare (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am awaiting a response from more knowledgeable users to my own queries on this topic before I reply in turn to you. I'll reply to you on my talk page when I can. Thanks for your patience, AGK 11:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I attempted to close this appeal as out of order on the grounds that the ArbCom sanction was not open to appeal to this noticeboard, having noted and disagreed with Ncmvocalist's opinion on procedure. This has generated a revert war of users attempting to close/reopen this AE (including using the Undo feature, which is explicitly prohibited for non-vandalism reverts), which is lamentable. If ArbCom had intended for the sanction in question to be appealable to the community or to AE, it would have said so. It did not. Therefore the sanction is appealable only to ArbCom and I invite the next uninvolved admin posting here to close this appeal as ultra vires the AE noticeboard. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend Ncmvocalist be blocked if they further interfere with the operation of this board. We cannot function here when editors take it on themselves to revert the actions of administrators. Jehochman ^Talk 10:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dislike any thinking that treats the actions or opinions of uninvolved editors as less valuable than those of uninvolved administrators, but still I must confess that I fail to see why Ncmvocalist is protracting this discussion. He makes a number of good points above, but as I understand it he advocates a community review of the sanctions—which this noticeboard cannot provide, being an arbitration-centric process page. I would also say that this disposition to reverting one's fellow editors is unhelpful. I will close the discussion with my next edit and respectfully direct any discussion to a noticeboard that could actually implement a resolution, whether that be on ANI, requests for clarifications, or otherwise. AGK 11:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

Fladrif (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

David spector (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#All_parties_instructed

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Editors_reminded

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Discretionary_sanctions

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

1. [161] Before the (virtual) ink is dry on the ArbCom decision, accusing other editors and administrators of bad faith, and other misconduct. Violates ArbCom Remedy #2 that all editors must assume good faith, remain civil, and avoid personal attacks, and ArbCom Remedy #1, with reference to Principle #9[162], Principle #11 [163], Principle #12 [164] and Principle #14 [165].
2. [166] Personal attack on another editor, insisting that he leave Wikipedia, faulting other editors for tolerating his participation in Wikipedia, expressing annoyance and anger that reliable, scholarly sources must be the basis for articles, instead of the "truth" a he knows it. Violates ArbCom Remedy #2 that all editors must assume good faith, remain civil, and avoid personal attacks, and ArbCom Remedy #1, with reference to Principle #1 [167], Principle #2 [168], Principle #4 [169], Principle #5 [170], Principle #9[171], Principle #11 [172], Principle #12 [173] and Principle #14 [174].
3. [175] Accuses other editors and administrators of bad faith, of having an agenda to push a POV, of being uninformed and ignorant of the facts/truth , and faults them for relying on published, reliable secondary sources which he finds irritating because the sources are allegedly not informed. Violates ArbCom Remedy #2 that all editors must assume good faith, remain civil, and avoid personal attacks, and ArbCom Remedy #1, with reference to Principle #1 [176], Principle #2 [177], Principle #4 [178], Principle #5 [179], Principle #9[180], Principle #11 [181], Principle #12 [182] and Principle #14 [183].
4. [184] Accusing other editors he categorizes as "anti TM" of bias, lack of good faith, bullying and wikilawyering. Accusing editors he identifies as "pro-TM' of misconduct, making unsupported assertions of off-wiki intimidation by associates of editors. Violates ArbCom Remedy #2 that all editors must assume good faith, remain civil, and avoid personal attacks, and ArbCom Remedy #1, with reference to Principle #1 [185], Principle #2 [186], Principle #4 [187], Principle #5 [188], Principle #9[189], Principle #11 [190], Principle #12 [191] and Principle #14 [192].
5. [193] Personal attack on an editor for citing policy regarding no personal attacks on article talk pages. Violates ArbCom Remedy #2 that all editors must assume good faith, remain civil, and avoid personal attacks, and ArbCom Remedy #1, with reference to Principle #9[194], Principle #11 [195], Principle #12 [196] and Principle #14 [197].
6. [198] Essentially admits that he assumes bad faith on the part of an Administrator with respect to the positions taken in discussions on sources, complaining that Wikipedia should not rely on reliable published sources, but on editors like himself who know the "truth". Violates ArbCom Remedy #2 that all editors must assume good faith, remain civil, and avoid personal attacks, and ArbCom Remedy #1, with reference to Principle #1 [199], Principle #2 [200], Principle #4 [201], Principle #5 [202], Principle #9[203], Principle #11 [204], Principle #12 [205] and Principle #14 [206].
7. [207] Accuses other editors of cowardice for not disclosing their real life identities and thus not "standing behind" their edits. Violates ArbCom Remedy #2 that all editors must assume good faith, remain civil, and avoid personal attacks, and ArbCom Remedy #1, with reference to Principle #9[208], Principle #11 [209],
8. [210] Accuses an editor of being a bully and asserts that he has psychological problems. Violates ArbCom Remedy #2 that all editors must assume good faith, remain civil, and avoid personal attacks, and ArbCom Remedy #1, with reference to Principle #9[211], Principle #11 [212], Principle #12 [213] and Principle #14 [214]
9. [215] More of the same, utterly unapologetic, in the face of administrator warning. Violates ArbCom Remedy #2 that all editors must assume good faith, remain civil, and avoid personal attacks, and ArbCom Remedy #1, with reference to Principle #9[216], Principle #11 [217], Principle #12 [218] and Principle #14 [219]

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

1. [220] Warning by Fladrif (talk · contribs)
2. [221] Warning by Fladrif (talk · contribs)
3. [222] Warning by Woonpton (talk · contribs)
4. [223] Warning by Will Beback (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
5. [224] Warning by Will Beback (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

A formal warning per the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Discretionary_sanctions

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Shouldn't this [225] statement by AGK be in the "results" heading as a proposed remedy from an uninvolved administrator? I don't know the protocols here. Do uninvolved adminstrators commonly post proposed remedies in the "comments by others" section, or should AGK or a clerk move it to the results section? Fladrif (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[226] [227]

I am very impressed by the obvious time and energy Fladrif has put into his list of complaints against me. As usual with his lists, his summaries are actually interpretations, designed to make his citations appear more favorable to whatever complaint he is making.

I cannot equal his detailed citations or show the flaws in each of his summaries to defend myself as meticulously, since I have other projects in real life that demand my attention and little time to get to them. That's why I edit WP in spurts, when I have time.

I avoid any substantive editing in the family of Transcendental Meditation movement (TMM) articles almost entirely, knowing that my edits will only raise barely rational complaints from Fladrif and WillBeBack. The remaining (pro-TM) editors can work in such an hostile environment; I cannot. Note, if relevant: I am partially pro-TM and partially anti-TM in my POV, but I can easily put both aside and edit neutrally.

Unfortunately, the TMM articles are dominated by pro-TM editors who, although very polite, are currently only kept in check from transferring their POV to the articles by Fladrif and WillBeBack, other anti-TM editors having left of their own choosing. Thus, I wouldn't feel justified working to get either one of these editors banned, even though it would certainly create a beautiful atmosphere in which to do some excellent editing (the articles are simply terrible as a result of their long history of edit warring and wikilawyering to PUSH pro and con POVs). So, that's why I mostly stay away from those articles, as one can see in my contributions history.

Fladrif has been a thorn in my side ever since I started telling the truth and complaining about him (which, I admit, does not conform to WP policy). He almost single-handedly got an informative article on Natural Stress Relief, written by one of its clients, deleted. Natural Stress Relief is my nonprofit, all-volunteer organization dedicated to providing an inexpensive alternative to Transcendental Meditation (I currently have over 900 clients). The only thing wrong with that article was that it had few /significant references, since the organization is only four years old and has not yet been discovered by reliable sources.

While I agree that my best policy would have been to ignore him (AGF) because attacking an unreasonable person only makes the situation worse, I resent bullies like him, with his constant wikilawyering against me and other editors, getting away with their clever but antisocial behavior. I don't know why the other editors put up with it. I can't.

I am very glad he has brought this formal complaint, because hopefully one or both of us will be banned from the TMM articles, which in my view will cure a big headache for the TMM articles, their editors, and for me personally.

Note, in case it is relevant: although WillBeBack, whom I mentioned above, constantly objects to any proposed edit by the pro-TM editors and always sides with Fladrif, I have absolutely no other complaint about him. He is always polite; his suggestions are reasonable. His remarks are genuinely polite and respectful. He clearly wants the articles to be good. He and I have maintained a private correspondence which I have found helpful for the articles and which have helped me understand some of what goes on there. David Spector (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue here is a chronic failure to assume good faith. It's hardly even necessary to look at the links since David's statement here shows again his inability to avoid making negative personal assertions and assumptions about other editors.   Will Beback  talk  18:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• My perception is that David's presence (and even indirect influence, as much of his comments are in relation to TMM but made in threads on user talk and other areas outside of mainspace) is an unhelpful one. He professes to have withdrawn from the TMM topic area altogether, but the influence of the negative comments about those still active there that he continues to make elsewhere cannot be underestimated. It may be necessary at this point to prohibit him from participation in discussions relating to Transcendental Meditation movement articles or the activities of any users who frequent them. (A three month topic ban would not be unreasonable.) I was at first minded to show leniency in light of the reduced incidence of unhelpful TMM-related comments by David in the fortnight gone by, but it remains the case that he was still sniping about Fladrif and others well into July; considering the case ended early in June, I suspect this is one soapbox that David will not step down from without a push. AGK 22:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to Fladrif: My comment was a preliminary one and I'll be awaiting comment from other uninvolved administrators before proposing any action. Also know that the clerks have no involvement in this process as it is not strictly ArbCom business (but rather staffed by members of the community). Regards, AGK 14:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This diatribe, dated August 6, I find especially concerning, including: While I don't pretend to be a therapist or a loved one of Fladrif, I do consider myself a friend (yes, it is possible to be a friend even to a wild animal). While there's no doubt that Fladrif has had some civility issues in the past, since the arbitration case closed his behavior on the TM talk pages has been overall quite good, and I don't see any provocation that might reasonably account for these continuing and escalating personal attacks.

The assertion in David Spector's statement that Will BeBack "constantly objects to any edit proposed by pro-TM editors and always sides with Fladrif" is simply and demonstrably inaccurate. I don't have time to look up diffs at the moment, but as a longtime observer of the TM pages, I am quite sure that diffs can easily be found showing Will disagreeing with Fladrif and agreeing to proposed edits by pro-TM editors. Woonpton (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I don't see any reason why David Spector should not be issued with a formal warning of the transcendental meditation ruling, or however you spell it, but I think that's the most that can come of this AE request. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The outcome of this enforcement request is that David spector (talk · contribs) has been served with notification of the discretionary sanctions. In the event of further inappropriate conduct in the area of transcendental meditation, he may be subject to the sanctions described in the arbitration ruling. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

radek (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

[228] "Russavia (talk · contribs) is prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with editors from the EEML case, except in the case of necessary dispute resolution."

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

1. [229] Russavia has inserted themselves into a middle of an ongoing dispute between myself, Chumchum7 and others. The question as to whether the controversy about Polish participation is notable or not has been a long running subject of this dispute and Russavia is obviously taking a side here, unnecessarily interacting with me, and so in a clear violation of his restriction. The edit can also be seen as provocative in and of itself, and given the heated nature of that dispute this appears to be a straight forward attempt at "pouring gasoline onto a fire"

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

1. [230]
2. [231] Warning by Sandstein
3. Please also see this statement by Shell Kinney [232] which specifically requests that these sort of violations are reported,
4. Re Russavia's statement below, this note, also by Shell [233] can obviously be interpreted as a warning

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

block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is Russavia's second violation in a short period of time, after this [234]. Wait. Actually it's his fourth if we count his comments at Miacek's appeal and his request at this very board not too long ago against himself in violation of WP:POINT [235]. Russavia is clearly and deliberately trying to test the boundaries of his interaction ban. Since the ban is mutual, I am of course also forbidden from interacting with Russavia except for purposes of necessary dispute resolution. This is necessary dispute resolution, as Russavia jumped into an argument I was having with somebody else.

Re to Future Perfect: Future Perfect, it's not even about editing the same article. If Russavia had only edited the section on Australian participation then I would not have had a problem with that. But instead he chose to edit the section on Polish participation, one in which I have been extensively involved. That's not participating in 'necessary dispute resolution', that's CREATING a dispute between himself and me, where none existed, in clear violation of the interaction ban. Am I allowed to undo his edit or revert him? Am I allowed to edit articles on Nashi or Air Fiji or The Diplomatic Relations of Russia and Australia? Am I allowed to edit the article on the 2010 Moscow Victory Parade? Specifically making edits against Russavia?

The fact that editor A edits an article does not AUTOMATICALLY mean that the article is off-limits for B. But it does mean that B should not jump into any disputes that A is having on that article and should take care to avoid interaction with A on that article. Russavia's not doing that - quite the opposite.radek (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or think of this way. Now Russavia has made this edit to the talk page [236]. I take my interaction ban with him to mean that I cannot respond to this or to undue his edits to the article. Yet, this is precisely the subject I've been involved in on the article for some time now. If it is okay for him to make these statements despite his interaction ban, and I cannot reply to these comments, I am effectively frozen out of the discussion that I had been a part off much longer then he. If I CAN reply to them, then the interaction ban is pretty meaningless. So a different way of phrasing your question would be: if editors A and B have a mutual interaction ban, and editor A is working on the article and editor B comes in - and this is judged not to be a violation of the interaction ban - then is editor A prohibited from replying or continuing to work on the article? The obvious answer is "no". But that means that either the initial edits by B are in violation of the interaction ban, or the interaction ban simply doesn't exists for all practical purposes.radek (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. So on the same day that all of sudden Russavia pops up in an article I am involved with, which he has never edited before, and inserts himself into the middle of a dispute I am involved in, his close buddy Petri Krohn also pops up in an article I am involved with, which he has never edited before, and inserts himself into the middle of a dispute I am involved in. Oh yeah, sure, coincidence, one was just checking Parade articles and the other looking for random articles to move.

I would also like to ask that whoever the administrator is that takes on this request, they allow me to contact them privately, as I'm pretty sure something else is going on here which I do not care to discuss on Wiki.radek (talk) 11:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re to Igny: I did not "come back to confrontations with Russavia". In fact I've been trying to avoid him. He's the one who showed up on a controversial article that I had been involved in discussions on and inserted himself right smack in the middle of it. Now, I don't know what I'm supposed to do. If I continue participating in the discussion that I was previously a part of I run the risk of violating the interaction ban myself. Yet, it doesn't seem right that a user who is banned from interacting with me can just elbow me aside in such a way. Quite honestly, I basically want Russavia to stay the hey away from me (he did take part in outing my personal information after all) - if he undoes his edits to the "Polish" section of that article (I think it's fine if he edits the "Australian" section) - for example, removes the UNDUE tag - does not participate further in the discussion I was part of and promises to leave that part of the article alone (as well as other articles I'm working on extensively) then perhaps a block is not necessary. That's a less drastic way of dealing with this, but he has to play along.radek (talk) 04:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re to Igny's proposal. Sure.radek (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia may have edited the article before (so what? That was before he had an interaction ban) but he has not specifically edited the section that is under discussion - on Polish participation. All he had to do was to take a look at the discussion page to see that I was involved in heavily discussing that very section. Considering that there is a very good reason for why Russavia got the interaction ban - he shows up at articles and creates battlegrounds or pours gasoline on existing disputes - and considering that Russavia TOOK AN ACTIVE PART IN OUTING MY PERSONAL INFORMATION (for Chrissake!) ([237], 2nd from top in case somebody gets lost) there's absolutely NOTHING frivolous about my request that Russavia stay away from me, as his interaction ban directs him to. Enough.radek (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia, it's simple: STAY AWAY FROM ME PER YOUR INTERACTION BAN, as I have stayed away from you all this time. Then you can have all the good faith in the world.radek (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[238]

During WP:EEML, Radeksz had a finding of fact against him (Wikipedia:EEML#Disruption_6), which stated amongst other things, that he has treated WP as a battleground and has also abused dispute resolution processes. Another finding of fact which covered the entire EEML (Wikipedia:EEML#Improper_coordination) was that "baiting, harassment and vexatious complaints against specific users in order to have them sanctioned" had occurred, and which to a large extent was likely possible for sanctioned editors receiving a "Russavia topic ban" (Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted), "except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution."

The report by Radeksz clearly goes against the spirit of the "Russavia topic ban" sanction, and what he wrote at the amendment request which led to his topic ban being lifted before its expiration. In particular this statement:

I encourage everyone, former members of the list, as well as their "opponents" to undertake efforts which will reduce the battleground atmosphere in this topic area and lead to more collaborative editing. Somebody's got to make a show of good faith however, and I would like to say that I personally harbor no grudges against any other editor currently active on Wikipedia and am willing to work with anybody. I'm going to reset my "assume good faith" meter back to good faith and I hope others do likewise.

Contrary to Radeksz's statement, I have edited the article before [239], and this was done whilst the EEML arbitration was ongoing. I had also commented on general editor behaviour on the article around the same time[240][241] and had also removed bickering between editors from the article talk page[242]. Given that, this article has been on my watch list since then, although I haven't really taken notice of developments on the article in recent times. My edits on the article, have been explained clearly on the talk page, and are not addressing any editor, either directly or indirectly, but are merely presenting problems with the article as a whole.

I do not regard the statement by Radeksz that this is necessary dispute resolution is warranted, as he could have sought clarification from the committee on the minor issues that he has brought here. Instead, he has instead chosen to attack me (in violation of an interaction ban), and has attempted to turn this into another unnecessary battleground. I would ask that Radeksz' behaviour be given the once over, given that he has continued to make accusations against me in response to comments by other editors. His choice of words is somewhat telling, such as arguing with other editors, instead of collaborating, etc. Also troubling is the assertion of article ownership that he is trying to have validated here. He also seems to be implying that I am acting in an underhanded way, by asking that he be able to contact admins off-wiki with more accusations which are to be considered here. I take offence to such accusations and insinuations.

I would ask that the manufactured dispute against myself be closed off without action. I also ask that Radeksz apologise to myself, as he does not appear to be assuming good faith in relation to my editing and has offended myself in doing so. If some sort of good faith on the part of Radeksz is forthcoming, I think that the request can be safely closed, and editors can get back to editing, otherwise I think it is pertinent that Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted and Wikipedia:EEML#Enforcement_by_block can be enacted. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 07:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not entirely certain to what extent the "no-interaction" ban is meant to cover also editing of the same articles. After all, the rule contains the modification "... except in the case of necessary dispute resolution" – which implies that there must be conceivable, legitimate occasions where the editors involved actually have a dispute in the first place, which seems to imply content disagreements over articles. Does the ban really mean that once A has edited an article, that article is off-limits for B? Not sure. Thoughts? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arbitrators don't usually intervene in these discussions, but as the drafter of that language in the decision, I can state that it was not intended to mean that these users can't edit the same articles. Of course they are required to abide by all other applicable policies and any relevant restrictions when they do so. (Not commenting on the merits of this request beyond answering Fut.Perf.'s question.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I find nothing surprising in Russavia editing the article – after all he recently created 2010 Moscow Victory Day Parade. However, I find this accusation by User:Radeksz that I was stalking him at Talk:Jewish community of Danzig#name unacceptable. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I am disappointed by this development. Radek, I went back and re-read your statement here, I saw no clue that you'd come back to controversial situations, much less to confrontations with Russavia. I am sure that there are less drastic ways to resolve this situation (such as asking for an advice from an admin) than filing AE report. (Igny (talk) 04:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Before it escalates any further, a solution is quite simple, Russavia you undo your edit (if you think your edit was warranted, other editors could come and make it). Radek, withdraw your AE request. Everyone apologizes without admitting guilt to each other, an admin closes this thread. (Igny (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• I want to point out that Russavia edited the article in 2009 apparently before Radek has shown any interest in it. Thus, I do not think the request is valid Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is the latest iteration of a series of factional nationalist disputes about the article London victory parade of 1946 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in which many of the editors from previous Eastern Europe arbitration cases are involved. Fut.Perf. has now protected the article because of excessive sockpuppetry. This can't go on like that. The 1RR restriction I've imposed on the article seems not to have helped. I've not got the time (or the checkuser tools) to go to the bottom of this by myself and find out who, if anybody, is most responsible for this mess (and please spare me any unfounded speculation via e-mail; if there's actionable private evidence it needs to go to ArbCom). It may be that another arbitration case is necessary, since I am not sure that the roundabout topic ban that may be needed should be imposed at the AE level. But, to stop this circus for now, I'm imposing the following restriction on the article via its editnotice and talk page:

"Pursuant to the Arbitration Committee's decision at WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, all editors with "Eastern Europe" sanctions are hereby banned from editing the article London victory parade of 1946 or its talk page. For the purposes of this ban, these editors are all who have at any time been the subject of remedies or sanctions logged on the case pages WP:DIGWUREN, WP:EEML or WP:ARBRB, irrespective of whether or not these sanctions are still in force or whether they were imposed by the Arbitration Committee or by administrators."

This is likely to affect some innocent editors, but these are not very likely to want to edit to edit this obscure article in particular, and the benefit to Wikipedia of not having constant wars over the article outweighs that drawback. As to the request at hand, I'll get to that after lunch.  Sandstein  10:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The request is without merit. Simply editing an article that another editor has also edited is not an interaction, as noted by Newyorkbrad above. It would take additional evidence (which has not been provided here) to convince me that the edits should be considered an interaction (e.g., a WP:STALKING), which judging by the edits themselves does not seem to be the case. Consequently, this request does not constitute "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" and is therefore a violation of the restriction applying to Radeksz, WP:EEML#Editors restricted. As Russavia's statement correctly notes, the request is additionally disruptive in that it makes veiled allegations of what sounds like serious misconduct on the part of Russavia ("I'm pretty sure something else is going on here which I do not care to discuss on Wiki") without offering any (onwiki) evidence. This is a serious problem given that the Committee, at WP:EEML#Improper coordination and WP:EEML#Radeksz, found that Radeksz has previously been engaged in similar misconduct, and that I yesterday warned Radeksz not to make serious allegations against others without useful evidence. In enforcement of WP:EEML#Editors restricted, I am therefore blocking Radeksz for 72 hours. Concerning his request to submit offwiki evidence to me, it is declined, because I strongly dislike ex parte proceedings, and because any evidence that is genuinely unsuited for open discussion because of privacy reasons should be submitted to the Arbitration Committee alone. Of course, the Committee is free to change this block as they see fit if they are indeed seized with actionable private evidence.  Sandstein  12:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

User requesting enforcement

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

1. TimidGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Littleolive oil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

[243] "that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles."

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

A RfC was filled here [244] TimidGuy deemed these editors misinformed [245] and thus no need to listen to their advice. These violation have been ongoing by these WP:SPAs. Many incorrect accusations have been made including Timidguy insults my usage of source [246], little more than a personal attack. They continue to agree among themselves and attempt to use Wikipedia as a method to advertise their organization.

1. Littleolive reverts consensus in RfC: [247]
2. TimidGuy reverts consensus in RfC: [248]
3. TimidGuy does not follow RfC: [249]
4. Littleolive does not follow RfC: [250]
5. TimidGuy removed references in the lead [251]
6. Edith Sirius Lee reverts changes [252]

Prior warnings

Timidguy was warned above. Littleolive oil was warned here [253] Edith was warned here [254] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[255][256][257]

Doc persists in putting erroneous information in the science paragraph in the lead. For example, he writes, "Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education," and his citations include Ospina 2007. But Ospina found just the opposite in regard to relaxation: "When compared to PMR progressive muscle relaxation, TM produced significantly greater benefits in SBP and DBP [systolic and diastolic blood pressure]." This is the only meta-analysis in Ospina that used relaxation as a comparator. Why is this objection, in Future Perfect's words below, "nitpicking" and "patently without merit"? There are three randomized controlled trials on TM that use relaxation as a comparator, two on blood pressure that show a benefit beyond relaxation and one on anxiety that doesn't. Is Doc correct to generalize this single trial on anxiety to all health conditions? Doing so is another misrepresentation, in my opinion. Please please please don't come to judgment on this without looking at the details. I can document many false statements made by Doc, not only in the article but in dispute resolution. For example, at RSN he characterized Ospina 2007 and Cochane 2006 as being "one of the only independent analysis of TM research."[258]. But in fact there are scores or even hundreds of independent reviews that include research on TM. (If you do a search on Pubmed on meditation reviews, you'll get about 275 results.) Will I be given the opportunity to document his misrepresentations rather than have a rush to judgment? Future Perfect made his recommendation before I even had a chance to write a statement, let alone document the misrepresentations. In regard to respect for consensus building, look how hard I tried in this thread[259] to build consensus regarding the science paragraph in the lead. I had tentative consensus among four editors, including Will. Fladrif kept objecting but wouldn't say specifically what he didn't like. Then Doc came in after a months-long absence from the article and, in my view, completely took over the process and subverted my effort at consensus building. TimidGuy (talk)

Regarding the specific diffs. I made a single revert to the version that had corrected some of Doc's misrepresentations. The second diff shows my addition of sourced, relevant material. The third shows a deletion of a source that Doc had misrepresented. Doc quoted statements from the source that were directly about the four randomized controlled trials that were examined in the review. None of those four studies was on TM. TimidGuy (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than happy to address Timid's point as I have on the talk page for the article. Let me provide the exact text supporting the passage:

Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education. <ref>{{cite book|author=Ospina MB, Bond TK, Karkhaneh M, Tjosvold L, Vandermeer B, Liang Y, Bialy L, Hooton N, Buscemi N, Dryden DM, Klassen TP.|url= http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/meditation/medit.pdf|title= Meditation Practices for Health: State of the Research|publisher= [[Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality]]|page=4|date=June 2007 |quote=A few studies of overall poor methodological quality were available for each comparison in the meta-analyses, most of which reported nonsignificant results. TM® had no advantage over health education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients}}</ref> <ref name=Cochrane10>{{cite journal |author=Krisanaprakornkit T, Ngamjarus C, Witoonchart C, Piyavhatkul N |title=Meditation therapies for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) |journal=Cochrane Database Syst Rev |volume=6 |issue= |pages=CD006507 |year=2010 |pmid=20556767 |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD006507.pub2 |url= |quote =For this study there was no statistically significant difference between the meditation therapy group and the drug therapy group on the teacher rating ADHD scale (MD -2.72, 95% CI -8.49 to 3.05, 15 patients). Likewise, there was no statistically significant difference between the meditation therapy group and the standard therapy group on the teacher rating ADHD scale (MD -0.52, 95% CI -5.88 to 4.84, 17 patients). There was also no statistically significant difference between the meditation therapy group and the standard therapy group in the distraction test (MD -8.34, 95% CI -107.05 to 90.37, 17 patients).}}</ref> <ref name=Cochrane06>{{cite journal|author=Krisanaprakornkit T, Krisanaprakornkit W, Piyavhatkul N, Laopaiboon M |title=Meditation therapy for anxiety disorders |journal=Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews |volume=|issue=1 |pages=CD004998 |year=2006 |pmid=16437509 |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD004998.pub2 |ref=harv| quote=The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety}}</ref>

So the executive summary support the comparison to health education. The 2006 Cochrane paper supports the comparison to relaxation. And the 2010 Cochrane paper come to similar conclusion for ADHD not finding evidence of effectiveness. Progressive muscle relaxation is not the same as relaxation. In the rest of TimidGuys response he misunderstand what a Cochrane meta analysis is. Cochrane looks at all the studies done by doing an exhaustive review of the literature. It specifically discusses a couple trials on ADHD and TM. And based on the poor data concludes that the evidence has not found benefits.

TimidGuy states above that I have many false statements and provides the dif above regarding my statement that their are only a few independent studies. Someone much smarter than me however said the same thing in 2004 Canter PH, Ernst E pmid=15480084 "All the randomized clinical trials of TM for the control of blood pressure published to date have important methodological weaknesses and are potentially biased by the affiliation of authors to the TM organization." User:TimidGuy and User:Keithbob allude to my incorrect statements and than this is the best example they can find. One in which we have a review article published by experts in the field in 2004 that supports my opinion.

TimidGuy's statement that I have made "many false statements" and Keithbob's that I have "a long history of mis-representation of sources and disruptive editing" without providing diffs is a continuation of the insults I have been subject too on the talk page. While in most situation and professions this sort of statement would mean little however in academia it is a personal attack of the greatest severity and one that should not be taken lightly. I encourage editors to look at my history ( having brought three article to GA status, having made nearly 27,000 edits on thousands of different pages, and collected a few barnstars on long the way ) which I think speaks for itself. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At an appropriate future time and in an appropriate future forum I would be happy to provide the diffs you have requested but since this case was closed prematurely I see no point in posting them here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be able to comment later today. In the meantime, I would request commenting admins look carefully at the diffs Doc presented, the research section of the TM article and in relation to the lead, so they are aware of the research. Further, could diffs be provided that indicate non compliant behaviour, per individual editor, such as the supposed tag team editing, so decisions are informed and fair. Thanks.(olive (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

To Future Perfect: You have acted before I and another editor even had a chance to post. This is blatantly unfair and inappropriate. Nor do you say what I have been guilty of. I am forced to wonder why the haste. Further TimidGuy has serious concerns about the edits made by the editor who then posted here. Such concerns deserve serious consideration not possible in a few hours. i hope you will reconsider your overly hasty action.(olive (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

And Cirt: You support sanctions on an editor before that editor has even had a chance to speak, is that right?(olive (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I also did not have the time to respond here, partially because at about the same time that Doc James made his arb request, there were a large amount of text added by Fladrif and Will BeBack in the Talk page, which I felt had to be answered quickly. There were enough added that I am not yet done. Just quickly here, my understanding is that TimidGuy is accused to have rejected some Rfc comments based on the fact that the external editors were misinformed. May I add that he has done so while being willing to discuss the issue in good faith with others. I don't think he meant to reject any comment, but only wanted to put them in the context of the actual content of sources and of the the policy. As far as the accusation of edit warring is concerned, Doc James seems to suggest that we should not edit the paragraph on Research in the lead because two outside comments say that his version in the Rfc was good (or better than the only other one). I don't understand that argument. Even if these two comments were well informed, which I believe was not the case, the paragraph can still be improved. The Rfc was presented as a vote between two paragraphs, but there is no guarantee that the best paragraph was one of these two. Also, if we look at the Rfc or Noticeboard, we can see that some external editors progressively changed their position as they received more information. It did not seem to me that a definitive conclusion was reached. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: ESL made this comment before you went to their talk pages and asked both editors who commented on the RfC to clarify their positions . So Edith made his/her comment based on what was in the discussion at that time. The comment you cite was only available later after Edith had commented. I don't find your comment a particularly accurate betrayal of what happened.(olive (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Prior to registering a username, ESL also posted fairly extensively for ~10 days as

• Special:Contributions/67.230.155.29;
• Special:Contributions/67.230.155.38;
• Special:Contributions/67.230.154.111;
• Special:Contributions/67.230.154.243;
• Special:Contributions/67.230.154.70; and
• Special:Contributions/67.230.154.96.

It has been suggested that ESL is not a new editor, given a level of familiarity with Wikipedia policies that is atypical of new editors. I genuinely think that ESL is not a sock of one of the editors who were parties to the TM ArbCom case, solely on the basis of the occasional odd sentence structure or choice of vocabulary, suggesting to me that English, or at least standard American/Canadian/British English, may not be ESL's first language. Whether or not that perception is accurate, ESL was advised, prior to the edits Doc has listed, and in connection with other problematic edits, including an earlier reversion of sourced material which Doc has not listed [260], that the TM ArbCom decision's discretionary sanctions apply to all editors, not just editors who were parties to the case at the time. [261][262][263] Fladrif (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I am quite dismayed at the 'rush to judgement' type comment that was posted by Fut Perf six hours after the case was opened. It was posted before any of the defendants had made any statements and it makes many sweeping generalizations that, in my opinion, are not accurate. Anyone who takes the time to examine the diffs and the talk page threads and the edit history's of the accused editors, and their accuser, will see that DocJames has a long history of mis-representation of sources and disruptive editing. As for COI accusations, this has long been used as an intimidation stick by some editors and accusations of COI and POV pushing were levied against parties on both sides of the fence on the recent TM ArbCom but there were no findings, at that time, against any party on either side. Our job now is look to look at recent edits since the decisions on June 4, 2010 and determine who is violating the ArbCom decision. Is it the accused or the accuser?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with ESL's comment "It did not seem to me that a definitive conclusion was reached." I also felt that no conclusion or agreement had been reached and the discussion was ongoing. --BwB (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I agree that some of the behaviour described above is problematic. What I see on Talk:Transcendental Meditation is a persistent effort, mostly by TimidGuy, to block consensus by an endless row of objections of wikilawyering and nitpicking nature, aimed at deemphasizing the findings of studies critical of TM. Many of these objections, mostly about the correctness of summaries of the research literature proposed by other editors, appear to be patently without merit. Taken in isolation, such objections would probably count as normal good-faith content disagreements, but in the larger picture and given their constant, long-time effect of blocking effective consensus-building, they take on the character of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption, especially as he and the other editors who support his viewpoint are refusing to listen to independent outside input, which was successfully elicited by the RFC.

There is also evident tag-team revert warring. Moreover, Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs) is yet another single-purpose agenda account that suddenly appeared after the conclusion of the Arbcom case. In this topic domain, which has been plagued by single purpose editors and COI problems, this is in itself highly problematic.

I therefore propose to enact the following sanctions:

• TimidGuy (talk · contribs) to be topic-banned from TM-related articles and discussion for a short-to-medium period, let's say 2 months, to give the discussions a bit of breathing space.
• independent of this, all three editors (TimidGuy, Littleolive and Edith Sirius Lee), to be placed on a collective 1RR limitation to stop tag-team reverts (that is, these three editors together are not allowed to revert more than once per 24hrs).

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the situation further, I have become even more convinced that the above measures are needed. I am therefore now imposing the measures as outlined above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above Arbitration Enforcement enacted here by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by the drafting arbitrator: Without commenting on the merits or otherwise of the decision, the applicable section of the discretionary sanctions says:

  Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning advising of the problems with his or her editing and containing a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This requirement of a prior warning shall not apply if an editor who was a named party to this case engages in gross misconduct.

  The warning and feedback step seems to have been omitted.  Roger Davies ^talk 21:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll comment here since no other location seems suitable after the request was closed. I filed an AE request regarding TimidGuy, and Stifle agreed that a warning should be given. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive66#TimidGuy I don't know if it was, but TG edited that request subsequently so he would have seen that determination. I warned Olive here: [264] and DocJames warned her here: [265]. DocJames warned Edith Sirius Lee here: [266]. (Note that that user insists that the sanctions do not apply to her).   Will Beback  talk  23:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "warning first" language was drafted by Newyorkbrad for the specific purpose of avoiding "...but I didn't know I was getting myself into trouble" types of situation and so it's probably best if diffs for them are clearly provided in applications for enforcement.  Roger Davies ^talk 02:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • While we have your attention, could you clarify two points? First, is the RFAR remedy All parties instructed intended to be enforceable? I've gotten feedback to the effect that some editors think there were no instructions to change behavior. Second, do the remedies apply to new (or returning) editors like user:Edith Sirius Lee?   Will Beback  talk  03:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, of course they're intended to be enforceable. The focus though is firmly on fresh and persistent misconduct rather than on historic stuff, under which we drew a line. To this end, the sanctions give uninvolved administrators broad discretion to address clear examples of misconduct which (i) arise after the case closed, (ii) persist after a warning specific to the alleged misbehaviour has been issued and (iii) are sufficiently serious in themselves in the opinion of the enforcing administrator to require sanctions.
          They apply equally to established, returning and new editors and reflect the committee's expectation of good behaviour from all people working within the topic.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for those clarifications.   Will Beback  talk  06:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be posting later today, I've had the flu. I'm somewhat concerned with haste around here so wanted to make that known. Seems like we might need a new policy, WP:Undue Haste.(olive (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)_[reply]

Re this:[267]. TG was NOT warned. That particular AE report was never finished [268] and was apparently aborted in favor of the newer, larger scope AE involving two additional editors, look at the “result” section concerning TG: [269]. There’s no consensus for even warning, TG or that he even did anything wrong. There’s nothing final there, and it doesn’t look like consensus to me. Then try to find any ‘warning’ on TG’s talk page, it doesn’t exist. This was not a ‘warning’ that meets the TM ArbCom decision on how and when to apply discretionary sanctions [270]. While WBB mentions that Stifle agreed, he conveniently left out that Sandstein disagreed.[271], and even proposed closing it as “non-actionable” [272] There was no consensus for a warning or that TG even did anything wrong in the first place.

As for my ‘warning’ by WBB, [273] First, is a warning by a highly involved party like Will Beback adequate so that immediate sanctions are applied; secondly, in WBB’s ‘warning” he makes it very clear that this is not an ‘official’ warning. “Consider this an informal warning not to delete material peremptorily again. If there are repetitions I will request an official warning and enforcement” How does this fulfill ArbCom’s requirements for a warning prior to sanctions? It does not. And prominently with my sanction, WBB’s ‘warning’ had nothing to do with what I was sanctioned for, completely different situation and one that is false. My restriction was based on “editng warring”, reverting against consensus when there was no consenus and the RfC in the sitauion had not been closed, and there was no edit warring. I tell the editor who objected to my revert that I will only revert once. How can that be edit warring? [274] Doc James warning was also false. He moved a fair amount of content which I move back into place asking him to discuss first. [275]. Then he used that situation to create a warning.

With Edith Seruis Lee, an involved editor gave a ‘warning’, which I think is insufficient. An uninvolved admin should have given a warning and instructions [276] And the sanction limiting Edith to 1RR doesn’t match the so-called ‘warning” at all: [277]

There were no adequate warnings or explanation given to any of the three editors before the sanctions were put into place. The sanctions need to be lifted, and if 1RR is imposed, it should be on all editors editing TM articles, not just this select few.

And as an added concern, two of the three editors were never even allowed to speak before the sanctions were applied. While this may not be a necessity, allowing people to speak and defend themselves is a respectful and fair thing to do. A Wikipedia were people are not treated faily and resepctfully is a very poor Wikipedia.(olive (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)) Clarification:Stifle agreed with AE #2, Sandstein commented on the TG AE.[reply]

FYI, WP:AE does not operate by consensus and this page isn't even required for enforcement. Any uninvolved admin may enforce the ArbCom's decision.   Will Beback  talk  18:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems like we are continuing here. I had added this to the above ArbCom request not realizing I shouldn't once it is closed. Edith claimed a user is changing his mind here I posted on the three users talk page requesting clarification [278] and this users responded here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're not continuing here. If the AE decision is flawed in some way, it can be appealed as provided for in the case's discretionary sanctions remedy. This discussion lacks the structure and notifications needed for an appeal and does not seem to be going anywhere, so I'm closing it.  Sandstein  20:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]