Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 487: | Line 487: | ||
''think it's especially problematic that '''he also adds into the lead separate names which were invented in 1938 by Nazi Germany'''''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland&diff=prev&oldid=371730424] |
''think it's especially problematic that '''he also adds into the lead separate names which were invented in 1938 by Nazi Germany'''''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland&diff=prev&oldid=371730424] |
||
*''Molobo appear, having never before edited this article'' |
*''Molobo appear, having never before edited this article'' |
||
I was contributing in discussion about German and Nazi names[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland&diff=prev&oldid=371739268], which included information about edits by HerkusMonte. Once I overviewed |
I was contributing in discussion about German and Nazi names[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland&diff=prev&oldid=371739268], which included information about edits by HerkusMonte. Once I overviewed recent HK's edits I noticededits to Wielbark page, which I knew from history. I checked sources and contributed to the article in significant way adding large section on history sourced by many publications. Mystery solved. |
||
You know very well that I edit many articles on Polish history including Polish cities,towns and villages that were within Germany before. |
You know very well that I edit many articles on Polish history including Polish cities,towns and villages that were within Germany before. |
||
* ''The EEML case is widely known.'' |
* ''The EEML case is widely known.'' |
||
Line 496: | Line 496: | ||
*Three things: about the merits of this request, I'm inclined to accept Varsovian's defense above – his edit doesn't seem to violate the letter of the sanction. (Whether it is a constructive edit is open to some doubt, but be that as it may.) Second, I am somewhat concerned that a tendency towards coordinated hounding may again be discernible. Only yesterday, Loosmark (who is mutually topic-banned from interacting with Varsovian) inquired if he could raise a certain complaint against Varsovian [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein&diff=prev&oldid=371855747]. The answer was that he couldn't. Only a few hours later, Radeksz takes over and raises the exact same complaint [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:London_Victory_Parade_of_1946&diff=prev&oldid=371928240], on a matter he had previously never edited (I have noted the discussion at [[User talk:Coren]], where Radeksz defends himself.) The same day, Varsovian engages in a discussion with Radeksz on the thread pointed out above, and MyMoloboaccount steps in and raises the complaint here. Third thing: I am also concerned about Varsovian's ongoing tendency towards tendentious OR at the 1946 victory parade issue, and am considering sanctions for that one – but it feels all the more irksome that these sanctions, if they happen, might in effect be perceived as a "reward" for the coordinated hounding behaviour that the EEML case was meant to stop. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 16:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC) |
*Three things: about the merits of this request, I'm inclined to accept Varsovian's defense above – his edit doesn't seem to violate the letter of the sanction. (Whether it is a constructive edit is open to some doubt, but be that as it may.) Second, I am somewhat concerned that a tendency towards coordinated hounding may again be discernible. Only yesterday, Loosmark (who is mutually topic-banned from interacting with Varsovian) inquired if he could raise a certain complaint against Varsovian [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein&diff=prev&oldid=371855747]. The answer was that he couldn't. Only a few hours later, Radeksz takes over and raises the exact same complaint [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:London_Victory_Parade_of_1946&diff=prev&oldid=371928240], on a matter he had previously never edited (I have noted the discussion at [[User talk:Coren]], where Radeksz defends himself.) The same day, Varsovian engages in a discussion with Radeksz on the thread pointed out above, and MyMoloboaccount steps in and raises the complaint here. Third thing: I am also concerned about Varsovian's ongoing tendency towards tendentious OR at the 1946 victory parade issue, and am considering sanctions for that one – but it feels all the more irksome that these sanctions, if they happen, might in effect be perceived as a "reward" for the coordinated hounding behaviour that the EEML case was meant to stop. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 16:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
**FPS I sent almost exact version of this report to Sandstein yesterday for clarification through email if this is valid yesterday-he can confirm this. If he would wrote that this has no merit then I wouldn't have posted. He directed me to post this to AE instead.--[[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] ([[User talk:MyMoloboaccount|talk]]) 16:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC) |
**FPS I sent almost exact version of this report to Sandstein yesterday for clarification through email if this is valid yesterday-he can confirm this. If he would wrote that this has no merit then I wouldn't have posted. He directed me to post this to AE instead, writing "I normally act on interaction ban violations only after a report by the other editor", so I took it here, again-for clarification since I have no opinion on the matter.--[[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] ([[User talk:MyMoloboaccount|talk]]) 16:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
=====Statement by Skäpperöd===== |
=====Statement by Skäpperöd===== |
Revision as of 17:17, 6 July 2010
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
![]() | Important information Please use this page only to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
JBsupreme
Closed as not actionable. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning JBsupreme
Discussion concerning JBsupremeStatement by JBsupremeComments by others about the request concerning JBsupremeGah. Everything about this report annoys me to no end. Something my 98yr old grandmother would be comfortable saying ("off your rocker"), is neither incivil or an attack; it is a mildly tart phrase to express disbelief in something someone has done or said. Non-directed profanity ("I'm calling bullshit...") is not in itself incivil. This isn't the kiddie pool; we can use profanity when we feel a need to express a point of view, as long as it isn't directed at or referential to another user ("this is fucking ridiculous" vs. "you are a fuckwit"). The "diffs of prior warnings" section has been IMO abused and exaggerated by Jeff G in a "Don't template the regulars" kind of way.
The house of cards has been knocked over. Tarc (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning JBsupreme
Without expressing an opinion about the substance of the edits, I agree with the commentators at ANI that this is not actionable because the amendment has not yet been archived as passed and recorded on the case page, nor has JBsupreme been officially notified of it. Jeff G., in view of the unanimous community opinion expressed at ANI, I think that this request is improper forum shopping and should not have been made. (I am leaving this thread open for now in case other admins disagree and think it is actionable.) Sandstein 22:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
|
Violation of Arb ruling at John Buscema
Scott Free (talk · contribs) (previously Skyelarke (talk · contribs) and Tenebrae (talk · contribs) are banned from editing John Buscema for one year. | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
The Arb ruling states:
1) Skyelarke/Scott Free attempted to restore his 2007 non-consensus edits in July 2008, as noted by now-admin User:Emperor here, who told him, "your edits to this page and the addition of that link is a pretty blatant attempt to get around things like consensus." After comments by Emperor and myself, Scott Free backed off from this attempt.
At this point, he began to reinsert the same or similar non-consensus edits as he did prior to the Arb ruling — with the addition of certifiably false citations. Some, which I initially took to be the work of an IP vandal, were made under what I alter learned was his IP, User:132.216.67.168.
Before that last edit, I had written on the article talk page:
The RfC at Talk:John Buscema#RFC has attracted little attention. It does, however, give detailed comparisons of Scott Free's disallowed, non-consensus edits from 2007 and his same/similar edits today.
This is disruptive editing, and while there is a lull while admins watch the page, Scott Free on the article talk page has made remarkable, obfuscating statements that indicate he will continue his efforts at first chance. Because of this disruptive editing, and his violation of both the letter and the spirit of the Arb ruling I believe Scott Free should be banned from editing this article for a reasonable period of time as the Arb ruling states. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC) I wasn't informed of this request. Either I could make a defense, but I think at this point I'd like to request that the case be re-opened, since the above is virtually a reitiration of the previous arb case complaints anyway. I'd like to summarize the problems since the ruling and include evidence and submit evidence that would include User:J Greb in the dispute. Anyway, I volunteer to step back from editing the article and the talk page indefinitely.--Scott Free (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC) defenseOn second thought, since I don't see any indication that the matter will be resolved any time soon - I might as well respond here : 1) We had a productive discussion on mirror sites - I agreed the link was innapropriate - the cited comment is an uncivil accusation.a 2) I had clearly explained what I was doing in various ways: article talk page :b, arbitration clarification: c talk page to an admin d with GA comics article experience:e placing a template on the page:
One instance of me forgetting to sign in is suspected as vandalism - why? 3) Accusation - I tried to resolve it in a civil manner beforehand and followed due procedure afterwards: f "Scott Free on the article talk page has made remarkable, obfuscating statements that indicate he will continue his efforts at first chance." "I'm a little concerned because after I contacted you on your talk page to initiate a discussion on your recent edits, and explain my own, you unilaterally, and without the reciprocal courtesy of a discussion, reverted many of the changes — specifically the clogging minutiae about a few inkers you seem to admire ..." ??? - Not true - Here's the article at that time of the comment (June 20) - the inker phrase is not there - see line 74f - I clearly offered discussion and explanation here (after line 111): g Things were at least civil and going relatively OK until the abrupt - h The above section has several innapropriate accusations - To his credit, of the 24 added references, there were 3 reference page typos which he spotted. I corrected them. What is the problem? I have explained on the talk page how the accusation of falsifying reference material is spurious and will add more info. Stumbling Block 1 - Repetitive, rigid, dogmatic, illogical consensus statement The so-called 2007 RFC consensus version is almost entirely unreferenced : 2007 Any I've material tried to re-introduce has been referenced, or modified according to comments in the 2007 RFC, or adapted, etc.. expansions I had added over 40 referenced passages after the RFC - so clearly, it's mathematically improbable that the 2007 RFC with 4 refs can have a serious bearing on any expanded material - I think it represents a lack of understanding of the verifiability policy. The problem is that he's seems convinced that I'm absolutely disruptively editing against a past consensus - (and seems to think that the arbitration decision supports his claim that there exists permanently rejected content on the article) and I don't think that that will change anytime soon. Has anyone besides TB supported this consensus claim? Stumbling Block 2 - Repetitive, uncivil conduct and content accusations based on the above This is what he's been repeating regularly since April 2007 1 Here are the recent sample of a string of uncivil conduct and content accusations, besides the many on the article talk page: Article edit descriptions: 02:47, 22 June 2010 Tenebrae (talk | contribs) (35,463 bytes) (rvt fannish, wholesale changes made without discussion, and similar to changes previously made that an RfC disallowed.) (undo) Noticeboard: 2 Admin talk pages: 34 (Calling it a brewing edit-war is exaggerated and inflammatory) Unfortunately he seems convinced that his behaviour is perfectly justifiable and arbitration hasn't noticeably changed that - unfortunately it's proven very effective in creating suspicion and mistrust and makes it very difficult for me to get any neutral admin or community assistance. Basically I see the real problem as being a small group of rigid deletionist niche editors attempting to block article expansion. If people are so concerned about NPOV issues (which I've never seen clearly explained in terms of NPOV policy per se) and respect of consensus, why are they relunctant to submit the contested material to a Peer Review? That would seem like an ideally adapted process to verify NPOV and establish a stable consensus. I have no beef against anyone. I wish everyone all the love and happiness in the world. I simply maintain that I'm a trustworthy Wikipedia GA article editor attempting to get neutral, civil feedback on article expansions. I've never bothered responding to the basic personal accusation, because I've always found it silly. But for the record, no, I'm not a deluded fanboy desperately trying to sneek in rejected fancruft. Peace out --Scott Free (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Response to Scott FreeIn the interest of brevity, I'll try to address just the major points. 1) He says, "I had clearly explained what I was doing". This "clear explanation" was an WP:OWN statement:
Given his disputatious history with the article, it would actually be simpler for other editors to see his edits bit by bit, rather than try to deal with a giant batch of them at once. In any event, it's inappropriate to warn off other editors until after he's good and done.
That post was a response to Scott Free calling those above edits "typos" ("Thanks for pointing out the typos." ... 14:04, 25 June 2010). My "abrupt" post pointed out:
[As I wrote on the Talk page] "Compare your non-consensus version from 2007, which you tried to sneak back in...
To which I replied on the Talk page: "So you're saying you should be allowed to make outright citation falsehoods and then see if excellent, experienced editors catch if after the fact?" In any event, it's currently the subject of an RfC, which is form of peer review. I could give more examples, but it comes down to:
ResponseFor the content issues, I had responded on the talk page: here For point six - the unreferenced material that has been re-inserted has several references added to them. Obviously an important distinction. Current article structure has been respected. I have no desire whatsoever to edit war - my last edit was simply to make corrections for the RFC discussion version. My main claim is that my efforts to initiate discussion to resolve the consensus confusion has been met with disruptiveness that makes it practically impossible to have neutral discussion. I'd be willing to have the case re-examined by arbitration - as a new arb request or maybe an ammendment request - I'm not too sure how to proceed. But it would essentially be the same statements and evidence presented here, with maybe 3 or 4 added points. --Scott Free (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Response to Sandstein"Frankly, I am not able to determine, based on the lengthy and nonstandard enforcement request and the long discussion above, who if any of the two is editing in accordance with any consensus." Precisely why I suggest taking it back to arbitration. Although I realize that the sanctions you propose are the standard thing to do, even though it won't change anything, I don't blame you. I suggest that the remedies apparently haven't helped resolve the content dispute and probably need to be revised. My situation as an editor has changed considerably since then and I would like to present evidence that the input of JGreb has emerged as a consistent pattern of non-neutral input that has been disruptive. IMAO, his description below is almost completely one-sided and in support of one party's unproven allegations. The charges of false references really are not true. I'm willing to provide scans of the reference works to prove that they are correct. Edit warring - to put things in perspective - there was one very minor instance of edit warring 3 years ago that lasted 2 hours. What's happening now, whatever it is, is very slow thing that has stopped. I humbly suggest that two bathtub farts in four years do not a persisent edit war make:-) Cordially, --Scott Free (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Administrator discussionWikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema indicates that this is the latest episode in a multi-year (since 2007!) series of edit wars between these two editors concerning John Buscema (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Frankly, I am not able to determine, based on the lengthy and nonstandard enforcement request and the long discussion above, who if any of the two is editing in accordance with any consensus. But a look at the article history shows that the two still edit war with one another about the article. Consequently, if no admin disagrees, I will stop the persistent editwarring, in enforcement of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema#Disruptive editing, by banning both editors from editing the article for the duration of one year. Sandstein 20:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
|
Jeffrey Vernon Merkey
Two socks blocked via WP:SPI. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Jeffrey Vernon Merkey
Edit history of User:Linuxmdb [10] shows a pattern which indicates that Jeff Merkey is the person behind the account.
Discussion concerning Jeffrey Vernon MerkeyStatement by Jeffrey Vernon MerkeyComments by others about the request concerning Jeffrey Vernon MerkeyThis is already at SPI, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. Sandstein 11:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Jeffrey Vernon MerkeyTwo socks blocked by Tim Song at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey/Archive. Sandstein 20:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC) |
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by User:I Pakapshem
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
- Appealing user
- I Pakapshem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – I Pakapshem (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sanction being appealed
- Topic ban that covers all pages, parts of pages and discussion related to these topic from the topics of Albania, Albanians, Greeks and Greece imposed at:
- Administrator imposing the sanction
- Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Notification of that administrator
- The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.
Statement by User:I Pakapshem
I was not aware that I was violating any restrictions. I believed that the restriction imposed on me by User:Nishkid64 was expired. Since my return from my 6 month block I have been working to improve Albanian related articles and started some like Shaban Polluzha. --I Pakapshem (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Phil, that was a year ago and I deleted that stuff from my talkpage. I think it's understandable that I might not remember all the details of a notification about sanction which I deleted and got almost a year ago.--I Pakapshem (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Statement by User:Sandstein
I agree with PhilKnight, below. Sandstein 13:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Statement by (involved editor 1)
Statement by (involved editor 2)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by <User:I Pakapshem>
Result of the appeal by User:I Pakapshem
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- There isn't any new information in this appeal. The user was notified of these restrictions, so the excuse that he didn't know isn't valid. In my opinion, this should be declined. PhilKnight (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Megistias
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Megistias
- User requesting enforcement
- Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Megistias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy that this user violated
- WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions ("editorial process")
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
[14], [15] (resuming same edit-wars for which he was sanctioned earlier, see below)
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
n.a., was already sanctioned previously for same edit wars
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- at a minimum: reinstatement of revert limitation as previously imposed in May; preferably: full, long-term topic ban
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- In early May, a group of several Greek and Albanian users were put on revert limitation until "the end of June", following a "travelling circus" situation that had escalated in revert-wars over Dardanians and Albanian nationalism, among others. While the other sanctioned editors have largely tried to edit constructively under the terms of these sanctions, Megistias simply waited out the sanction without editing anything (except for a few tag-team votes in AfDs), but returned immediately on their expiry to resume exactly the same revert-wars. Both his reverts are blind reverts and without talkpage explanation to his preferred version from before May [16][17], undoing multiple intermediate constructive edits. They also show the fundamental problem with his editing: his extreme mental inflexibility, which makes it almost impossible to debate anything with him. In the Dardanians case, the content problem with his edits were extensively discussed at the time, to the point where even his allies conceded he was wrong [18]. He now reverted without any sign of acknowledgment that he even noticed the arguments against him, then or now. [Background sketch of content dispute: this is about an article on group A (the Dardanians), where M. insists on mentioning a certain group B (the "Peresadyes") as parts of group A, noting at the same time that B were also part of group C (the Thracians). The objections were that both the link between B and C is overstated (because the sources only mention it as a conjecture, whereas he insists on presenting it as fact), and that the link between A and B is non-existent, because no source even mentions B as part of A.]
- Since these edits display the continuation of a very long-term, persistent pattern of disruption with no prospect of improvement, I ask for long-term sanctions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Megistias
Statement by Megistias
Comments by others about the request concerning Megistias
Result concerning Megistias
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Saguamundi
Saguamundi (talk · contribs) blocked for two weeks. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Saguamundi
Discussion concerning SaguamundiStatement by SaguamundiNo the reverts I made are not an attempt of arbitration enforcement. Otherwise the editions and reverts of tariqabjotu can apply as an arbitration enforcement as well. I reeadded the Geology Flora and Fauna sections because of their relevance and credible academic references. Any body has the right to contribute and is not vandalism.
Comments by others about the request concerning SaguamundiResult concerning Saguamundi
Blocked two weeks. Clear case of repeated breach of revert limitation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC) |
Tariqabjotu
Not an arbitration enforcement request; not actionable. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Tariqabjotu
Result concerning TariqabjotuThis page is only for requests for the enforcement of an arbitration decision. Since this request does not concern the enforcement of a specific arbitration case, it is closed. See WP:DR for how to resolve disagreements with admins and other editors. Sandstein 10:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC) |
Varsovian
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Varsovian
- User requesting enforcement
- MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Varsovian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy that this user violated
- Interaction ban imposed on Varsovian
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- [23] Loosmark started a debate on Nazi introduced names for Polish cities
- [24] Radek started discussion on the thread started by Loosmark
- [25] Varsovian joins in with provocative comment
- ...
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- [26]] Warning by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- As determined by admins if indeed sanctionable
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- User Varsovian has been placed under interaction ban with regarding user Loosmark and patricipation in topics articles as defined here. Is Varsovian's entry into a debate started by Loosmark and explored deeper by another user in sub thread regarding Loosmark's thread(complicated isn't it) a violation of the interaction ban? Note that I want to clarify this, I am personally of no opinion if this sanctionable or not. Interaction bans are something completely new to me.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.
Discussion concerning Varsovian
Statement by Varsovian
Please note that the section in which I contributed was Nazi names for Polish places. I did not make any post at all in the other section MyMoloboaccount mentions (i.e. this one). It is not a "sub-thread" which I posted in: it is a different section and on a different topic ("Nazi names" as opposed to "German names" and is about the inclusion of politically-driven names to ledes). And even if I had posted in that section, the exact wording of my interaction ban (which for some reason MyMoloboaccount fails to link to) states "they may still edit the same pages or discussions if they do not react to one another and otherwise stay out of each other's way." In no way have I reacted to any comments by anybody other than Radeksz. And how is it 'provocative' to point out that the names given to Polish towns/villages by the Communist regime in post-war Poland but no longer used are included in the ledes of the articles about those places?
I note that this is the second time today that a former member of the EEML has attempted to have me blocked (here Radeksz reports me for supposedly misrepresenting what sources say and then does precisely that himself). I further note that in reply to my question "Has something happened today at Enforcement ... ?" ([27]) Radeksz replies "I'm guessing Coren is referring to your frequent visits to that page, or perhaps just the last one" ([28]) and that edit was made 20 minutes before this request was first posted. Could there have been off-wiki communication as to which of the former EEMLers should next harass a victim? I do hope not, I really hope that the lessons of EEML have not been forgotten so soon. Varsovian (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Reply to MyMoloboaccount's edit of 15:55, 6 July
- I am not commenting on your email communication with Sandstein. I am observing that Radeksz made an apparent reference to this request 20 minutes before it was first posted. Did you discuss this request with him by email perhaps? Varsovian (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Varsovian
Regarding Varsovian concerns about timeframe. I actually posted this in somewhat similiar form to Sandstein by email for clarification yesterday(I didn't want it to be posted here as I am not sure if it violates the ban). He advised me to post it here[29]. Also despite Varsovians claims I have expressed clearly that I have no opinion if those actions are reason for block or not. The interaction ban seems to be new invention, so I am asking for clarification of the subject.
- 'Reply to Varsovian's edit of 16:16, 6 July 2010
No I did not, and your behaviour was discussed here before from what I can see, so there is nothing strange in Radeks statement.Furthermore you falsely imply that Radek made reference to this request, while he didn't. If you think Radek's actions require intervention please start an appropriate thread about this. The matter here is the issue of clarification of the interaction ban.
- Reply to Skapperod statements:
- As this very thread is part of this behaviour, I add this request here and ask that this request of Molobo be regarded as evidence.
- Sandstein can confirm that I sent him email asking for clarification way earlier if this report has any merit and if there is anything to be sanctioned.
- this is false. Loosmark started a thread "German names for Polish villages", where he argued that his mass removal of pre-1945 names of villages which became Polish after 1945 was justifie
Skapperod-you didn't notice the following Loosmark started discussion about Nazi names-in his first post this sentence is included right at the beginning: think it's especially problematic that he also adds into the lead separate names which were invented in 1938 by Nazi Germany[30]
- Molobo appear, having never before edited this article
I was contributing in discussion about German and Nazi names[31], which included information about edits by HerkusMonte. Once I overviewed recent HK's edits I noticededits to Wielbark page, which I knew from history. I checked sources and contributed to the article in significant way adding large section on history sourced by many publications. Mystery solved. You know very well that I edit many articles on Polish history including Polish cities,towns and villages that were within Germany before.
- The EEML case is widely known.
Loosmark was never part of EEML discussion group.
And finally-if you believe something has merit to report, It would be polite to start it in seperate request,rather than divert the topic of this one. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Three things: about the merits of this request, I'm inclined to accept Varsovian's defense above – his edit doesn't seem to violate the letter of the sanction. (Whether it is a constructive edit is open to some doubt, but be that as it may.) Second, I am somewhat concerned that a tendency towards coordinated hounding may again be discernible. Only yesterday, Loosmark (who is mutually topic-banned from interacting with Varsovian) inquired if he could raise a certain complaint against Varsovian [32]. The answer was that he couldn't. Only a few hours later, Radeksz takes over and raises the exact same complaint [33], on a matter he had previously never edited (I have noted the discussion at User talk:Coren, where Radeksz defends himself.) The same day, Varsovian engages in a discussion with Radeksz on the thread pointed out above, and MyMoloboaccount steps in and raises the complaint here. Third thing: I am also concerned about Varsovian's ongoing tendency towards tendentious OR at the 1946 victory parade issue, and am considering sanctions for that one – but it feels all the more irksome that these sanctions, if they happen, might in effect be perceived as a "reward" for the coordinated hounding behaviour that the EEML case was meant to stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- FPS I sent almost exact version of this report to Sandstein yesterday for clarification through email if this is valid yesterday-he can confirm this. If he would wrote that this has no merit then I wouldn't have posted. He directed me to post this to AE instead, writing "I normally act on interaction ban violations only after a report by the other editor", so I took it here, again-for clarification since I have no opinion on the matter.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Skäpperöd
(after multiple ec) I participated in the discussion Molobo referes to. Molobo misrepresented what happened.
- Molobo's first diff, quote: "[34] Loosmark started a debate on Nazi introduced names for Polish cities"
- This is false. Loosmark started a thread "German names for Polish villages", where he argued that his mass removal of pre-1945 names of villages which became Polish after 1945 was justified. The diff given by Molobo confirms that, and consensus is that Loosmark's removal was unjustified (whole thread: [35]).
- Molobo's second diff, quote: "[36] Radek started discussion on the thread started by Loosmark"
- This is also false. Radeksz started a discussion not at the thread started by Loosmark, but a thread started by WlaKom titled "Nazi names for Polish places" [37]. WlaKom started this thread for editors to separately discuss a distinct, though related issue that got mixed up with the topic of Loosmark's thread during the discussion. Except for Radeksz and Varsovian, noone has participated in this thread so far [38].
- Molobo's third diff, quote: "[39] Varsovian joins in with provocative comment"
- Varsovian was responding to Radeksz and did not make any reference to Loosmark.
- Further investigation needed
Further investigation is however needed concerning the recent "help-each-other-out"-behaviour shown by Loosmark, Radeksz and Molobo. Radeksz just returned from a topic ban and Molobo just returned from a long block. The EEML case is widely known.
- As this very thread is part of this behaviour, I add this request here and ask that this request of Molobo be regarded as evidence.
- At Wielbark, Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship, Radeksz made some edits, HerkusMonte then made an edit, and suddenly Loosmark and Molobo appear, having never before edited this article [40].
- Yesterday, Loosmark asked at Sandstein's talkpage: "Sandstein, I have a question, if a user with whom I am banned from interacting makes false claims that a source says something which the source doesn't actually say, who and where can I alert of the situation without breaking my ban?" Sandstein declined. At night, Radeksz started a thread at FPaS' talk page "Misrepresentation_of_what_the_sources_say", filing the request that hours before Sandstein had told Loosmark not to. Offline co-ordination again?
Skäpperöd (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Varsovian
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.