From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Requests for enforcement

How to file a request (please use this format!): Enforcement requests against users may be brought if a user is likely to be acting in breach of the principles and decisions in a closed arbitration case, or a passed temporary injunction (for open cases). Enforcement is not "dispute resolution". ArbCom decisions are the last stop of dispute resolution. ArbCom has already decided that the actions and behaviors in the remedies are not constructive to our purpose of building an encyclopedia and has ruled they should not recur. The question here is whether or not that prohibition was breached. Requesting enforcement: Arbitration Enforcement is not the place for anything other than enforcement of a closed Arbitration Committee ruling. It is not for: Content disputes, unless (very rarely) there is a content dispute prohibition in place. Use Requests for Comments for content issues. Conduct not covered by the ruling. A Request for amendment may be filed if the existing sanctions are inadequate, or help may be requested at the administrators' incident noticeboard. Proposed decisions (other than passed temporary injunctions). A proposed decision is not enforceable until the case is formally closed. Bad behavior in an open case should be reported on the administrators' incident noticeboard and you should consider noting the behavior on the /Evidence page of the case, and in some cases requesting a temporary injunction until the case is completed. Community or administrator decisions, breach of these should be raised at the administrators' incident noticeboard or in exceptional cases, cited as evidence in a request for arbitration. Conduct at Arbitration Enforcement: Most editors under ArbCom sanction are neither trolls nor vandals and should be treated with the same respect as any other editor. We should still Assume Good Faith. ArbCom decisions are designed to be coercive, not punitive. Gaming the system at editors under ArbCom sanction is about as civilized as poking sticks at caged animals. Messages posted here that egregiously violate Wikipedia's civility or personal attacks policies will be redacted and may be deleted. Administrator information: If you participate on this page you should be prepared to mete out potentially long term bans and you should expect reactive behavior from those banned. In November 2008, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion which stated that administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except with the written authorization of the Committee, or following a clear, substantial, and active community consensus to do so. Provisionally (pending updates to the enforcement process), this applies only to specific administrative actions affecting specific users; it does not apply to notices, editor lists, warnings, broad topic area actions, or other "enforcement actions" that are not specific actions applied to specific editors. (Clarification motion) The enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally in order to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Not all enforcement requests will show behavior restricted by ArbCom. It may, however, violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines which you may use administrative discretion to deal with. More than one side in a dispute may have arbcom conduct rulings applicable to them. Once an issue is resolved, close it and move it to the top of the Resolved issues section, from whence a bot should archive it in 3 days. Using this page Click here to add a new request and follow the instructions that will appear above the edit box. Please be aware that as a user requesting arbitration enforcement, it is your responsibility to supply all information required for administrators to determine whether enforcement is required, as described in the instructions. Your request may otherwise be declined without further action.

[edit] Parishan

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

[edit] Request concerning Parishan

User requesting enforcement:
Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Parishan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Severe edit warring in the past 3 weeks:

• Gago Drago [1], [2] The name of the town was Verinshen in 1985, when he was born, Parishan replaces it with the current Azeri renamed name.

• Ganja [3] Foreign names were first removed by Proger. Parishan reverted to that version. [4], [5], [6]

• Julfa [7] Brandmeister removed the Armenian spelling (he called it tweaked). Parishan reverted to that version. [8], [9], [10]

• Azerbaijani people [11] Parishan placed them as Hanafi, then reverted when that is replaced. [12], [13].

• Kars [14], Atabek removed the Armenian term and replaced it with Georgian. Parishan reverts to that version. [15]

• On Lingua Franca he launched a slow revert war that he resumed recently. It all started several months ago when VartanM removed Parishan's addition. [16]. From then on, Parishan engaged in a slow revert war. [17], [18]. Mackrakis modified it to comply with the sources Parishan used, it did not satisfy Parishan. [19], he continued to revert war. [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. He stopped for a while, but recently started again. [28], [29], [30].

• Made drastic changes to the Armenian churches template. [31], followed by a partial revert. [32] then revert: [33]

• Removed the link to Armenia from an Armenian monastery. [34], then reverted the compromise. [35]

• Revert war with IPs here. [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. Then continues against registered users. [43], [44]

• I think this is sufficient to get the picture. If not, I will add more. Note that Parishan was almost placed under restrictions during AA1 already. See here: I will not hesitate to initiate a motion to modify this remedy after the case is closed if you involve yourself in edit wars or other disruptive types of editing.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
See below, under 'Additional comments'.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
High time for AA2 restrictions to apply to Parishan

Additional comments by Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!!:
Note that Parishan was informed officially (that is by uninvolved admins) twice of AA2 restrictions, here and here unlike most users. While the initial reverts were against AzeriTerroru (probable sock account), they are mostly reverts to recent controversial changes. Rest of the reverts were against other users.

In the recent past, various admin’s have confirmed that Parishan has a tendency to edit war but he's not under restrictions. See Deacon of Pndapetzim 's comment and the following report here.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[45]

[edit] Discussion concerning Parishan

[edit] Statement by Parishan

What we see here is a random collection of all article reverts (controversial, non-controversial, sockpuppet reverts, anonymous vandalism reverts, and even plain edits) that I happened to perform in the past three weeks presented here as a gigantic list of instances of 'edit warring.'

In addition to not being a revert, edit (1) is merely clarification of non-controversial information. It does not take a wiseman to figure out that being born in the given town physically cannot imply being born in the mentioned region. Mind you, it was never disputed further, so the term edit warring does not apply here.

Edits (2) through (12) are reverts of a sockpuppet who could not think of anything better to do than to stalk edit histories of Azerbaijan-related article contributors undoing all their recent edits. His/her reverts would have to be undone eventually.

Edits (12) through (15) do not qualify as 'edit warring.' The other party removed information without consulting the provided sources, but the issue was quickly resolved on the article's talkpage.

Edits (16) through (18) are definitely not edit warring. In fact, with those edits I expanded the template adding more links that pertained to the topic and are not disputed (they are still in the template), and left a comment on the talkpage. My single revert in edit (19) was triggered by the other party either not having noticed the proposed discussion on the talkpage or not willing to participate in it. With that, I did not engage in any more reverts.

I wish I could comment on edits (20) and (21) but I am clueless as to what User:Eupator meant by posting them here. Are they supposed to qualify as 'edit warning'? Please elaborate.

Edits (22) and (23) are one-time edits in different articles; calling them 'edit-warring' seems too harsh.

Edits (24) to (27) are reverts of an anonymous vandal who 'specialised' in removing references to Azeris and the Azeri language from as many Iran-related articles, as s/he stumbled upon, and specifically in the case with Farah Pahlavi in removing sourced information about the personality's ancestry. I have tried twice [46] [47] to get the page at least temporarily semi-protected in order to put an end to this IP-switching user's disruptive activity, but neither time the administration considered this case of vandalism severe enough. Parishan (talk) 05:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by other editors

Eupator, could you please improve the presentation of the evidence so that we can establish more easily whether this is indeed edit-warring? For instance, I am unable to easily determine whether edit #1 is even a revert of somebody. You could complement each entry in the list with the name of the article affected, a diff of the revision reverted to, and the name of the editor who is being warred with.  Sandstein  05:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

In hindsight I see how spending a little more time to organize the diffs would have helped you guys to sort through them.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Eupator, have you ever been involved with a content dispute with this editor? It seems likely because you were a named party in the first AA case. I feel we need to do a thorough review of their entire editing over the last few months (to avoid judging on cherry picked diffs), and we should also review your editing (to establish whether you come here with clean or unclean hands). We should not permit editors to use this board as a tactic to gain the upper hand in content disputes. Jehochman ^Talk 22:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

AzeriTerroru (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser) appears to be a single purpose, edit warring account, possibly a sock puppet. I think we need to determine who's running that account. It takes two (or more) to edit war. There is no sense in sanctioning only one side of an edit war. Jehochman ^Talk 22:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Already blocked by Nishkid64, sock of Shahin Giray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse filter log · block user · block log). Thatcher 00:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Eupator, what sanctions exactly do you request? The modified AA2 remedies are very broad and allow admins to do almost anything. Parishan has already been notified of the case and the remedies, the next step would be to apply some sort of specific measure. What do you request? Thatcher 00:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merely the application of standard revert/civility parole (one revert per page per seven-day period with respect to any article that reasonably deals with AA issues) for the duration deemed necessary.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 01:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Hi Thatcher, gotta say i'm impressed :) However I still believe that Parishan's reverts are part of a disturbing pattern though. One good example is with the article of Kars. On that article Parishan attempted to incorporate the modern Azeri term with a long history of revert warring. [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53]. Unsuccessful, the Armenian name was removed altogether just recently by Atabek, and when reverted Parishan reverted back. In my opinion Parishan very often uses his additional revert privileges against users under 1RR. On Lingua Franca, this report by Fedayee may be helpful: [54].-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 02:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment. In a general, I have no problem with spelling for a particular town if there are verifiable NPOV references to do so. In this case, Kars has not much to do with Armenia, except for the fact that Kars province is located on the border of Armenia. Moreover, the origin of the name, as provided by NPOV reference is Georgian (kari - gate) not Armenian, the Armenian spelling cannot even provide the meaning in translation Armenian with a source. Anyways, since this is a topic-specific issue which needs to be resolved on talk page, not sure why this is a subject of discussion in WP:AE, except for lack of WP:AGF. Atabəy (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I am aware that content dispute is not allowed here, but for clarity sake I have to note that 'Verinshen' was never the name of that town (this is regarding the edits in Gago Drago). See 28-76 on this Soviet-issued map. Parishan (talk) 08:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher, I do not see a need in banning from editing the page Lingua franca. Perhaps you did not notice that the discussion regarding Azeri involved two sections on the talkpage. In the first section, after the third party review of the issue, I discovered another source and restored the deleted information having provided this new reference (as opposed to "reverting Mackrakis' version", as Eupator is trying to present it here). User:VartanM reverted this edit but ignored my proposition to continue the discussion. I let the crippled version hang in there, even though it was no fault of mine that VartanM's disagreement stemmed merely from being uncomfortable with the word "Azeri" being used on Wikipedia (anyone who has read the talkpage can see that he had not cited a single academic source or provided any plausible scienfitic counter-argument in response to about six sources he was presented with). So this is not a case of me insisting on the importance of "Azeri"-ness; really this is a case of VartanM and Fedayee having a problem with the academic use of the word "Azeri" all throughout articles on Wikipedia despite its academic validity (in fact, VartanM has been reported precisely for deliberately stripping Wikipedia of mentionings of Azeris and Azerbaijan [55]). Since February I have discovered two or three more independent pieces of evidence to back up the information he kept removing. This time it did not cause any disagreement or controversy. So I really have no idea why I am being considered for punishment as a result of my activity in this article. I would say, I did my best as an editor having had the patience to spend four months on the talkpage over one sentence backed by six or seven sources (found and cited by myself) reacting on outrageously unacademic statements from someone who was clearly trying either to wear me out or to temporise. I am all for reaching compromise, but compromise is not possible when the other party has literally nothing on the table except speculations: no sources, no stable arguments, not even a clear idea of what they are trying to disprove. Also note that while this discussion is going on here, an anonymous account goes around all of the said articles deleting the information added by me, as if attempting to provoke me to edit warring. Parishan (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note that Greiwood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse filter log · block user · block log), who was involved in the edit war at Ganja, is blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user. Thatcher 04:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd like to hear what VartanM and Fedayee have to say about Lingua franca. Thatcher 04:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I will keep this short and concise. The problem is not that Parishan isn't using sources but that the sources he uses do not say what he claims they say. He assumes too much from them. Under those circumstances, I can just not pretend that Parishan ignores the sources he is using do not support his wording and that's why it's impossible to debate with him. See my reply on Lingua Franca here. He also added a new source, but the source is not clear. Note also Parishan's consideration of the other editors version: "...the page is being reverted back to its non-vandalised state." As for the claimed removal of Azeri, Parishan shows a claimed report (his edit) but fails to provide the actual initial reply by VartanM here, the problem was anachronism something which Parishan never addressed. Note that other users' skepticism in trusting that discussion will lead anywhere in Parishan's case is because time and time again he ignores what others say. See those long two replies by an editor here about Parishan's created article [56], [57]. Parishan does not even bother replying to anything, the only comment he leaves is this after he removes the tag, when most of the reasons given to have the tag have nothing to do with this. If a revert war starts, he has a revert advantage over other editors so no one bothers reverting. That's all I'm going to add for now. - Fedayee (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

For anyone willing to look through the discussion, I think it is enough to assess the quality of argumentation on each side to realise who was driven by a desire to contribute productively to Wikipedia and whose only goal was bad-faith POV-pushing. Parishan (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest to that "anyone" to also have a look at the "sources". Sardur (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Let them be my guests. Parishan (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If it wasn't for Moreschi's intervention here, where he pointed out the obviously more relevant title, you would have continued lumping all Turkic speakers as Azeris. The sources you provide fall vert short of supporting the sentences you put together. You even justified the following and never changed your behaviour since. Here's a simple example of how you cherry pick sources: [58]. You're providing a 1942 map in Russian knowing very well that after that map was produced most of those names were changed as seen here. Even cherry picking has its bounds. Thatcher, I invite you to mediate a discussion in lets say this article and see for yourself what the real problem with Parishan's articles is. Only on few occasions did Parishan correct articles in accordance with the sources, such as here (the source said Turkic). I think you get the picture.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Eupator, your desire to fantasise does not limit itself even here. This is an entry from the 1978 issue of the Great Soviet Encyclopædia regarding what you refer to as 'Verinshen.' None of the sources you provided say anything about any 'renaming.'

To administrators: above is exactly the type of behaviour that the users who are reporting me here frequently display during discussions. Speculations, original research and pushing false information despite having facts in front of their eyes in the form of sources, later collective reverting, initiating a chain of countless reverts and as a culmination, reporting the other party for 'POV-pushing' and 'edit warring.' Parishan (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Eupator and Parishan, please stop discussing your disagreements here and limit yourself to comments strictly relevant to the question whether or not Parishan's conduct is disruptive as claimed in the enforcement request.  Sandstein  05:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I know I went off topic. My argument is that 1) Parishan regularly edit wars, 2) He is very often uncivil as seen above ("your desire to fantasise does not limit itself even here") 3) Sees Wiki as a battlefield. For a long while he used to refer to everyone he didn't agree with as an opponent in quite a condescending manner until he was warned not to:[59]. The rest is your run of the mill content dispute and only Thatcher and Moreschi seem to be willing to dig deep and research each matter closely. If Thatcher wants to place new types of restrictions it would be nice to see them enforced.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, I apologise, but I think this little debate says quite a lot about how my edits come to be considered 'disruptive' by Eupator and certain other uses who are heavily involved in the editing of Armenia-Azerbaijan-related articles. Whenever POV-pushing cannot do its trick, the other party's edits are seen as 'disruptive.' Parishan (talk) 03:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Eupator, I have been and still am referring to them as opponents. I have never been warned or been told about its 'condescending' connotation. OED defines an opponent as 'a person who disagrees with or resists a proposal', which is what happens during Wikipedia discussions. An example of it being used in a sentence: 'I should not be held responsible for my opponent's poor command of English.' Parishan (talk) 03:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

One interesting point that should not be lost is Sandstein (below) actually complaining about administrators needing to evaluate the content of a contested edit before taking sanctions. The implication in that comment is that Sandstein thinks it OK to shoot first and never even bother to ask questions later. This explains much about his scattergun approach to inflicting sanctions on editors. From several past examples I had assumed he was displaying a most blatant bias. Is it actually the case that he just doesn't give a damn? I would hope that evaluating the content of an edit before applying sanctions would be a basic requirement expected of all administrators. Meowy 18:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Result concerning Parishan

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

• Analyzing the diffs. Thatcher 01:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Lots of contentious editing about the importance of "Azeri-ness" in place names, etc. Many attempts to provide sources, or better sources. Discounting the sockpuppet who was stirring up trouble, most of the remaining reversions are not of major concern. However, use of article talk pages is rare.

• Preliminary recommendations: I am contemplating the following,

1. Banning Parishan, VartanM and Fedayee from Lingua franca indefinitely. They can discuss there issue on the talk page, and when they have reached a stable compromise, the article ban will be rescinded.
2. Placing Megastrike14 and Serouj on formal notice about the case and possible remedies. Warning Megastrike about logged out edits.
3. Warning Parishan to use talk pages more often to negotiate disputed edits rather than reverting (and sometimes trying to explain edits in edit summaries).

Not sure that further is required at this time. Thatcher 01:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have a further suggestion. I am not sure that 1RR is warranted at this time. Eupator's evidence shows a pattern of Parishan adding Azeri spellings, place name variants, and evidence that people or things were Azeri, but also removing Armenian spellings, place name variants, and links to things or people being Armenian. I'm considering an editing restriction on Parishan, that he may add Azeri spelling and name variants to articles where he believe it appropriate, and where he has reliable sources, but he may not remove Armenian place names, links, and spelling variants from any article. He may suggest such on the talk pages. If there is consensus to remove Armenian names, links and spellings, then someone else may do it. If there is no consensus among the usual editors, Parishan is advised to seek outside advice by RFC or third opinion, or to seek compromise. I'd like to know what other admins think about this; if it seems that it might work, there are several other editors this restriction could be applied to.
• I think that a frequent problem with these articles, which I just realized, is that the inclusion of a linguistic or cultural variant place name or spelling in the lead of an article is used as a way of marking the territory, to say, "See, there is an Azeri name for this place, that proves that it used to be Azeri even though its current status is in dispute." Or, "The Armenians never lived here before the current geopolitical dispute so giving this place an Armenian name is wrong." (Substitute any other ethnic, cultural or political group of your choice.) The use of the lead in this way, to gain traction in a geopolitical dispute, is wrong. In some cases articles contain a discussion of the subject's disputed status, where variant names can go. ("Smith 1998 says the Azeri name for the region was XXX, but Jones 2001 says the Azeris were never a significant presence in the region.") I think there are a lot of editors who are dicking around with adding and removing linguistic variants to the leads of articles, for geopolitical reasons, maybe we can stop this. Presumably, an editor with an affinity for group A will be able to find references to support his argument, if so he should be allowed to add it. But he can not directly remove group B, only propose it on the talk page. We could limit it to the lead and to categories, since that is where most of the trouble is, or make it global. Think it will work in general? Thatcher 05:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the extensive analysis, which I believe is quite correct, especially with regard to the general problem of addition and removal of place names etc. on account of presumed geopolitical bias. Your preliminary recommendations are uncontroversial, I think, and I find your proposed sanction with respect to territorial behavior interesting. I'm not sure, though, whether it is easily enforceable, because administrators would need to evaluate the content of each contested edit individually. Also, editors behaving in this way can be assumed to edit non-neutrally in other respects with regard to their favored group, as well. Might it be easier to just issue brief topic bans to editors that exhibit territorial behavior (i.e., consistently adding/removing contested names, spelling variants, categories etc)? In this case, we may also need to outline the general concept in some guideline related to WP:NPOV.  Sandstein  05:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

With respect to admins evaluating content, that already happens, for example, an article about a pop singer would not normally fall under this case, but would if the editors were fighting about his or her nationality. We already know that editors in this area edit non-neutrally with respect to ethnic and cultural divisions. We don't normally sanction people for having an ethno-cultural POV, but for bad editing behavior in connection with that POV (edit warring, ignoring consensus, dismissing otherwise acceptable sources, personal attacks, etc.) I'm struck by the seemingly large number of disputes that involve article leads and categories. The question for me is whether this would avoid some disputes or merely shift their location to the body of the article. I think it's worth a time-limited test. Insterested in further admin input. Thatcher 11:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the territorial behaviour sanction is too easily gamed. The others seem fine. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree with Thatcher's take on the issue, but I think that in the article Lingua franca has been disrupted not by Parishan, but by his opponents, who keep reverting sourced info added by Parishan. Therefore I think that people removing sourced info must be placed on restriction. Otherwise, the problem with Azeri and Armenian names in the leads of articles about locations in Armenia and Azerbaijan is a long standing issue. I even initiated an RFC about that a couple of years ago. Generally, Armenian users insist on inclusion of Armenian names in the leads of articles about locations in Azerbaijan, but revert any attempts to include Azeri names for locations in Armenia. I can cite diffs, but at the moment I'm away on vacation and have a limited access to the Internet. I will pursue this issue when I'm back. But there's a problem of Armenian and Azeri names that should be adressed in general. I think something should be done to resolve this problem. Grandmaster 09:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Loosmark

[edit] Prem Rawat

[edit] Request concerning Will Beback

User requesting enforcement:
Momento (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Will Beback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat#Article_probation/ disruptive editing [106]

"Prem Rawat and related articles, including their talk pages, are subject to article probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivility".

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Notice of edit [107] Violating edit [108]

Despite an ongoing discussion about the appropriateness of using the term "cult" in the lead (OK in the rest of the article) in which three involved editors are objecting to the use of "cult" in the lead, Will Beback ignored the discussion, ignored consensus and ignored any other form of resolution and changed to lead of the Prem Rawat article to insert "cult". When asked to revert this disruptive edit, he ignored that as well.

Diffs of edits by three editors expressing opposition -

1. By Terry Macro [109]
2. By Zanthorp [110]
3. By JN466 [111]

Diffs of edit asking Will Beback to revert but his doesn't.[112]

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Topic ban of Prem Rawat related articles.

Additional comments by Momento (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC):
WillBeback has already been admonished in April for his editing of Prem Rawat articles [113] and blocked in May for violating remedies. [114] He assumes his opinion is more important than editors who disagree with him and ignores their input and the ongoing discussion in order to impose his will on the article. Asked to revert his edit, he ignores that as well showing a complete and deliberate disregard of consensus or any other appropriate avenue for resolving the issue.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
Will Beback notified.[115]

[edit] Discussion concerning Will Beback

[edit] Statement by Will Beback

Timing: Momento says I posted the text ten hours after suggesting it. That's way off. The matter came up for discussion starting 08:40, 16 June 2009.[116] I proposed an additional half-sentence worth of text on 09:43, June 24, 2009.[117] After several days of discussion I rephrased it slightly on 19:09, June 28, 2009.[118] The edit to the article itself was made two days later, on 19:18, June 30, 2009.[119]

Discussion: Momento says that three editors expressed opposition. But the comments he links to are not all strong opposition. Jayen466 said that it would be a reasonable position to leave out the material.[120] That seems more ambivalent than opposed. Zanthorp says that a different formulation than what I was proposing is not a perfect solution (how many solutions on Wikipedia are perfect anyway?).[121] And Terrymacro says that unless someone can refute an argument from Jayen it shouldn't go in,[122] but then his argument about Google hits (based on a faulty google search) was answered within 20 minutes.[123][124] Momento omits to indicate the support of other editors. Obviously, I supported the text.

Here, Rainer P. agrees that the text is accurate, and just disagrees on its placement.[125]

Here, Cla68 endorses the proposal.[126]

Here, Rainer P. agrees to the text in its final form, and suggests a location, which I follow.[127]

Here, Savlonn endorses the change.[128]

Here, Maelefique endorse the change.[129]

Supportive remarks were also made by Wowest.[130]

And Nik Wright2 had gotten the entire discussion started by asking for the text to be improved in the way we eventually did.[131]

So that means there are between five and seven editors who are supportive of the approach or the text, while apparently there are three who are opposed either to the nature of the text or its exact placement, or are simply ambivalent about it.

Disruption: Since June 19, I have made only this one edit to the article, aside from reverting vandalism and a small formatting change. I fail to see how a single edit, which is well-sourced and neutral, that added a half a sentence, one which had been discussed for nearly fourteen days, and one which was supported by at least five editors, is disruptive. Any editor could have reverted the edit but none did. I did not edit war, even under the strict revert limitations set on the article.

Conclusion: This is a spurious complaint by an editor who is topic banned himself. It includes factual inaccuracies or faulty characterizations. Even if all the factual claims were true they would still not prove disruption, nor any violation of the remedies in the RFaR. Yesterday, Momento placed a notice on a new editor's talk page about editing the Prem Rawat articles.[132] Since Momento is topic banned I think it would be more helpful if he stayed away from all aspects of this topic, including filing enforcement requests or commenting on edits on-wiki.   Will Beback  talk  06:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Reply by Momento

Before I start, is it deliberate that Sandstein allows Will Beback 24 hours to reply to my comments but allows me only 22 minutes to reply to his? Particularly since WB has claimed support from "five editors" when three of the editors weren't even talking about the edit in question.

Timing: Will Beback claims "Momento says I posted the text ten hours after suggesting it.That's way off. The matter came up for discussion starting 08:40, 16 June 2009". That is incorrect as my comment and the diffs I presented clearly shows. WB gave notice of edit at 10:35, 30 June 2009. [133] And made the violating edit at 19:18, 30 June 2009, 8 hours and 43 minutes later. [134]

Discussion: The comments do not need to be "strong opposition". The fact that three editors were discussing and opposing the proposed edit is enough. An RFC should have been called if required. Consensus is not in numbers. Everyone supported have "cult" and "sect" in the article, the discussion was where and how.Momento (talk) 07:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Other editors:

The diffs supplied by WB do not support his claim that they supported his edit.

Cla68 did not support WB's proposed edit. His comment was made regarding your proposal that immediately preceded his comment - "The proposal isn't to state that the DLM was a cult. The propsoal is to say that it was included in lists of cults. That is NPOV and accurate". [135]

Wowest did not support WB's proposed edit but made a generic comment about cults. [136]

Nik Wright2 did not support WB's proposed edit. On the contrary his comment was "Geaves quotes no data to support the claim, I suggest removing this element because its quantitative character requires some supporting data.... [137]

Conclusion People have tried to follow Wiki rules at Prem Rawat. Instead of edit wars and reverts they've been arguing their points on the talk page to try to get the best result. But it is all in vain. Because following the rules isn't necessary for some. Will Beback gave less than nine hours notice of making an edit that was being discussed and opposed by three editors. He ignored the discussion and consensus and made it anyway. An edit so badly written and incorporated in to the article that two of the three editors who supported it after it was done (no one had time to comment after he said he was going to make the edit) still had problems with the edit. Savlonn commented "a few minor quibbles, such as moving to the end of the paragraph taking the date order out of sync" and Maelefique commented "agree with Savlonn, from a chronological viewpoint, it might be better to put it ...." In short, a bad edit made against opposition without consensus in an article that is supposed to be under probation. Aren't I supposed to bring this here? Apparently not judging by the indecent haste with which Sandstein (22 minutes) and KillerChihuahua (32 minutes) rushed to judgement. Will Beback was given 24 hours to respond to my comments, Sanstein didn't give me 22 minutes to respond to WB's ( I wonder why it's called discussion when no one is allowed to discuss it). They were so quick they didn't notice that Cla68, Wowest and Nik W2 did not support the edit as WB claimed. Or that the"factual inaccuracies or faulty characterizations" WB claimed I made in my request were all his. If Sandstein and KillerChihuahua were serious about this case they would remove their comments and let other admins review this case in it's entirety so as not be influenced by their premature opinions. Sandstein even wonders if it was "prima facie disruptive". Have a look at the Prem Rawat article now, is that an edit war I see.[138] Or look below to Prem Rawat 3.(talk) 07:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by other editors

I have amended this complaint according to Sandstein's request but note that "You may also choose not to use this template and format your request by hand, as long as you provide all relevant information as described in the template above".Momento (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Result concerning Will Beback

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

• The edit objected to is not prima facie disruptive to the point of warranting sanctions, and disagreeing with it does not make it so. This is a frivolous request and an attempt to misuse arbitration enforcement for the purpose of furthering one's position in a content dispute. I invite comment by administrators or (in the section above) by other editors as to whether Momento's topic ban (could somebody link to it?) should be construed as extending, or be extended to, this noticeboard.  Sandstein  07:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Frivolous complaint, as noted by Sandstein. Support extending ban and/or giving a warning for harassment of Bebeck. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 07:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Greg L

This issue arose at the village pump (see thread) and I'm bringing this here now before somebody else does, mostly because (while the lameness factor is mystifying) I think I see an easy way out of this dispute:

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Greg L restricted:

15) Greg L (…) is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. Greg L is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Passed 12 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 18:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

I believe this revert is principally stylistic, and not prescribed by any entity other than himself (see Talk:Kilogram: "It makes the articles look better and any editor worth his salt can easily comprehend why they are there").

While I'm sure no true Scotsman would doubt him, Greg's version contains partially overlapping (i.e. improperly nested) element tags, whereas the most applicable style guideline I can find says that documents should be well formed.

The software (and html-tidy extension etc.) does clean up bad code like this, e.g.:

<b>whoever wrote <i>this</b> ought to be shot</i>

<b>whoever wrote <i>this</i></b><i> ought to be shot</i>

This ensures a properly parseable tree of elements, but one should avoid over-relying on post-save corrections as they tend to reinforce bad habits and leave mirror/fork projects complaining when database dumps contain articles and templates with mostly invalid html.

I'm sure exactly what Greg is even trying to do here anyway. The extra 0.1em of space is barely visible at normal font-sizes (and I could personally not care less provided they all look the same), but clearly the correct place for it would be in MediaWiki:Common.css:

sup.reference {
    font-weight: normal;
    font-style: normal;
+   margin-left:0.1em;
    }

I think that would make everyone happy here, but personally I'd suggest using the same margin on the right side too. — CharlotteWebb 12:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• User blocked for 24 hour in enforcement of the arbitral editing restriction: no Wikipedia style guideline prescribes the use of "span" tags. The discussion on the merits about how to format such text should take place elsewhere.  Sandstein  13:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah, well… back to the drawing board. I was hoping that wouldn't be necessary. — CharlotteWebb 13:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Aargh! It has been correctly pointed out to me on my talk page that the edit at issue was made prior to the arbitration sanction and cannot therefore be grounds for a block. I apologise to Greg L and have undone the block. I'll be more careful in the future, waiting for the user whose conduct is contested to comment prior to taking enforcement action. And Charlotte Webb, please be more careful also.  Sandstein  13:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Since being unblocked, Greg L has reverted a stylistic change to that same article, Kilogram. See [139][140] According to this he may be intending to appeal. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That is regrettable. Unless somebody can show that this "font color" tag is somehow mandated by a style guideline, I guess we will have to re-block him now.  Sandstein  23:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• OK, I am an active editor on Fuzzball (string theory) and Kilogram. I am making edits all the time on those articles that involve font color, span gaps, typestyle, the linking and de-linking of words. What in the world does “…except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline” mean? CharlotteWebb had to go back through thousands of edits to find an example of where I reverted someone well over a year ago because he/she doesn’t like to see CSS used in Wikipedia’s articles.

  Does this mean that if I italicize some text to set it off for emphasis, that unless there is some style guide somewhere that says doing so is “prescribed”, then all editor have to do to jerk my chain is change what I’ve been writing and I can’t even oppose it? I might as well as walk away from Wikipedia; I author articles, I’m not a wikignome where I just make spelling corrections on text that is in roman-only font style. What if I link something? If someone goes in and links some totally trivial word in Fuzzball (string theory), such as “mist” in this sentence:

  “Whereas the event horizon of a classic black hole is thought to be very well defined and distinct, Mathur and Lunin further calculated that the event horizon of a fuzzball should be very much like a mist: fuzzy, hence the name ‘fuzzball.’ ”

  …I can’t change it back? That would be a style change, would it not? Is that the ball and chain on my leg? I can author these articles in which I am the major contributor but if anyone comes in and changes it, I can’t undo that change if it can be argued that was stylistic and isn’t “prescribed” (whatever the heck that means), like a 0.2 em gap to keep a refnote tag from colliding with adjacent italicized text? Just give me the word. For if I am so encumbered, I will not edit anymore on Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  P.S. The “reverting” you mention that I did on Kilogram might well be some sort of trap someone set up for me. That editor didn’t change all the links that refer to the glossary; only four of them (that edit here) and left the vast majority (there are 24 in the article) in place. Go count them in the article and see for yourself. What a way to kludge up a nice article. So if someone goes in and does an incomplete change in an article like this, I can’t undo it; I just leave the article screwed up? Are you serious? This is the limitation on me; just stand back and watch editors muck things up with incomplete hacks? Greg L (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  P.P.S. I’ll be e-mailing an appeal in the next 24 hours formally asking for an adjustment to my restrictions. Please advise where I am supposed to send it. Greg L (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You can either post it on this page (see appeals section above), or if you prefer to e-mail it, send it to the ArbCom mailing list (if you send it to any arbitrator, such as me, he or she will forward to the rest of the list on request). Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you, Newyorkbrad. I will e-mail it to you or one of the others. Greg L (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping not to see arbitrary knee jerks like what was provoked by Charlotte's post here which does great damage to her honest intentions and her credibility as well as those of the admin who leapt up and blocked Greg. It appears to me that the edit concerned should not be considered a 'stylistic' edit. Closing the html tags is a technical matter. What is of greater concern is that it seems to have set Jayvdb off on a witch-hunt of Greg's actions, choosing an an incident which could be viewed as vandalism of article where Greg is the foremost contributor, whiffs of entrapment. I wonder if my defense of Greg here will set off accusation that I am in breach of participating in a discussion on stylistic matter? :-) Ohconfucius (talk) 03:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have to wonder about Charlotte’s move. She managed to induce Sanderstein to block, and he (tried to) undo the block after Ryan pointed out that I did that edit in March. Umm… not precisely; I did that edit in March 2008. Charlotte had to wade through some 600 edits to dredge up just the right edit (a reversion—not a simple addition that would be permissible—on a technique she disapproves of). And that technique(?): the use of Cascading Style Sheets, which is a character-spacing technique that the developers ensured is supported by Wikipedia’s server engine for a reason and is also used in templates such as the {{val}} template. I used it to move some crowded text, which can occur when footnote tags follow italicized text.

  Then Jayvdb makes style-only changes to just 4 of 24 links that share a common property in the article, leaving me with awkward choice.

  What Charlotte and Jayvdb did—whether by innocent mistake or cunning—amounts in the end to just so much wikidrama and wastes everyone’s time. I have a sprinkler system I’ve been installing and had been hoping to get outside today to work on it early when it was cool. Instead, I spent the whole morning responding to this sort of stuff. I find this whole day’s Wikipedia experience to be distasteful. I never pull childish stunts and always try to edit in good faith. I certainly don’t like being like an ape in a cage at the zoo for all the neighborhood kids to bang their sticks on the cage’s bars for their jollies. Greg L (talk) 05:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Greg L, at the time you made this revert, you were the subject of a Committee decision reading: "Greg L is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline." In my determination, the revert at issue was principally stylistic, because all it did was to change the colour of some words. To my knowledge, no Wikipedia style knowledge prescribes the use of such colour. You have not, in your comments above, contested that the revert occurred while the restriction was in force, that the revert was stylistic in nature and that it was not prescribed in an applicable style guideline. Instead, you argue that the restriction is a bad idea. However, because Arbitration Committee decisions are binding, we cannot review this restriction here on its merits, but must enforce it. Accordingly, acting under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Enforcement by block, you are blocked for 48 hours. I am choosing this block duration because my previous block of 24 hours (even if mistaken and soon undone) did not deter you from violating your editing restriction.

As to whether the restriction makes sense or not, you will have to take that up with the Committee. If you allow me to provide some advice from my real-life experience with judicial authorities, it is much easier to convince such authorities to reconsider a decision if you have not previously violated it.  Sandstein  06:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Are you sure you're not just sore that Charlotte made an ass of you, and that you're consequently taking it out on greg? Charlotte's accusation was contrived as it was, as Greg pointed out. I thought we were done with the Kafkaesque drama with User:Locke Cole being banned, but I see now that the fun and games have just started again. Could this be silly season again? Ohconfucius (talk) 09:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Silly me - it's 3 days until the next full moon. No wonder! Ohconfucius (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• is a question from a puzzled onlooker okay? is GregL allowed to discuss style-related stuff on article talk pages, or is that also out of bounds for him, per ArbCom's "Greg L is topic banned indefinitely from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions" (emphasis mine)? since there are a number of editors under similar resitrictions, it seems worth clarifying whether or not they're free to discuss dubious style-related edits instead of reverting them. Sssoul (talk) 09:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Appeal against discretionary sanctions by Radeksz

Note: I've contact the administrator who issued the sanction User:Thatcher off wiki and s/he suggested that I file this appeal. I apologize in advance for the length of this request. I have tried to make this appeal as brief as possible while still covering all the points I feel are relevant.

[edit] The restriction being appealed

[141] a 1RR per week limit on all Eastern Europe related articles with the possibility of a review after 6 months.

Per descriptive text of the sanction notice, this stems from the fact that there was edit warring at the article Nashi (youth movement) from June 11 to June 21. During these ten days I made 3 (three) edits to the article, spread out over the ten days (i.e. there was no 3RR or even a 1RR violation).

I was also listed in a very minor, tangential manner by Shell Kinney over at [142] though not as one of the “major players”, and almost in an offhanded manner.

The third relevant aspect here is the Digwuren case. I was not involved in that case, I was not put under any restrictions, notice or sanctions because of that case – unlike most editors who received the same sanction handed out by Thatcher in the past week or so.

[edit] Discretionary sanctions remedy

I am filing this appeal per: [143] Specifically:

Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement), or the Committee.

(For reasons mentioned above, I am filing this appeal to the appropriate administrators’ noticeboard, ie. currently this one.)

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; 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. (my emphasis)

(I never received any kind of warning. I was completely blindsided by this. I was never counseled, nor was I ever given an opportunity to improve my editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines)

[edit] Discussion concerning the request

[edit] Short version

There are three reasons why this sanction was inappropriate and why it should be rescinded:

• The sanction was unduly harsh and purely punitive (1RR/Week more or less INDEF, for making 3 reverts in 10 days)
• Appropriate procedure was not followed when issuing a sanction (no prior warning, counseling or log of such). My name is the ONLY that does not appear under [144] out of all the ones that had been placed under sanctions by Thatcher.
• My lack of prior involvement in Baltic/Russia disputes. I was never part of the Digwuren case. I have a relatively clean block log. I am engaged in extensive content creation and other Wiki work, and I am willing to voluntarily restrict my editing.

[edit] Longer version - Why the sanction should be reconsidered - statement by Radeksz

[edit] Sanction unduly harsh and purely punitive

• I made three (3) edits spread out over the course of ten (10) days. At no point did I violate 3RR, 2RR, or even 1RR. In fact I was essentially following 1RR/Week already. Describing this as an instance of "edit warring" is a very loose definition of that concept and I've never seen the term defined so weakly before.

• The punishment is extremely harsh for what is essentially a minor infraction (failure to utilize talk adequately). Please note that this is not a case of "wiki-lawyering" or "fence hugging" - I did not make 4 reverts in 25 hrs or something similar. I did not even see the fence from where I was standing. I doubt that if this had been brought to [145] it would have gotten even a warning.

• I admit that I should have used the talk page when making my edits. However I did use edit summaries and at the time I believed that due to the sparsity of my edits and lack of involvement anything more than edit summaries was not necessary. Still, I recognize that this is something I should have been more careful about and promise to be more conscientious about it in the future.

• In general it is assumed on Wiki that purely punitive sanctions should be used only in extreme cases of repeat offenses. In fact Thatcher has stated that this is "not intended to be punishment" [146]. However, since I am not engaged in any edit wars at the moment (nor at the time of the sanction), I am not violating BLP, I am not being incivil or making personal attacks, I am not inserting copy vio text into the Wikipedia and am otherwise, to the best of my knowledge, following all the relevant Wikipedia policies or guidelines, it's hard to see this restriction as anything but punishment. An extremely harsh punishment for a minor offense - if making three reverts with edit summaries within ten days is even an offense.

[edit] Improper procedure

• Per [147], prior to sanctions being issued the editor should be given a warning with a link to the the case and usually a proper note is made on their talk page. I've never received any warning from Thatcher nor was I notified. Furthermore, such warnings need to be logged here [148], but my name was added only AFTER the sanction was issued. In fact, I was the only editor restricted whose name was NOT on that list - hence I am being sanctioned under a case that doesn't even apply to me.

• In fact, Thatcher himself has recently stated that "At RFAR/Digwuren, users must be notified of the existence of the case and the possibility of further sanctions, with the notification logged, prior to imposing any sanctions." [149]. Following this, what he should have done is to put me on "notice ... and caution" - again, assuming, that my 3 reverts justify being cautioned here.

[edit] Lack of prior involvement and others

• I have not been generally involved in articles/disputes concerning Estonia and Russia - hence, my lack of involvement in the Digwuren case. I only came to these articles after following a suspicious user around, User:Kupredu, who turned out to be a sock of a banned user Jacob Peters. I didn't quite realize what a mine field I was stepping in. I consider myself a neutral user here (note that Thatcher's request for a neutral editor is basically impossible by definition here, as he's restricted pretty much everyone, neutral or not, that edited the page)

• In general I appreciate what Thatcher is trying to do on Eastern European articles and believe he is acting in good faith. However, I don't see why I should become collateral damage in that endeavor.

• Compared to most of the other editors who received this sanction I have a pretty clean record. It seems that users like Biophys or Digwuren or Russavia do edit-war a lot, they have the block log to prove it and the history as well. I have one block from last November - it was stupidity on my part and since then I've enjoyed a quite good relationship with the user I was involved in a dispute with (User:Malik Shabazz). I very much dislike being put in the same category as ultra-disruptive users who edit-war on Baltics-Russian subjects which I rarely visit.

• I am mostly a content creating editor though I also have worked on cleaning up copy vios in various articles. I have had something like 10 DYKs in the past three months. I have extensively rewritten the article History_of_Jews_in_Poland and saved it from extensive copyright infringements (with help from a few others and admin User:Moonriddengirl). I frequently revert straight up vandalism on numerous articles and areas. This kind of restriction has a chilling effect on my editing. Combined with the stigma of the restriction I'm not sure if I want to continue contributing to this project. At the very least the severity of this restriction will severely hamper my ability to revert vandalism, carry out copy vio rewrites or even create new articles.

• Furthermore, such a restriction is a serious stain on my reputation - for example if I ever try for an admin, no one would vote for a candidate with a 1RR/Week restriction on their record (that user must've done something horrible!), while nobody would mind voting for a candidate who made 3 reverts in 10 days.

[edit] Remedy proposed by Radeksz in place of sanction

I request that

• Thatcher's sanction be removed.

I personally volunteer to

• Stay away from the Nashi (youth movement) article for half a year (I have no strong interest in the article anyway).
• Only participate on talk in articles listed by Shell Kinney at [150].
• Observe 1RR/Week (for 6 months, or longer if need be) on all Estonia-Russia articles and make sure to discuss all edits (except reverting obvious vandalisms) on talk first.

Additionally

• Thatcher raised the lack of participation in dispute resolution, such as 3O or RfC. Honestly, my own experience with 3O hasn't been all that positive - not that it went against me but rather, it was the lack or insufficient response. As a result I would very much like to do some community service on 3O, add my name to the list of participating editors and provide help in resolving other disputes (of course, ones not related to Eastern Europe). This will also allow me to become a better editor myself. Yes, this isn't really a punishment or a restriction, which is why I am listing it separately.
• While I've been a Wiki editor for more than 4 years for majority of that time I've mostly edited articles on Economics where the level of controversy and dispute is FAR lower (and where people are a lot more forgiving of each other). Consequently, editing Eastern European articles is a lot tougher and there are many "grey areas". To figure out how to properly conduct myself better here I would welcome an opportunity at a mentorship. If Thatcher himself has the time and the willingness I would like to work with him. If not, then perhaps another admin can make themselves available.

[edit] Comments by other editors

Comment by Durova

It appears that if Radeksz's statement is accurate, then there is solid basis for appeal. Having read Thatcher's comments,[151] there's no denying that the broader topic has been very difficult, yet it also appears that Radeksz had acted in this context with the reasonable belief that three edits over ten days would be safely within policy. If that is a problem then 1RR would not prevent it from recurring.

In the long run it's better to stabilize difficult topics by giving editors incentive to reform. There's a danger of defeatism setting in, and sometimes within mentoring situations I've held long conversations with editors who were saying something like "They're going to come up with excuses to block me no matter what, so I might as well do what I want if that's going to happen anyway." That's not a healthy mindset in one individual, and it's worse when groups of people share it. Warning and dialog are always good ideas if an administrator contemplates an innovative or borderline definition of sanctionable behavior. Durova²⁷³ 20:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Loosmark

The punishement seems to be harsh for what was a relatively minor offense. (3 edits in 10 days, i see worse edit warring happening every day i'm on wikipedia coupled with incivility and repeated offenses to boot). Given that Radeksz was not involved in disruptive editing elsewhere and he understands and regrets what he did wrong I think some restriction on only the Nashi article would be better. Loosmark (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Offliner

From what I've seen, Radeksz does indeed edit war a lot. One only has to take a look at his contributions to Johan Bäckman[152][153][154][155][156] or Historical Truth Commission (where he broke 3RR, but self-reverted his last when requested). Therefore, I think 1RR is a good idea. His edit summary usage is also telling:

• 91.152.84.165: all books of a professor cannot be highly controversial, but some[157]
• Radeksz: sure they can Undid revision 295945455 by 91.152.84.165 (talk))[158]

I'd like to pose the following question to Radeksz: if you were allowed to revert more than once in a week (which is what you are requesting), how would that enhance your ability to contribute positively to Wikipedia? Offliner (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, the edits here are spread out over a whole month and involve a legitimate dispute - the edit summaries are detailed and ask for reliable sources (which, btw, were never provided). This is a typical example of Offliner labeling as "edit warring" anytime anyone makes edits he disagrees with - as has been noted on Thatcher's talk page previously [159]. And I believe the answer to Offliner's question has already been provided above.radek (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Martintg

I essentially endorse Radeksz appeal, and would extend it to Colchicum too. In my long experience of the Baltic conflict zone there have been many occasions when outside editors such as Radeksz and Colchicum pass by to make some edit, and I feel sorry for them that they got caught in the crossfire. I think Thatcher's heavy 1RR sanction against them, if left standing, would have a chilling effect on any third party wanting to contribute to Baltic topics lest they get collaterally sanctioned.

As a background that led to this 1RR sanction against them, after Jehochman mentioned on this AE page that Shell Kinney was reviewing edits in the Baltic/Russian topic area[160], Thatcher jumped in and imposed some 1RR sanctions before Shell could complete her review, upsetting her in the process. Thatcher's initial sanctions resulted in only a warning for myself, but after representations on his talk by my content opponents UsernamePassport and Offliner [161], my warning was upgraded to a 1RR restriction. After I questioned Thatcher as to why Russavia wasn't given a similar upgrade when I pointed that my behaviour was no worse than Russavia's[162], Thatcher applied additional 1RR sanctions against Radeksz and Colchicum (who were not subject to Shell's exhaustive review) on the basis of a single article Nashi (youth movement). Thatcher's precipitative action, first stepping on Shell's toes to apply initial sanctions, then to impose additional sanctions upon people not in Shell's original review, has resulted in unwarranted collateral damage that is unnecessarily punitive on editors not known for disruptive edit warring. --Martintg (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Jacurek

I fully endorse Radeksz appeal. He is a very valuable editor who contributed huge amount of excellent material into this project. Sanctioning him the same way as other editors who clearly were very problematic is unjust, to say the least.--Jacurek (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Biophys

There are three problems in these sanctions. First problem. According to Arbcom, "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict ... if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia...". That means a warning logged in the case, exactly as Thatcher said [163]. After looking at this Arbcom decision, I honestly believed that I am only a subject to an official EE warning if my behavior was problematic, and Radek probably thought the same. Once receiving the proper warning, one could stop editing in this area or change his editing habits. However, the sanctions and the official warnings were issued at the same time, without giving users a possibility to improve, which goes against the letter and the spirit of discretionary sanctions. Second problem. The 1RR restriction was issued for article "Nashi", although some of the editors (including me and Radek) actually followed 1RR restriction while editing this article. Does it mean that anyone in general can be sanctioned for edit warring even if he follows 1RR rule? I am not quite sure. Third problem. Thatcher used an argument about the "tag-teaming". But this is a controversial concept, and it has been de facto rejected by ArbCom during last EE case, although many users tried to bring it there. Indeed, it is very common that several users revert someone else who fight against consensus. Does it mean tag-teaming?Biophys (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Deacon of Pndapetzim

Radek is no saint, and has a long history of edit-warring. Evidence of this will be found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive38#Dr._Dan. Whether he should get sanctioned on the basis of most recent activity I don't know. Thatcher has made that judgment after extensive evaluation, and commentators should give that more weight than the block campaigning from Radek's allies in this thread. Also, I can't understand why Piotrus would try to present himself as "uninvolved" here. Piotrus and Radek are long-term edit-warring POV buddies. See same thread for details of Piotrus and Radek's long relationship (in particular posts from Sciurinae and my quotes from Sciurinae's ArbCom amendment evidence). Besides that, Jehochman and Kirill Lokshin have already declared him involved.[164] Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Malik Shabazz

I just wanted to confirm what Radeksz wrote above. He and I were involved in a dispute last fall that led to his only block. Since then, we have repaired our relationship. He seems level-headed and he hasn't engaged in edit warring on any of the articles we both edit. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by uninvolved administrators

Thatcher, can you refute this? Is there a diff of a warning? Jehochman ^Talk 21:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd be willing to act as an admin mentor of Radek, I agree with his argumentation - it does seem to me like he was an accidental victim of a major wiki clean up operation :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Results concerning the appeal

[edit] Prem Rawat 3

All Rawat articles have been placed under an editing restriction:

3.1) The Prem Rawat article and all related articles are subject to an editing restriction for one year. No user may revert any given changes to a subject article more than once within a seven day period, except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations. Furthermore, if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period.

Please check if

• Equalwhom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse filter log · block user · block log)
• Maelefique (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse filter log · block user · block log)

have violated the restriction in the sequence of edits given below. Thanks.

• 21:28, 1 July 2009 Equalwhom, a new account whose only four edits have been to Prem Rawat, moves a passage referring to Rawat's movement as a "sect" and "cult" from the lede to the body of the article.
• 06:04, 2 July 2009 Maelefique moves the passage back into the lede again, edit summary: (Undid revision 299768149 by Equalwhom (talk) Undiscussed Change. Please use talk pages before making significant changes).
• 15:34, 3 July 2009 An IP moves the passage back into the body of the article.
• 16:05, 3 July 2009 Maelefique moves the passage back into the lede again, edit summary: (Undid revision 300064382 by 190.246.25.14 (talk) Vandalism. Undiscussed change, please use talk pages first.)
• 23:08, 3 July 2009 Equalwhom moves the passage to the body of the article again, edit summary: (There is no agreement. Not Vandalism either.) (This last edit has since been reverted by another editor.)

JN466 23:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Response I have blocked Equalwhom as per this enforcement guideline. I have not blocked the IP as he has not edited this page before (unless he is the same account as Equalwhom which is possible) and has not been warned on his account. I have not blocked Maelefique at this time because they only returned the article back to its original condition. If other administrators disagree with this result please act as necessary.--VS ^talk 07:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Upon further review I have found when looking through Maelefique's talk page that they were also made aware (in a much earlier discussion) as to the editing restrictions concerning Prem Rawat. In the case of Maelefique I do not immediately see a single purpose account as I do for Equalwhom. I have as a result imposed a much shorter block on Maelefique but for the same reasons as detailed for Equalwhom.--VS ^talk 08:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Really. Over 500 edits and less than 5 are unrelated to Prem Rawat articles or editors.Momento (talk) 09:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The IP 190.246.25.14 (talk · contribs) may have violated the same editing restriction on two articles. He restored two reverted edits within a 24 hours.

• Divine Light Mission
• 18:01, July 2, 2009
• 11:57, July 3, 2009
• Techniques of Knowledge
• 18:10, July 2, 2009
• 11:52, July 3, 2009

But I'll admit that I find the remedy to be unclear.   Will Beback  talk  07:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

These are not very substantial edits, but I agree that the IP has violated the remedy by reintroducing reverted material within 7 days. They may not have been aware of the remedy; they are now: [165]. JN466 09:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have rv yet another identical removal by new editing IP 166.205.4.137 ,to return the article back to its original condition after reading this thread and noting this action to be acceptable by VS above. --Savlonn (talk) 07:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• For clarity Savlonn - my acceptance of reversion of edits is only applicable if it meets the guideline of the Arbcom hearing which states No user may revert any given changes to a subject article more than once within a seven day period, except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations. Furthermore, if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period. You should also note that as a result of my further consideration of that decision I have also blocked Maelefique because he made more than one such reversion in the allotted time period.--VS ^talk 09:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

ok - I only made one revert based on your statement above that "they only returned the article back to its original condition." However, given your last statement, I have self-reverted my change, now leaving the article not in its original condition. In future, I will request uninvolved editors to revert, even if undiscussed significant change. --Savlonn (talk) 10:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments;

Here is a more complete summary of relevant background:

1. 19:18, 30 June 2009 WillBeback introduces the material about the "sect" and "cult" labels in the lede, edit summary: (added, per talk). Supporters on the talk page included Maelefique and Savlonn. Note that this edit was brought up by the currently topic-banned editor Momento (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse filter log · block user · block log) in a separate AE thread higher up on this page.
2. 21:28, 1 July 2009 Equalwhom, a new account whose only four edits have been to Prem Rawat, moves a passage referring to Rawat's movement as a "sect" and "cult" from the lede to the body of the article.
3. 06:04, 2 July 2009 Maelefique moves the passage back into the lede again, edit summary: (Undid revision 299768149 by Equalwhom (talk) Undiscussed Change. Please use talk pages before making significant changes).
4. 15:34, 3 July 2009 An IP moves the passage back into the body of the article.
5. 16:05, 3 July 2009 Maelefique moves the passage back into the lede again, edit summary: (Undid revision 300064382 by 190.246.25.14 (talk) Vandalism. Undiscussed change, please use talk pages first.)
6. 23:08, 3 July 2009 Equalwhom moves the passage to the body of the article again, edit summary: (There is no agreement. Not Vandalism either.)
7. 23:31, 3 July 2009 user:Steve Crossin, a mediator for this topic area last year, undoes Equalwhom's revert, edit summary: ((Undid revision 300136014 by Equalwhom) Please pursue the Bold, revert, discuss cycle, rather than revert a revert. Will open and encourage discussion on talk page.) Steve did start a discussion thread on the talk page: Talk:Prem_Rawat#Discussion_of_edit
8. 00:38, 4 July 2009 user:94.194.214.37 reverts, edit summary (Undid revision 300139497 by Steve Crossin (talk) it seems a good balance to revert to this edit. I read the talk pages a).
9. 01:01, 4 July 2009 user:94.194.214.37 self-reverts, edit summary (Undid revision 300149020 by 94.194.214.37 (talk) sorry mistake).
10. 04:43, 4 July 2009 user:166.205.4.137 moves the material out of the lede and into the body of the article again.
11. 07:40, 4 July 2009 user:Savlonn moves the material back into the lede, edit summary (Undid revision 300177620 by 166.205.4.137 (talk) r v - see AE discussion.)

Of the IPs and accounts involved, the following appear to be single-purpose accounts focused on articles about Rawat, his organisations (Divine Light Mission, Elan Vital, the Prem Rawat Foundation etc.) and family (Hans Ji Maharaj), and the talk pages of related WP processes and editors:

• Equalwhom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse filter log · block user · block log)
• Maelefique (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse filter log · block user · block log) ([166])
• 166.205.4.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse filter log · block user · block log)
• 190.246.25.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse filter log · block user · block log)

The arbitrators included the following among their remedies: 4) The parties and other interested editors are encouraged to resume or restart mediation in relation to Prem Rawat and related articles. Passed 13 to 0, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC) JN466 09:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)