Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe

message: Eastern Europe is something of a battleground (understatement of the decade), and I'm sure everyone's heartily sick of the sight of this sort of thing (not another case...), but I don't think this can be ducked. Yes, ANI does not equate to dispute resolution, but I think the Arbitration Committee is needed here to sort things out. This has been coming for a while. Moreschi  Talk 18:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by Moreschi 

message: I have to say that i've spent around 90 minutes to get all the following facts posted as they look below now. That's really a hard and unencyclopaedic task. I'd have rather gone editing. But well, for the benefit of Wikipedia? Hell, yes. There you go...
I have to agree w/ my fellow admin Moreschi in that Arbitration Committee's intervention is needed here to sort things out. Estonia-related articles have witnessed a massive edit warring w/o any attempt from any side to take that seriously and try to go through WP:DR. It has been a ground for multiple accusations from multiple parties. 
Well, in brief. I was the admin who blocked Digwuren back on July 2007 as well as a couple of 2 other users which i'd identify as the "other side" in what follows. 
Timeline
*I don't know about all past behaviors of User:Digwuren but i know since a couple of weeks that  Digwuren's first edit was at Talk:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn on May 1st, 2007. A good start for a first edit. Trying to discuss!
 
* The first time i heard about the conflict was on 11 July 2007 ? AN/I thread. The thread was started by User:Suva claiming that User:Ghirlandajo [is] pushing his political POV in inappropriate places. As you'd see from that thread, admin Bishonen and myself saw no admin intervention was needed. 
*I can't recall the [AN/I thread] which lead to the following but i'll leave that to maybe someone else who can find the link. This is the link which i got from user:Irpen. That's the link and that's the one i referred to. One of the keys to this enigma is there.
:* Blocked  for 1 week. 
:* Blocked  for 48h (the other side)
:* Blocked  for 72h (the other side)
* User:Dc76 accuses me of bias and posts a thread at the AN/I. According to reviewing admin Tom harrison FayssalF rocks!. 
* Admin Deskana convincing me of letting Digwuren edit conditionally. After a few hours, i accepted and Deskana posted it at the AN/I as per my request.  
* On July 19, 2007, i received a kind of a "barnstar" from User:Petri Krohn (the other side). According to [User:Petri Krohn], i am an Administrator with balls.   
* On July 20, 2007, i've experienced some online intrusion attempts made against my machine (for what i could record, the experience lasted no more than a couple of hours). I've already got a C# userbox posted at my userpage. I am saying this responding to User:Suva's request to know about the IP in question. I am a programmer. I know about hacking but please don't accuse me of hacking anyone. The problem is that User:Suva insists in knowing about the exact location of the IP in question. No, that's IMPOSSIBLE as long as you are not an ADMIN. I've explained to everyone that any admin can contact me to know about this issue. Suva, i am an admin and admins are trusted by the community. Only an admin can get that kind of information. So please, stop insisting. I've already explained that it was not my intention to talk about that but since matters arrived to this point then i considered it is right to talk about it.  
* August 14, 2007,  A new AN/I thread involving the issue. And here we are.
I could have easily blocked User:Ptrt indef as it is clear that the account has been created for a single purpose as explained above by User:Irpen. Anyways, this case would make that clear. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by FayssalF 

message: The cases cannot be compared. User:Piotrus is one of Wikipedia's most valuable contributors. User:Digwuren on the other hand had absolutely no contributions to article space when I took up the issue in June. (See: ArbCom or block?) Since then there has been notable improvement in his contributions, but his uncivility and disrespect for WP:NPOV have remained. -- Petri Krohn 23:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Petri Krohn (in reply to GRBerry)

message: I must agree that Digwuren is a particularly unhelpful contributor. Looking at other comments here, it's obvious that he's defended by some other Estonians as Alexia Death (whom I consider a very good editor) for taking part in conflicts regarding Estonia. For the same reason, it's clear that those who have held the opposite views on some of these matters aren't too fond of him. Personally, I find some articles where I disagree with his opinions and others where I do disagree, but that's beside the point because: regardless of whether I think his opinions are right or wrong, I always find his way to behave out of line. My first contact ever was when he left a message on my talk page, calling me a "crackpot" . The reason he did so was that I had dared to request a source for the claim that Estonians are the oldest people in Europe. After that, I've seen him revert pages he doesn't like with no explanations given, I've seen him call other users vandals for reverting his own edits etc. So the user is a consant POV-pusher who often attacks other users. JdeJ 07:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by JdeJ 

message: I would like to bring to community's attention another example of coordinated efforts of group in question , see times of edits , , , . Within 3 minutes after one member of the team exhaused his revert limit (and within a minute after I, being an author of a change not to the goup's liking, reverted), another member of the group popped up, failed to identify his changes as a revert in edit history but did not contribute anything BUT a revert. RJ CG 16:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by RJ CG 

message: * "Behind Tartu University firewall" accusation is ridiculous and can be easily verified by a checkuser. I have never edited Wikipedia from Tartu University - I've even been in Tartu only twice during last year, both times less then three hours and without using a computer. I guess that Martintg (from Australia) is also flying daily to Tartu? Tartu University cache servers are  and  (both IP's from DNS queries). Afaik, all Tartu University IP's should start with 193.40.* (hey, I just remembered my old IP from while I was in Uni, . Sad, isn't it? I can remember an IP I haven't used in years...). 
* As for RJ CG's accusations of "coordinated efforts" - I have my watchlist as a RSS feed in FF live bookmarks, I tend to check it every 15..30 min or so when I am using the computer. Also, some time ago I wrote a script, cleverly named "Estonian articles to watchlist page" that utilizes AJAX to display changes in all WikiProject Estonia articles on top of your watchlist. Said script can be easily changed to support any WikiProject or category. That helps people easily to see changes in WP:E-related articles without a need to add them to watchlist.
:For both "Korps! Tartuensis" and "coordinated efforts", I think that next user who accuses us to be sock/meatpuppets or coordinating "attacks" outside en.wikipedia without rock solid evidence must apologize. If he fails to do so, I think that he should be warned by a block.
* Now, as for hacking accusation, I see no way to verify that it actually happened. Even if it did, there is no way to link it with any Wikipedian - as none of so-called "Korp! Tartuensis" is not an admin and therefore just would not know FayssalF's IP. I recommend that he creates a checkuser case with all of us and the IP. However, note that checkuser admin must do a reverse DNS and actually check what IP's are proxies (major ISP's redirect all traffic through proxy servers) and what are geographically close to each-other. Last checkuser cases involving Estonia were ridiculous, accusing basically all Estonian editors to be sockpuppets. Note, that I am unaware what data do admins doing checkuser queries see - or how knowledgeable they are of networking in general.
*And finally, to Digwuren. I fully agree with Alexia and Martintg - Digwuren followed the behavioral patterns of users such as Ghirlandajo and Petri Krohn (I could mention few other users, some who have given their statements here as well). There is no forgiving for behavior such as this, for all three of them. But, there seems to be a special "out-of-the-jail card" if you have a lot of edits - and Digwuren does not have yet 20000+ edits. Others do.
:However, he always sources his edits, is fully willing to overturn his own edits when new sources contradict them and follows NPOV guideline by trying to give a neutral viewpoint and sources from both "sides". He is also willing to discuss controversial edits in talk pages. All that cannot be said by far most Wikipedia editors. If you follow his edits, then you can see how he gradually became more and more frustrated when other editors (so-called "other side" or "opponents") are making unsourced or one-sided edits - or even insert clear falsehood to the articles.
:In many ways it is Digwuren, who revived WikiProject Estonia - although I wish us WP:E editors could have more time to actually contribute, instead of wasting our time to patrol for pro-Soviet/anti-Estonian edits and be involved in cases such as this. Digwuren has contributed to great many articles and if he stops behaving in the same way as those Estophobic users, I see him as a very valuable editor to Wikipedia - in future, perhaps among most valuable contributors. He is relentless in chasing sources and improving articles.
:I've said it before, my recommendation is for an admin to warn Digwuren about his edit summaries - and clearly state that he will be blocked unless he stops those. It might be useful, though, if an uninvolved administrator follows all changes in WP:E articles for a while - if not for nothing else, then to actually witness what we have to go through daily.
* As for the "Statement by non-involved Ghirla" below, I think that is the biggest pile of hypocrisy I've seen on Wikipedia. Far from being "non-involved", he has been the biggest "inspiration" for Digwuren when it comes to incivility. He is accusing (once again, without evidence) of sock/meatpuppets, being a fascist/neo-nazi, tendentious editing ("neo-Nazi flavoured revisionism" - which strangely enough, has been published in scientific journals... Those evil Estonian Nazis must have taken over those as well.). How long will this have to go on until he will be warned for personal attacks and incivility?
:Ghirla has one excellent idea, though - committee on Eastern Europe-related topics. I would include Baltics to the scope of that committee as well - apparently Ghirla forgot, that Estonia (and rest of the Baltics) is a part of Northern Europe, not Eastern Europe. Committee on Eastern bloc, perhaps? Committee such as that is badly needed - to check that edits follow valid sources.
;What I would like this arbitration case to achieve if accepted?
# End for "Korps! Tartuensis" and sockpuppet accusations, unless someone actually manages to find some proof. So far there is none. Any editors continuing such attacks to be blocked.
# Rules must apply equally for all. Huge edit count is not an excuse to insult other editors, disrupt Wikipedia or misbehave. Civility is not optional.
# An uninvolved administrator (or more then one) to keep an eye on changes in WikiProject Estonia articles. Hopefully that would be enough to stop this smear campaign.
# Digwuren to be warned - and if he doesn't change his ways, blocked for a month. Same applies for all other involved editors - warning for any signs of incivility and block if that is continued.
Sander Säde 19:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Sander Säde 

message: The Digwuren case is crystal clear. If there is a troll in the project, he is one. User:Molobo was blocked for a year for less serious revert-warring sprees and boorishness. I have seen no useful edits from Digwuren, except provocations, taunting, and reverts. The leniency of the community to the obnoxious tendentious accounts is appaling. Before Digwuren's appearance in the project, Estonia-related topics were the only quiet haven in the Eastern Europe-related segment of the project. He has effectively turned Wikipedia:WikiProject Estonia into a hate group. An attack page against Petri Krohn is a good example of what it's all about. Given the number of vocal meatpuppets, only ArbCom may realistically ban him from the site, for a year at least.
I don't consider myself a party to this case. I'm not interested in Estonia and I don't give a hoot about Estonia-related topics, but I cannot help being alarmed about the way in which the dispute has evolved. A weekly diarrhea of sterile ANI threads is particularly distracting. As soon as I opine in favour of deleting an Estonia-related tendentious page, I have to face harrassment and provocative remarks ("a clearly bad-faith vote", etc) from an indetermine number of Estonian accounts. Briefly put, their strategy is: 1) to make a provocative edit and to wait for my angered reply; 2) to report the perceived "infraction" on the administrators' noticeboard; 3) to repeat the complaint again and again, one after another, so as to make the thread appear as long and beefy as possible. Some of the dormant Estonian accounts instantly resume their activity once they see me cast an Estonia-related vote, prompting me to defend myself on the administrators' noticeboard for hours. I can't spend all of my wikitime debunking allegations of Estonia-based accounts, especially as I have no interest in anything related to Estonia. This relentless campaign of public harassment made me remove all Estonia-related articles from my watchlist. 
I infer from this activity that there is simply no way of countering POV-pushing on this scale, involving a dozen accounts, most of them based in the same institution and recruiting friends in real life. You may neutralize a revert warrior or two or three, but not a group of determined users who share the same real-life background and exhibit divergent patterns of behaviour. I really don't think ArbCom may devise a remedy against this sort of disruption. We are thinking of some sort of committee on Eastern Europe-related topics that would include a trusted wikipedian from each nation. Such a committee could take care of mild content arbitration, that is, of determining whether a complaint has some merit before bringing it to the attention of the entire community on WP:ANI, WP:RfAr, or elsewhere. The ArbCom's examination of the proposal is very welcome. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by probably non-involved Ghirla 

message: There is no RFC on Digwuren to point the ArbCom to (and it's no wonder people can't face starting one). There is, however, an RFC from June 2007 on User:Petri Krohn, brought and certified (inadequately) by Digwuren, Suva, Alexia Death, and E.J.. This RFC was deleted after 5-6 days, by DrKiernan, for want of good-faith attempts at dispute resolution, but before then it was used for lively discussion of the issues at stake here, especially on the talkpage. As RFCs will, it scrutinized the behavior of both sides, and the accusations of Digwuren et. al. against Petri Krohn throw light on their own practices. Therefore I think it serves quite a bit of the same purpose as an RFC on Digwuren would do. I have temporarily undeleted it so it can be referred to for this purpose. Bishonen | talk 10:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Bishonen

message: I myself have stopped editing for all. And am trying to talk us out of the situation. Digwuren is one of the few people who still tries to edit and haven't stood back like most others. Don't know if it's good or bad. But I can fully understand him. One thing is sure though, we can't get anywhere with editwarring, neither are any kinds of blocks going to help much, only upset people more. I myself call all the parties for a debate or just chat in IRC or MSN, maybe we could settle our differences in more direct communication, or atleast find better ways to continue. Suva 07:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Suva|Suva]] 

message: I believe that the Piotrus case is sufficient to set bounds for this dispute. It specifically places the articles in question under probation and grants a general amnesty for most users, with a stringent call for immediate compliance with Wikipedia rules. It empowers sysops to deal with continued edit warring, or other behavioral issues, sharply and decisively. Since the checkuser results have been inconclusive, there is no demonstration of substantive attempts to resolve the dispute and bad faith accusations are abundant, this case should probably be rejected. A possible exception may be if the arbitrators wish to specifically examine the behaviour surrounding this dispute or of particular users, to determine if there should be exceptions in this instance to the general amnesty being offered by the Piotrus decision. Otherwise, this case seems well-covered by the proposed decision for the preexisting case. Just some thoughts. *hands out grains of salt* Vassyana 09:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments by uninvolved [[User:Vassyana|Vassyana]] 

message: I want to ask arbitrators to accept the case there are a few reasons why I think it is worth valuable arbitrator's time:
# The first reason is personal, User:Erik Jesse alleged that I have improperly used administrative tools in the Estonia-related disputes. Obviously, I want to either clear my name or be desysopped.
# The second reason is the allegations by User:FayssalF that Digwuren attempted to hack his computer. I think the allegations are serious and by there natire require some confidentiality. I do not see any other body other than arbcom could either confirm or deny the allegations.
# The third reason is Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Digwuren and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DLX. A large group of Estonian editors were identified as identical as far as Check User is concerned. It is the third case in my career as an admin then I was able to unblock editors blocked by the results of a "confirmed" check user case. In the previous two cases the condition of the unblocking was that the suspected multiple accounts never edited the same article again. This case is different many of the suspected accounts are clearily belongs to different people. Still there constantly surface a number of new accounts that jump directly into the Revert wars, XfDs, or AN/I discussions and then disappear. I guess the Checkuser of them will be useless. Still some sanity must be kept. Can we decide that in Estonia-related themes any user with less than say 500 edits is discouraged from reversions and !voting? To be fair lets have the same rule for all participants.
# The fourth reason is that many admins fail to persuade Digwuren to label good-faith contributions of the established users as vandalism. In the long run it is very annoying. It might help to have some parole on such edit summaries.
# The fifth reason is the usual bunch of the problems that many Easter European edit wars have: stalking User:Petri Krohn, absurd near trollish edits on Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya, etc. I think application of the Piotrus remedies might be helpful
Digiwuren seems to be a useful editor, who generates some content. I am strongly against preventing him doing good job. On the other hand he is very disruptive and drains energy from many very productive editors. This disruption should be somehow stopped Alex Bakharev 15:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments of probably involved [[User:Alex Bakharev|Alex Bakharev]] 

message: Digwuren's case is, all political considerations set aside, a clear disruption to a huge sector of Wikipedia. 3RR violations, total NPOV ignorance, personal attacks, trolling, stalking, possible sock/meatpuppetry, you name it, you got it. He's already got a sheet as long as my arm and shows no intention of changing his attitude. Alas, some users support him purely out of ridiculous political reasons and prefer breaking WP rules rather than following them.
Alas as well, it would seem that ANI board and community discussion are not enough anymore to sort such a clear-cut case out. That is why I believe the ArbCom should accept this case. However I must insist that it is infinitely less complicated that Piotrus case, since the Wikipedia rules' violations are so blatant. 
Finally, to answer Uninvited's question (even if I'm not Irpen): Digwuren is a classic case of a problematic editor that admins are unwilling, for whatever reasons they might have, to deal with. So the case should IMNSHO be about his behaviour and obviously about puppetry as well. It should also perhaps be about personal attacks made by other users, such as the trolling and offensive statement made in this very case by this Erik Jesse guy. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments of probably involved [[User:Grafikm_fr|Grafikm]] 

message: In my opinion the case here is a politically motivated attempt to shut off the Tartu University WP accounts in general. My opinion is based on the pattern of political attacks against the articles on WP concerning the Baltic countries, Poland etc. Regarding the case against the accused directly: Even though in my opinion he/she could slow down a little while fighting the viewpoints on WP that in my opinion belong to the Radical nationalism in Russia, I appreciate his/her efforts made by protecting the related articles against the attacks.
*Suggestions to Digwuren. Please consider not to react accordingly even if provoked. Please consider that in the end of the day, it’s not going to make any difference in the real life out there if the POV of your political opponents is going to dominate an article on WP overnight. So, please just take it easy, every contributor to the related articles is valuable on WP and it would be a great loss if an editor who can spell in Greek  and has shown competence in the history of his country could be discredited on the basis of the accusations listed above. Thanks--Termer 09:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I second Termer's advice. The facts can speak for themselves, there is no need to respond to baiting. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Termer|Termer]] 

message: Accusations that reduce one to being just a member of a rogue group of editors are among the most painful one can encounter in Wikipedia.  The claim that some users discussed here are just "Tartu based accounts" is an extremely serious one.  It should be throughly investigated, and if found to be false, the editors who made it should be severely reprimanded.
Let me also make another point, one that some might easily miss.  Estonia is a relatively small country of only 1,3 million people.  As such, it has very few universities (see List of universities in Estonia).  By far the largest and most significant is the University of Tartu.  So, making a reasonable assumption that university students are particularly prone to editing Wikipedia, it would not be surprising at all, and definitely not sinister, if a significant number of Wikipedians in Estonia were somehow connected to that university.  It would then follow that what some are trying to paint as an evil conspiracy of a fringe group based in some obscure institution is in fact a completely natural and entirely innocent phenomenon. Balcer 04:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Balcer|Balcer]] 

message: I have to admit off the bat that I am not familiar with User:Digwuren or any other Estonian editors and have made only a couple of edits related to the Baltic or Estonian topics. However, I do know very well the other side of this argument and have dealt with many of them, and not only in this WP. I have been here for almost a year, wrote several articles, one of them was featured in DYK but soon had to abandon this community in part because of the atmosphere that had been created here. No, I don't want to name them cartel USSR forever!, as someone did above, but some of them are definitely well organized and are actively pushing their own agenda and what is most disturbing, harass and intimidate whoever stands in their way. And I certainly am familiar with User:Irpen and User:Ghirlandajo, who not only edit in tandem and pounce on their opponents in tandem, but tend to use the same vocabulary: "Sterile edit-warrior, disruptive edit, edit warrior". Mind you, those are standard accusations against editors whom they don't like. That is only if the editors are more or less established, the new editors almost by default are called sock- and meat-puppets irrespective of whether there is proof or not. That Irpen has a clear agenda at Wikipedia, even he doesn't make any bones about it: To start with, very few editors can claim a greater credit for keeping the Ukrainian nationalism out of the wikipedia articles than myself. --User:Irpen 22:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement of probably non-involved Hillock65 

message: If I have the energy, I will go back to find diffs. This is a typical pattern of attack on Wikipedia. Antagonize Eastern European editors to the point they comment on the pro-(official)Russian viewpoints, aka, Stalinist propaganda living on in the post-Soviet era, for example, all Latvians are Nazis, the Baltics invited the Red Army and were never occupied, ad nauseum. Then attack those editors for making those comments. Frankly, after a review of edits, I quite agree with Digwuren's characterization which Irpen cites as the first piece of "evidence" against him.
We see endless attacks on users and articles. Since the attacks on articles never succeed (since the articles are based on fact), the next behavior is to tar and feather editors who stick in the craw of those who advocate some other position.
Of all the editors on the other side of the fence from me, so to speak, I have the most respect for Irpen because he is consistent in his position and his edits. But I am sorry to see him get on the editor-attack bandwagon. The Cold War had found a new home on Wikipedia. The answer is not to punish those who react to provocation, the answer is to punsh the provocateurs. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How could this pearl have been missed? Soviet occupation of Romania by several users. Enjoy! -- Irpen 08:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have labeled this as  -- Petri Krohn 01:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: ...and Petri's classic comment that if you call liberators occupiers, then you can't be told apart from a Nazi . Exactly what is the basis for tolerating this behavior and allowing these editors to attack others with apparent impunity? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by [[User:Vecrumba|Pēters J. Vecrumba]]

message: I'll keep it short since others (Martintg, Termer, Balcer, Hillock65, Pēters J. Vecrumba), whose views I endorse, already said most of what needed to be said. 
Yes, Digwuren lost a temper a few times - and paid the price. His behaviour doesn't seem to be more disrupive then that of many other users; if he has a fault it would be that of concentraiting on discussions, not content; I'd strongly advise him to start building an encyclopdia - this project is not a discussion forum. That said, since my ArbCom decided that such behavior is acceptable, Diwurgen is a saint by comparison in any case... 
There is however another aspect of this ArbCom that deserves our attention: the editors whose POVs were challenged by Diwurgen, the same editors who launched this ArbCom and/or are active in building the case against him, trying not only to portray a slightly-problematic editor as a major troll, but apparently arguing - with no serious evidence - that there is either an entire cabal or some nefarious puppetmaster working against them. I wonder in how many ANI threads, DR proceedings and ArbComs certain editors must be mentioned, again and again, until somebody realizes they are one of the routes of our problem? Unfortunatly, considering their activity and knowledge of wikilawyering, I am afraid that the answer is: "in too many".-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by [[User:Piotrus|Piotrus]]

message: What I would like the arbitration committee to do in this case is examine the evidence presented regarding all editors involved in editing Estonian-Russian related articles, such as Rein Lang (which is what has drawn me to this case). --Deskana (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In response to The Uninvited Co.'s query 

message: I request that the Committee consider the following motions. It is not clear where request for motions in a prior cases ought be placed, so could the clerks move this to the right spot if this is not it. Thanks. Martintg (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clerk note: I have moved these requests to the "requests for clarifications" section as probably the best place for them. I agree with Marting that it is not clear from the instructions where a request for relief from a prior decision should be posted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: While a year is a long time, and shortening it may be useful, I'd like to see those users expressing remorse, telling us what they have learned and promising not to continue behavior that led to their ban before any shortening or suspension of a ban is considered.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  18:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think most of the involved parties had findings of fact regarding revert warring. The differentiating aspect for Digwuren and Petri Krohn was using Wikipedia as a battleground. Note that the root cause of this battle was the Bronze soldier controversy, which has now largely resolved itself, the threat for further battling has significantly diminished. Also given that bans are in principle intended to stop further damage to Wikipedia, rather for retribution and punishment for its own sake, and they have already served some months of this ban, I see no reason to continue this ban, particularly since there seems a concensus against a ban in the first place, the parties have shown remorse as I have linked above and the Bronze soldier issues have dissipated. I am not asking for selective reversals, just a suspension. Martintg (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I would support suspension of the ban of Digwuren and Petri. It would make sense to match it with some sort of the revert parole and/or topic bans Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to re-confirm my opinion since it has been mentioned above. Yes, I support the suspension of the ban of Digwuren and Petri since they are highly productive editors. The ban could be replaced by a restriction on the number of reverts per week if necessary.Biophys (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Good point, but it all boils down to the issue of anonymity. El C at least declares some of his POV on his user page. I, for example, declare quite a few more things. Would you prefer to trust a user who declares nothing? How can we be sure if such declarations are truthful, and not ironic or simply deceptive? Looking back at the Essjay controversy I still think all admins should be required to reveal their identity, education, and POVs... but I am well aware this will not fly. I think "uninvolved admin" should be one that is accepted by the parties; but of course that creates a possibility for the parties to evade judgment by refusing to accept any admin as uninvolved. Perhaps to avoid that but deal with the problem you outlined, we should have a procedure parties can lodge complains about admin's involvement, where this could be reviewed by other admins and if involvement is determined (something like CoI), the admin's action is reverted and warning issued? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  19:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that I am one of the most sought-after admins by both the Armenian and Azerbaijani factions. They never cared what is on my user page, they just care that I'm fair, and indeed I have such a record dating back years. Conversely, I've had pro-Palestinian groups or extreme-right Europeans refuse to have me as an uninvolved admin because I am fluent in Hebrew, requests which I always denied. El_C 15:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: In this particluar case, I fear the problem isn't actual conflict of interest so much as perceived lack of impartiality.  While people knowing El_C may very well feel quite comfortable that he does not let his political leanings influence his judgment, the fact that they are very visible nonetheless will give the impression that he might be siding with one side of a debate, or "overcompensate" for the other.  This does not mean that other editors with less visible politics would do a better job, but giving such ammo for complaints is probably a relatively bad idea. — Coren (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's important to assume good faith. You are not calling to ban people who exhibit the flag of Israel on their userpage from admin actions on Israeli-Palestinian issue, so why this? Both Azerbaijan and Armenia were former Soviet republics, why are editors there acting differently than editors here? The reason, I think, has more to do with a perceived  personal dispute than political (see for example the attempt by the user above to delete Bishzilla (thread)). Anyway, I would gladly delete my user page, but such ruling need to be applied consistently, anticommunism should not be getting a priority because of easy targets. El_C 20:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to specifically make the point that I didn't feel your impartiality was at issue, and I'm sorry if you understood this differently.  My point is that perception is the key here and that leaving the enforcement to another admin would not be so much more trouble.  And, personally, yes I would expect someone who displayed an Israeli flag on their userpage to also avoid admin action in Israeli-Palestinian issue — not because I think them unable to act fairly and impartially, but because the appearance of impropriety is a probable source of heat.  — Coren (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a trap, but I'll answer. Appearances do count (for example, I never edited the Communism article even once), but this is far from it. What about someone displaying the American flag in relation to articles about 911 or modern Iraq? Some would have me cease enforcing Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute which I have been doing for years, even though both factions seek this, due to abstract appearance of political correctness. It's a red herring (pun intended), anyway; Wikipedia is not a free-for-all.   El_C 02:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the proposal by Piotrus to have a review procedure for such cases. The reviewrs have to decide if the blocking admin is indeed an impartial side. If there are any doubts about that, the block should be lifted immediately.Biophys (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested motions to [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren|/Digwuren]] 

message: It is now obvious, after an initial bit of confusion and subsequent clarification, that the remedy 11 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction will be most effective in combating incivility, which was the core issue of this case. No one was calling for year long bans for either party in the original case, in fact most involved and uninvolved were explicitly against any ban, as Alex Bakharev succinctly argued here and seconded by many others including Geogre and Biophys in Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Proposed_decision#Remedies_are_too_harsh. Note too that Digwuren did make a reflective and conciliatory statement aplogising to those he had wronged and forgiving those who had wronged him Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Proposed_decision#Statement_by_Digwuren. Compare this to the recently banned Anonimu, where there was a clear concensus for a ban and he was defiant and un-remorseful to the end.
:While a year is a long time, and shortening it may be useful, I'd like to see those users expressing remorse, telling us what they have learned and promising not to continue behavior that led to their ban before any shortening or suspension of a ban is considered.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  18:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think most of the involved parties had findings of fact regarding revert warring. The differentiating aspect for Digwuren and Petri Krohn was using Wikipedia as a battleground. Note that the root cause of this battle was the Bronze soldier controversy, which has now largely resolved itself, the threat for further battling has significantly diminished. Also given that bans are in principle intended to stop further damage to Wikipedia, rather for retribution and punishment for its own sake, and they have already served some months of this ban, I see no reason to continue this ban, particularly since there seems a concensus against a ban in the first place, the parties have shown remorse as I have linked above and the Bronze soldier issues have dissipated. I am not asking for selective reversals, just a suspension. Martintg (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I would support suspension of the ban of Digwuren and Petri. It would make sense to match it with some sort of the revert parole and/or topic bans Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to re-confirm my opinion since it has been mentioned above. Yes, I support the suspension of the ban of Digwuren and Petri since they are highly productive editors. The ban could be replaced by a restriction on the number of reverts per week if necessary.Biophys (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspension of bans for both [[User:Digwuren]] and [[User:Petri Krohn]] 

message: The principle of involved admins not being permitted to issue blocks is founded on the issue of conflict of interest and that trust should be maintained in the impartiality of the blocking admin. Generally "involved" means personal involvement in the immediate issue or article. However, given that the span of this general restriction covers all of Eastern Europe, and the principle that trust should be maintained in the blocking admin's impartiality, and that political issues (the role of the Soviet Union and communism) is the basis for much of the conflict on Eastern Europe; the definition of "involved" should be expanded for this remedy to include admins with overt and obvious political view points or past significant involvment in content disputes within Eastern Europe
The recent episode concerning blocks issued by El_C illustrates this problem. An admin with a "vanity page" consisting of figures associated with communist oppression and terrorism wades into a dispute involving Eastern Europe, not only is this highly provocative, but alarm bells start ringing as to the impartiality of this admin. Note that this is same admin saw no problem with the behaviour of the recently banned Anonimu, uncivilly branding those who brought the complaint as "ethno-nationalist editors". This fact of questionable impartiality and lack of trust only served to inflame the situation resulting a commited and significant editor and wikiproject coordinator Sander Säde to leave the project. 
While one must endeavour to assume good faith, never the less, there would be an issue of trust in the judgement of an admin if, to illustrate with an example, they had a vanity page consisting of images of Osama bin Ladin and Hezbollah on their user page wading in and handing out blocks in a dispute regarding Israeli related topic. Common sense dictates that controversial admins of questionable partiality should not be involved enforcing this remedy.
:Good point, but it all boils down to the issue of anonymity. El C at least declares some of his POV on his user page. I, for example, declare quite a few more things. Would you prefer to trust a user who declares nothing? How can we be sure if such declarations are truthful, and not ironic or simply deceptive? Looking back at the Essjay controversy I still think all admins should be required to reveal their identity, education, and POVs... but I am well aware this will not fly. I think "uninvolved admin" should be one that is accepted by the parties; but of course that creates a possibility for the parties to evade judgment by refusing to accept any admin as uninvolved. Perhaps to avoid that but deal with the problem you outlined, we should have a procedure parties can lodge complains about admin's involvement, where this could be reviewed by other admins and if involvement is determined (something like CoI), the admin's action is reverted and warning issued? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  19:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that I am one of the most sought-after admins by both the Armenian and Azerbaijani factions. They never cared what is on my user page, they just care that I'm fair, and indeed I have such a record dating back years. Conversely, I've had pro-Palestinian groups or extreme-right Europeans refuse to have me as an uninvolved admin because I am fluent in Hebrew, requests which I always denied. El_C 15:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: In this particluar case, I fear the problem isn't actual conflict of interest so much as perceived lack of impartiality.  While people knowing El_C may very well feel quite comfortable that he does not let his political leanings influence his judgment, the fact that they are very visible nonetheless will give the impression that he might be siding with one side of a debate, or "overcompensate" for the other.  This does not mean that other editors with less visible politics would do a better job, but giving such ammo for complaints is probably a relatively bad idea. — Coren (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's important to assume good faith. You are not calling to ban people who exhibit the flag of Israel on their userpage from admin actions on Israeli-Palestinian issue, so why this? Both Azerbaijan and Armenia were former Soviet republics, why are editors there acting differently than editors here? The reason, I think, has more to do with a perceived  personal dispute than political (see for example the attempt by the user above to delete Bishzilla (thread)). Anyway, I would gladly delete my user page, but such ruling need to be applied consistently, anticommunism should not be getting a priority because of easy targets. El_C 20:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to specifically make the point that I didn't feel your impartiality was at issue, and I'm sorry if you understood this differently.  My point is that perception is the key here and that leaving the enforcement to another admin would not be so much more trouble.  And, personally, yes I would expect someone who displayed an Israeli flag on their userpage to also avoid admin action in Israeli-Palestinian issue — not because I think them unable to act fairly and impartially, but because the appearance of impropriety is a probable source of heat.  — Coren (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a trap, but I'll answer. Appearances do count (for example, I never edited the Communism article even once), but this is far from it. What about someone displaying the American flag in relation to articles about 911 or modern Iraq? Some would have me cease enforcing Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute which I have been doing for years, even though both factions seek this, due to abstract appearance of political correctness. It's a red herring (pun intended), anyway; Wikipedia is not a free-for-all.   El_C 02:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the proposal by Piotrus to have a review procedure for such cases. The reviewrs have to decide if the blocking admin is indeed an impartial side. If there are any doubts about that, the block should be lifted immediately.Biophys (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand definition of "uninvolved admin" in [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction]] 

message: The action was taken under the premise of:
General restriction
11) Any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. The restriction shall specify that, should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below. Before the restriction shall come into effect for a particular editor, that editor shall be given an official notice of it with a link to this decision.
I would like to appeal against this action and the finding of my incivility based on the following points:
1. My incivility was never explicitly stated by the administrator who imposed it despite a request to do so. Another administrator (Thatcher) simply suggesting the need for Dispute resolution, without considering that a 'request to move' is a form of dispute resolution.
2. Under some circumstances incivility is justified such as when the Wikipedia user is found to be using methods of argument during a discussion which are easily likened to abuse of logic, lying or propaganda, all of which contradict Wikipedia NPOV policy. The ruling is therefore largely the administrator's POV who may be unaware of the behaviour of the other party.
3. In order for the 'personal attack' to be personal, a person needs to be explicitly named. Since no such person was named in the cited evidence against me, the attack could only have been directed at the line of argument offered by the opposers of the 'proposal to move', which was in part lacking in supporting evidence, and therefore deceptive. In fact the proposition that I directed a personal attack contradicts my personal values that "one talks about ideas and not people" 
4. If I am accused of assumptions of bad faith, then I submit that the action of the other party was in fact the precursor of the 'request for move' as a means of remedies in equity due to my inability to assume good faith given the action of renaming the article in the first place, which, without discussion, was tantamount to negation of good faith as per Wikipedia's policy that "Bad faith editing can include deliberate disruption just to prove a point, playing games with policies, and vandalism". In this case the points being attempted to be proven are that: a) the article is focused on places in the event name and not on the historical event itself, and b) that Romanian  and European Union naming policy over-rides that of WP:UE, WP:MILMOS#NAME, and WP:ROR, for which I can find no evidence in Wikipedia policy. 
5. That in any case, I could not be warned under the Digwuren enforcement as an "editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe" since the article is intended to be an NPOV description of of a military operation by an armed force which at one time could be claimed to have been present in Europe, Asia, Africa, the Pacific Ocean and the Arctic. It is not a topic related to Eastern Europe despite being situated in Eastern Europe in the same way that all discussion of Architecture will inevitably include Eastern Europe. This would require similar enforcements to be enacted every time any editor chose to document operations by the Soviet Army in any of these global regions should anyone fund them controversial, or any topic that might include Eastern Europe, which is a large majority of Wikipedia content.
I look forward to my user name being cleared of these accusations.
Thank you --mrg3105mrg3105 00:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, now what happens to the undiscussed arbitrary renaming of the historically non-extant Battle of Romania into the non-WP:UE, non-WP:MILMOS#NAME, and non-WP:ROR compliant Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive, and the subsequent denial of the RM based on arguments that did not apply to the reasons given for the RM?--mrg3105mrg3105 01:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appeal against notice to ban for incivility by user Mrg3105 

message: I'm requesting clarification as regards this FoF and this remedy. I've just blocked said user,  for edit-warring yet again. Time for the "summary bans" bit to be enforced? Moreschi  If you've written a quality article... 23:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that reminds me: if an arbitrator/checkuser with knowledge of the Estonian sock stable could figure out who on earth , also blocked for his part in the edit-war, actually is, this might be helpful. Moreschi  If you've written a quality article... 23:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] 

message: I see that Kirill is wishing to apply additional remedies from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles. What's the scope? I don't think it is necessary in Estonia related articles, there has hardly been any activity, let alone disputes, with only User:RJ CG popping his head in briefly after a long break before being promptly blocked for two weeks for 3RR. As I said previously, Wikiproject Estonia has been chilled to the bone with most of the editors leaving the project, with no significant articles created or expanded, except for football it seems. I suppose if you are going to turn the screws even tighter, how about also adding:
*The applicable scope: Eastern Europe broadly defined, or just Estonia related articles?
*The definition of uninvolved admin for enforcement from that case as well Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Uninvolved_administrators
*Lifting of the ban for Digwuren. Nobody from either side wanted year long bans. Given Digwuren only joined around April 2007, had not been previously subjected any other genuine dispute resolution attempts before being taken to ArbCom (obviously Irpen's opinions carry a lot of weight with ArbCom), this newbie certainly has been bitten hard. We need at least one person from Estonia who can speak the language and willing to contribute meaningfully to articles.
Thanks. Martintg (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Martintg]] 

message: *Closed and archived 14:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clerk notes 

message: I have read this but am recusing from commenting due to my involvement in that case. I will ask the others to look over this. --Deskana (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The "summary bans" bit predates some of the more useful methods we've developed since then; I'd prefer not to funnel everything through a bottleneck by having the Committee do everything itself, but rather to take the standard approach we've used for other conflict areas recently.  See my motion below. Kirill 13:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: Please check the discussion here User_talk:Nick_Dowling#Hi.
I would like to see a restriction on the use of the notification as a sledgehammer in editor conflicts. Also, I would like to know if I have overstepped the line in that discussion, and where exactly the line is. Regards--Stor stark7 Speak 23:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Querry on the use of Digwuren in editor conflicts 

message: Concerning Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FDigwuren
====Statement by Martintg====
FayssalF was an involved party in this case, making unproven allegations of online intrusion by Digwuren. Whether or not these allegations were prompted by his earlier heated conflict with some editors over claims of admin abuse is not clear, however there is a clear conflict of interest in FayssalF's participation, which he acknowledges here and here. Nevertheless, it appears that FayssalF has voted anyway. Martintg (talk) 11:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for recusal in Request_to_amend_prior_case:Digwuren 

message: FayssalF was an involved party in this case, making unproven allegations of online intrusion by Digwuren. Whether or not these allegations were prompted by his earlier heated conflict with some editors over claims of admin abuse is not clear, however there is a clear conflict of interest in FayssalF's participation, which he acknowledges here and here. Nevertheless, it appears that FayssalF has voted anyway. Martintg (talk) 11:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Martintg|Martintg]]

message: * Given the nature of the change being made in the case (ie just updating the wording of the general article sanctions), I can't really see that there is a problem here. The remedy has already been adopted and all that is happening now is a tweak to the way it works. Even if there was a clear conflict of interest (which I doubt) it would not matter very much. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
*I don't think that this relatively small change would affect any editors (yet)
=== Statement by Piotrus ===
There is a curious and I think unhelpful difference between the Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#General_restriction and the Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions which have replaced it. The sanction allow imposing sanctions on editors who "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". The general restriction used to impose sanction for "make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith." The difference is important, as the new discretionary sanctions don't even mention personal attacks attacks and uncivility, and mention good faith in an unclear fashion later. While I think many would argue that this is covered by "expected standards of behavior", I'd nonetheless ask for a small clarification, i.e. amending the discretionary sanctions to clearly state that editors can be sanctions for (gross, repeated, etc.) violations of CIV, NPA and AGF (alternativily, we could clarify that CIV, NPA and AGF are not "expected standards of behavior" - athough I certainly hope this will not be the case). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  09:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to amend prior case: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren|Digwuren]] 

message: There is a curious and I think unhelpful difference between the Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#General_restriction and the Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions which have replaced it. The sanction allow imposing sanctions on editors who "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". The general restriction used to impose sanction for "make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith." The difference is important, as the new discretionary sanctions don't even mention personal attacks attacks and uncivility, and mention good faith in an unclear fashion later. While I think many would argue that this is covered by "expected standards of behavior", I'd nonetheless ask for a small clarification, i.e. amending the discretionary sanctions to clearly state that editors can be sanctions for (gross, repeated, etc.) violations of CIV, NPA and AGF (alternativily, we could clarify that CIV, NPA and AGF are not "expected standards of behavior" - athough I certainly hope this will not be the case). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  09:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Piotrus 

message: * I'm not really sure where the confusion is coming in. Is there really a dispute over whether  conduct policies constitute expected behavior? --Vassyana (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: This request arises from Radeksz's currently unresolved appeal, at WP:AE#Appeal against discretionary sanctions by Radeksz, against discretionary sanctions imposed against him by Thatcher. Inter alia, Radeksz argues that the sanctions are inadmissible because he did not receive a prior warning about possible sanctions. The reviewing administrators (including arbitrator Kirill) disagree about the application of the pertinent clause of the relevant remedy:
I ask the Committee to clarify the following:
#Must this warning be given by an uninvolved editor or administrator? (This issue came up recently in another AE case.) (Question struck, sorry, the remedy says clearly that it must be an uninvolved administrator.  Sandstein  15:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Note to Piotrus: This request is not intended to address the merits of Radeksz's conduct or sanctions. I am only requesting the clarification of the issues raised above, which are relevant beyond the specific case. That specific case is currently still pending at AE and will be decided there, unless the Committee decides to hear the appeal itself.  Sandstein  16:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Additional comment: Although Thatcher has – in unfortunately understandable frustration – now lifted the sanctions that caused the discussion that led to this request, I believe that a clarification of the points listed above remains desirable for future cases.  Sandstein  11:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Reply to GRBerry: Thanks, that's pretty much what I would have thought, too. Sorry, only upon reading your answer did I notice that the remedy is actually pretty clear about who has to issue the warning.  Sandstein  15:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Sandstein 

message: For my views on Radek, see my comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Appeal_against_discretionary_sanctions_by_Radeksz. Thatcher 14:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Skap, the bottom line is that there was no record of any warning, formal or informal, user talk or noticeboard, and no links to warnings by uninvolved admins were provided in the complaint.  Therefore, the paperwork was not completed properly.  Now it is. Thatcher 14:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Thatcher 

message: Please also clarify the following:
#What exactly is the purpose of such a warning?
#What exactly should the form of such a warning be? Please be very clear about which form is sufficient and which is not.
#If sanctions have been placed without such a proper warning, should the sanctions be lifted? 
Please make this as clear as possible. For example, prior to his sanctions, Radeksz was clearly aware of the Digwuren case as demonstrated by Thatcher. He was also warned for other things, such as edit warring. Does this constitute such a proper warning or not? Offliner (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Offliner 

message: IMO the remedy is crystal clear and so is what Kirill wrote. Radeksz was clearly never given a warning on his talk page at any point as the remedy requares therefore i don't understand why is Sandstein trying to create confusion. If we accept this bizzare logic that some editor "might have been aware of the warning" then we will end up arguing each and every time whether this was really so. I believe the ArbCom formulated the remedy that way exactly to prevent any ambiguities. Loosmark (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Loosmark 

message: There are several general questions that should be clarified by Arbcom to help administrators at AE:
#Can the sanctions be issued without the warning or without giving a possibility to improve?.  According to Digwuren case, "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 . That is why Thatcher rushed to issue such warnings to everyone (but forget Radek), and then immediately issued editing restrictions.  The warning is not a "formality" because a user may be unaware that his specific actions (such as rare reverts in Nashi) are subject to the sanctions. After looking at the text of Arbcom decision, I honestly believed that I am only a subject to an official EE warning (but not to immediate sanctions) if my behavior was problematic, and everyone 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. This matter was first brought to AE by Brandmaster: . 
#Russia does not belong to Eastern Europe; this is mostly Asia. Would any purely Russian/Soviet subjects (like article Nashi) fall under these sanctions? For example, List_of_Soviet_agents_in_the_United_States?Biophys (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Biophys 

message: IMHO the crucial issue here is that Radek was restricted for doing 3 reverts (with edits summaries) in two weeks - in other words for being guilty of respecting all of our policies! 
Not warning him first is just adding insult to the injury here... but it is an important issue as well. It is my understanding that warnings serve the preventative function, aiming at reforming a user; restrictions are punitive, aiming at stopping disruptive users who have not heeded warnings. Any user who is not clearly a vandal, per AGF, should be given a warning first, and only if he refuses to change, should than be restricted. Such a warning should also be given on his/her talkpage, since we cannot assume that editors will read the entire talk pages (or even AE or such threads) for all tiny warnings/exceptions/caveats/etc.
Radek, an experienced and constructive user, has followed all of our policies. Advice to use talk pages more often would be enough, particularly as he has shown much willingness to improve his (already within our standards) editing behavior. Yet he was suddenly and without a warning slapped down with 1RR restriction (which he followed on the article in question anyway...), for having the misfortune of editing an article outside his usual interests. This sends a really unhelpful message to all other neutral editors who could help improve the EE articles... "Come, edit those articles and get restricted without a warning for following normal policies anyway" :(
Bottom line is, if the ArbCom endorses sanction on Radek, it will mean that from now on anybody who does (or has ever done) more than one revert on any article in EE subjects, at any time, can be subject to a major 1RR editing restriction (if we restrict a user for 3 reverts in 2 weeks, why not 2 reverts in 3 weeks - or 5 weeks - and so goes the slippery slope...).
(PS. I do support all other recent restrictions by Thatcher, this one seems an unfortunate collateral damage casualty - so I'd strongly oppose initiating any kind of wider review which could undue most of the recent 1RR restrictions, which did indeed bring peace to affected articles - most of whom Radek never even edited...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  16:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Piotrus 

message: While I understand that in filing this request for clarification Sandstein's purpose is to clarify a particular aspect of policy and procedure, I do want it noted, per Piotrus, that the fact that proper procedure was not followed is only one of my arguments. There are also others.
However, sticking to the narrow purpose of this request I think it's pretty clear from the text and the past interpretation of the case that the purpose of the warning is not to make an editor aware of the existence of the Digwuren case, but rather, in the language of the case so that the editor has a chance to take "specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines" - in other words to make the editor aware that their editing behavior may be problematic. I think this is precisely in there for border line case such as mine - where, since I was following 1RR/Week I really had no idea that I was breaking any kind of rules (as I've said before, this is the first time I've seen anyone get slapped with an accusation of "edit warring" and sanctions in the case of 1 revert per week). I'm also not arguing that a formal warning must be made in each instance - just that there needs to be AT LEAST ONE formal warning.
In light of the above I would also like a clarification on how exactly is the 1RR/Week restriction to be properly interpreted. If following 1RR/Week can get you restricted for edit warring, can reverting vandalisms get counted as a revert and lead to a ban? Of course I know there are clear cut cases, but what about something like this: . I saw it yesterday, thought about reverting it since it looks like vandalism to me ... then thought better of it "just in case". There was no curse words in there, it was sort of on topic, no usual flags of typical vandalism - what if I reverted it and then some administrator decided that that was a violation of a 1RR restriction? And that's part of the trouble here - these kinds of harsh punishments for minor infractions, filed without proper procedures (even IF these procedures require some time to follow) create an atmosphere of paranoia (not to mention disillusionment and frustration) and hurt the regular work that editors do on these pages.radek (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Radeksz 

message: ====Formal notice and Digwuren list====
The remedy does not require an administrator to place a formal notice on the editor's talk page, as was the case with superceded remedy 11. It only reads "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" Yet, the formal notice reads that it is not effective unless logged at the Digwuren list. The list is titled: "List of editors placed under editing restriction", and the instruction for administrators below the title reads: "List here editors who have been placed on editing restriction by notice on their talk page, per remedy 11..." 
It is not the active remedy (12) which requires a logged formal notice at the editors talk page, but remedy 11 which is superceded. Remedy 12 requires a warning that is only specified as linking the remedy by an uninvolved administrator, and optional counseling. 
*Why does the Digwuren list read "per remedy 11" and is still maintained?
*Why does it list people not subject to an editing restriction, but who only received an adapted formal notice stemming from superceded remedy 11? I have no problem with being formally notified and listed somewhere as such, but I do have a problem with being listed as an editor under editing restrictions when in fact I am not subject to any.
*Why does the formal notice template generate a header "Notice of editing restrictions" if no editing restrictions are issued, and requires logging at the Digwuren list to be effective?
Skäpperöd (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Skäpperöd

message: The remedy does not require an administrator to place a formal notice on the editor's talk page, as was the case with superceded remedy 11. It only reads "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" Yet, the formal notice reads that it is not effective unless logged at the Digwuren list. The list is titled: "List of editors placed under editing restriction", and the instruction for administrators below the title reads: "List here editors who have been placed on editing restriction by notice on their talk page, per remedy 11..." 
It is not the active remedy (12) which requires a logged formal notice at the editors talk page, but remedy 11 which is superceded. Remedy 12 requires a warning that is only specified as linking the remedy by an uninvolved administrator, and optional counseling. 
*Why does the Digwuren list read "per remedy 11" and is still maintained?
*Why does it list people not subject to an editing restriction, but who only received an adapted formal notice stemming from superceded remedy 11? I have no problem with being formally notified and listed somewhere as such, but I do have a problem with being listed as an editor under editing restrictions when in fact I am not subject to any.
*Why does the formal notice template generate a header "Notice of editing restrictions" if no editing restrictions are issued, and requires logging at the Digwuren list to be effective?
Skäpperöd (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Formal notice and Digwuren list

message: Exactly. I am not arguing against the formal notice itself and against a logging, how else would admins be able to keep up with who they warned, just that notice and list are maintained under the label "editing restrictions". I fully share your interpretation that a formal warning is not needed, and that there is no need for any additional warning if awareness of the remedy is evident. I had made that clear on your talk already, and my argumentation above was rather to point out that the whole "formal notice" concept in its current form is a remnant of a meanwhile non-existing remedy and must not be mistaken as a formal requirement. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Thatcher's reply to Skäpperöd

message: Sandstein posed four questions (in italics here), here is my understanding of the proper answers to them from the period when I was active at Arbitration Enforcement.  These answers apply to all cases where discretionary sanctions are in force, not merely to this specific case.
:1. Must this warning be given by an uninvolved editor or administrator? (This issue came up recently in another AE case.)
::It is best if it is given by an uninvolved administrator.  Administrators who are working enforcement for the case are uninvolved.  It is worst if it is given by an involved editor on the other side of a dispute.  However, the fundamental purpose of the warning is met no matter who gives it.
:2. Must this warning be given anew tailored specifically to every incident of disruption for which sanctions are considered, or is one generic warning (to make the editor aware of the decision) sufficient in cases where the counseling provided for by the remedy is not deemed to be necessary?
::Absolutely not.  The discretionary sanctions exist because editors in the topic area have such a problematic history that they are skating on thin ice.  They don't get guaranteed Nth chances, the first warning tells them that they cannot expect as much leniency as they would get elsewhere.  If an admin working enforcement believes that counsel will work better than a sanction, the admin will use counsel.
::It has also long been understood that anyone that was a party to the case is already warned by the case closing message simply from having been a party and no further warnings are required for case parties.  This precedent establishes that individual incident warnings are not required.
:3. If generic warnings are sufficient, is a generic warning still necessary if the editor at issue is already known to be aware of the decision for other reasons, e.g. through participation in an arbitration enforcement request discussion concerning the same case?
::No.  (Especially not for someone saying that another editor should be sanctioned under the case.)  Such an editor has demonstrated awareness of the special rules and need to demonstrate the best possible behavior, a formal warning would not be of benefit to them.  A logged warning may be of benefit at a later date so that it is obvious that they are aware, but that benefit comes from the logging and accrues to an admin enforcing the case, not to the editor warned because they gained no new knowledge from the warning.
:4. If generic warnings are sufficient, is a generic warning posted at the top of a discussion page (such as an article talk page) or in the course of a discussion sufficient, or must the warning be provided individually on user talk pages?
::I don't like the idea of a notice at the top of a talk page; the one situation I was involved in where that was tried didn't work very well, but that was also trying a non-standard approach in an extreme battleground area, and I'm not certain which, if any, non-standard feature caused it to work poorly - it might have been the particular editors instead, as I know it the approach and talk page message worked fine in a different topic area.
::In general the question is whether an editor is aware of the special conditions and need to be on the best possible behavior.  This can be presumed to be the case if the warning was posted to their talk page.  This really can't be presumed for a warning on a talk page or in the midst of a discussion; we all engage in tl;dr at times.  Talk pages, especially on disputed topics, can have screens of templates at the top that we just scroll by without reading.  And a comment in the middle of a discussion may not be noticed, especially if the discussion is fast moving, as is common for disputed topics.  So user talk page warnings are far more likely to be seen by the editor and thus generate the required notice - but this remains irrelevant for an editor that is demonstrably aware of the data that a warning would provide.  GRBerry 14:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by GRBerry 

message: Despite the fact that I was affected by this restriction, I am actually saddened that Thatcher gave in to the pressure and vacated the restrictions from this particular bunch of editors (yes, including radek and even me). With all due respect to Thatcher, I think he lacks teaching experience to deal with a bunch of editors upset by the punishment. From my teaching experience, I always expect students who are upset by the grades they receive and who claim unfair punishment and who demand, often without a compelling reason, a better grade or something. In fact, if I teach a big course, I expect to be flooded by those demands. 
It is an absolute rule for a teacher not to give in to such demands (unless there are really really really exceptional circumstances), any exception from such a rule may have severe consequences and undermine the authority of the teacher. Next time, expect even bigger outcries from the punished editors who will cite plenty of different reasons and precedents, including the precedent of this case.    
Thatcher mentioned the tens of thousands of words spent on this simple case, but that was to be expected when you deal with what essentially is a mob. Despite what individual editors may claim or feel, the tag teaming does indeed take place in Wikipedia on many controversial topics. It is hard to judge individual contribution to the tag teaming, or determine guilt of any particular participant without doubt. That is why I was actually glad with Thatcher's decision to punish all the involved editors and thought that finally someone decided to do something about the problem. That is extremely unfortunate that under the pressure of the mob the decision was overturned. (Igny (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Igny 

message: *Like the purpose of warnings under general policy, the purpose of warnings here, in relation to the discretionary sanctions, is twofold. Obviously the primary purpose is to ensure that editors are aware of the existence of the discretionary sanctions before they can be made subject to them. This is particularly important in this case because the discretionary sanctions were not part of the original decision. The secondary purpose is so that editors know that their behaviour is being scrutinised and that they personally may be subject to sanctions, to allow them an opportunity to modify their behaviour. That the remedy comprehends this purpose too is apparent from the mention of counselling editors in addition to warning them, and from the list of factors in the third paragraph.
:To answer Sandstein's three remaining questions:
:# The minimum that is required is that the editor is provided with a link to the discretionary sanctions section within the final decision, as the remedy states. Once an editor has been warned of the existence of the discretionary sanctions, they do not need to be warned again (though editors who were only ever warned of the existence of the original general restriction would have to be warned of the discretionary sanctions).
:# The terms of the remedy say fairly plainly that a warning is required. I would agree that if someone has been commenting in arbitration enforcement threads concerning the discretionary sanctions they can be taken to be aware of them, but the second purpose remains.
:# A talk page banner is not sufficient, no. A message on the user's talk page is the best method.
:--bainer (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: Initiated by  Petri Krohn (talk) at 21:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for clarification: DIGWUREN 

message: I am seeking clarification on whether  this edit I made yesterday to Mass killings under Communist regimes a) constitutes edit warring, b) is a part of a BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, or c) is unrelated to any ongoing edit war in the article.
The article is under discretionary sanctions authorized in the Digwuren case limiting editors to 1RR per day.
I try to maintain a 0 RR policy on disputed topics  – never doing blind reverts and instead finding new formulations to address the different objections. The edit war on the  Mass killings under Communist regimes started October 13 and resulted in nine blind reverts by a total of six different editors. A complete list of the edits is available in in my comment on the related arbitration enforcement thread. My edits to the article were intended to stop the ongoing edit war by finding and proposing a suitable compromise wording. In the half an hour it took for me to check that my first edit was supported by facts the article went through two more rounds of edit warring.
I believe both my edits were allowed by WP:BRD, more specifically Wikipedia:Edit warring#What edit warring is – a Wikipedia policy that excludes the BRD cycle from edit warring. None of the material I added has ever been disputed; the fact that R. J. Rummel sees a causal link between communist ideology and mass killing is the only thing all editors working on the article have been able to agree on.
Here are three diffs related to my second edit:
# the edit itself
# diff from my previous edit in the same section
# diff from the disputed content edit warred over
The diffs shows three words in common with my first edit and one word in common with the disputed content.
On a general note, I would like the arbitration committee to specify, if the following two statements are a correct interpretation of the relevant policies, Wikipedia:Edit warring and WP:3RR
# 3RR only applies to edit warring; the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is not edit warring and is not subject to 1 / 3RR restrictions.
# An edit should be considered part of the BRD cycle and not edit warring, if it addresses a substantial objection raised by another editor (weasel words, BLP violation) – even if it retains a large part of the challenged content.
-- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Petri Krohn 

message: I have noticed "BRD" being used to spin-doctor (my perception) reverts as being something else. (Diffs are not material, I'm not here to litigate any particular instance.) Where a BRD sets off an edit/revert war, I can see the original BRD being exempt from the edit revert chain, but only as long as:
# the original BRD itself is not re-inserted, substantially unmodified (or modified not at all) from its initial instantiation; and
# where there is no initial BRD, "BRD" is not invoked to reinsert substantially unmodified (or modified not at all) content from earlier instantiations of versions which comprise an edit war already in progress.
In either event: reinserting an (initial) BRD in a chain of reverts or claiming BRD within a chain of reverts, the claim for "BRD" is nullified, as to not do so would encourage editors to circumvent #RR restrictions by offering the revert "advantage" to any editor who is first out of the gate to claim "BRD." I would like to know if my interpretation is correct. Best, PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Vecrumba 

message: The proimary issue is that where an article is clearly and multiply marked as "1RR", is it proper to assert "BRD" when the (at least partial) contents of two reverts clearly have been on and off reverted in the past?  Where such a warning is not clearly marked (which has certainly been the case in the past) I would think the argument of BRD had merit. However, the case in hand does not have the benefit of that caution at all.  
There is another issue -- has "Digwuren" now been excessively stretched?  I have just been officially "warned" which means I can not edit anything about the London victory parade of 1946 -- an article I did not even know existed!  Where "Digwuren" is thus so stretched, ought Arbcom sua sponte consider limiting that decision which has now been stretched more than a Hefty bag in a commercial? Collect (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Collect

message: * Generally speaking, edit-warring is a pattern of conduct; it is difficult to say whether a single, isolated edit constitutes edit-warring.  From your description of the context, I would say that you inserted yourself in an ongoing edit war, if nothing else; this may or may not have been a good decision on your part, and may or may not be considered sanctionable behavior by administrators enforcing discretionary sanctions in this area.As far as your other question is concerned, 3RR (and similar rules) apply to any revert, whether it is part of a BRD cycle, a blind revert, or something else; engaging in BRD does not grant an exemption from revert limitations, and one can still be engaged in edit-warring even if BRD is offered—rightly or wrongly—as an excuse. Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: Initiated by  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  at 21:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Replies. Yes, Biophys, I am very fond of forgiving and forgetting, and yes, you are right that continued harassment leads to editor loss (some thoughts of mine on this). I have to say I am surprised that the comments from Arbitrators seem to indicate that they see nothing wrong with such combative attitude which is the primary reason why the old battlegrounds are still smoldering. I am also confused as those comments seem to be quite different from the comments that the admins make on AE (see for example current case here). Where the arbitrators seem to be very lenient, the AE admins seem to be rather strict. What am I missing? Are the interaction bans the only way that harassing and sniping, hounding can be stopped around here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I agree that no one should use expressions like "EEML people" (e.g. here and here), which assumes a collective responsibility. Some participants of the mailing list did not receive any sanctions in relation to the list. One should only talk about individual editors sanctioned in EEML case if their sanctions did not expire. Biophys (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

text: This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
=== Arbitrator views and discussion === 
*No, there is no sanction for using a user's own appropriate history in discussions of current behavioral problems.  Wikipedia editors should be mature enough to know that 1) everyone makes mistakes, 2) good people move beyond them, and editors who edit without repeating problems in the distant past should be given appropriately more consideration than someone who's just come off of a block for the same action, and 3) one's reputation on-wiki is what it is.  In general, I do not favor suppressing, via technical means or by prior restraints on on-wiki speech for mentioning, legitimate history.  There is a way to overcome a sanction, and it is pretty straightforward: abide by it, and don't ever get involved in the same problems again. In that way, anyone who cares to bring up the past sanction just makes themselves look like a fool for doing so when the issue clearly does not apply to present reality. Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for clarification: [[WP:DIGWUREN]] 

message: Several weeks ago, I've asked this question at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests. I've done so twice, but despite some (limited) discussion by editors, no arbitrator, to my knowledge, has joined the discussion. As such, I am repeating my question here, as an official request for clarification.
Regarding WP:DIGWUREN (Wikipedia:General_sanctions), would it be:
#) applicable to an editor who in a discussion, for example, at a general policy page (and not necessarily on an EE content article), makes bad faith / incivil remarks / PA  regarding EE editors in general (for example, discussing the bias of "Slavic editors", identifying votes of editors as "X comes from a  Slavic country" and makes similar arguments, the gist of which is arguing that EE editors are not neutral/biased
#) applicable to an editor who in a discussion, for example, at a general policy page (and not necessarily on an EE content article), makes bad faith / incivil / PA remarks regarding another editor or editors by mentioning an EE-related ARBCOM case with expired sanctions to back the claim that "this editor is biased, as the XYZ case proves", "this editor has been found to be disruptive, to edit war, has supported editors who were found disruptive", and so on. In other words, is there any recourse when an editor is trying to damage another editor's reputation by citing/linking old ARBCOM findings, poising the well by reminding others "what bad, bad deed that evil person did X years ago"? To give more generic examples, related behaviors would include noting in a discussion that "should I remind you of the findings/sanctions of an arbcom case against you [implied: that editor has been sanctioned in the past, so his arguments should be suspect]", or more directly, "editor X was banned from this topic area [implied: so his arguments should be suspect]", or in a vote that "editor X was found to use a sock-puppet 3 years ago [implied: so his vote should count less]". Just to be clear, I understand that editors have the right to ask about another editor's history in discussions that center on that editors (such as during Requests for Adminship and other positions). My question relates to other, content-related discussions, where such comments are similar to a regular personal attack (but instead saying "editor X is a troll", what is said is "editor X has been sanctioned in the past"). Either comment is irrelevant to the discussion in question (sanctions in questions have expired), but the second one is more insidious, as by invoking administrative/arbcom findings/sanctions it creates the illusion of having the "Wikipedia rules" behind it.
If WP:DIGWUREN is not applicable, I'd appreciate comments what, if any, policies are, and where such behavior can be reported (or are editors just supposed to take such poisoned comments for years and decades)?
I will note that this request for clarification does not pertain to any current incident. Rather, it is based on numerous incidents I've seen in the past year or so, incidents which I believe keep the EE battleground still simmering, but which at this point I am not sure what is the correct avenue, if any, to deal with. Should a WP:DIGWUREN AE request be made in such cases, or...?  --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  21:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Replies. Yes, Biophys, I am very fond of forgiving and forgetting, and yes, you are right that continued harassment leads to editor loss (some thoughts of mine on this). I have to say I am surprised that the comments from Arbitrators seem to indicate that they see nothing wrong with such combative attitude which is the primary reason why the old battlegrounds are still smoldering. I am also confused as those comments seem to be quite different from the comments that the admins make on AE (see for example current case here). Where the arbitrators seem to be very lenient, the AE admins seem to be rather strict. What am I missing? Are the interaction bans the only way that harassing and sniping, hounding can be stopped around here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Piotrus 

message: Piotrus, do you mean that everyone must just forgive and forget, and this is it? Yes, that would help to make this place much better, but this is also a dramatic attitude change. It is not uncommon that administrator X wants to block user A for doing something because user A did the same a couple years ago. It is also frequently claimed that user A (who currently is in good standing) should not switch to a different account because no one should be dissociated with his edit history, and therefore nothing can be forgotten. This situation forces some people to resign. I am not talking about things like the gradually increasing blocks for violating the same topic ban. But, yes, forgetting others would be a great idea, but this should start from administrators. Biophys (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that no one should use expressions like "EEML people" (e.g. here and here), which assumes a collective responsibility. Some participants of the mailing list did not receive any sanctions in relation to the list. One should only talk about individual editors sanctioned in EEML case if their sanctions did not expire. Biophys (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Biophys

message: I think that if an editor has a complaint about this that they should take it to ANI rather than AE.  There is nothing in Digwuren or other AE cases to guide the administrators here.  TFD (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by other user 

message: *No, there is no sanction for using a user's own appropriate history in discussions of current behavioral problems.  Wikipedia editors should be mature enough to know that 1) everyone makes mistakes, 2) good people move beyond them, and editors who edit without repeating problems in the distant past should be given appropriately more consideration than someone who's just come off of a block for the same action, and 3) one's reputation on-wiki is what it is.  In general, I do not favor suppressing, via technical means or by prior restraints on on-wiki speech for mentioning, legitimate history.  There is a way to overcome a sanction, and it is pretty straightforward: abide by it, and don't ever get involved in the same problems again. In that way, anyone who cares to bring up the past sanction just makes themselves look like a fool for doing so when the issue clearly does not apply to present reality. Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: Initiated by  TransporterMan (TALK) at 21:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: @ArbClerks: When archiving occurs, I request archiving to both Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

text: This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals). 
=== Arbitrator views and discussion === 
*Generally agree with FPaS that it would probably fall under the category of broadly construed. SirFozzie (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for clarification: [[WP:DIGWUREN]] or [[WP:ARBMAC]]  

message: Do articles about Slovenia or Slovenian matters come within the Eastern European or, less likely, Balkan discretionary sanctions and, if so, which? I am not advocating for inclusion or exclusion, just wish clarification, but would note that Doremo and Doncsecz are involved in a long term slow-motion edit war at Slovene dialects which might cool if one or the other of the sets of sanctions apply. (To their credit, they are seeking dispute resolution at Third Opinion.)
:@ArbClerks: When archiving occurs, I request archiving to both Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by TransporterMan 

message: Answer as a non-arb, but as somebody who has been active in enforcing both sets of sanctions: my personal stance would be that, since both decisions allow for a "widely construed" field of application, I'd have little qualms in using either or both in respect to this country. Where I come from, "Balkan" certainly comprises all of former Yugoslavia. However, my willingness to invoke these sanctions would depend to a high extent on the question whether the type of conflict involved in a given case is comparable with the typical profile of conflicts these sanction rules are made to handle – i.e., mostly, inter-ethnic and nationally motivated historical and political conflicts. In the specific case you mention, the issue seems to be much less political and more of an internal language-related kind. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by Fut.Perf. 

message: Geographers disagree on the eastern/central and Balkan/non-Balkan categorization of Slovenia. So it's difficult to say what the scope of the discretionary sanctions are in relation to Slovenia. User Fut.Perf. is correct that the dispute involves a language issue and not a political issue; that is, it does not have an inter-ethnic/national dimension. The slow-motion edit war ended on 8 September after I refused to revert. I've tried to summarize the issue at Talk:Slovene_dialects#What_is_this_fight_about.3F. In any case, the dispute appears to be inactive now because I was successful in soliciting a 3rd opinion as well as additional input from another editor at WikiProject Slovenia at the suggestion of user TechnoSymbiosis. The result is that consensus was achieved, user Doncsecz himself/herself reverted his/her changes, and another editor (Yerpo) restored balance (removed undue weight) from the article. Doremo (talk) 04:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by Doremo (party to dispute) 

message: *Generally agree with FPaS that it would probably fall under the category of broadly construed. SirFozzie (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: A motion has been proposed that would amend a sanctions remedy in this case. It would replace the remedy in this case that allows administrators to unilaterally apply sanctions to editors within the designated topic area with a standardized remedy that essentially allows for the same thing. Any extant sanctions or warnings made according to the older wording found in those decisions (as applicable) remain unaffected. To comment on this proposal, please go to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. NW (Talk) 20:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proposed amendment to a sanctions remedy 

message: * That the topic bans placed on The Last Angry Man and Igny here be modified to allow participation in the current Mediation Cabal case. 
==== Statement by Steven Zhang ====
The administrator who placed the topic bans, , detailed that the topic bans of three and six months for TLAM and Igny respectively would also prohibit participation to the Mediation Cabal case. In my opinion this is not in the best interests in the mediation. For mediation to be successful in the long term, participation from all parties is required, and a short term topic ban which includes the mediation case may make any agreement from the remaining parties have less chance of being an agreement that will stick. If incivility or bad faith accusations are a problem, perhaps the committee could consider a penalty for further incivility or bad faith behaviour at MedCab, say, their topic ban length is reset. But I think it's wise to allow them to participate in the case, and request the Committee modify the topic bans to allow this. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 05:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Responding to some of the points made so far. First of all, sorry for the venue confusion - I wasn't aware of the fine distinctions in ArbCom pages when I first commented on Steven's proposal. Second, I would agree to have an uninvolved administrator monitor the mediation for civility violations. I don't agree with Steven here - I appreciate that we have the RfA process for a reason, and I wouldn't be comfortable with being delegated power to block users without having the community approval that passing an RfA entails. Third, Tammsalu makes the good point that Igny may not have participated very much in this mediation anyway. I think it would be a good idea to hear from Igny and The Last Angry Man themselves to hear what their attitudes to the mediation are. Their stances may have changed after the topic bans and after reading the comments here and in the AE thread. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading the statement by TransporterMan, I have to concur with his stance on the strictness of the participation conditions. While of course, incivility and disruption by the topic-banned editors should not be tolerated, making the conditions too strict may well stop them from voicing their opinions, and could open them to baiting from other editors. Rather than very strict conditions and constant monitoring, I think the effectiveness of the mediation would be better supported by slightly more relaxed conditions and a highly structured mediation process. (Steven has outlined the process at the mediation page here, and you can see the draft proposals page here.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Just one point. Yes we have 1000 or so administrators. But Arbcom will be well aware that only a very small fraction are willing to put their hand up for arbitration enforcement. Just look at the current AE page. We shouldn't overburden the admin corps more by allowing two users topic-banned for largely behavioural reasons to participate in non-binding dispute resolution under the supervision of a volunteer administrator. Our finite resources can be much better targeted than by an indulgence of that kind for two editors, who I should not have so far neither appealed their bans nor made any request to participate in MEDCAB despite them. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: @TransporterMan: WP:DIGWUREN, which is the authority for the topic ban, says: "The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project." It needs not be said that when an editor is "banned from any editing related to the topic" for battleground behaviour, the ban includes content-related dispute resolution processes. In any case, I would have included MEDCAB within this ban regardless of whether doing so is the norm. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Agree with EdJohnston below. The mediation can proceed without these editors. Biophys (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

text: @Russavia: Per this it would appear that the sockpuppetry issue has been settled unless you have new evidence. If you do, are you going to take it to SPI? If so, it might influence how I feel about this. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

text: @Russavia: Thank you for the link to the clarification request, that helps clarify the present situation. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

text: @Russavia: I've not examined the evidence and do not know or, at this point, have an opinion about whether or not TLAM is or is not a sock of Mark Nutley, but I'd like to presume for the sake of this question (only) that he is, indeed, a Nutley sock. I can certainly understand why that ought to cause TLAM to be blocked altogether and indefinitely but unless that is going to happen then I would ask you why that fact ought to otherwise bear on this request. To say it in another way: He's either (a) a sock and ought to be gone altogether, which would solve the question of his participation in the mediation, or (b) he's not a sock and would be valuable to the mediation process for the reasons stated by the mediators here, or (c) he's a sock (or strongly suspected but unproven sock) that the community has chosen to tolerate. The question is this: If the community isn't going to do (a), why should there be a difference between (b) and (c) for purposes of this request? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

text: @Mkativerata: I wish I had noticed this much earlier, but Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Exceptions_to_limited_bans expressly allows a topic-banned editor to participate in good faith in dispute resolution:Unless stated otherwise, a restricted editor may make edits that would otherwise be a violation of the restriction if it is part of proper dispute resolution, so long as it is done in good faith. For example, an editor who is restricted from interacting with an another editor may ask an administrator to look into conduct by the other editor.The "unless stated otherwise" clearly applies in this case, as you expressly mentioned "No exception for MEDCAB" in your AE ruling. But I must wonder whether you would have included that restriction had it not been for Paul Siebert expressly (but, in light of policy, unnecessarily) requesting an exception from MedCab. Would you have? And if you would not have included, would you have gone back and expanded the topic ban to include it if you had learned that he was participating in MedCab under the authority of the banning policy exception? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

text: I volunteer to be the monitoring admin.  I'm the admin who fully protected the article, and who opened the mediation request.  I am not a party to the dispute.  I have, as far as I am aware, never been a party to any dispute relating to WP:DIGWUREN]. Assuming that the arbitrators find that this is the appropriate venue, that it is a positive solution to have one or both of these parties involved in the mediation, then I am willing to monitor the mediation for any improper behavior.  I am also willing to discuss any possible problems with the mediators themselves.  I won't be reading any of the actual sources, nor do I have any interest in actually forming an opinion on the article contents themselves--I would strictly be monitoring from improper behavior on the part of these two editors. I would prefer that the consequences for violating these conditions be made quite clear though--specifically, does a violation in mediation actually count as a "normal" violation, thus extending the current 3 months topic?  Regarding whether or not allowing a specific exception? My opinion is that it is a good idea, as pointed out above.  There's no sense in working really hard for several months to get a consensus, just to have LATM come back in 3 months and say "But none of you accounted for X, Y, and Z, so I cannot accept the results of this mediation. Revert."  This exception would essentially be given with the understanding that if LATM violates the conditions, they're essentially forfeiting their "right" to object later (if a stable consensus is achieved). Qwyrxian (talk) 07:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Just to clarify, this presumes that TransporterMan's statement above is accurate and the user in question is not a sockpuppet of a banned/blocked/topic-banned editor. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Amendment 1

message: The administrator who placed the topic bans, , detailed that the topic bans of three and six months for TLAM and Igny respectively would also prohibit participation to the Mediation Cabal case. In my opinion this is not in the best interests in the mediation. For mediation to be successful in the long term, participation from all parties is required, and a short term topic ban which includes the mediation case may make any agreement from the remaining parties have less chance of being an agreement that will stick. If incivility or bad faith accusations are a problem, perhaps the committee could consider a penalty for further incivility or bad faith behaviour at MedCab, say, their topic ban length is reset. But I think it's wise to allow them to participate in the case, and request the Committee modify the topic bans to allow this. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 05:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Steven Zhang 

message: I am another mediator in the MedCab Holodomor case. I agree with Steven Zhang - I think the result of the mediation will stick better if Igny and The Last Angry Man are both allowed to take part. I also agree that maintaining civility in the mediation is of utmost importance, and that proceedings could be hampered by incivility or personal attacks. I am not sure if/how this should be enforced, however, and I will be happy to accept the arbitration committee's judgement on the matter. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Responding to some of the points made so far. First of all, sorry for the venue confusion - I wasn't aware of the fine distinctions in ArbCom pages when I first commented on Steven's proposal. Second, I would agree to have an uninvolved administrator monitor the mediation for civility violations. I don't agree with Steven here - I appreciate that we have the RfA process for a reason, and I wouldn't be comfortable with being delegated power to block users without having the community approval that passing an RfA entails. Third, Tammsalu makes the good point that Igny may not have participated very much in this mediation anyway. I think it would be a good idea to hear from Igny and The Last Angry Man themselves to hear what their attitudes to the mediation are. Their stances may have changed after the topic bans and after reading the comments here and in the AE thread. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading the statement by TransporterMan, I have to concur with his stance on the strictness of the participation conditions. While of course, incivility and disruption by the topic-banned editors should not be tolerated, making the conditions too strict may well stop them from voicing their opinions, and could open them to baiting from other editors. Rather than very strict conditions and constant monitoring, I think the effectiveness of the mediation would be better supported by slightly more relaxed conditions and a highly structured mediation process. (Steven has outlined the process at the mediation page here, and you can see the draft proposals page here.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Mr. Stradivarius 

message: I explicitly included MEDCAB in the topic bans, as would ordinarily be assumed to be the case.  The topic bans were for behaviour that included, among other things, TLAM referring to his opponents as a "pro communist cabal" (), and Igny saying in the AE itself that "I will add more comments here after the WP:EEML team rushes here for TLAM's defence and mud slinging." I judged that this was plainly not behaviour consistent with engaging constructively in dispute resolution. I believe I was correct to make that judgement, and that Arbcom should find no reason to interfere with it. I also note that none of the mediators appear to be admins. If I am correct in that, they would not have no power to block either user for disrupting the MEDCAB process, or for transgressing their topic bans, whether on a MEDCAB page or elsewhere. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Just one point. Yes we have 1000 or so administrators. But Arbcom will be well aware that only a very small fraction are willing to put their hand up for arbitration enforcement. Just look at the current AE page. We shouldn't overburden the admin corps more by allowing two users topic-banned for largely behavioural reasons to participate in non-binding dispute resolution under the supervision of a volunteer administrator. Our finite resources can be much better targeted than by an indulgence of that kind for two editors, who I should not have so far neither appealed their bans nor made any request to participate in MEDCAB despite them. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: @TransporterMan: WP:DIGWUREN, which is the authority for the topic ban, says: "The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project." It needs not be said that when an editor is "banned from any editing related to the topic" for battleground behaviour, the ban includes content-related dispute resolution processes. In any case, I would have included MEDCAB within this ban regardless of whether doing so is the norm. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Mkativerata (admin who applied the topic bans) 

message: Propose a "short leash" rule.  On the first use of any inapt language on the mediation pages, or any pages relating thereto in any way (including user talk pages), the topic ban be fully reinstated and doubled - that is, if either makes posts or edit summaries which are uncivil or accusatory of others being in any "group", "team", "mailing list" or "cabal" without furnishing specific and compelling evidence thereof, that the offender's topic bans be doubled in length and that they be so informed upon entry to the mediation.   I further suggest that this be dependent on MEDCAB obtaining approval from a fully uninvolved adminstrator willing to examine the posts.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: statement by uninvolved Collect

message: This is not a matter to be decided by Arbcom. Of course they could remove completely all discretionary sanctions in Digwuren case, but that was not requested. Making a specific exemption for two editors would be inappropriate interference in AE business. If these two editors want their AE sanctions to be modified or lifted, they must submit an appeal to AE, as stipulated in previous Arbcom decisions. Biophys (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with EdJohnston below. The mediation can proceed without these editors. Biophys (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Biophys

message: By going directly to Arbcom, this request seems to take a shortcut around AE. Unclear why there is any need for that. The first step would normally be to ask the admin who imposed the sanction (Mkativerata) to consider modifying the restriction. Since the sanction was for WP:BATTLE behavior, it is not obvious why adding these two parties to the mediation would be a win. Their absence might actually lead to a swifter conclusion of the mediation, if all the charges are correct.  Finally, this request does not ask for any actual amendment to the DIGWUREN decision. Neither Igny nor The Last Angry Man was placed under any particular sanction by Arbcom in the DIGWUREN case. The topic bans we are discussing were placed by Mkativerata under discretionary sanctions.  There is a whole different appeal process for that. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by EdJohnston

message: From the very beginning, I proposed to exclude the MedCab case from the topic ban, and I do not find the initial Mkativerata's explanation (or the lack thereof) convincing. In my opinion, the most reasonable proposal has been made by Collect, and I would like to develop it a little bit further to address some Mkativerata's and  Newyorkbrad's concerns. In my opinion, TLAM and Igny may be allowed to participate in the MedCab provided that they will strictly observe all possible decorum rules; any violation of these rules, if reported by the mediators (not by other participants), will automatically lead to one year topic ban. I see no technical problems with realisation of this proposal, and I do not understand how the mediation process may be impaired by that.One more point. It is quite possible that the MedCab will last more than 3 months, which means that one of two topic banned users will join the discussion, and we will probably need to go back to address some of the arguments he was not able to put forward timely due to his ban. That will disturb the mediation process, and I do not think this is a result the admins want to achieve.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Paul Siebert

message: User:Igny mentioned he was pulling out of mediation in any case due to real life issues, so discussion of his possible participation is moot. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Tammsalu

message: I'm one of the MedCab mediators on this case and apologize for being late to the party; real world issues have interfered over the last week. In some ways, the decision on this request goes to the positive and negative reasons for why DR exists and why it is here: to benefit Wikipedia by settling disputes, hopefully positively through consensus, but sometimes negatively by just getting them settled to stop the disruption. If we have editors who feel so strongly about this that they're just going to wait out their topic bans and start changing the article again, then the mediation is a waste of time without them. Getting them in and allowing them to help craft the solution at least potentially avoids that result. I therefore support the idea of allowing an exception to the topic ban for The Last Angry Man (noting that Igny has chosen not to participate). It seems that the solutions to this request are becoming too complicated with a montoring sysop and double or nothing sanctions. The sanctions in question are a "voluntary" topic ban, in the sense that he has not been blocked and is capable of editing anywhere he pleases to do so. No one is officially or semi-officially monitoring TLAM on that ban at the present time. Various eyes could be watching, of course, but should he violate the ban it would far more likely that someone would just happen to have to come along, just happen to notice the violation, and choose to report it to AE. All we are requesting here is that the topic ban be relaxed for MedCab and that Steven (or perhaps any two of the three mediators if you do not want to just let one do it) be given the right to reinstitute the full breadth of the ban should TLAM's behavior deteriorate in any of those venues to the point the mediators feel that it is interfering with the mediation process, with the only needed action being:
* To relax: A note on TLAM's talk page by Mkativerata or an ArbCom member or clerk setting the parameters of the relaxation and the mediator(s) right to reinstitue it, along with a corresponding note at Digwuren's Log of blocks and bans, and
* To reinstiute: The mediator(s) leaving a note reinstituting it on TLAM's talk page and at the Diguren log.
A strict "one bad word and he's gone" standard, especially (but not only) one which either is being continuously scrutinized or second-guessed by parties outside the mediation or which results in a longer ban is inimical to the mediation process. Indeed, my feeling is that the only consequence of behaving badly in the mediation ought to be the risk that he will be excluded from it, not that he will suffer blocks or bans because of it. (The flip side of this, however, should be that any decision of the mediator(s) to reinstate the full breadth of the topic ban should not be appealable: the relaxation should be considered to be an act of grace entirely for the benefit of the mediation and thus the encyclopedia, and not to the slightest degree for TLAM's personal right or interest, which can be revoked without cause or explanation at any time it appears that the encyclopedia is not receiving the desired benefit.)Finally, before much more time is spent on this it would be well to find out if TLAM wants to participate further in the mediation, but of course he cannot comment on that question unless he is given permission. Would Mkativerata consider relaxing the ban to at least allow that question to be asked and answered here on this page? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: @Russavia: Per this it would appear that the sockpuppetry issue has been settled unless you have new evidence. If you do, are you going to take it to SPI? If so, it might influence how I feel about this. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

text: @Russavia: Thank you for the link to the clarification request, that helps clarify the present situation. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

text: @Russavia: I've not examined the evidence and do not know or, at this point, have an opinion about whether or not TLAM is or is not a sock of Mark Nutley, but I'd like to presume for the sake of this question (only) that he is, indeed, a Nutley sock. I can certainly understand why that ought to cause TLAM to be blocked altogether and indefinitely but unless that is going to happen then I would ask you why that fact ought to otherwise bear on this request. To say it in another way: He's either (a) a sock and ought to be gone altogether, which would solve the question of his participation in the mediation, or (b) he's not a sock and would be valuable to the mediation process for the reasons stated by the mediators here, or (c) he's a sock (or strongly suspected but unproven sock) that the community has chosen to tolerate. The question is this: If the community isn't going to do (a), why should there be a difference between (b) and (c) for purposes of this request? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

text: @Mkativerata: I wish I had noticed this much earlier, but Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Exceptions_to_limited_bans expressly allows a topic-banned editor to participate in good faith in dispute resolution:Unless stated otherwise, a restricted editor may make edits that would otherwise be a violation of the restriction if it is part of proper dispute resolution, so long as it is done in good faith. For example, an editor who is restricted from interacting with an another editor may ask an administrator to look into conduct by the other editor.The "unless stated otherwise" clearly applies in this case, as you expressly mentioned "No exception for MEDCAB" in your AE ruling. But I must wonder whether you would have included that restriction had it not been for Paul Siebert expressly (but, in light of policy, unnecessarily) requesting an exception from MedCab. Would you have? And if you would not have included, would you have gone back and expanded the topic ban to include it if you had learned that he was participating in MedCab under the authority of the banning policy exception? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by TransporterMan

message: :I volunteer to be the monitoring admin.  I'm the admin who fully protected the article, and who opened the mediation request.  I am not a party to the dispute.  I have, as far as I am aware, never been a party to any dispute relating to WP:DIGWUREN]. Assuming that the arbitrators find that this is the appropriate venue, that it is a positive solution to have one or both of these parties involved in the mediation, then I am willing to monitor the mediation for any improper behavior.  I am also willing to discuss any possible problems with the mediators themselves.  I won't be reading any of the actual sources, nor do I have any interest in actually forming an opinion on the article contents themselves--I would strictly be monitoring from improper behavior on the part of these two editors. I would prefer that the consequences for violating these conditions be made quite clear though--specifically, does a violation in mediation actually count as a "normal" violation, thus extending the current 3 months topic?  Regarding whether or not allowing a specific exception? My opinion is that it is a good idea, as pointed out above.  There's no sense in working really hard for several months to get a consensus, just to have LATM come back in 3 months and say "But none of you accounted for X, Y, and Z, so I cannot accept the results of this mediation. Revert."  This exception would essentially be given with the understanding that if LATM violates the conditions, they're essentially forfeiting their "right" to object later (if a stable consensus is achieved). Qwyrxian (talk) 07:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, this presumes that TransporterMan's statement above is accurate and the user in question is not a sockpuppet of a banned/blocked/topic-banned editor. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Qwyrxian

message: As a member of the Mediation Committee who used to be coordinator of the MedCab. I would be happy to endorse on AE/AN that an exception should be permitted for the purposes of the MedCab case and take responsibility for supervision. This case could alternatively be referred to us at the MedCom, but I would prefer to see the existing mediation case allowed to continue as it stands before a request for formal mediation being made. I am also willing to be the uninvolved administrator/mediator mentioned by Newyorkbrad if necessary. --Tristessa (talk) 11:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by Tristessa de St Ange 

message: In response to the question posted on my talk page the response is yes, I believe mediation will help improve the article in question and also give myself an insight into how mediation works. I should like to thank the mediators for their requests in relaxing the topic ban to allow myself to continue with the dispute resolution process. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by TLAM 

message: Should there not be some expectation of decorum here? I did not join WP to read fulminations on canine genitalia. And is there a reason some editors continue to advocate for outright bans of others whom they disapprove of? That is not seeking resolution of conflict, rather, that is escalating conflict. I've already commented elsewhere on the alleged sockpuppetry. Whatever is decided here should be consistent with the past and be on solid enough ground to be a basis to set a precedent going forward. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Vecrumba 

message: Under no circumstances should TLAM be allowed to participate in anything on WP. Refer to WP:SOCK and User:Marknutley. It is disappointing that Arbs are suggesting that an obvious sockpuppet should be allowed to participate in anything on WP; particularly given the clarification request. Russavia Let's dialogue 19:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: TransporterMan, there is currently a clarification request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Arbcom-unblocked_editors in relation to this. The committee has yet to comment directly on this case at that request, and it should be making comment directly in relation to it. I have provided a few admins confidential evidence, some of which has already been given to the committee, but the other half has not yet been provided to the Arbcom. When almost every uninvolved admin has stated their belief that this is a sockpuppet, I am not yet going to file any SPI, only because to do so would be to be required to divulge evidence which gives Marknutley/TLAM insight into his editing traits that have given him away. I have already provided a few of these traits. Any editor is welcome to do their own comparison of MK/TLAM and his other socks, to see that the behavioural evidence is there. Russavia Let's dialogue 07:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

text: And a quick additional comment, I am not going to supply the Committee with the additional evidence, because to do so will to allow them to ignore clear behavioural traits, and totally convincing traits at that, as they have already done. Once they fob off yet more evidence, and refuse to even so much as remotely answer direct and straightforward questions in relation to this case, that evidence will become off-limits and unusable. Hence why any evidence has thus far been limited to trusted admins, whilst other editors are welcome to do their own investigation and comparison of edits; it took me all of an hour or so to compile a convincing list; and only a few minutes to find traits that stuck out like dog's balls. Perhaps once Arbs attend to the clarification request with direct answers, instead of beating around the bush and refusing to comment on the case directly, I may then provide them with evidence, but not whilst they are engaging in murkification instead of clarification. Russavia Let's dialogue 07:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Russavia 

message: :This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
*Now that the sanctioning administrator has agreed to modify the ban he imposed, I believe this discussion is moot? NW (Talk) 18:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clerk notes 

message: *Biophys is partly correct. ArbCom should not be the first stop on appeal AE sanctions, but if the resulting discussion is unclear on the consensus, then bringing it to us would be the next logical step. Normally, we allow exceptions to sanctions for the purposes of "formal dispute resolution" (such as Mediation Committee and/or Arbitration Committee) cases. However, the Mediation Cabal is INformal dispute resolution. (per its mandate). Therefore my suggestion is that the proper venue for this request is an AE Appeal (either at AE, or one of the AN noticeboards), and coming back here if unclear. SirFozzie (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: I would also like for WP:ARBRB to be renamed to something that does not include my username. I see no reason why I should also be required to put up with an Arb case being named (partly) after me, when the issues of the case were deeper than that -- as suggested by Ed above. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 10:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Russavia 

message: This has been suggested before, IIRC, had some support but because it wasn't seen as urgent at the time no one got around to carrying through. This is a good time to implement it then. I think Tim articulates the reasons for why this is a good idea quite well, so I don't have much to add on that.
All of Timotheus C's and EdJohnston's specific renaming suggestion are good.VolunteerMarek 16:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Volunteer Marek 

message: This is both long overdue and welcome.
* I would suggest ARB-EE for Eastern European disputes OUTSIDE the Soviet legacy--DIGWUREN is the appropriate basis: the later EE arbitration case actually resulted in some level of amnesty and moving forward; all the sanctions are in the Digwuren case (the one-sided naming has always been a problem as well).
* I also suggest/second ARB-FSU (Former Soviet Union) for Soviet legacy cases (historic portrayal) as well as current geopolitics, i.e., Russia related to South Ossetia, Transnistria, et al. as well as the wider conflict between official Russia and the Eastern European countries over the Soviet legacy.
To some of the other comments, I don't see that EEML poses any confusion issue. This does leave us with what I see as one issue remaining regarding the above and all that has been stated so far:
* "EE" is not really the appropriate rename for DIGWUREN, as I believe the sanctions have exhibited considerable scope creep outside the original Baltic purview. It might be more appropriate to consider a name completely outside the EE realm, a bit wordy but ARB-GEOPOLITICS might be what we are really after.
I would like to see a more active approach to renaming cases as soon as their enforcement bounds move beyond the scope of the original case and editors involved. There is no useful purpose to stigmatizing editors on any side of an issue manifesting strong disagreements amongst editors. I trust that actions here will set a positive precedent. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Vecrumba 

message: Seems the previous case that is named Eastern European Disputes was renamed for similar reasons as it was also previously named after a specific editor. However, it appears the Digwuren case has been the only one cited with regards to sanctions in the topic area. Not sure what the appropriate action would be there but several of the same editors are mentioned in those two cases and they involve the same topic area. As far as potential short names I think WP:EEUR or WP:EASTEUR would be good ones as they are regularly-used abbreviations and sufficiently distinct from the existing short names such as EEML.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by The Devil's Advocate 

message: * I see no problems with a cosmetic amendment of this sort in principle.  Timotheus, please identify suitable new names for the three cases you mention, and we will proceed from there. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: Initiated by  Nug (talk) at 20:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: FPaS states: "I didn't feel like it, because the IP editor was new to the area and I wasn't yet seeing a consistent pattern of problems." seems somewhat disturbing. Jaan had a clean block log and four GAs (while nowhere near as many as some of the Wiki-superstars is still pretty good in the Baltic topic area), so what "consistent pattern of problems" did FPaS observe in Jaan? I don't recall Jaan ever being involved in revert wars previously. Did he observe Jaan was from Estonia from his user page and concluded "Yep, from Estonia, therefore a problem", then added an Arb notice for good measure? --Nug (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

text: This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
 
=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
* As it says on the tin, "All sanctions imposed under the provisions of a particular arbitration case are to be logged in the appropriate section of the case page".  Roger Davies talk 14:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification request: Eastern Europe 

message: Are Admins required to place the notice of discretionary sanction on IPs, particularly static IPs, and add them to WP:ARBEE#List_of_editors_placed_on_notice? In two recent 3RN cases, User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked both User:Jaan (and FPoS did not take into account there was no diff warning Jaan, unlike admin Kuru did in a subsequent case) and User:16.120.84.244 for breaching the 3RR rule. He subsequently noticed Jaan and added him to the log, but did not do the same for the static IP. I asked him why, but seems to be ignoring my question. It seems other admins treat IPs equally, for example User_talk:184.36.234.102, but apparently not FPaS. Could the Committee give direction on this. Thanks. --Nug (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: FPaS states: "I didn't feel like it, because the IP editor was new to the area and I wasn't yet seeing a consistent pattern of problems." seems somewhat disturbing. Jaan had a clean block log and four GAs (while nowhere near as many as some of the Wiki-superstars is still pretty good in the Baltic topic area), so what "consistent pattern of problems" did FPaS observe in Jaan? I don't recall Jaan ever being involved in revert wars previously. Did he observe Jaan was from Estonia from his user page and concluded "Yep, from Estonia, therefore a problem", then added an Arb notice for good measure? --Nug (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Nug 

message: This is about nothing. I gave two users a standard (and therefore unlogged) 3RR block. I gave one of them a standard (and properly logged) arb warning at the same time. This is not about formalities of logging stuff, nor about how to treat IPs. It's simply about the fact that Nug, POV ally of the editor I warned, is unhappy I didn't warn the other guy too. Well, so what? I didn't feel like it, because the IP editor was new to the area and I wasn't yet seeing a consistent pattern of problems. But I warned him now, because he resumed edit-warring in the same way immediately after coming back from the block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [Annoyed grunt] by Fut.Perf. 

message: * As it says on the tin, "All sanctions imposed under the provisions of a particular arbitration case are to be logged in the appropriate section of the case page".  Roger Davies talk 14:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: Original Request
Initiated by   Sandstein  at 16:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AC/DS
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
* (initiator)
* (notification)
* (notification)
=== Statement by Sandstein ===
Today, John Vandenberg, an administrator, alerted me about the discretionary sanctions applying to the Eastern Europe topic area, and logged this as a "notification" on the case page, which he later changed to a "warning". Judging by an earlier comment, he did so to register his disapproval of my speedy deletion of an article created by a sock of a banned user. After I removed the alert after having read it, it was immediately reinstated by an anonymous user, 41.223.50.67.
Per WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts the purpose of such alerts is to advise an editor that discretionary sanctions are in force for an area of conflict. I am and have been active as an administrator by issuing discretionary sanctions in this topic area, and am therefore perfectly aware of the existence of these sanctions, as John Vandenberg confirmed he knew. The alert therefore served no procedure-based purpose. This also applies to the unneeded logging on the case page: Unlike earlier notifications, alerts are not logged on a case page because they can be searched for with an edit filter. John Vandenberg knew this because he used the correct alert template as provided for in WP:AC/DS.
It therefore appears that John Vandenberg used the alert procedure and the log entry not to actually inform me about discretionary sanctions, but that he misused the alerts procedure to mark his disapproval of a deletion I made and to deter me from making further admin actions in this area with which he disagrees. That is disruptive because this is not the purpose of alerts, and it is not how admins are expected to communicate with each other about disagreements concerning each other's actions. It is also disruptive because it has had the effect, whether intended or not, to create the incorrect impression in another administrator that I am disqualified from acting as an admin in this topic area because I received this alert. 
To the extent the now-"warning" is meant as a sanction in and of itself, it is meritless and disruptive: The speedy deletion I made was compliant with WP:CSD#G5, and does not conflict with the prior AfD because the ban evasion issue was not considered there. Any concerns about this deletion should have been discussed at deletion review.
Per WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts, "any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned". Nobody other than the Arbitration Committee is authorized to issue such sanctions. I therefore ask the Committee to clarify that alerts should not be used for any other than their intended purpose, and to take such actions (e.g., issuing a warning) as it deems appropriate to ensure that John Vandenberg will not continue to issue alerts disruptively. By way of appeal of discretionary sanctions, I also ask the Committee to remove the "warning" from the log as being without merit.
Prior to making this request, I discussed the issue with John Vandenberg, but we failed to reach an understanding, and he invited me to submit this matter to this forum for review.  Sandstein  16:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

text: I cannot understand John Vandenberg's contention that I used admin tools while involved. I have never interacted with "Polandball" or related pages or users editorially, but only in an administrative capacity. Per WP:INVOLVED, such continued administrative activity does not speak to bias (even if others may not agree with the admin actions), but is instead merely part of an admin's job. John Vandenberg's casting of unfounded aspersions of misusing admin tools and of "battleground mentality" is also disruptive. As I said elsewhere, I did fail to take into consideration that my alerting the user who filed a DRV request concerning an AfD I closed might be perceived as an improperly adversarial action, even though an alert is not supposed to be one and I didn't oppose the restoration of the article proposed at DRV. I'll keep this in mind in a similar  future situation. Nonetheless, because alerts may be issued by anyone, including involved users, the alert raises no question of involvement. As concerns the "warning", either it is meant as a discretionary sanction for misconduct (as the warning by me he cites was) and in this case is appealed here as meritless and disruptive, or it is not and has therefore no place in a log under the new procedures.  Sandstein  18:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: John Vandenberg: Alerts are not admin actions because they neither require advanced permissions nor are they restricted to administrators. But neither are they editorial actions that speak to bias and would disqualify an admin that issues them, because they are intended to be neutral and informative in nature. Are you seriously contending that merely issuing an alert makes me involved and unable to act as an administrator, and on that basis you alerted and warned me? It should be obvious that this can't be the case, if only because by that logic your own warning would be inadmissible because it was preceded by your alert which would have disqualified you from acting further. This episode indicates, to me, that this whole alerts system is unworkably cludgy and may need to be scrapped if even former arbitrators can't understand it, and that perhaps general clarification is needed that discretionary sanctions and alerts are, shall we we say, not the ideal way to respond to concerns about admin actions - such concerns are normally a matter for the Committee alone.  Sandstein  21:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

text: @Sandstein, when you put a notice on user talk:Josve05a, were you doing that as an admin or as a normal user?  If it was the "editor Sandstein" who popped that friendly note on user talk:Josve05a, and not the "admin Sandstein", can't you see that you've become INVOLVED? John Vandenberg (chat) 18:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

text: @Sandstein, so you issued a DS alert to user talk:Josve05a with your "editor Sandstein" hat on, and you want admins to be exempt from discretionary sanctions?   Thanks. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

text: @Future Perfect at Sunrise. The CSD-G5 criteria cannot be used on any page that has survived a deletion discussion (AfD). The CSD-G5 deletion by Sandstein was out of process. Please refer to Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Pages_that_have_survived_deletion_discussions for further information. Regards, Nick (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

text: I too would repeat this comment by . Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

text: This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
=== Discretionary sanctions alerts: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*When I get back from a trip on Monday, I will wade into the technicalities here. For now, I will simply note that Russavia is surely laughing his ass off at the drama he is causing here without even trying. Let's all try not to give him more reason to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

text: *  DS is easy to understand, because we put months of effort into writing polished, clear documentation for it. NYB and NF are not good test cases: while voting earlier this year, they had to get to grips with both the new system and the changes made from the old system. Current administrators merely need to read and follow WP:AC/DS.More to the point, the new system is working. Let us leave it at that. AGK [•] 06:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for clarification (November 2014)  Discretionary sanctions alerts 

message: Today, John Vandenberg, an administrator, alerted me about the discretionary sanctions applying to the Eastern Europe topic area, and logged this as a "notification" on the case page, which he later changed to a "warning". Judging by an earlier comment, he did so to register his disapproval of my speedy deletion of an article created by a sock of a banned user. After I removed the alert after having read it, it was immediately reinstated by an anonymous user, 41.223.50.67.
Per WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts the purpose of such alerts is to advise an editor that discretionary sanctions are in force for an area of conflict. I am and have been active as an administrator by issuing discretionary sanctions in this topic area, and am therefore perfectly aware of the existence of these sanctions, as John Vandenberg confirmed he knew. The alert therefore served no procedure-based purpose. This also applies to the unneeded logging on the case page: Unlike earlier notifications, alerts are not logged on a case page because they can be searched for with an edit filter. John Vandenberg knew this because he used the correct alert template as provided for in WP:AC/DS.
It therefore appears that John Vandenberg used the alert procedure and the log entry not to actually inform me about discretionary sanctions, but that he misused the alerts procedure to mark his disapproval of a deletion I made and to deter me from making further admin actions in this area with which he disagrees. That is disruptive because this is not the purpose of alerts, and it is not how admins are expected to communicate with each other about disagreements concerning each other's actions. It is also disruptive because it has had the effect, whether intended or not, to create the incorrect impression in another administrator that I am disqualified from acting as an admin in this topic area because I received this alert. 
To the extent the now-"warning" is meant as a sanction in and of itself, it is meritless and disruptive: The speedy deletion I made was compliant with WP:CSD#G5, and does not conflict with the prior AfD because the ban evasion issue was not considered there. Any concerns about this deletion should have been discussed at deletion review.
Per WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts, "any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned". Nobody other than the Arbitration Committee is authorized to issue such sanctions. I therefore ask the Committee to clarify that alerts should not be used for any other than their intended purpose, and to take such actions (e.g., issuing a warning) as it deems appropriate to ensure that John Vandenberg will not continue to issue alerts disruptively. By way of appeal of discretionary sanctions, I also ask the Committee to remove the "warning" from the log as being without merit.
Prior to making this request, I discussed the issue with John Vandenberg, but we failed to reach an understanding, and he invited me to submit this matter to this forum for review.  Sandstein  16:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot understand John Vandenberg's contention that I used admin tools while involved. I have never interacted with "Polandball" or related pages or users editorially, but only in an administrative capacity. Per WP:INVOLVED, such continued administrative activity does not speak to bias (even if others may not agree with the admin actions), but is instead merely part of an admin's job. John Vandenberg's casting of unfounded aspersions of misusing admin tools and of "battleground mentality" is also disruptive. As I said elsewhere, I did fail to take into consideration that my alerting the user who filed a DRV request concerning an AfD I closed might be perceived as an improperly adversarial action, even though an alert is not supposed to be one and I didn't oppose the restoration of the article proposed at DRV. I'll keep this in mind in a similar  future situation. Nonetheless, because alerts may be issued by anyone, including involved users, the alert raises no question of involvement. As concerns the "warning", either it is meant as a discretionary sanction for misconduct (as the warning by me he cites was) and in this case is appealed here as meritless and disruptive, or it is not and has therefore no place in a log under the new procedures.  Sandstein  18:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: John Vandenberg: Alerts are not admin actions because they neither require advanced permissions nor are they restricted to administrators. But neither are they editorial actions that speak to bias and would disqualify an admin that issues them, because they are intended to be neutral and informative in nature. Are you seriously contending that merely issuing an alert makes me involved and unable to act as an administrator, and on that basis you alerted and warned me? It should be obvious that this can't be the case, if only because by that logic your own warning would be inadmissible because it was preceded by your alert which would have disqualified you from acting further. This episode indicates, to me, that this whole alerts system is unworkably cludgy and may need to be scrapped if even former arbitrators can't understand it, and that perhaps general clarification is needed that discretionary sanctions and alerts are, shall we we say, not the ideal way to respond to concerns about admin actions - such concerns are normally a matter for the Committee alone.  Sandstein  21:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Sandstein 

message: To my mind, Sandstein is obviously 'WP:INVOLVED' in the current DRV about Polandball, however not surprisingly he claims to be uninvolved.  To quickly recap, he is the admin who deleted the article at DRV; when notified of the DRV, he decided to issue a DS alert to the person who initiated the DRV, and speedy delete another related article which had survived an AFD and was mentioned on the current DRV.  When User:Nick undid the speedy deletion, Sandstein also demanded that Nick redelete it.  IMO, this is fairly clear battleground mentality, only including the use of admin buttons for good measure.  All quite unnecessary, as a sizable chunk of the community would participate in the DRV, so his voice there would be heard.  It is very strange logic that Sandstein felt he had to alert user:Josve05a about discretionary sanctions, but objects to me feeling the same way about his own editing/admining in this topical area.  He claims his alert to user:Josve05a was not an admin action (otherwise he would surely run afoul of 'WP:INVOLVED'), but then cant see he is participating as a normal contributor.  Maybe he considers a DS alert to be a friendly chat, when he gives one to someone else ...
Anyway, the nature of this clarification is the use of alerts and the logging of them on case pages.  Obviously some serious saber rattling would have quickly occurred had I sanctioned Sandstein, so I went with an alert only with a stern message with the hope he could see how others were viewing it.  He didnt; he continued to post aggressively.  When I found the right DS alert template and posted it, the edit filter notice reminded me to check if he had been notified any time in the last 12 months, and press Save again if I was sure it had not occurred.  As I didnt find any prior notices (in edit filter log or on talk page archives), I proceeded to save the alert.  I then went to the relevant arbcase to log it as is the usual procedure.  I knew DS had been standardised earlier this year, and was pleasantly surprised by the edit filter logging, but it didnt occur to me that alerts would not be logged.  The arbcase log for the EE case had all the signs of logging being part of the standard procedure.
Since Sandstein objected to the logging, I went and had a look at other cases and found quite a few examples of the log including notifications and warnings; I did offer to give Sandstein examples of such notices and  warnings, but we are here now.  Here are the ones that I've quickly found in arbcom case logs since April 2014.
* notice by user:JHunterJ - April
* warning by user:Callanecc - May 2014
* warning & alert - user:Tom Reedy - June 2014
* warning by .. Sandstein .. - July 2014
* alert by user:Drmies - August 2014
* caution by user:HJ Mitchell - September 2014
* warning by user:EdJohnston - September 2014
If it is no longer appropriate to log alerts/notices/warnings on the arbcom case, an edit filter should be added to ensure admins are aware of this change. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: @Sandstein, when you put a notice on user talk:Josve05a, were you doing that as an admin or as a normal user?  If it was the "editor Sandstein" who popped that friendly note on user talk:Josve05a, and not the "admin Sandstein", can't you see that you've become INVOLVED? John Vandenberg (chat) 18:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

text: @Sandstein, so you issued a DS alert to user talk:Josve05a with your "editor Sandstein" hat on, and you want admins to be exempt from discretionary sanctions?   Thanks. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by John Vandenberg 

message: I've nothing to add to the clarification and amendment section, but I will state, as I have repeatedly said, I'm really getting fed up watching good content be deleted and destroyed as a result of battleground mentality. It genuinely makes me sad watching material that people have put their heart and soul into, being deleted because it was written by this week's bogeyman. Nick (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: @Future Perfect at Sunrise. The CSD-G5 criteria cannot be used on any page that has survived a deletion discussion (AfD). The CSD-G5 deletion by Sandstein was out of process. Please refer to Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Pages_that_have_survived_deletion_discussions for further information. Regards, Nick (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Nick 

message: If the DS alert is going to be used without a sting it  has to be used for everyone all the time. Its common for editors to know an article is under DS, but this isn't something one can assume. Of course, the use of the alert can been abused and can be seen as threatening. Use that is universal  will over time render the warning as commonplace and standard, will de sting. Whether it was used in this instance as an implied threat, I don't know or care. Behind many of the actions I've seen against editors over the years are threats, some so complex as to be almost invisible. I know how that feels, so am  not condoning anything that threatens but unless we deal with the surface level of an action and ignore assumption we will never get to supportive editing situations.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Olive

message: One of the goals of the recent reforms which turned "warnings" to "alerts" was to remove the stigma of the warning/alert.  Apparently, that stigma is alive and well.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by A Quest for Knowledge

message: Giving a "warning" is an administrative function.  Its only purpose is administration of the website.  No, a User does not have to have privileges to do much of administration on Wikipedia. The idea is anathema to the community, which expects good users to administer, even to requiring such at RfAdmin, moreover, the website would not function, if users did not step up.  So no, giving a warning does not mean one is INVOLVED.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Alanscottwalker

message: John Vandenberg's actions in this case are wrong on so many levels at once it's hard to know where to start. About his technical misunderstanding of the nature of alerts and the non-logging of "warnings", I think all has been said. More importantly, his warning was wrong on its merits. As for the speedying of Why didn't you invest in Eastern Poland? (the only issue he actually mentioned in the warning), Sandstein was processing a valid G5 speedy; the fact that there had been an earlier "keep" AfD is obviously irrelevant as long as the facts justifying the speedy weren't known and discussed during the AfD. As for Sandstein's actions in the Polandball issue, which seems to be what John Vandenberg is really more concerned about, the claim that he was showing an inadmissable battleground attitude is utter nonsense when you look at his actual, very measured and balanced, comments in that DRV. Finally, the "warning", whether logged or not, was also out of process. A "warning" under DS means that I, an administrator, will hand out a block or topic ban to you, the person I am warning, if you repeat the behaviour I am warning you over. Does John Vandenberg seriously believe he would be entitled to block Sandstein if he did a G5 speedy like this again in the future? That beggars belief. Even if John Vandenberg had legitimate reasons to be concerned over Sandstein's actions, then his recourse would be not to impose "sanctions" on him, but to ask Arbcom to review Sandstein's actions; that, however, is not in any way inside the scope of what the DS are about, and therefore also doesn't belong in the DS logs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Fut.Perf.

message: This request is eerily similar to this one made some time ago, where four editors were given "civility warnings" by Sandstein, apparently at random. The result of the clarification request was a delinking of the four names in the ARBATC case page. If any action other than delinking is recommended for the current situation, it would only be reasonable to revisit the other situation as well.  —Neotarf (talk) 02:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by Neotarf 

message: Perhaps  needs to take a step back and reconsider what it is that is being said rather than apparently typing rash replies. I am sure it would not be difficult to demonstrate how involved they have been in this "DS" rewrite project (on or off wiki), and maybe that is why he is naturally inclined to be defensive of it (even bordering what people term as ownership mentality - eg "I have spent hours editing this....").
I recall he previously said in relation to this topic (but on a separate matter) 'I will not have it said that any issue relating to DS has been rashly dismissed, particularly after an exhausting, year-long consultation. I'm sorry to have to point out that you are not coming in at the eleventh hour, but a year and a half late.' But the simple fact is, there is genuine concern or criticism regarding how convoluted and time-consuming the DS system is to the vast majority of users, and even if it is now two years later, I am sorry to say his replies below do seem to me to rashly dismiss those concerns () and are not consistent with what is expected here.
It is so patently obvious that a number of editors, administrators, and for that matter, former arbitrators and current arbitrators have in fact needed to take quite a bit of time to go through this 'system', and that it is by no means 'simple', 'easy to use', or 'working' by extension. Now that this reality is finally noted, I would suggest at least the rest of Committee rectifies the issue. It would be good if that happened. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I too would repeat this comment by . Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by Ncmvocalist 

message: *When I get back from a trip on Monday, I will wade into the technicalities here. For now, I will simply note that Russavia is surely laughing his ass off at the drama he is causing here without even trying. Let's all try not to give him more reason to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *  DS is easy to understand, because we put months of effort into writing polished, clear documentation for it. NYB and NF are not good test cases: while voting earlier this year, they had to get to grips with both the new system and the changes made from the old system. Current administrators merely need to read and follow WP:AC/DS.More to the point, the new system is working. Let us leave it at that. AGK [•] 06:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discretionary sanctions alerts: Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: :Original discussion
Initiated by   Sandstein  at 19:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I don't see how the matter would die a natural death, as you put it. The way I see it, I'm still subject to what is logged as a discretionary sanction that was, in my view, imposed for invalid reasons and in a disruptive manner for what I consider doing my normal admin duties, which it is impeding by its existence. I don't think that I'm being unreasonable by asking for it to be reviewed exactly as provided for by the procedure you helped write. But if you see another way to resolve this problem, I'm open to any advice.  Sandstein  07:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

text: Thank you for removing whatever that was; I appreciate it. I remain of the view that John Vandenberg has, including by his lack of required communication in this matter, failed to meet the expectations in administrators as described in the discretionary sanctions procedure, in a manner that merits an action or statement by the Committee or its members. Otherwise, others may conclude that such an – at best – cavalier application of the procedure is in fact permissible or expected conduct, which I think would not be beneficial, including for the Committee's appeals workload.   Sandstein  09:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

text: I note that several editors have commented to the effect that they consider (at least some some) admin actions by me to be uncollegial. This concerns me, but their comments are not specific enough for me to understand which actions they take issue with and why. I'd like to be able to understand and address their concerns, and would appreciate it if they could explain them in more detail, and with reference to specific actions by me, on my talk page. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

text: This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
=== Eastern Europe: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*I am actually minded to agree with part of Hawkeye's submission in this matter. Sandstein, I do not see what is to be achieved by this request, and I question why you are not letting this matter die the natural death for which it was on course. AGK [•] 23:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for amendment (December 2014) 

message: As set out in a request for clarification on 1 November 2014, John Vandenberg issued me earlier that day with, confusingly, an "alert", "notification" or "warning" supposedly per WP:AC/DS for alleged misconduct on my part in the Eastern Europe topic area, and logged this on the WP:ARBEE case page in the section "Log of blocks and bans". The request for clarification concluded on 10 December 2014 with most arbitrators agreeing with , who noted that as an alert per WP:AC/DS this action would have been inadmissible and that John Vandenberg needs to decide whether his action was meant as an alert or as a discretionary sanction, in which case he would need to issue a "hand-written caution". Despite my repeated requests (, ) to do so, John Vandenberg has responded only with evasive one-liners (, ) before ceasing to edit altogether. A further clarification, promised in his last edit on 10 December 2014 for "tomorrow", has not been forthcoming.
John Vandenberg has violated the conduct rules that apply to admins in two respects:
* John Vandenberg's issuing the alert, notification or warning to me was frivolous and disruptive. There are no grounds for either a discretionary sanction or any other admin action against me. To the extent I can discern any relationship between his actions and any actions by me at all, the one action by me to which John Vandenberg expressed an objection was a normal admin action, to wit, deleting a page created by a sock of a banned user, , as directed by WP:CSD#G5. Even if this deletion could have been deemed objectionable (there was an earlier AfD, but in my view it was no bar to speedy deletion because that discussion didn't know about the ban evasion), John Vandenberg would have been out of line by responding to it with discretionary sanctions, meant to address misconduct arising from disputes about topics related to Eastern Europe, rather than with a civil query and a discussion among admin colleagues, and possibly with the community at deletion review or elsewhere, which would have been the expected way to settle good faith disagreements among admins about the merits of contested admin actions. Instead, he chose a course of action either intended to or at any rate having the effect of furthering the block-evading activity of a banned user's sockpuppets, by inappropriately stifling normal admin action intended to counteract such activity by way of the "chilling effect" of discretionary sanctions.
* Moreover, John Vandenberg violated the admin policy's requirement that "administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." Additionally, WP:AC/DS specifies that admins "must not ... repeatedly fail to properly explain their enforcement actions". John Vandenberg failed these expectations by failing to respond to my repeated queries – made necessary by the conclusion of the clarification request – about whether his action was intended as a sanction or as an alert, and to my repeated queries about the specific reasons why the sanction (if it is one) was imposed. His lack of response has so far prevented me from properly appealing the presumptive sanction. Per WP:AC/DS, admins failing to meet the expectations set out in that procedure "may be subject to any remedy the committee consider appropriate, including desysopping".
For these reasons, I ask the Committee to sanction John Vandenberg to the extent necessary to prevent further misuse of the discretionary sanctions procedure. I also ask the Committee to strike John Vandenberg's warning from the enforcement log – either as an out-of-place and superfluous alert, or as a groundless sanction, which is hereby appealed in case it is a sanction. Finally, I ask the Committee to clarify that discretionary sanctions are not to be used in lieu of discussion among admins about whether good-faith admin actions are appropriate or not.
In consideration of the already long time elapsed solely because of John Vandenberg's confusing and dilatory conduct, I ask that this request not be suspended or declined on account of his apparent absence from Wikipedia. Thanks,  Sandstein  19:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I don't see how the matter would die a natural death, as you put it. The way I see it, I'm still subject to what is logged as a discretionary sanction that was, in my view, imposed for invalid reasons and in a disruptive manner for what I consider doing my normal admin duties, which it is impeding by its existence. I don't think that I'm being unreasonable by asking for it to be reviewed exactly as provided for by the procedure you helped write. But if you see another way to resolve this problem, I'm open to any advice.  Sandstein  07:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

text: Thank you for removing whatever that was; I appreciate it. I remain of the view that John Vandenberg has, including by his lack of required communication in this matter, failed to meet the expectations in administrators as described in the discretionary sanctions procedure, in a manner that merits an action or statement by the Committee or its members. Otherwise, others may conclude that such an – at best – cavalier application of the procedure is in fact permissible or expected conduct, which I think would not be beneficial, including for the Committee's appeals workload.   Sandstein  09:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

text: I note that several editors have commented to the effect that they consider (at least some some) admin actions by me to be uncollegial. This concerns me, but their comments are not specific enough for me to understand which actions they take issue with and why. I'd like to be able to understand and address their concerns, and would appreciate it if they could explain them in more detail, and with reference to specific actions by me, on my talk page. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Sandstein 

message: First, let me state how sick and tired I am of good content being deleted and destroyed by gnomes under spurious speedy deletion criteria. The procedure is clear; if the deletion is contested there should be a proper deletion review. Once this has been done, if the result is for the article to be kept, then the article cannot be speedily deleted per WP:G5. WP:SPEEDY lists seven criteria, and this is not one of them. Maintaining otherwise by refiling this is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:BATTLEGROUND at its worst. John Vandenberg, a former Arb, is one of the most polite and patient admins we have. Absence from Wikipedia at this time of year is both normal and acceptable. In this hemisphere, the Christmas/New Year period falls in our Summer holidays and many firms shut down for two or three weeks.
Because Sandstein has:
# Failed to respond promptly and civilly to queries about Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed;
# Shown an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality by filing this absurd request;
# Not showing any inclination to participate in reasoned dispute resolution (or just let the stupid matter drop);
# Continued to pursue a vendetta when told to knock it off;
# Has shown overwhelming hubris and arrogance in performance of admin duties; and above all
# Failed to demonstrate a substantial record of content creation which raises issues of WP:NOTHERE.
I therefore recommend that WP:BOOMERANG is in order and that Sandstein be admonished. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Hawkeye7 

message: Irrespective of whether Sandstein's deletion of the page was appropriate, it seems absurd to invoke or apply WP:ARBEE here.  Discretionary sanctions are normally meted out to those whose strong personal views relating to a given subject area lead them to disrupt the corresponding articles and discussion pages.  In my observation Sandstein has demonstrated no such personal attachment to the topic of Eastern Europe, nor am I aware of any history of his disrupting pages in this area.  If his actions relating to Why didn't you invest in Eastern Poland? were mistaken, or even intentionally disruptive, this could and should have been dealt with through other measures.  As John Vendenberg has so far failed to provide the required clarification for his WP:ARBEE warning, I think it would be appropriate for the Committee to strike or overturn it, without prejudice to his pursuing a discussion or remedy in some other venue. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Psychonaut 

message: This is more of a comment than a statement, as I have been a long term observer rather than a participant in this sad and very sorry saga. However, it seems to me that any alerts/sanctions directed towards Sandstein need to be left firmly in place. He has consistently proved to be antagonistic towards Eastern European editors and editors of such pages. His aggressive, overpowering and often bullying behaviour (for example towards Josve05a is far from conducive to a collegiate atmosphere and only seems to cause further trouble and resentment. Sandstein is far too keen on the block button and totally intransigent in what are obviously, personal views. I see no good reason for him bringing this request. Giano   (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Giano 

message: My world view aligns with Rich's. Things are going badly wrong when trusted users cannot act in a collegiate manner and even worse when their first reaction is to reach for a stick and then ask for a bigger stick when that fails. It is a pity that Arbcom has no official trout to fix on user pages for six months. Perhaps soft remedies might be a smart idea for 2015?
 I had to raise an eyebrow at the idea that an Arbcom member would not automatically recuse and refrain from making any remark that might prejudice the outcome of a case when they have stated that they "loathe" a related party. We know Russavia can be supremely irritating, but this does not make him evil. Next time you are tempted to go after him, try dropping me or one of the established Commoners that work with him a friendly email; I'm sure you know most of us. It is likely to be a lot more effective when he has another silly poke at the bear. --Fæ (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Fæ

message: *I am actually minded to agree with part of Hawkeye's submission in this matter. Sandstein, I do not see what is to be achieved by this request, and I question why you are not letting this matter die the natural death for which it was on course. AGK [•] 23:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern Europe: Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: ::The following request for clarification is submitted on the advice of Callanecc, following a report I submitted to AE.
:Whilst the editor in question was plenty disruptive, I wonder why administrator Coffee blocked  According to his block notice, he issued the block under WP:ARBEE. However, it was not logged at WP:AC/DSL/2015 until I asked him about it. What's more, the editor was never issued an alert per WP:AC/DS. Coffee has not explained why the editor in question was blocked indefinitely, and I can see nothing that warrants such a block. This seems entirely out of process. Coffee responded that the block was per "IAR", but no reason was given for applying IAR, and I'm fairly certain that DS should not be issued in a willy-nilly manner. The editor in question had been present on Wikipedia for quite a while. He made only a few minor changes to Donbass war/Ukrainian crisis articles, and none of them particularly disruptive. I simply do not understand how this user was summarily blocked for no apparent reason. What's more, this was done under WP:ARBEE. The procedure for WP:ARBEE was completely ignored. I request that the Committee determine whether this application of DS was appropriate. If it was not, I request that Coffee be admonished, both for his inappropriate application of DS, and for his flippant behaviour in the face of accountability. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the suggestion by Courcelles is inappropriate, to say the least. This is a matter of principle. The block was inappropriately applied. Coffee must be admonished, and the sanction lifted. There were no grounds for a sanction. Ignoring the ARBEE issue, for a moment, can someone please tell me where they see grounds for an indefinite block in the blocked editor's edit history? RGloucester  — ☎ 02:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, how is this acceptable? The user has no history of talk page engagement, so it is unlikely they can understand the unblocking process. The user was blocked for no reason. As Mr Davies noticed, no rationale was given other than "arbitration enforcement". If the "DS prohibitions no longer apply", what is the point of this block? Again, there was no rationale other than "arbitration enforcement", and no evidence of any kind of misconduct. How can you let this block stand? This is a travesty. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by RGloucester 

message: I would restate what I had over at AE, but I find that not necessary as I believe most if not all of the Arbitrators here have looked at that. I will say that I was indeed forgetful regarding the proper DS procedure (it has been a minute since I performed one of those actions), and can assure you all I'll get it right the next time I feel it necessary to issue a block of this nature. The only other thing I'll state (even though I already stated this at AE) is that RGloucester himself stated at my talk page that "[Russian editor1996] was nothing but disruptive". Therefore, if he has any further questions regarding why that editor was blocked, he should consult our policies on DE. Happy Presidents Day to you all and it's good to see the system here still working. — Coffee // have a cup // beans //  21:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh and lastly, all things taken into consideration, I'm fully behind the below motion made by Roger. — Coffee // have a cup // beans //  21:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Coffee 

message: I'll add what a bit of what I said on RGloucester's talk page:
The issue you want addressed is whether the Committee is happy with IAR being used to impose an out of process discretionary sanction. The sanction being out of process for a few reasons: it wasn't logged (which was fixed after you let them know), there was no alert and they weren't aware by other means, and discretionary sanctions can only be used for "blocks of up to one year in duration" not indefinite. The other issue here is that this block could have been placed as a normal admin action rather than as a discretionary sanction (unlike a TBAN for example). This looks to me like an admin coming back from a break and not familiarising themselves with a procedure which gives them wide ranging powers before using it, obviously that's just a guess though.
: That would be my suggestion entirely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Callanecc 

message: ==== Russian editor1996 ====
Could someone provide a single diff of why Russian editor1996 (RE96) is "plenty disruptive"? Looking at the their contributions I'm not seeing anything -- no POV pushing, no incivility, no edit warring, no posting to noticeboards -- just edits. Not perfect edits? Sure, but isn't that what we -- or at least used to -- encourage with WP:BEBOLD?
If we look at RE96's edit from a year and half ago, we see the addition of a fairly complete infobox, and comparing his additon to the current revision  seems to indicate no one has had much of a problem with that.
So the evidence suggests that RE96 is neither an "editor" nor anyone with any malice -- simply a "dabbler," if you will. :File:Top_Wikipedians_compared_to_the_rest_of_the_community,_8_January_2014.svg shows us that dabblers have actually performed the overwhelming majority of (67%) of edits to the project. So how is blocking them without prior discussion benefiting the project? If we assume RE96 is a reasonably self-confident person without much of an agenda, why would they bother jumping through unblock hoops when they could simply spend their time somewhere else on the Internet? While I appreciate ya'll's willingness to declare the "arbcom" block an ordinary block, why not do the right thing and simply unblock RE96 until someone can explain why they should be blocked? "IAR" (or "because I felt like it") should not be considered as meeting the requirements of WP:ADMINACCT, nor a legit reason to be blocking folks.
==== Coffee ====
While we're here anyway: Arbcom 2014 stated "Administrators are expected to behave respectfully and civilly in their interactions with others. This requirement is not lessened by perceived or actual shortcomings in the conduct of others. Administrators who egregiously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or administrators who lose the trust or confidence of the community, may be sanctioned or have their access removed."
Coffee's statements to RGloucester , including why do you seem have a cactus lodged up your ass? ... Jesus christ, give it a rest. Or take it to AE if you like 
unnecessary drama. ... Hell, not even the editor in question has complained about being blocked. Yet, you're over here advocating for this guy like it's Christmas morning. Whatever floats your boat (I assume, drama)... clearly do not meet that standard. Although quite excessively snarky, I wouldn't say they're "egregious," nor am I aware of chronic history, such that I can argue we're in the admonishment zone, but a emphatic word or two (e.g. "Knock it off") seems appropriate. NE Ent 19:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by NE Ent

message: While we're here anyway: Arbcom 2014 stated "Administrators are expected to behave respectfully and civilly in their interactions with others. This requirement is not lessened by perceived or actual shortcomings in the conduct of others. Administrators who egregiously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or administrators who lose the trust or confidence of the community, may be sanctioned or have their access removed."
Coffee's statements to RGloucester , including why do you seem have a cactus lodged up your ass? ... Jesus christ, give it a rest. Or take it to AE if you like 
unnecessary drama. ... Hell, not even the editor in question has complained about being blocked. Yet, you're over here advocating for this guy like it's Christmas morning. Whatever floats your boat (I assume, drama)... clearly do not meet that standard. Although quite excessively snarky, I wouldn't say they're "egregious," nor am I aware of chronic history, such that I can argue we're in the admonishment zone, but a emphatic word or two (e.g. "Knock it off") seems appropriate. NE Ent 19:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coffee 

message: :This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
*Recuse since I have commented and am going to. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern Europe: Clerk notes 

message: I was briefly involved on that page post-protection, and I found that trying to build talk page consensus without the ability to edit the article was enormously difficult even for a minor point. The page does not meet our current standards for neutrality and due weight. There are good sources on the topic, that need to be accurately represented, rather than the hotchpotch that exists at the moment; but there is no realistic way to fix this. It's been long enough that I think Arbcom should consider lifting the protection. If the very idea is making some people go "Oh, heck no" then keep some restrictions to prevent the previous problems from recurring; a 1RR restriction + EC protection should do the trick. Vanamonde (talk) 07:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: How is the difficulty of obtaining consensus a sign that anything is working? Few to none of the participants in that discussion were from the bad old days; they were newer folks, like myself, seeking to improve a page. We have no evidence, really, that the folks who disrupted the page the previous time will do so again; we have evidence that there are people who wish to make constructive edits who are being hindered by the protection. Continuing the protection can almost be read as "the page as it stands is better than any version likely to occur after unprotection"; and ARBCOM is supposed to confine itself to behavior, is it not? As I said above, we could easily place restrictions to prevent edit warring; or even, as Iridescent suggests, place the page on probation, so to speak, and reprotect it if needed. Vanamonde (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, the current restriction does a good job of preventing editors who want the page, if it exists at all, to read "mass killings under communism are a hoax perpetrated by capitalist regimes to undermine the fatherland" or some such crap. Such folks will never reach any consensus under the current system, and that's a good thing. BUT there are others (such as myself) who believe that (for instance) if a source has been disputed by others of similar weight, then Wikipedia should present the debate, rather than one of the sources in WIkipedia's voice. I raised these concerns with respect to a single lead paragraph on the talk page; it took me about 40 talk page posts, over the course of a month, to get that edit through. Long enough that I abandoned my efforts on that page, and began editing in places where the effort:outcome ratio was more acceptable. Editor time and effort is our most precious resource. We need a more efficient way to improve the page, unless there is evidence that that will lead to previous disruption continuing. Do we have such evidence? Most of the protagonists of that previous case are no longer active. Others have topic-related restrictions. Is there evidence of disruptive posting on the talk? Only by newbies, who can be dealt with through EC protection. Is there evidence of socking on related pages? Not that I am aware of; but nonetheless preventable through EC protection. Edit-warring can be dealt with through 1RR. Draconian measures may once have been necessary; I see no evidence that they are any longer. Vanamonde (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Vanamonde 

message: Keep the status quo. Looking at the page history, the current mechanism appears to be working, the article is being improved. If Vanamonde finds it difficult to build talk page consensus under the current mechanism, then it certainly won't get easier to build consensus if the restrictions are removed. --Nug (talk) 08:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Nug 

message: I'm uninvolved but wearily familiar with the Digwuren case, and would argue squarely in favor of keeping the status quo; if anything, this enforced take-it-to-the-talk-page is a remedy Wikipedia should be using  often, not less. If , that's a sign that the remedy is . If the protection is lifted, it needs to be on the understanding that the moment the usual suspects on both sides re-start edit-warring, either the protection will be re-imposed or that edit-warring will be dealt with by means of long-term blocks. ‑ Iridescent 08:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: @Vanamonde93: The issue with this page (and others targeted by the EEML) is the presence of numerous editors on both sides who are  that the status quo is so egregiously wrong that they feel duty bound to change it; if people have convincing evidence that the status quo version of the page is Just Plain Wrong they should have no problem persuading other editors of this; if they  persuade other editors of this it's a likely sign that the problem they intend to fix isn't as problematic as they think. This is one of the pages that triggered the most important sentence of WP:DIGWUREN (and arguably the most significant ruling in Arbcom's history with regards to the limit of AGF and the interaction of content disputes and user conduct issues), "In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia", and there's a reason this group of pages were the battleground on which that particular decisive battle for the future course of Wikipedia's governance was fought. Bluntly, if the editors can't get on with each other enough to cobble together consensus for changes, we don't  them editing these pages. ‑ Iridescent 15:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

text: @RhinoMind You mean, like the enormous FAQ section at the top of the talk page that explains in details what the issues are, why the page is protected, and that edits to that article need to be discussed on the talk page, or the massive pink-and-red box that pops up when you try to edit the page explaining the process one needs to go through to agree proposed changes? I'm not sure how much clearer we could make this. ‑ Iridescent 17:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Iridescent 

message: I don't have an opinion about the specific page mentioned, but I do want to comment on the suggestion to "look at [...] placing some sort of limit on the length a page can be full-protected under WP:AE without explicit authorization from ArbCom".
AE blocks are limited in duration to 1 year, but occasionally situation warranting an indefinite block crop up at AE. Wheat happens in these cases is that an indefinite block is placed, but the restrictions on modifying an AE action last only for one year, meaning a single admin may unblock on their own countenance after that point. If there is a problem with long protections resulting from an AE action that are not being reduced or removed due to bureaucracy despite their being a rough consensus that protection is no longer required, then a similar 1-year limit to AE protections would seem to be the simplest resolution. I do not know whether this is actually a problem, I have not looked, but the comments above this one suggest that if the problem does exist this article is not an example of it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Thryduulf 

message: Keep the status quo.  The article used to be a regular battleground, and the fact is that "competing articles" of worse quality were the result of the compromises made.  The concept that the prior discussions are now invalid is, I fear, quite the wrong way to go.  Also note that some of the prior battlers are now looking here to find a means of deleting this article while not deleting  Anti-communist mass killings  and other articles which are far weaker than this one. A clear case where SQA is the best result. And allowing the editors who propose on the talk page that we simply delete the article without revisiting the prior discussions here would basically make a mockery of the past solution.  Note that both "quick order deletion discussions" in 2010 resulted in clear Keep results.    Collect (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Collect

message: Lockings are of course undesirable, but I do not feel experienced enough with this procedure to have any meaningful opinion on how it should be administered. But ...
* I suggest that Full protections/lockings are accompanied by a tag on the article-front (not TalkPage) that explains that there is some kind of dispute. Otherwise lockings would just enforce acceptance of articles that aren't acceptable and readers would assume that everything is ok, which isn't true. 
* Also, I suggest that some information on the TalkPage is included, so editors are informed on how to engage with the article during a locking. ie. they present concrete proposals for editorial changes on the TalkPage, complete with proper reliable sources and all, and after a discussion a consensus (of reason and argumentation, not feeling!) might be reached with time. If so, administrators can then install the editorial changes in the locked article. RhinoMind (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. That is the short answer. You are not considering my #1 entry. The links you posted might perhaps do it in relation to my #2, although I don't understand how you got to your link number two where the edit-procedure is loosely explained. For me there isn't any Edit-button to click in the first place. RhinoMind (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by RhinoMind 

message: I support removal of full protection, but then I opposed it being imposed at the time. I also support replacing it with Extended confirmed protection and 1RR for now, as suggested by Vanamonde93. I disagree with Aquillion that the disruptive editors have moved on to other things (some of them have just changed their usernames), but I don't see that as a reason to retain full protection. Full protection of the article may actually be shielding them from consequences by freeing them from having to disrupt progress on the article via reverts and edits to the article. Allowing editing may help expose those editors by giving them enough rope to hang themselves. Alternatively, it would allow them to edit productively if they chose to do so. If anything, the full protection has given disruptive editors effective veto power through the imposed edit-consensus process and some of the good-faith editors have moved on. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by AmateurEditor 

message: I'm one of the admins who was active at AE back in 2011 when the decision was taken to apply indefinite protection to Mass killings under Communist regimes. The filer of this ARCA, User:Aquillion, has not stated that they tried any other of the prior steps suggested under WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications before filing here: 
* or
*
The administrator who closed the AE and applied the full protection is User:Timotheus Canens has been recently active, and should be easy to consult. The concept that it is shocking to keep an article protected this long probably reflects unawareness of the nastiness of some of the areas that are still under discretionary sanctions. In my opinion the Mass killings article easily falls under the 'gigantic waste of time for everyone' category though some well-intentioned content editors who were very diplomatic might be able to rescue it. In part the trouble is that some people consider this an artificial topic. We have other articles on mass deaths whose existence as an article is not questioned. For example, the article on World War II casualties is about a real topic and few people would criticize the title. 
In terms of actual improvements carried out during the full protection, the history indicates there were at least 23 changes made (by admins) since 1 January 2013 in response to edit requests. For another opinion on what to do (if anything), see User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging#Mass killings under Communist regimes. TTAAC is one of the people who made content improvements to a draft that was kept open during the protection. 
My opinion is that this article is hard to improve, not due to full protection, but due to the difficulty in finding agreement among editors. Lifting the protection would fix one problem but not the other. Instead of stasis and very slow progress, we might have constant thrashing at ANI and AE and some article bans being handed out to individuals. But then again I could be wrong.  EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by EdJohnston 

message: The protection was placed following the AE thread Ed linked to because it was necessary to enforce the "consensus required" restriction previously placed on the page (by ). I see that some commenters seem to think - incorrectly - that the two are one and the same. 
I don't have time to review the past several years' worth of history right now, so I express no view on whether Sandstein's restriction is still needed. However, as long as that restriction remains, I'm strongly opposed to lifting the full protection, which adds only minimal inconvenience over the restriction, and, based on previous experience, is essential to its consistent enforcement. T. Canens (talk) 04:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by T. Canens 

message: I was the admin who some years back added a "consensus required" page restriction as a discretionary sanction to this article. I've not followed the article for a long time and I don't know whether the restriction is still required. I don't mind another admin or the ArbCom modifying or removing the restriction as they deem appropriate. I likewise don't have an opinion as to whether the page protection at issue here is (still) appropriate. In general terms, I find it preferable to sanction individual edit-warriors rather than to lock down a page for everybody, but I must assume that the editing conditions were at some time bad enough that T. Canens and I considered it necessary to impose page-level restrictions.  Sandstein  12:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Sandstein 

message: "Shine a light, and the roaches will run."  Support removing the full protection and replacing it with extended confirmed protection and 1RR.   Even one year is over-long for full protection.  The solution to bad apples mucking up a page is to fish out the bad apples, not to make the page mostly unusable. It's already under DS, so dealing with long-term problematic editors in the topic will be comparatively easy and swift.  The problem of the article being effectively frozen in a poor state and very difficult to improve is real.  To the extent the topic may be artificial, that's a content matter and not an ArbCom issue. It is fixable by splitting (e.g. mass killings by the Soviet Union, by the PRC, etc., are certainly valid topics, since they proceeded from specific governments' policies, without any WP:SYNTH in play).  No opinion on the bureaucracy questions about AE limits, auto-expirations, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by SMcCandlish 

message: *My first reaction to this request was that it shouldn't be necessary for any page on a wiki to be full-protected for more than six years. My second reaction, after reviewing the comments above and skimming the page history, is that this particular page may indeed be exceptional in which case we would presume that the AE admins are acting sensibly. It might be useful to have some input from other admins who have been active on the topic-area in general and this page in particular. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern Europe: Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: This is a matter of housekeeping, and I hope that the honourable members of the Arbitration Committee can assist me by providing some clarification. Recently, I filed a request for arbitration enforcement relating to the article "Origin of the Romanians". In making preparations to file that request, I came across the strange situation whereby I knew discretionary sanctions applied to the relevant article, but I was not sure which of the two related and existing discretionary regimes was most appropriate to use. I expect that's somewhat confusing, so let me explain a bit further. 
There are discretionary sanctions regimes in place for articles related to Eastern Europe, and for the Balkans. Unfortunately, the definitions of both 'Eastern Europe' and 'the Balkans' are ambiguous and potentially overlapping. This produced a strange result whereby the relevant editor had originally been notified of the Eastern Europe regime, but was later notified of the Balkans regime in relation to his edits of the same article. In any case, this ambiguity is really not desirable for discretionary sanctions. The definition of 'Eastern Europe' specifically has actually been a matter of substantial dispute on Wikipedia before.  One can easily imagine a situation whereby one could 'wikilawyer' about the validity of a notification of the existence of one of the regimes, in an effort to avoid sanctions. I wonder if the the Arbitration Committee can do one of two things: either clearly define the scope of each regime, or merge the two. This way, administrators enforcing sanctions and editors seeking their enforcement will not have to grapple with the ambiguities inherent in the terms 'Eastern Europe' and 'the Balkans', and will be able to avoid a bureaucratic nightmare. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter.
:: In response to your question, I endorse the analysis by Thryduulf. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Romania is considered part of the Balkans and Eastern Europe in most definitions of both terms. The use of "broadly construed" means that there is no doubt that Romanian-related topics are presently under sanctions. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I respect your judgement. Here's the problem I foresee. In the specific case of Iovaniorgovan, he was notified of ARBEE sanctions almost as soon as he started editing here. When his participation in the debate at Origin of the Romanians became increasingly problematic, an administrator  notified him of the Balkans sanctions, seemingly unaware of the previous alert, or otherwise disagreeing with the scope of the alert applied, therefore delaying the enactment of sanctions on Iovaniorgovan, and causing other long-term editors to be swept up in his messes. In addition, we now have a strange situation where the page-level restriction that was applied at Origin of the Romanians was logged under the Balkans case log, but the topic bans on Iovaniorgovan and Cealicuca are logged under ARBEE. It's simply a bureaucratic mess, and it should be cleaned up. No one should have to roll the dice to decide which of these regimes to apply in a given case, and logging should make coherent sense, not be scattered all over the place. These sorts of messes make it harder for editors understand DS, and indeed, harder for them to participate in DS areas, for fear of falling into a Kafka-esque trap. We owe it to our editors to have a rationalised system of enforcement. That's why I'm asking for clarification. RGloucester  — ☎ 22:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As a further example for Mr Johnston, here is a hypothetical. Let's say that someone was editing a Romania-related article, like Origin of the Romanians, and received an ARBEE alert. They then go on to make substantial and problematic edits to articles about the Yugoslav Wars. Would that ARBEE alert still be valid, or would a new Balkans alert be required? These sorts of grey areas...are really not desirable in a DS regime. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

text:  I find your proposed change more undesirable than even the present mess, in line with what was said by Mr Rob. As for why, it will do nothing to solve the problem about when to apply each regime, will do nothing to sort out the scattered logging procedures that I described above, and will in fact only make this whole business MORE confusing. The goal of a merger was to eliminate questions about which regime to apply in areas of geographical overlap, like Romania, as demonstrated by Thryduulf below, and also to centralise logging so as to avoid the situation of having multiple sanctions related to one particular article logged under different regimes. Your proposal will leave parallel bureaucracies in place, seemingly for no purpose, and leave behind a mess for others to sort through. The idea that updating templates, &c., is too much work is very sad. ArbCom established sanctions, and has a responsibility to the community to maintain those sanctions in a rational way. If you need my help cleaning up templates, I can offer it, as I have experience in that area. In any case, I support Mr Rob's motion as the most sensible approach. The other alternative I can forsee would be to clarify the scopes of the two cases to make them easier to differentiate, but the merger seems to have more support, and is easier to implement. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by RGloucester 

message: I recommend the committee make a motion of clarification here.  The articles on Eastern Europe and Balkans are both unclear to whether Romania is part of the region.  Neither of the disputes leading to discretionary sanctions particularly apply to Romania; the Balkans dispute primarily involved Bulgaria, Greece and the former Yugoslavia.  The Eastern Europe dispute primarily involved Poland, Russia, and the Baltic States; the more recent crisis in the Ukraine has also fallen under those sanctions.
I'm not certain that Romania falls under any Discretionary Sanctions at this time.  An explicit list of countries affected (rather than a region name) may be necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by power~enwiki 

message: Looking at our articles about Eastern Europe and the Balkans, there is indeed overlap between them. Taking a reasonably (but not excessively) broad interpretation some or all of the following countries are included (sometimes depending on context):
Country               	Eastern Europe	Balkans
Albania               	Yes           	Yes
Belarus               	Yes           	No
Bosnia and Herzegovina	Yes1          	Yes
Bulgaria              	Yes           	Yes2
Croatia               	Yes           	Yes3
Czechia               	Yes4          	No
East Germany          	Yes5          	No
Estonia               	Yes6          	No
Greece                	Yes1, 7       	Yes8
Hungary               	Yes4          	No
Kosovo                	Yes1          	Yes
Latvia                	Yes6          	No
Lithuania             	Yes6          	No
Macedonia             	Yes1          	Yes
Moldova               	Yes           	No9
Montenegro            	Yes1          	Yes
Poland                	Yes           	No
Romania               	Yes           	Yes3
Russia                	Yes10         	No
Serbia                	Yes1          	Yes
Slovakia              	Yes4          	No
Slovenia              	Yes           	Yes3
Turkey                	No            	Yes2, 10
Ukraine               	Yes           	No
Notes:
#Geographically (sometimes) South Eastern Europe if this is distinguished 
#Usually only in geographical contexts
#Only in (some) political contexts
#Geographically usually Central Europe when this is distinguished, Eastern Europe when it isn't
#Prior to reunification only
#Only in Soviet/Cold War contexts
#Only in religious contexts
#Only the mainland in geographic contexts; included in only a few political contexts (most notably Macedonia naming dispute)
#Very occasionally included in political contexts, but should not be for discretionary sanctions purposes
#Only the European part
Based on this, Eastern Europe (when South Eastern Europe is not distinguished separately) is a near complete superset of the Balkans, so merging these into a single authorisation of "Eastern Europe including the Balkans and the Macedonia naming dispute." would resolve all the issues the OP raises. No actual restrictions would be altered, only the case they are logged under would change. Possibly those who are formally aware of only one scope would need to be informed they are now formally aware of the newly combined scope, but not definitely and this would only be a one-time thing. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Thryduulf (re: Eastern Europe/The Balkans) 

message: Agree with the views of User:AGK. There is little upside to modifying the existing sanctions, and a possible downside. Even the present request doesn't give a persuasive reason why a change is required. In the recent AE about Origin of the Romanians nobody made the argument that the topic wasn't covered under WP:ARBEE. Even if ARBEE and ARBMAC do overlap, it's hard to see that as a problem.
Many of the existing DS are about nationalism. In the ideal case, we would have some kind of universal sanction that could be applied to nationalist editing anywhere in the world. EdJohnston (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by EdJohnston 

message: Speaking as somebody who has helped enforcing both sets of sanctions numerous times, I think there's rarely be much of a problem in determining which rule to apply, even if they overlap. For me, the crux of the matter is really not a mechanistic application of what country counts as belonging to what continental region. Those are pretty arbitrary attributions, and to take just one example, you will rarely find Greece described as belonging to "Eastern Europe", even though obviously its geographical longitude is well within the range of other countries that are. What matters is really more the nature of the underlying political struggles motivating the disruption we find on Wikipedia. Speaking broadly, "Eastern Europe" sanctions have mostly been invoked dealing with ethnic/national conflicts that broke up  – directly or indirectly – in the wake of WWII, the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, or the collapse of the Soviet Union. The "Balkans" sanctions have been invoked dealing with conflicts that – directly or indirectly – stem from the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and the mix of nationalities that was left behind. I'd personally be opposed to merging the two sanction rules. It shouldn't really matter in practice, if it wasn't for the practice of some admin colleagues (unnecessary and not really advisable, in my view, but still common) to hand out sanctions whose scope is always automatically identical with the entire set of topics covered by the DS regime. For instance, instead of topic-banning somebody from Serbian-Croatian conflicts, which might be entirely sufficient in an individual case, they always automatically reach for a topic ban from all Balkan topics, because that's what the DS rule applies to. I'd find it regrettable if these colleagues were to take a merger of the two DS rules as indicating that in the future all such sanctions should be handed out straight for "all of Eastern and Southeastern Europe", which would almost certainly be overreaching in most cases. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Fut.Perf 

message: * On an initial review, discretionary sanctions in  pertain to the Balkans region, which is the Southeastern Europe peninsula.  Treating the Balkans as part of Eastern Europe seems to be a stretch.  Are you sure that the two overlap?  The article seems to be a bad test case: it relates to the distant origin of a people, which involves by its nature a broad range of geography.  While awaiting comment, I'll say generally that I need to be convinced of good reason for changing any discretionary sanctions remedy.  The changes can themselves cause short-term dispute and confusion, and defaulting to no change is a sensible practice.  AGK ■ 17:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: * Special thanks indeed to  for sharing a useful, methodical assessment of the area.  To move us towards a conclusion (one way or the other), I will draft a motion shortly.  AGK ■ 11:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

text: * Re. logging and RGloucester: I have proposed amending each case separately, without a disruptive "merger".  In practice enforcement requests are always made in the context of a single arbitration remedy – ignoring all others – and so having two with the same scope will have no effect.  At the same time, it avoids the need to update a bunch of notices, insist that existing sanctions are still in effect, and change how daily enforcement is carried out.  AGK ■ 18:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern Europe and Balkans discretionary sanctions scope: Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: In the past year, editing in the topic of Jewish history in Poland has been difficult. While WP:NOENG is policy - stating a preference for English sources of the same quality when available (generally the case for Holocaust history), and quotation requirements when challenged - NOENG has not been followed in this topic area. Non-English sources of a dubious nature have been inserted into articles, even BLPs, and in some cases, the content has failed verification: not present in the cited sources, contradicted by others. Requests for quotations and a rationale for use have gone unanswered, or dismissed with "the source is reliable" or "WP:AGF and Offline sources".
Admins at AE are reluctant to dive into such issues. This recent case was closed by  with:   . I understand the sentiment here; dealing with users introducing content that fails WP:V when the cited sources aren't online, aren't in English, and/or are very long is difficult. The challenge of tackling source misrepresentations is evident in past AE threads:
#  GizzyCatBella 26 April 2018 - 1RR violation of page level restriction + claims of fringe sources. Result (purely on the 1RR claim) - .
# E-960, 8 May 2018 - Complaint alleged violation of 1RR article restriction, coupled with BLP and RS concerns. Closed with a voluntary 72 hour restriction. Note admin discussion on non-English sources without translations.
# Icewhiz 9 May 2018 - Complaint alleged removal of Chodakiewicz as a source in a number of articles was inappropriate. Defendant counter-complained about filer's use of WP:SPSes. closed: .
# E-960 12 May 2018 - Complaint alleged violation of 1RR in article with said restriction. Result: .
#Icewhiz 14 May 2018 - Complaint alleged removal of Anna Poray as a source from over 60 articles was inappropriate as well as alleging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Poray was made in bad faith. While admins discuss the misuse of SPS angle, the closing admin remarks . Closed due to the reported PAs as .
#François Robere 2 June 2018 - complaint alleged violation of "consensus required provision". Discussion diverged into use of questionable sources. Admins discuss at length possible sourcing restrictions (WP:MEDRS-like, plus suggestion to limit sources only to English, as . The AE closes with . The following restriction is placed on an article level: diff  + 
#24 June 2018 - Filer alleged misrepresentation of sources. In this particular instance this was seen as beyond a "content dispute". Closed as .
#Icewhiz 3 July 2018 - Filer alleged misrepresentation of sources. Respondent files diffs alleging a misrepresentation in other instances. Closed as  since - .
#Volunteer Marek 5 July 2018 - Filer alleged NPA and V issues, accompanied by counter-allegations. Admins discuss possible sourcing restrictions (e.g. academic, English only) to the topic area based on previous article level restriction to Collaboration in German-occupied Poland. NeilN notes - . The discussion on sourcing leads to no conclusion. Closed with: .
Most of the complaints were on sourcing quality and misrepresentations of sources, while editors were sanctioned for a variety of conduct issues, such as personal attacks and battleground behavior. Admins discussed the possibility of sourcing restrictions (academic and/or English only), or enforcing misrepresentation of sources. A sourcing restriction was applied to Collaboration in German-occupied Poland where the situation did improve following the restriction, but no sourcing restriction was applied elsewhere. Disputes in the topic area have involved numerous other articles (WWII history, geographic locations, BLPs in the field).
I will note that use of sources is further complicated by the legislation which criminalized publication in Polish media of claims of Polish complicity in crimes committed during the Holocaust.Poland Holocaust law: France criticises 'ill advised' text, BBC, 7 Feb 2018Gebert, Konstanty. "Projecting Poland and its past: Poland wants you to talk about the “Polocaust”." Index on Censorship 47.1 (2018): 35-37.Hackmann, Jörg. "Defending the “Good Name” of the Polish Nation: Politics of History as a Battlefield in Poland, 2015–18." Journal of Genocide Research 20.4 (2018): 587-606.
There are excellent mainstream Polish-language academic sources, referenced by academia outside of Poland. In fact, the Polish Wikipedia often has a balanced representation of the subject matter (see this 2015 oped on a long-running WP:HOAX in Stawiski:  corrected in 2018) Unfortunately, sources in Polish introduced to English Wikipedia are often not high-quality mainstream academic writing, but rather right-wing newspaper op-eds, interviews, blog posts, and pulp journals/books.
Please see general examples of misrepresenting sources: (more are available on request)
# Non-EC user added  (discussed at AE here, but not subsequent reverts/verification). Challenged as . Despite the challenge - reverted and reverted by established users. Requests at Talk:History of the Jews in Poland#Recent edits for verifying quotations were not met (over several weeks). I personally accessed many of the cited sources and ascertained the content was not present in the source prior to reverting (a difficult and time-consuming task). The reverting users admitted they did not verify the text - here and here.
# diff - removal of Chełmno extermination camp's purpose to exterminate Poles. Sourced to Polish language source - which doesn't contain this claim. This misrepresentation was entered back in 2013. This illustrates how a false citation in non-English can last quite a while.
# Editor challenges REDFLAG material in July 2017,rolledback in Feb 2019. Source for  is a municipal website in Polish - source which doesn't contain anything of the sort.
# challenge of text . text returned with a whole bunch of Polish language sources (which do not seem to support the text (they do support persecution of Polish elites - not all Poles). tagged verify source.  request on talk 4 March per WP:NOENG for rationale of use of these sources + quotations - no response as of now.
Possibly disruptive edits by non-EC users:
# Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historyk IPN/Archive - editor from IPN (an organization promoting revisionism in Polish-Jewish relations,Ambrosewicz-Jacobs, Jolanta. "The uses and the abuses of education about the Holocaust in Poland after 1989." Holocaust Studies (2019): 1-22. that was recently involved in the disruption of an academic conference in ParisLa Pologne minimise les incidents lors d’un colloque sur la Shoah à Paris, Le Monde, 4 March 2019) - socking and adding WP:SPAM links to a website promoting "the truth".
# Edit warring on BLP - despite clear lack of consensus for inclusion (and even possibly consensus to exclude) -  (and a number of threads below), multiple re-insertions of challenged text which is based on interviews/op-eds in right-wing Polish media - , , , , , , , ,  (note the rejection of the Holocaust studies journal (including two pieces by Polish authors) as a source in preference to a right-wing internet portal, a small Polish radio station, Polish League Against Defamation, and biznesistyl.pl), , , , , .
#  - adding content sourced to TVNiezaleznaPolonia Canada YouTube channel. Source is an interview in Polish with English subtitles, and the content inserted is a denial (of the generally accepted) Polish role in Jedwabne pogrom.
#  - IP adds content to Jedwabne claiming this was "instigated by the Soviet-backed Communist security corps" (well after the Red Army retreated in disarray).
#  - non-EC adds content to two BLPs + 1 institutions based on media coverage of upcoming Gontarczyk column in wSieci (context on wSieci: Polish magazine's 'Islamic rape of Europe' cover sparks outrage, Guardian, 18 Feb 2018). Despite challenges by several users, this is re-inserted.
# Jan Grabowski (historian) - conspiracy theories (revdelled) at 21:35, 23 February 2019‎,  11:57, 25 February 2019‎ ,  12:24, 25 February 2019‎.
# There is also long-term (in one article - over a year), slow-pace edit-warring by an IP on a number of articles -  and  were involved in Naliboki massacre and Polish Center for Holocaust Research recently (see also User talk:Icewhiz#Polish Center for Holocaust Research).
# EW report - 6 reverts in a short time span by an IP in the topic area (removing well sourced information), coupled with 3 reverts in the EW noticeboard. Per TU-nor possibly linked to the 64-bit IP described above, which seems plausible.
I request that ARCA consider the following:
# 500/30 protection for the topic of Polish-Jewish relations.
# 1RR for the topic of Polish-Jewish relations.
# A sourcing restriction. Some possibilities:
## Revert restriction - editors performing reverts of challenged material are responsible for verifying the contents. Failure to verify, and provide supporting quotes, is sanctionable.
## consensus for non-English sources: In disputes over foreign-language sources in the subject area of Polish-Jewish relations, disputed sources are removed unless and until there is a consensus to include them. (similar to WP:NOCONSENSUS EL policy).
##Only English-language academic sources for historical subjects.
## Excluding low-quality non-English sources - Blogs, websites, and media sources that are subject to censorship (e.g. see the WP:HISTRS proposal). High-quality English-language sources can be found in most topics.
Such sourcing restrictions will turn "content disputes" on foreign-language sources that are difficult for enforcing admins to verify themselves into actionable violations of a sourcing restriction. As copious and numerous English language sources are available in Holocaust studies, a restriction won't limit our source pool much; reputable non-English writers get translated to English or analyzed in English language secondary works. Consistent introduction of material that fails WP:V should be taken seriously, however expecting admins at AE to read 50 pages in a foreign language is not reasonable. Our goal should be that Wikipedia conforms to mainstream academic scholarship on the Holocaust, and I believe such measures would be a step forward. A limited measure in ARCA regarding sourcing (in line with AE admin comments over several cases) & non-EC edits might lead to fewer disruptions, an easier time at AE (fewer cases), and can be achieved without a full-fledged case.
: RSN comment - while RSN can be quite lively if, say, Fox News is discussed - discussion of more serious sourcing issues - particularly if not in English - ends up as a discussion between the same INVOLVED editors with very little outside input. I will note I have also seen this on ARBPIA or say in this discussion on sourcing on an Indian language/script. Outside editors rarely get involved if it involves more than "knee jerk" response. The end result is that RSN, as it doesn't actually widen the discussion, ends with the same lack of consensus, between the same editors, on the article. At present - my feeling is that RSN isn't really functional for most non-English sources (as well as niche ares). WP:NOENG (preferring English sources, translations and quotations upon challenge for non-English sources) is policy. In practice my feeling is that it is not enforceable, and nor is the introduction of information failing WP:V - as long as it isn't clear black/white Holocaust denial - one can throw 50 pages of non-English citation at something (even when good English sources are available), even stonewall at providing quotations - and it would still be a non-actionable "content dispute".Icewhiz (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Icewhiz 

message: Since 1) I've been quoted by Icewhiz (through not notified, I refer specifically to this diff), and 2) this does concern one of my primary content areas, as I've created dozens articles on Polish-Jewish topics, such as Maria Roszak just few days ago and 3) this contains the most absurd request I've seen in my ~15 years here ("sourcing restriction for non-English sources for Jew-Polish relations."), I feel I should make a statement. 
First. Regarding the 1RR restriction request, the "500/30 protection" (what is this, btw? I've never heard such term used on Wikipedia before... it is a form of semi-protection) and others (request to verify sources before reverting, etc.), as someone who has seen various edit conflicts in related topic areas in dozen+ years, including some that ended up at ArbCom, it is my view that there's no significant amount of vandalism, or long term edit warring, or any other malpractices that would raise to the level requiring any special treatment for this topic area or even for any particular articles (one can check history of major articles like Polish Jews or The Holocaust in Poland or such to see they are generally stable). While it would be nice to force editors to use higher quality sources, there's no reason to treat Polish-Jewish topic area any different from the rest of Wikipedia. While there are occasional disagreements, they are not raising above the usual noise level in this area. 
Second, it would be absurd to ban or restrict non-English sources. AFAIK this hasn't been done for any topic area, and rightly so, as for each language there are plenty of reliable sources. To say that Foo-language sources (or anything that's not in English) cannot be used for XYZ-topic is a very serious accusation for any scholarship. While there are some particular cases we limit sources, they are very rare - I think there's a general consensus to be careful with Nazi-era sources, for example, but even then, there's no blanket rule saying that no Nazi-era sources are allowed (through perhaps there should be, I can similarly think of issues with ISIS sources, etc. - but those are extreme cases and we are hardly anywhere near this level of seriousness here). Over the years I've cautioned some people to be careful with Soviet-era sources for some topics, or modern Putin-era Russian historiography, and I concur there are some indications some (but certainly not all!) modern Polish historiography works exhibits a worrisome political agenda not unlike that found in Putin's Russia, and it is good for editors to realize this, but overall, WP:RS covers such situations pretty well, and if needed WP:RSN can be brought to bear on specific cases (ex. see this RSN discussion Icehwiz started, which IIRC led to the decision to stop using Paul (an English-language source, btw) as a source in this topic area. It's a proof that current tools and structures work, no special treatment is needed. To ban (and remove?) Polish and other non-English sources from Polish-Jewish topics would do immense damage to the project. Many articles in categories such as :Category:Polish Righteous Among the Nations or :Category:Jewish ghettos in Nazi-occupied Poland are based on Polish-language sources that simply do not exist in English. To ban sources ranging from Polish Biographical Dictionary to works by scholars from the Jewish Historical Institute or works published by many other Polish-Jewish organizations in Poland would be, IMHO, ridiculous. (As for 'remove low quality sources' plea, of course I support it - but to repeat myself, that's just like saying 'please enforce existing policies like RS'. Doh. Sure. Let's. We all agree. In all content areas. Nothing for ArbCom do look at here).
Nonetheless, the fact that such ridiculous request has been made bears considering in light that Icewhiz has often criticized Polish-language sources (ex. just yesterday here, or few months ago numerous times here - just search for NOENG; it's pretty much all Icewhiz criticizing NOENG/Polish sources; same here). While his criticism has not always been without merit (as sometimes he correctly identified low-quality sources), I don't see any relation between low quality sources he (or others, including myself) identify, and language. Sometimes we find and remove low quality Polish sources, sometimes they are English, occasionally they are in another language altogether. Language is not an issue. The fact that one can seriously make such request (April Fools has come and gone...) makes me wonder about their judgement, since to effectively try to argue that all non-English sources should be treated as if they were Nazi-German era works (i.e. automatically disqualified on the subject matter of Jewish history/culture/etc.) is not a sign of a sound editorial judgement.
Bottom line, if an editor feels that he has lost too many arguments, he should not turn to WP:FORUMSHOPPING. And trying to do so here may result in rather heavy WP:BOOMERANG. Because while there is nothing particularly wrong with Polish-Jewish topics on English Wikipedia (they are reasonably stable and neutral), there is some evidence that some editors are developing WP:BATTLEGROUND-like mentality, evidenced for example by spurious AE and even ArbCom-level requests (see my related wiki-essay). And that may be something that ArbCom may want to investigate, because a number of meritless requests at AE/ArbCom boards is an indicator of a potential problem (one that could warrant for example a ban from submitting spurious requests of such kind in the future). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Piotrus 

message: Sourcing is bad on all sides in this area... these are just a few small examples I've run across ... I'm sure if I dug deeply, I'd be able to find plenty of others. Note that I've very carefully not pointed out who did these various problems - because that just feeds the battleground mentality.
* replacing Steiner's Treblinka which is not remotely a reliable source. See Jean-François Steiner for the controversy about his work. This sourcing stayed in this article for entirely too long (something like 8 or 9 years)
* See Talk:Koniuchy massacre#Sourcing..., Talk:Koniuchy massacre#Garbled ref, and heck, the whole rest of the talk page. But the two referenced sections detail issues with sourcing without going into who was evil for adding/removing them.
* See also Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland/Archive 13#Holocaust section-important parts missing, where I dug into some of the sourcing and discovered some severe issues of misrepresentation. Then there's Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland/Archive 12#Paulinów incident and Hotel Polski affair where more problems were detailed.
* Talk:Jan Grabowski (historian)#Troubling sourcing.... and Talk:Jan Grabowski (historian)/Archive 6#Sourcing policy, and Talk:Jan Grabowski (historian)/Archive 5#Problem with source... also detail issues with sourcing occuring in this topic area.
* These two edits show how a picture was miscaptioned for ... years? ... in one of our more important Jewish ghetto articles - here the caption is changed from "Jewish welcoming banner for the Soviet forces invading Poland. In the background the Catholic Church of St. Roch in Białystok (Soviet photo)" to "Banner in Yiddish welcoming the Soviet forces in 1939. In the background the Catholic Church of St. Roch in Białystok (Soviet photo)". More digging resulted in  this change, where the actual circumstances are "Election notice to the People's council of Western Belarus, Białystok, taken during first days of German occupation in July 1941" note the original caption was based on this source where the google translate of the text says nothing close to what is claimed in the caption. A fuller discussion of this issue takes place at User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2018/December#For your wall of distortionist shame. 
It's not just the troubling/sloppy sourcing that's occurring (and these are likely the tip of the iceberg), it's the constant battleground mentality that affects most editors in this area. One person adds something that's sloppily sourced, the other side reverts and screams bloody murder on the talk page, but then that second side adds something else that's also sloppily sourced and then the first side starts screaming bloody murder. And everything is accompanied by endless reverts ... there is not any way for third party editors who aren't invested in the conflict to actually contribute for any length of time because it's just so dreadfully draining. 1RR doesn't seem to help, because there are multiple editors on each "side" so ... the reverts just roll in and people who aren't on a side just give up and walk away - I've done it often enough.
I don't know if there are any answers. On days when I'm terribly discouraged, I think banning everyone on both sides might help but...I'm afraid that won't solve the problems, which unfortunately are tied to academic and political debates that have become so contentious that they are spilling over into wikipedia.
Pinging  and , both of whom I've obliquely mentioned here. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Ealdgyth 

message: The initiator of the present discussion writes that non-Polonophones may have difficulty verifying sources that are not in English.  For this reason, where the original Polish texts have been provided, e.g. in the references, I have often translated them into English.  I have also suggested that the original Polish texts routinely be so provided, and that I will be happy to render them into English.  I stand by my suggestion and offer.  Thank you.  Nihil novi (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Nihil novi 

message: 500/30 (also known as extended-confirmed protection, or 30/500) is a special type of semi-protection that restricts accounts with less than 500 edits or have been registered for less than 30 days from editing certain pages. That is to say, an account that was registered 10 years ago but has only made 404 edits would be unable to edit a page under 500/30 protection, as would an account that has made thousands upon thousands of edits within 24 days of signing up. Both conditions must be met for an account to be granted extended-confirmed status, permitting them to edit a 500/30 protected article. Kurtis (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Kurtis 

message: If the committee accepts this proposal now, it won't be a moment too soon. Throughout the discussions in this topic area we've seen (in no particular order) book summaries, liturgical press, Geocities-SPS, press releases, Ph.D students on popular websites, censorship based on supposed Communist background, independent authors, potentially antisemitic and pseudonymic authors, and more (other examples here: ). Piotrus is right in asserting that current policy was enough to resolve all of these problems, but WP:RS alone wasn't enough: we had RfCs on writers you never heard of, and days-long discussions on sources with less than 5 citations globally (which were introduced to the discussion as "notable", "important", or even "preeminent" historians). In several cases editors introduced what would later be deemed a non-RS to dozens of articles at the same time; in another, a plagiarizing source was removed 8.5 years after it was discovered. Piotrus is wrong, however, in suggesting this is "forum shopping" trying to rehash past disagreements - those we mostly managed, with much time and angst; rather, this is an attempt to prevent future ones by raising the bar on sourcing, so that we're left with actual content disputes rather than biography hunts and repeated translation requests.
Nihil novi has indeed made an effort translating and making sources accessible. This removed some of the language barriers, but did not solve several other problems: out of context quoting (where you'd need the whole page rather than 2-3 sentences); low-quality sources; inaccessible materials (low circulation, out of print etc. - often the result of low quality); and editors refusing to supply quotations or exact citations of their materials - all problems that would be resolved by this proposal.
Which leads me to a fact central to all of this: WWII is a major area of scholarship, and virtually all reputable sources end up being published in English. Sources that don't are either undiscovered or disreputable; if they're undiscovered (old and forgotten, or new and yet to be translated), then it's not our job to introduce them into the mainstream (in some cases it could even constitute WP:OR); and if they're disreputable, then we shouldn't use them anyway. And so our choice here is essentially between stability and novelty: do we use the freshest materials, even those that are yet to be translated; or the stablest materials - those that have garnered the broadest attention and acceptance? In topic areas that are this prone to edit warring and disagreement, I'd argue for the stablest.
And one final note on admins: Among the host of... ineffective admins, Ealdgyth has been the only one willing to take this topic seriously and try to make sense of who's who and what's what; the only one to actually go through the sources and try to mediate compromise - or just enforce the rules - instead of waiting for things to repeatedly explode at ANI/AE. Otherwise the boards have been nearly useless, which shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Whatever other decision you reach, you should pass this stern message to admins: an effective admin is one who gets involved and dives deep into the disagreements, not one who sits on the sidelines and only occasionally and selectively applies policy. An effective admin is not a policy-application machine, but a person who reasons with depth and is willing to make sure things get done. If you're willing to invest yourself in being an effective admin, then by all means do so - you have the backing of the community. But if you don't, then stay away. François Robere (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by François Robere 

message: This request is, in my view, misplaced. There is no valid justification for restricting discussion on historical subjects only to English-language academic sources or imposing a requirement of consensus with regard to non-English, specifically Polish language sources. This would simply erase or block important research by Polish historians that is not available in English or is not mentioned in English texts. A typical case in point is the following. Icewhiz erased the following text in its entirety from the article on History of the Jews in Poland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland), and replaced it with their own:
12:23, 12 March 2019‎ Icewhiz talk contribs‎  219,143 bytes +1,651‎  →‎Situation of Holocaust survivors and their property: Remove content as it failed verification vs. the cited sources, misused a primary source, and was contradicted by available English RSes. Replace with content cited to academic English-language sources available online.)
A restitution law "On Abandoned Real Estates" of May 6, 1945 allowed property owners who had been dispossessed, or their relatives and heirs, whether residing in Poland or outside the country, to reclaim privately owned property under a simplified inheritance procedure. The law remained in effect until the end of 1948. An expedited court process, entailing minimal costs, was put in place to handle claims. Applications had to be examined within 21 days, and many claims were processed the day they were filed. Poles often served as witnesses to corroborate claims of Jewish neighbors and acquaintances. Jewish law firms and agencies outside Poland specialized in submitting applications on behalf of non-residents. Many properties were also transferred and sold by Jewish owners outside this process.Jan Grabowski and Dariusz Libionka, eds. Klucze i kasa: O mieniu żydowskim w Polsce pod okupacją niemiecką i we wczesnych latach powojennych 1939–1950 (Warsaw: Stowarzyszenie Centrum Badań nad Zagładą 2014), 522–523, 529, 568–569, 575–607. Also Krzysztof Urbański. Kieleccy Żydzi (Kraków: Pracownia Konserwacji Zabytków w Kielcach and Małopolska Oficyna Wydawnicza, n.d. [1993]), 180–190; Marta Pawlina-Meducka, ed. Z kroniki utraconego sąsiedztwa: Kielce, wrzesień 2000/From the Chronicle of the Lost Neighborhood: Kielce, September 2000 (Kielce: Kieleckie Towarzystwo Naukowe, 2001), 202. The American Jewish Year Book reported, at the time, “The return of Jewish property, if claimed by the owner or his descendant, and if not subject to state control, proceeded more or less smoothly.”American Jewish Year Book, 5708 (1947–1948), vol. 49 (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1947), 390. Thousands of properties were successfully reclaimed, for example, more than 520 properties were reclaimed in two county towns of Lublin province alone (281 applications in Zamość, and 240 in Włodawa - some applications involved multiple properties).Adam Kopciowski. Zagłada Żydów w Zamościu (Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, 2005), 203; Adam Kopciowski, "Anti-Jewish Incidents in the Lublin Region in the Early Years after World War II," ≈Holocaust: Studies and Materials vol. 1 (2008), 188.
All of this information is based on reliable sources produced by reputable, professional Polish historians (Alina Skibinska, Lukasz Krzyzanowski, Krzysztof Urbanski, Adam Kopciowski). Moreover, the information about postwar property restoration is based on primary research into hundreds of Polish court records for each town that is mentioned. Alina Skibinska states, in relation to Szczebrzeszyn, that at least one third of the 210 private properties belonging to Jews before the war were returned to their owners or their heirs by 1950, and that almost all of these properties were very quickly sold to Poles (Klucze o kasa, p. 562). She goes on to assess the workings of the local municipal court: the vast majority of claims were favorably dealt with; the pace at which this was done was very speedy, as many of the claims were allowed the day they were received or very soon after; the judges very often overlooked deficiencies in the applications (Klucze i kasa, p. 568-569).  
The text that Icewhiz substituted uses publications of poor quality with no sources cited for the relevant claims (Laurence Weinbaum, The Plunder of Jewish Property during the Holocaust), publications that do not look into actual court records and outcomes of property claims (Michael Meng, Shattered Spaces), or publications that refer to selected court records but do not undertake a systematic investigation of the records of any one town (Cichopek-Gajraj, Beyond Violence), and then make sweeping generalizations that the in-depth investigations of court records do not support. Moreover, the research into Polish court records fully accords with the monitoring that Jewish organizations were conducting at the time. The American Jewish Year Book, a highly reliable source authored by academics, reported in 1947-1948, that “The return of Jewish property, if claimed by the owner or his descendant, and if not subject to state control, proceeded more or less smoothly.” The postwar decrees in question were introduced for the benefit of the Jews, with a much simplified and cheaper process than the regular court inheritance procedures, which one could always resort to. Icewhiz simply wiped all this out as allegedly “failed verification vs. the cited sources, misused a primary source” because it doesn’t accord with what he thinks the historical record should be. This smacks of censorship and is a disastrous forecast for the state of such articles.
Tatzref (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Tatzref 

message: I believe that all editors who use sources which a typical English-speaking editor will have great difficulty verifying should be willing to provide quotations and/or translations. Not just foreign language sources, but rare sources too. But that's a project-wide fundamental issue which shouldn't be addressed on a per-area basis.
Concerning the specific requests:
*Items 1 and 2: no problem
*Items 3.1: X inserts text+source, Y deletes it, Z reverts Y. Is Z now personally responsible for text+source? Surely it depends on other details, such as whether Y gave a good reason for the deletion. Also, this would encourage bulk deletions, since nobody could revert them without checking every single source they include.
*Items 3.2–3.4: The committee should consider the editing record of the filer in the Jewish-Polish domain and compare it to the likely effect on article neutrality if extra restrictions are placed on Polish sources which don't apply to English sources.
Zerotalk 01:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Zero0000 

message: *On the face of it, this seems more like a case request than something for ARCA. If it's too complex for AE, we would need the extended framework of a case to examine the totality of the evidence. I would likely vote to accept this as a case request, but I decline to consider extending 500/30 to an entire topic area in the absence of a case. ~ Rob13Talk 06:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern Europe: Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: :Original discussion
Initiated by EvergreenFir at 20:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
* (initiator)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
=== Statement by EvergreenFir ===
Does the scope of the discretionary sanctions promulgated by this amendment or original case include Turkey? I ask because I recently have noticed an increase in complaints around nationalist editing for and against Turkey, as well as disruptive editing around Turkey and Armenia. Examples include:
*Special:Permalink/998091874#Account dedicated to anti-Turkish agenda
*
*Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kurds
*Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive966#RfC_Closure_Review_Request
*Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive421#User:Konli17_reported_by_User:Beshogur_(Result:_Blocked)
Eastern_Europe#Southeast_Europe says the part of Turkey is in Eastern Europe, but only a small portion. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Uyghurs live in China, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan, I do not see them being relevant for the EE DS however broadly we interpret them.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

text: This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
* Procedural comment:  One of the forgotten about tools in your toolbox is the review case. I think the last time the committee used it was R&I, but it is an option --Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification request: Eastern Europe (January 2021) 

message: Does the scope of the discretionary sanctions promulgated by this amendment or original case include Turkey? I ask because I recently have noticed an increase in complaints around nationalist editing for and against Turkey, as well as disruptive editing around Turkey and Armenia. Examples include:
*Special:Permalink/998091874#Account dedicated to anti-Turkish agenda
*
*Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kurds
*Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive966#RfC_Closure_Review_Request
*Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive421#User:Konli17_reported_by_User:Beshogur_(Result:_Blocked)
Eastern_Europe#Southeast_Europe says the part of Turkey is in Eastern Europe, but only a small portion. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by EvergreenFir 

message: The sanctions of Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 were put in place, per the 2013 Clarification request, to deal with cases of ethnic conflicts similarly related to the one of Armenia/Azerbaijan. This would likely include the conflict between Armenia and Turkey, but I can't imagine it would be so permissive to include just Turkey (and certainly not the Uyghurs). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by MJL 

message: I am sure the EE discretionary sanctions do not include Turkey-Armenia relations. They are rooted in WP:EEML, and Turkey has never been an issue there. On the other hand, recently the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh intensified in real life, because Azerbaijan took an offensive against this Armenia-held area with the support of Turkey, and was able to regain control over a considerable part of it (with Armenians being evacuated). This caused escalation of Armenian-Azerbaijani clashes all over the internet, including Wikipedia. The reason that Turkey-Armenia issues escalated are in this conflict, and it would be reasonable to add them to the Armenia-Azerbaijan discretionary sanctions. Furthermore, if we are talking about Turkey-Syria issues, these are neither Eastern Europe nor Armenia-Azerbaijan. They are currently covered by general sanctions, and I believe upgrading them to DS could be a good idea but it would require a full case and can not be done as clarification.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Uyghurs live in China, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan, I do not see them being relevant for the EE DS however broadly we interpret them.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Ymblanter (Eastern Europe)

message: :This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
* Procedural comment:  One of the forgotten about tools in your toolbox is the review case. I think the last time the committee used it was R&I, but it is an option --Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern Europe: Clerk notes 

message: *I don't believe the Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions have ever included Turkey. However, note that there is a separate DS authorization for Armenia and Azerbaijan. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern Europe: Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: In February 2021 I received an indefinite topic ban. My attempt to appeal it ended in failure. Newslinger dismissed my appeal by repeating the unfounded "hounding" charge. The topic ban is formulated in such a way that it covers all areas in which I have ever worked in English Wikipedia  and where my contribution can be useful. I ask you to reconsider the appeal and either remove TB or soften it. For example, I can edit and write articles without participating in discussions, with the additional limit of 1RR (which I already have). Well, or let's restrict TB to some really highly controversial topics (most of my edits do not apply to such topics).--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: * I beg your pardon, I misunderstood. Of course, I did not agree with such a wide topic-ban and wrote about this in my appeal:  There this issue was not considered in any way. I hoped that this issue would finally be considered by the ArbCom, as it is recommended here: "submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA")". I took a break, because somewhere I saw that it was possible to dispute the decision no earlier than six months later (but perhaps I got something wrong here). Anyway, thanks for your clarifications, they helped me.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

text: Much more later, in February 2021, there was a massive campaign against Navalny , as a result of which Amnesty even temporarily deprived him of his "prisoner of conscience" status (they soon admitted their mistake and apologized ). Precisely at this time, the user  began to violate WP:BIO - he use unreliable sources (blog posts), directly distort what was written in sources (for example, the "citizens of Georgia" whom Navalny proposed to deport as a measure of non-military pressure on the government of Georgia, Mhorg turned into "ethnic Georgians"), and defiantly ignored WP:BALASP. Such things in articles about a living person is pretty bad, so when I saw this, I tried to do something with this. This campaign was also attended by user , who received an indefinite block a month later (on another topic, I have nothing to do with this, but it's a pity that completely similar behavior in the topic about Navalny did not receive due attention). I cannot say that my actions in this conflict were perfect, but my intentions were honest. There were no "wikihounding" on my part and no one bothered to prove that this "wikihounding", as of "an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor" really took place. And it insults me that the indefinite topic ban was introduced immediately after Mhorg accused me of editing articles "just to annoy him". But these are all past cases, I understand that it is useless to look for some kind of justice here. What I don’t understand: why these episodes lead to a conclusion about my fundamental inability to work specifically on the topic of all "Eastern Europe, broadly construed". And this is the issue that I am asking the arbitration committee to consider. As I see in WP:ARBGUIDE: "Arbitrators focus on the risk and benefits for the future, not on past issues".--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Nicoljaus 

message: Whereas it has no direct bearing on the appeal, it is useful for all involved to know that Nicoljaus is blocked indef in the Russian Wikipedia, and the ArbCom rejected their appeal as recently as two weeks ago due to ongoing block evasion .--Ymblanter (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Ymblanter 

message: Speaking in general terms (I have no opinion about this specific appeal) I think that topic bans should be narrowed only in two circumstances:
#Immediately or very shortly after it was imposed iff there is consensus that the topic ban was far too broad for the disruption caused, especially if it impacts an area where they are doing good work (e.g. a topic ban from "Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted" would not be appropriate if the disruption was solely related to say Poland-Russia relations but they do good work on articles about European rivers)
#When the editor has demonstrated good work in topic areas not covered but it is unclear whether they should be permitted back into the area of disruption. In such cases allowing the editor to contribute to the fringe of the area can be a good way to demonstrate reform or otherwise.
Outside of those two situations though, topic bans should be either retained as enacted or removed completely. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: you appear to have overlooked the "Immediately or very shortly after it was imposed" part of my comment. If you don't appeal the scope within that timescale it is reasonable to assume you accept it as valid and appropriate, and so to get it narrowed later you need to demonstrate good work in topic areas not covered by the topic ban as imposed. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Thryduulf 

message: I intervene here as the user Nicoljaus talked about me and pinged me. Nicoljaus is bringing things into the speech that have nothing to do with his ban: 
:1. He was not banned for intervening on Navalny's article, but because, following "clashes" on the dissident's discussions page, the user began to target to my old contributions from almost a year before, and did not do it alone, in fact in this AE Request, which I opened against User:My very best wishes, I listed what in my opinion were 6 cases of wikihounding against me (the user even began to interfere in discussions on my talk page with other users, and for this he was warned by an administrator), in some of whom Nicoljaus was also involved. Note that I had not opened the AE Request against Nicoljaus (despite an admin had warned him not to cast aspersions against me), but I was only asking him to stop following me along with "My very best wishes".
:2. Nicoljaus then, aggressively, even comes to ask me to open an AE Request against him (which I have not done anyway), acting in defense of "My very best wishes".
:3. Just to point out that the user has a battleground mentality, he even intervened in a (crazy) SPI against me, opened by "My very best wishes", after 3 months of inactivity only for what seems like a revenge.
Instead, analyzing the way in which he reported the story of the heated debates on Navalny:
:1.  For real? The post came from Navalny's official blog, and served to explain precisely what he had stated. Also, Nicoljaus had no problem expanding that part which contradicted what the secondary sources reported (incorrectly), using Navalny's own blog as a source. Inconsistency.
:2.  It was my translation error, when Nicoljaus pointed it out to me I promptly corrected the part. Nicoljaus is talking about it as if mine was a bad faith act.
:3.  I didn't understand why the user wants to associate me with this user PaleSimon (who only released 5 short comments on that discussion page), perhaps Nicoljaus should be reminded that in the same discussion, he was backing User:LauraWilliamson, a Gordimalo sockpuppet (and Gordimalo continued the fight in the discussion with an another sockpuppet, Beanom).
I hope not to be forced to intervene again on this topic, despite the desire to tone down, I have already wasted a lot of time in not very constructive discussions with this user.--Mhorg (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Mhorg 

message: * I would like to hear from others (especially User:El C) regarding the possibility of a "softened" topic ban, but I don't see any reason to overturn the action outright. I also don't particularly see that softening is the right option, but am willing to listen to further opinions. WormTT(talk) 14:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicoljaus, indef topic ban: Arbitrator views and discussion