Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive111

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Swifty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Swifty*^talk_contribs 17:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

User:Swifty. Kww has been hounding me since I asked for his help on a good faith edit over a situation I thought was over until "Blue (Bill Mack song) was created. Ever since I was told to ask him for help he's hounded me and watching ever edit I make as you can see in

the links he even is taking away my rights to use the Author request deletion when I am done with Wikipedia and want no part in it because I'm tired of being hounded. I asked him nicely to back off me and he won't and I've even want to Fastily cause he's getting me to where I'm crying my eyes out cause I feel like he's watching me and I don't like it So please someone ask this guy to stop and please delete my uploads so I can leave this site forever. Swifty*^talk_contribs 17:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

I believe this entire report to be grossly misplaced, but leave it to another admin to deal with.—Kww(talk) 17:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Ed's perfectly correct, of course. This should be closed asap: It's the wrong venue for appeal of a non-AE block; the block appeal is already receiving plenty of admin attention on Swifty's talk page (link/permalink); the user has forum shopped this to other admin's talk pages; he's been disrespectful of others' time by the carelessness with which this was prepared and posted, & etc.

I'm sorely tempted to hat it myself, but I'm not an admin and that would be a really bad precedent for this board. ( That already happens much too often at AN/I, imo. ) Besides, I'm loathe to usurp the prerogatives of the mighty, or at least of "the mighty longsuffering". Basically user Swifty uploaded images, then decided he wanted to take his ball and go home, ie delete those images. So he G7'd them, and Kww reverted. It's already been explained to him (by admin Beeblebrox) on his talk page by that he gave up any sort of "ownership" or special privilege concerning those images the moment he uploaded them. I don't edit our pop-star/singer fan articles, btw, nor have I had any previous interaction with Swifty or his predecessor account(s).

Kudos to Kww for reverting and then blocking Swifty, when he persisted: That was a necessary action, and absolutely called for. – OhioStandard (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

( Please note: If you wish to respond to any of the points raised above, kindly add those comments to your own "comments by" section. )

• This request does not mention any Arbcom case whose provisions are being violated, so it does not belong here. The editor who filed it, User:Swifty, has filed an unblock request on his own talk page. If admins feel that Swifty's complaints about Kww's admin action need some response, it would be logical for them to comment in Swifty's unblock discussion, grant the unblock, or open a discussion at WP:ANI. Meanwhile I suggest that this AE request be closed. Swifty (James) has been on Wikipedia since early 2011 under this and a predecessor account, and has 9,000 edits. Until today he has never been blocked. It is possible he is a good-faith editor who is just having a bad day. EdJohnston (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

BoDu (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBMAC

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

1. 24 February 2012 Personal attack.
2. 24 February 2012 Disrespectful comment.
3. 2 March 2012 Harassment is alleged without clear evidence.
4. 3 March 2012 Taunting and another allegation without clear evidence
5. 4 March 2012 Taunting.
6. 4 March 2012 Deletion of my comment after I tried to discuss the user's behaviour on his talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It is clear that there is an unfolding pattern of incivility by User:DIREKTOR.

The statement by DIREKTOR below shows once again why he is an disruptive editor. Instead of talking on-topic (his conduct), he is talking off-topic (my conduct). BoDu (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

This request is concerning DIREKTOR. I have no problem discussing my conduct, but this is not place to do so. As you can see above, I said that the statement by DIREKTOR is disruptive, and the consequences of that are obvious in the last 24 hours or so. This request is becoming request concerning myself. I can't believe that the administrators did not warn DIREKTOR to stop talking off-topic and instead submit a request for enforcement against me. I can't believe that the administrators allowed themselves to be drawn into the off-topic discussion.

@Lothar von Richthofen, removing comments from one's personal talkpage is allowed, but the problem here is how it was done. My comment was a attempt to resolve dispute, and his response was the deletion with following statement: "Talk to someone who cares to listen". It's humiliating. BoDu (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

@Lothar von Richthofen, I apologize, I didn't know about that. NULL said that "the sequence of events doesn't indicate forum shopping, but simply someone following instructions and being redirected, by others, to more appropriate venues", and that's my point as well. Even this request I submitted only after instructed to do so by Salvio giuliano. I don't see why you agree with DIREKTOR that this report is likely another disruptive forum-shopping attempt. No editor who has self-respect will allow another editor to act persistently in a disrespectful manner, and I provided sufficient evidence that DIREKTOR behaves in such way.

@EdJohnston, the conditional unblock given by Salvio was that I undertake not to undo those edits again and start a WP:DRN thread. Regarding the edits, you can check my contributions and see that I have not engaged in any edit war, not just the former Yugoslavia but anywhere on Wikipedia. Concerning the DRN thread, you already know I accomplished that instruction. BoDu (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

I would not want to give the impression that I think it "beneath me" to properly answer a WP:AE report, but considering the circumstances of the report and who posted it, I'm having a difficult time taking it seriously. I would like everyone to please note that this seems to be merely the latest installment of a WP:FORUMSHOPPING war conducted by User:BoDu in order to prevail by "alternative" means in a content dispute on Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism. After being blocked and literally forced to stop edit-warring against everyone, the user posted a thread on WP:DRN, tried to delete the whole template on WP:TFD, reported me on WP:ANI, canvassed various admins to sanction me, and so on. Now WP:AE. All this because his edits do not have consensus, and he obviously really wants to have his way. Now, I'm biased as hell, but if this charade charade isn't disruptive I have an inaccurate understanding of the term. -- Director (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

@NULL. While others have given the user ideas on where exactly to continue his forumshopping, imo its forumshopping nonetheless. The succession of threads was not posted by the users that suggested this or that, but by BoDu himself - I don't think anyone suggested this sustained campaign. And the fact itself that BoDu was continuously being shown the door really illustrates what I mean about all this being content-related POV pushing. Also, I fail to see the logic of proceeding from edit-warring to ANI to DRN to TFD and then to AE. Is the user trying to resolve a content dispute or address behavioral grievances? Well, I'd say neither. By edit-warring, by blocking opponents, by "winning" the dispute, or by deleting the whole template(!) - he gets to remove the info he's been trying to remove all along. And I think its rather obvious that's what this forumshopping-spree is about. -- Director (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Some of DIREKTOR's comments are heated and a bit uncivil, but nothing really egregious has been demonstrated. I'd also like to point out to the submitter that removing comments from one's personal talkpage is 100% allowed. The evidence provided by DIREKTOR in his statement brings into question the conduct of BoDu. I would agree with him that this report is likely another disruptive forum-shopping attempt. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

@BoDu: Discussion of your own behaviour is completely relevant. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No action for a few days; is this to be resolved and/or closed? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Without commenting on the validity of the AE request itself and with no knowledge of the dispute, the allegation of forum shopping is unfounded, or at very least unfair. BoDu raised the matter at ANI first and was told by both GiantSnowman and BWilkins that the appropriate venue was DRN. He then took the matter to DRN, where it was closed as inappropriate for the board and TransporterMan directed him to TFD. He then raised the issue at TFD. The sequence of events here doesn't indicate forum shopping, but simply someone following instructions and being redirected, by others, to more appropriate venues. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 02:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

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

• While I may agree that a couple of those comments are somewhat lacking in tact, all of those diffs are at least a week old, some of them more than two. I'm not sure how we can action those. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Direktor has been asked to tone down the rhetoric a few times but I'm not seeing anything severe enough for action here, also agree with Blade they are pretty stale. --WGFinley (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

When I first posted Direktor hadn't responded yet, now that he has I'm thinking he has provided good evidence of a forum shopping boomerang. We may need to take some action regarding that. --WGFinley (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Recommend a three-month topic ban of BoDu from the former Yugoslavia. Constantly filing the same dispute in multiple venues is an abuse of our system. Looking at the conditional unblock given by Salvio after the report at User talk:BoDu#February 2012, it seems to me that BoDu is not living up to Salvio's hopes. It seems to me that if BoDu continues with his recent style of behavior he will be hurting rather than helping an eventual compromise about Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism. Since Salvio's offer to BoDu from late February led to bad results so quickly, I don't that any promise of improved behavior from BoDu would be credible. To allow the writing of neutral articles in contentious areas we sometimes need to ban people whose personal loyalties prevent them from working effectively with others. That leads me to prefer a 3-month topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• I'd be fine with a 3 month topic ban, pretty much per EdJohnston. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

  If there are no objections in the next 24 hours I'll close this and impose a 3 month topic ban on BoDu. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

To: The Committee (this is a motion to amend but it is not clear where this goes, sorry)

Regarding

Arbitration Commitee case on images of Muhammad

To Amend time for discussion in Muhammad images case

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

Motion: This week Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images opened, after mediation to construct the RfC. Of course, no one yet knows what consensus may emerge, if any, but we do know that, although shorter times for leaving the RfC open were discussed during mediation, that did not gain support and it is now shceduled to last 30 days. This takes us past the deadline in the case (two months), please amend. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Not applicable.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

N/A

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

Wrong venue. What you are looking for is requests for amendment. T. Canens (talk) 05:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Now at WP:A/R/A#Request to amend prior case: Muhammad images. Closing. T. Canens (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 15:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted

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

1. 25 March 2012 Accuses me of engaging in personal attacks, accuses me of breaching my interaction ban, interjects himself into an issue which doesn't involve him on my talk page

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

1. Wikipedia:EEML#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions - has been blocked 3 times (24 hours, 24 hours, 3 weeks) for breaching this interaction ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

All times here are my local time. At 2256 on 24 March, I responded to a question by another editor on my talkpage - an issue which does not concern Vecrumba at all. At 2302 I received an email from Vecrumba thru the wikipedia email system in which he accused me off getting on the "anti-evil EE nationalist ball", and in which he asked what someone of EE heritage did wrong to me or my family, and in which he said I have a bottomless well of vitriol. He also accused me of "Polophibic (sic) crap". I ignored this email. As 0552 25 March he posted the above to my talk page -- again he is not involved. This is a direct breach of his interaction ban as per the EEML case. I removed his interaction ban breach. At this point I noticed that at 2217 on 24 March he sent EdJohnston an email, obviously pushing for action for something that neither are actually familiar with. At 0055 on 25 March Ed replied telling him to post his concerns on wiki. I told Ed that what Vecrumba posted on my talk page is not what he had in mind, and asked him to take action (knowing the interaction ban is in place). Ed has refused. Ed's comment about not remembering the interaction ban is irrelevant -- Vecrumba knows he is under an interaction ban with me, as per the above bans (and amendment requests in which he and others participated in).

Background (the only background which is relevant): I am working on an article on the Polandball meme to have it on DYK on 1 April. Read my response as noted above for some more links on this meme. What is on my userpage is a great example of this meme, with a Wikipedia theme...and yes, 90% of Polandball cartoon are about Polandball. Anyway, this is totally irrelevant, but it gives a little context for the cartoon currently on my userpage. It does not excuse Vecrumba sending me accusatory emails thru the system (for which I am now asking him NEVER to send me email again) and it does not excuse Vecrumba for wilfully breaching his interaction ban with me, on a matter that does not concern him in the slightest, and in such a way that attempts to portray me as acting inappropriately in relation to interaction bans I am currently under.

I am also requesting that Vecrumba be blocked for a week - this was the length of my last block for a single revert on an article, not talk page personal attacks.

• Your arguments are invalid. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 04:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Russavia grossly (combatively) mischaracterizes the tone of my note to him. I'll be glad to post it, I just don't have access to my personal email at work. Russavia is not my enemy. I only object to Polophobic insults (by anyone) characterizing Eastern Europeans as Wikipedia vandals being touted as humor (and being posted on Wikipedia). Had I posted Russavia's (IMHO cynical) attempt to misdirect attention away from the issue at hand by appearing to make Russia fair game as my user page, I have no doubt a slew of editors would be screaming for my head on a platter for my blatant provocation. Shall I post something like that for my user page for a month or so and see what happens? Aha! Perhaps something about scrubbing Putin squeaky clean and reverting anything that is less than complementary as WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, WP:COATRACK, WP:RECENTISM, etc., while girlie calendars issued in his honor constitute encyclopedia-worthy expressions of fawning popular sentiment in his favor. Yes, I expect that such an act on my part will surely have an immediate positive effect on WP:COLLEGIALITY. There is plenty Russavia can work on while staying away from Eastern Europe broadly interpreted as he always appears to be loaded for bear—nor do I begrudge him that opportunity. I only request Russavia exhibit good sense and good manners—failing that, a permanent topic ban is a last resort. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That Russavia was/is working on an article is immaterial. If anything, it's an even worse abuse to use the guise of creating encyclopedic content to insult fellow editors of a nationality with whom one has a proven record of vituperative conflagration. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I feel this request is meritless. More, I am concerned that Russavia put that image on his userpage specifically to get a reaction from one of Wikipedia's Polish editors. I asked Russavia to remove the image - he "xxballs" drawings are political satire and some are mildly humorous, but in my opinion, what is/was on his talkpage is intended as an attack on Polish editors of the English Wikipedia, and cannot really be interpreted any other way. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

An individual with Russavia's history of explosive nationally-related disputes should really know better than to put such things in prominent places. While I personally find the comics to be generally chuckle-inducing, I also understand that not everyone feels that way about them. Some people find them quite offensive. I find Russavia's actions here to be at best tastelessly tactless, and at worst belligerent baiting. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Vecrumba sent me an email. I gave poor advice when I suggested very generally that he make his views known somewhere on the wiki. If I'd checked the language of WP:IBAN I would have realized that his only option was to ask an 'administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by the other party...' The cartoon itself doesn't seem to me to violate an interaction ban. I am not inclined to block Vecrumba for posting on Russavia's talk although that was unwise (in retrospect). Russavia is being an optimist if he thinks the Polandball cartoons are not going to be perceived by Polish editors as an attack on them. If we want a policy-compliant way of assessing community reaction to the cartoon, an WP:MFD is one option. In my opinion, the IBAN doesn't prevent Vecrumba from replying in this AE, since the complaint is about him, and a response from him would fall under 'limited and necessary dispute resolution.' EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Request is meritless. Plus, Russavia's baiting of Poles seems to have been intended to draw them in. To then complain that they were offended and contacted him is absurd.Malick78 (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

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

• Yeah, I'm not seeing anything actionable; I don't want to repeat everything EdJohnston says above, because that's pretty much my position on this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• This would have been a clear-cut interaction ban violation, but for EdJohnston's advice to him. I agree that under the particular circumstances, there's no need for action against Vecrumba (though I probably won't call it "meritless"). T. Canens (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

VolunteerMarek 08:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

ARBRB Russavia restricted

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

1. WP:IBAN explicitly states that a user under an interaction ban is not allowed to undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means).. This is exactly what this is. Note that my edit did not address the user in any way and focused solely on content.
2. WP:IBAN explicitly states that a user under an interaction ban is not allowed to reply to editor Y in discussions or make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly. The edit in question violates both of these provisions. Note that my edit made no reference to Russavia but only discussed the sources of the article.

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

Russavia is a veteran of AE. He has engaged in battleground and nationalist editing for a long time. WP:AE is strewn with Russavia-related requests. After being interaction banned he has violated the interaction ban numerous times:

1. Blocked on by Timotheus_Canens (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)
3. Blocked on by AGK (talk · contribs)

and too many others to list.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Moved to dedicated section by AGK on 20:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Moved from above by AGK on 20:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out numerous times before Russavia's behavior in this regard follows a familiar pattern. He makes edits which are either extremely provocative (in this case posting the racist cartoon to his userpage, before it was reverting users he is under an interaction ban with) or which are outright violations of his interaction ban.

At that point, the users who he has an interaction ban with are in a quandary. They can either ignore him - lest they violate the interaction ban themselves - which only seems to encourage him, or they can respond to him and risk the fact that the admins are not discerning enough to tell who is responsible. This is just another variation on a familiar theme.

Given the frequency, and, more importantly, the predictability, with which Russavia violates his interaction ban and keeps kicking over the ants nests, he should be indefinitely banned until he provides adequate promises that he will refrain from continuing in this pattern of behavior. Basically, he should be expected to observe his interaction ban, nothing less or nothing more. In that sense an INDEF BAN would be preventative (rather than punitive).

At the very least, given the perennial trouble he is causing here Russavia needs to be simply topic banned with anything to do with Eastern or Central Europe. He appears simply not to be able to help himself and just has to always cause unneeded trouble. Note that for the most part this topic ban would not stop Russavia from continuing contributing in areas where he is actually productive (aviation, diplomatic relations) - although, honestly, at this point, who cares about that. If you show yourself unable to be ale to follow a simple interaction ban so many times, then you don't deserve the kind of consideration that is warranted by a topic ban vs. an outright indef ban.

Just please, stop this insanity already, it's been going on for way too long.

Comment on Cailil's comment

I don't really want to play the "involved" part but I do think it pertinent to note that I've had previous interactions and disagreements with User:Cailil, neither one of which was pleasant. Basically I was critical of his use of his administrative tools on two occasions, in both case NOT in regard to myself, but in regard to what I perceived as mistreatment of others. The first one was here , concerning Irish-English topics which I never edit. The second one involved User:Lvivske, a user who I frequently disagree with - but who I thought was being treated unfairly by Calil in this particular situation. In fact there I even filed an WP:AE report on Calil (and note that in that report he brought up our previous interactions, which does suggest he has... "a long memory"). Perhaps people who were subject of a AE report filed by a party, shouldn't be commenting in an "uninvolved" fashion on that party.VolunteerMarek 16:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I am still going to make a statment, but I am currently dealing with a more important issue at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unacceptable_homophobic_attacks_by_Youreallycan.2Foff2riorob. If you guys want to institute a 6-month block, go ahead, and I will appeal it later, but at this point in time, a direct homophobic attack against myself is more important to me, than dealing with trolling and baiting (which I have evidence of). I am also quite disappointed that Vecrumba chose to obviously troll with this edit summary - I am glad he is glad that a 6 month block has been proposed, and that this is classed as a successful day at the office, but Vecrumba, that's not a good move on your part, and it certainly takes away from "Russavia the evil troll" that he (and others) is pushing. I hope that admins will be more the wiser after I post an actual statement, if it is still required. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 07:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Please note that User:Nug is under an interaction ban with me. This is a dispute which involves me. Doesn't not involve. His arrival at this dispute, again, and I reinforce, does not involve him, is troublesome, especially as it displays the same behaviour from the EEML days in which they back up each other in disputes, but attempt to have me sanctioned -- even if he has not stated an opinion on me, his turning up here is obviously to get his buddies off the hook, leaving me the only one with sanctions being placed. I can only guess who is going to turn up next. As some admins have suggested a VERY long harsh ban for me, his appearance is totally inappropriate and a breach of this ban. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 09:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Please also note, I am busy collecting diffs and links which I am going to be asking admins to look at, because this is turning to the exact sort of behaviour from EEML days. I will also address the DYK revision as well. But I am still for the most part concentrating on the other matter, but I will post an explanation of article and userpage for uninvolved admins to look at. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 09:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

For the satirical (and original version) of this statement, refer to User:Russavia/PolandballAE. Given the number of accusations being levelled against me, I unfortunately am required to respond in detail. I am hoping that admins, who have not already made their minds up (perhaps outside AE people are required too) will give this a look at, because these issues do not belong at AE.

So that everyone is reading off the same page, I am not Russian, but Australian and I’ve long been a fan of Polandball meme. Please read the article in its entirety, so that you understand the concept and how the meme works -- failing to understand the concept will not allow you to be better informed. Also refer to my satirical response on my talk page which shows that the meme is not only limited to “Polandball”.

I came across some news articles on the meme on the web, and thought an article is viable because of the nature of the sources (newspapers and cultural magazines). With Google translate, I managed to write most of the article. I did “recruit” help from some native Polish speakers in translating parts that I wasn’t able to understand. These same Polish speakers also found additional sources for me. I would never have even started writing the article if I didn’t believe it was notable -- as we can see many uninvolved editors also agree with this assessment. Uninvolved editors will be explained later.

The reason for my writing the article when I did, is that April’s Fools is coming-up and it is the perfect opportunity for it to appear on the front page. Nothing more-nothing less. That is how I operate as an editor, always have and always will. Anything else relating to the actual article is a content-dispute and it is not actionable at AE unless there are circumstances such as falsifying information or sources (refer Pantherskin)...none of which have been demonstrated. I will present evidence of false (and serious) accusations being made against myself by numerous editors, separately. Other than that, the article is not relevant to this request, as much as people want to make it an issue.

For the last week when I've looked at my watchlist, there is a notice prominently at the top which states "The community discussion on image use within the Muhammad article as requested by the Arbitration Committee is now open for discussion." This goes to the core of both the article, and the images on my userpage, that being Wikipedia is not censored. I did replace my userpage with a Polandball cartoon. Have any of you seen The Simpsons episode where Gabbo was introduced? GABBO! GABBO! GABBO! This was done in much the same way, except I did probably err by not simply using File:Polandball.PNG as the image. Perhaps that would have been more effective in introducing this to Wikipedia.

User:Moreschi (who I believe is British, and hence why Britainball is used in the cartoons), wrote an essay on what he calls the nationalist plague on Wikipedia. He also made a list of areas of Wikipedia that suffer from edit warring and disruptive editing along nationalist lines. These essays and lists have in the past and are still used presently by editors to deal with nationalist editing on Wikipedia; usually resulting in AE or Arbcom banishment (hence why Britainball is used to demonstrate this).

The cartoons -- of which there are now two -- File:Poland can into Wikipedia.jpg (Polandball) and File:Russia can into space.jpg (Russiaball), with more to come (perhaps Germanyball will be next) take a look at nationalistic editing on Wikipedia, according to the "Plague" essay, yet in a satirical way in the style of Polandball. One needs to refer to the article to see that "Polandball" (this includes all "countries" by default) plays on national/ethnic megalomania, national complexes and stereotypes, so our cartoons do the same thing.

Don't for a minute think that EEML editors speak for their entire country. The Polish editors who helped me with translations and finding articles, find not only the Polandball meme, but also the cartoons currently on my userpage, as hilarious. When I asked one editor if he knew of Polandball, his response..."I love Polandball". I can also show evidence of one Polish editor who finds the cartoon hilarious. This demonstrates that humour is subjective.

Elen of the Roads (who unfortunately has now resorted to calling me a troll) said that she found them funny, but say "the cartoons are saying that Polish editors on the English Wikipedia are vandals". Unfortunately she hasn't commented on the "Russiaball" cartoon -- most people seem to be focussed on only one, but whilst ignoring the other (and future others). I disagree with this assessment. The Blade below says he finds them funny (the Russian one too Blade?). The cartoons no more says that any national or ethnic groups are vandals, than User:Moreschi/The Plague/Nationalist hotspots says that all editors in those areas are edit warriors and disruptive. I look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nagorno-Karabakh_article and one could think that this userpage essay isn't an opinion, but statement saying that all editors in the areas listed are disruptive. The essay doesn't assume good faith, does it? Or does it? Or do people read too much into things? These cartoons are simply satire at work.

Category:Wikipedia humor has over 1,000 pages that contain humour, including “disruptive” AfD nominations, and other things that were they to occur in mainspace, would see people banned. It is the humour that keeps these things on Wikipedia, and this is the same thing. So, some people are upset by it, I’m Aussie, it’s in the Aussie blood to laugh at ourselves and others, and I am not going to change who I am, because a couple of people who have historically been hostile towards me are having their nationalist sensitivities being satired on in user or project space. People simply need to stop taking themselves so seriously all the time (Internet not always serious business) and learn to laugh. Or are we that anally retentive and prudish as a community that we can't laugh at ourselves?

Unfortunately, no-one really bothered to engage with me in honest and open discussion, but rather people had already made up their minds about it and decided I was automatically "guilty". I was not extended good faith by many people. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 12:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I did revert Radeksz/Volunteer Marek's edit to the AfD, only to avoid the drama. Go figure!

VM is under an interaction ban with me, and to go after a DYK that I was working on, is an interaction ban breach.

During the actual EEML case, VM (previously know as Radeksz) introduced evidence where on how I noted problems with a DYK written by Piotrus (although I was also doing other DYK stuff at the same time). He wrote:

And note that in this particular case Russavia is jumping feet first into as much controversy as he can:

The article Colonies of Poland concerns Courland (now Latvia), Belarus and Ukraine - all successor states of the Soviet Union, never mind Eastern European topics as stated by ArbCom.

The article was created by Piotrus, so Russavia is going straight for somebody who's involved in this case as well.

Then Russavia proceeds to comment on the DYK nomination made by Piotrus, again in a very provocative fashion .

Seriously - this guy can't avoid violating his blocks and bans or staying out of trouble for more than a few days even as this case is ongoing!

If VM thought that I was going after Piotrus back in 2009, why would he not think that by doing what he did at the DYK that I created does not fulfill the same type of behaviour that he accused me of then? Or was it just battleground behaviour back then? Or is it battleground behaviour now? It's one of the other -- or is it both? I say both.

I likely should not have reverted his comment at my DYK nomination, but as he says I have predictability (notice how he bolds it) -- he knows that I would likely revert him, so he purposely came after something I was working on in order to provoke me, and to cause me to revert him. He did this at the time of my last block too (after which AE refused to look at this type of behaviour from). This is both trolling me, and baiting me, in order to get a response.

In future, I will not revert these editors, and hope to avoid the drama. I will bring it to the attention of an uninvolved admin for their action.

Also, please look at this edit on the article from Marek. This is clearly disruptive editing on the part of Marek.

Further information on the other issues mentioned will be forthcoming. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 12:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I am currently compiling evidence of co-ordination, trolling, baiting and harassment of myself both onwiki and offwiki which it is pertinent that admins be aware of; for any blocks that are handed out need to take into account these issues. Of course, I am willing to leave it at that for the time being so long as:

1. there is not a one-sided block of myself
2. and so long as any block I receive is not draconian as some have suggested.

The interaction ban breaches on the DYK were as bad as one another so an equal block of all editors who have breached the interaction ban would be warranted in this case.

I am happy to leave the other issues lay at the moment (at least as it relates to most EEML editors) and I can address those at a more pertinent time. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 12:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Lothar I don't expect you to AGF in anything I do; so much so, you might want to look at who actually created the cartoons. Twasn't me.
• Vecrumba I am not taking the bait, because this is not a "Soviet legacy" dispute. Trying to frame it as one might be seen as an escalation, and I am not doing that.
• Henrik, et al. Xeno was not acting in his official capacity as an Arbitration Committee member---but merely as an individual editor. He didn't engage in discussion with me before removing. He is welcome to discuss with me on a personal level, as an editor just like me. All editors opinions on this project hold equal weight -- for example, I can show you instances where people have reverted JW. A combative setting such as AE is not the place to be discussing such things.

Many people are familiar with Wikipediareview.com but Wikipediaforum.com was created after TheKohser was banned from Wikipediareview, as a venue for the diehards to hang out and engage in off-wiki personal attacks on WP editors, implied canvassing (posting of links to on-wiki discussions to which they flock to to support each other), and likely outing of editors. Volunteer Marek is a member of both. Other members include banned EricBarbour, Mbz1, amongst others.

Here (archived) is a thread which discusses me in which Volunteer Marek is quite active.

• User:Jayen466 - is a "global moderator" of Wikipediaforum.com - of which Marek is a member, and now has a grudge on myself, because in my capacity as an admin on Commons, I have closed controversial decisions inline with Commons policy. Also has a problem with my calling of a controversial RFC/U of User:Fae of being homophobic (which 30 editors agreed with). Also arrived at the AfD as a result of Marek's obvious canvassing . Blamed me for an unwarranted homophobic attack on myself -- and seemed to imply that "Queer agenda" is used in a positive way (it's not!!!!). Is hardly an outside and neutral observer in this case, but has a vested interest in having me banned, and is obviously here to support his fellow member - deserves a WP:DIGWUREN warning, so that in future an interaction ban can be sought if he continues.
  • I have stricken a part statement, although constant hounding of Fae by you, is still troubling. The rest stands. And the diffs are irrelevant to this AE request which is dealing with interaction bans breaches. Take your dramuh elsewhere. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 21:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry, just one thing Jayen, did you know I chewed AGK's arse out too? Add that one to your list as well. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 21:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry to see that Russavia, who I have worked with before, and has made a lot of contributions, seems to be losing his perspective. Russavia's magnification of this dispute into the battle of the century is what I find alarming. Criticizing members of Arbcom has a feeling of a last resort about it. Russavia was previously blocked one week for violation of an interaction ban with Vecrumba per this AE request in November 2011. He seems to believe that this justifies draconian enforcement against Vecrumba now, who in this case is just proclaiming that he was offended by the cartoon. The block of Russavia for violating the EEML interaction ban last November involved article changes where Russavia undid four content edits by EEML members on a variety of articles. Vecrumba's attitude in the current dispute is less than perfect but I am not clear on why he would be sanctioned as severely as Russavia. If all parties would back down gracefully I myself would close with no action, but since I gave some advice to Vecrumba that has been mentioned in this case, I won't close this myself. I agree with the views that User:Henrik has expressed in the Result section (at 17:10 on 26 March). EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• As the sole author of the comic, which surprisingly for me became a part of so much controversy, I'm more involved to this issue than some users here, so I'd like to make a statement in a separate section.

• In this discussion I've already answered Vecrumba about his claim that this cartoon "can insult.. all Eastern Europeans by extension". I've intended to write a special statement for AE from scratch, but for the lack of time I'll cite some of my explanations given to Vecrumba:

How does "Baltic heritage" is relevant here at all? As for the Eastern European heritage - that's obviously too broad a thing (that may include Russia and South Slavs) and it is extremely strange to claim that anything here "can insult.. all Eastern Europeans by extension". As for the Polish heritage, please note that Poles reacted to this cartoon in much more calm way and some even did like it - apparently they are simply better aware of the Polandball meme and find it not wise to angrily react at the humor involving national stereotypes.

The cartoon was created by me alone and I did not consult with Russavia while making it. And while making it, I had no single thought about actual Polish editors on Wikipedia. I simply had a task to create a cartoon illustrating the meme, but also to make something new and not entirely repeating the scenarios of the existing Polandball cartoons. Wikipedia humor was an obvious idea - and then Polandball just assumed its typical role, a character and a persona which one would be very wrong (and lacking a sense of humor and irony) to consider the same thing as the Polish nation or particular Polish editors.

Finally, really strange to hear these complaints from you, who apparently liked Putin on the Ritz. Even more strange was to read your suggestion that if you started mocking Putin on your userpage, the Russians would rush to complain about it. Not really - firstly, I must admit a part of Russians really do not like Putin, and second ly, as far as I know, Russians, with many of their faults, at least tend to have a well developed sense of irony. The same goes for the Russophile editors (though this term is not entirely correct on my part) - note that Russavia not only created Putin on the Ritz, but voted keep for this much more mocking satire on Putin. At the same time I supported keeping Putin on the Ritz and have no particular objections against Putin in bra too. Valid satire is valid, and no point censoring it - this is not the same as adding incorrect or undue information to the articles.

• It seems for me that the problem is about the fact, that some people accept satire about some subjects but yet oppose satire about other, not very different subjects. I agree, of course, that humor and satire must be treated carefully and used in appropriate contexts. But for me it is also obvious that different people have different sense of humor and different view of the world. There are multiple articles and userpages on Wikipedia with which contents I disagree with or even could have got offended with, if not for the habit of not getting offended at every next thing which I'm not comfortable with. I could not understand, or rather, I could not approve that some editors plunge into attacking other users with different views and with different understanding of what is allowed and what is not, without attempts at constructive discussion first. Especially I could not approve that when the issue in question is just humor. Of all the admins involved here, only Elen of the Roads attempted such discussion with Russavia on his talk, and that discussion did not result in conclusive demonstration of why the usage of the meme was not appropriate.

• The situation was complicated by the fact that Vecrumba, while under i-ban with Russavia, entered his talk page, seeking to get offended by something he had no relation to. Then the situation was further complicated by i-bans between Russavia and Marek.

• Then there is a massive on-wiki harassment of Russavia by the users having grudges against him because of his recent opposition to homophobic attacks on user Fae and because of other reasons, with some of such users apparently being also users of Wikipediaforum and coming from a thread there (not to mention the offensive stuff directed at Russavia on that forum itself). That, with the fact that most people baiting Russavia here and at the other recent related discussions are his old or recent opponents, is most worrying.

• I won't claim that Russavia (or myself in that part of the story where I was involved) acted always correctly. Of course anyone could be criticized and anyone's actions and views could be challenged. But the fact that many other users have found the image and the Polandball article OK (or at least not objected to them while been aware of them) shows that there was nothing blatantly and objectively wrong about these creations (the meme subjects are not prohibited, nor is satire - and the opposition to both things is a great deal subjective). If these creations are disputable, these disputes could have been resolved and should have been resolved in correct way (there are AfD procedures), without breaching the i-bans and a massive harassment including off-wiki. GreyHood ^Talk 13:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• @Salvio giuliano, I've noticed that recently you have unblocked Youreallycan who was reported by Russavia for perceived homophobic attacks and direct incivility. And you did it in rather controversial way judging by the linked discussion. While anyone's opinion on the matter is appreciated, are you really an uninvolved admin here? GreyHood ^Talk 18:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• @Salvio giuliano, I specifically used such phrasing as "perceived homophobic attacks" since it is not for me to determine whether it was homophobic or not. Unfortunately your response only strengthened my doubts whether your taking part in judging this request is truly neutral and uninvolved. Because it's not been determined that Russavia made any attack at all either; and I can also say that to repeat such an allegation over and over again will make it true. Basically we have a very similar situations with both users: both say that they have not intended homophobic/nationalistic attack, yet both acknowledge that they acted wrong when it comes to the rest of the accusations (see Russavia's words in his statement above - "I likely should not have reverted his comment at my DYK nomination" - and Russavia's direct acknowledgement he made to Henrik - "I acknowledge I was wrong to have reverted Marek"), both users promise to avoid such behaviour in future - you've seen Youreallycan's promise and should have seen Russavia's promise above to report any future i-ban breaches to an uninvolved admin instead of trying to deal with such breaches on his own (see also Russavia's request to Edjohnston).

So what we have on the plate: despite these similarities in one case you quickly support the user in his claim he did not intended attack, and in the other case you say that the action was "contentiuous" and "trolling". In one case you unblock the user after he acknowledged part of the guilt and promised not to repeat it, and in the case of the other user you ignore the acknowledgements and promises and propose a "longish block". Please, explain me how it is not double standards? This is further complicated by the fact that 1) Russavia reported Youreallycan and 2) you supported Youreallycan and unblocked him, doing that in the face of the opposition to such move and without having support from the blocking admin and even with winking and joking to the unblocked person and 3) you came here and propose stronger sanctions on Russavia. Could you explain to me how it is not taking sides?

Sorry, Salvio giuliano, but I kindly ask you either not to take part in judging this case here, or at least to apply similar standards in similar cases. That means not to apparently suggest that Russavia's revert of VM aggravates his guilt but to take into account Russavia's acknowledgement that he was wrong about that and his promise to avoid such behaviour in future. GreyHood ^Talk 23:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

@Lothar von Richthofen. My point is not about whether SG's unblock was correct or not per se. In fact for me the less users are blocked the better. What I care about is not applying double standards and admins being neutral. GreyHood ^Talk 00:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

@Lothar von Richthofen (and @Salvio giuliano since you prefer Lothar to answer for you). You have ignored my point on double standards and on taking sides and all the named similarities, focusing on just one aspect of the situation. Moreover, apparently you have misrepresented certain facts in describing the situation.

• You write: "YRC's attack was a single comment made in a heated discussion where Russavia was behaving in his usual provocateurish manner, which was redacted after he was warned". Here is the part of discussion from the first to the last comment made by user Youreallycan on that page.
  • No any Russavia's comment in that part of the dialogue was later removed or redacted (I hope I've checked it allright, the discussion is rather complex) and Russavia made no any incivil or attacking statement in his dialogue with Youreallycan.
  • The mention of the village in Austria (which Russavia in the past had DYKed) was in no way "provocateurish manner", but a quite relevant example of another humorous DYK nomination.
  • YRC has made not "a single comment" but several comments there containing personal attacks ("indefinitely block User:Russavia", "You are a constant NPOV violator - you and anyone who is enabling or supporting you such as User:Greyhood should be thrown out of the project immediately - and good riddance to you, you and your contributions are no better than a disruptive troll." and his last highly incivil statement "Was it your queer agenda?.. " ). As you see he was attacking me as well and calling all Russavia's contributions (and perhaps mine too) disruption and trolling. Was such a strong reaction to a meme article - with memes being OK as a Wikipaedia subject - really provoked?
  • YRC was warned by me against making personal attacks but ignored it. Which again makes the situation similar with Russavia's, who however (unlike my direct link to WP:NPA) has not been directly warned by admins (some pretty light and joking discussion with Elen of the Roads hardly counts for a direct warning, and the action of Xeno acting in his own capacity, changing other user's page and ignoring the aformentioned discussion with phrasing "This is simply not collegial, please don't display this here" is of course polite and nice but not exactly direct warning and direct link to the policy).
  • YRC's final incivil comment's wording suggested that he made a difference between "queer agenda" and " agenda". Putting these too terms in a row really raises some questions about the nature of YRC's attack.
  • Another similarity - both YRC and Russavia apparently have a history of blocks and involvement in their respective kind of disputes. Yet in one case Salvio giuliano supports YRC ("I don't buy for a second that those messages contain homophobic attacks") ignoring the background and in face of opposition and no clear consensus at ANI and in other case readily supports the accusation that in Russavia's case the background is relevant and that there was a nationalistic or personal attack.
• Well, in fact it is quite enough to undermine the uninvolvedness of Salvio here that he unblocked (in a controversial way) a user who had attacked Russavia and had been reported by Russavia and then came here proposing tougher sanctions on Russavia. But on top of that there are all these double standards and favouring the acknowledgement of guilt in one case and turning blind eye to the acknowledgement of guilt in the other case. And on top of the top of that we see rather cordial relations between Salvio and Youreallycan: Youreallycan: Thank you very much nb--- I won.t let you down - Salvio: I'll hold you to that, Rob. I'm taking a risk here, I hope this doesn't come back to bite me in the bum.. This has already been frowned upon at ANI along with the fact that the unblock was not discussed with the blocking admin. OK suppose the unblock still was "within reasonable administrative capacity" (though even you Lothar do not agree with the action) - but by coming here to judge the user whose request resulted in Youreallycan's block and by demonstrating some double standards Salvio giuliano has taken too many risks it seems, and has gone beyond a "reasonable administrative capacity". All that said, I again kindly ask Salvio giuliano to avoid participation in this case. Or alternatively, I ask other admins to confirm that Salvio giuliano is uninvolved and ask Salvio giuliano to answer my points personally, without leaving that to Lothar von Richthofen.

@Salvio giuliano Youreallycan's actions are relevant here only because your involvement is relevant here, and the question is relevant whether this involvement is uninvolved. I have no problem with your actions in the case with Youreallycan per se. I want both Youreallycan and Russavia not to be blocked and to continue productive contributions. But the combination of your actions and words in the two cases of both Youreallycan and Russavia made me to raise all these questions, and your refusal to proper answer them is pretty telling. Of course I disagree with your involvement here with all the named circumstances, but note that I have no problem, for example, with the involvement of Henrik, who also proposed pretty tough sanctions here. GreyHood ^Talk 22:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• One particular reason why I'm so insisting on uninvolvedness is a huge amount of involvedness of Russavia's old and not so old opponents in the relevant recent discussions. See again the part of discussion involving Youreallycan on the AfD. Basically almost all of the opposition and deletion votes there are from Russavia's former opponents in the other discussions and often major disputes, with quite a number of them changing their usernames. Surprisingly to me, even Biophys/Hodja Nasreddin turned up there under a new (in fact as old as 2009) account My very best wishes with apparently undeclared continuity (and involving into the old type of disputes despite this strange attempt of a clean start). Personally I have no problems with clean starts, but this being a part of a large wave of Russavia opponents coming into many discussions recently, and apparently some coming from the threads at Wikipediaforum, is all most worrying.

• So I kindly ask anyone making judgements here to make sure that the decision is taken fair without been the result of endorsement by involved admins and without been influenced by the users from the site where Russavia is being harassed.

• I've striken part of my comment on My very best wishes, he has clarified that it was declared - nevertheless it all has been quite confusing with him participating under an unknown name in the same disputes. GreyHood ^Talk 21:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• @ Lothar von Richthofen as for your point that Russavia has not acknowledged the main part of the accusation - well, that was exactly what Youreallycan did if I am not mistaken. While Russavia recognized he was wrong reverting Marek, and Youreallycan recognized he was incivil, and both promised not to repeat the behaviour.

• Also please note the that Russavia reverted Xeno in a very special context:
  • It was after a a discussion with Elen of the Roads, which discussion (while questioning Russavia's idea of a user page) didn't exactly show that he was "stupid" and "should have known better". It was all rather light and joking, with some other users coming there and apparently finding no problem.
  • Xeno not only acted in his own capacity (which perhaps is not that important really), but reverted the other user's page without either a pre-discussion on talk or a direct 100% clear warning in the edit summary. Personally I very much appreciate Xeno for being polite but perhaps it would be better if the action was less confusing.
  • Russavia changed his userpage few hours after the revert of Xeno.
  • Russavia did his best to show that it was all humor and that he never meant to attack anyone. GreyHood ^Talk 21:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

@AGK I fully support Lothar's restoration of all comments here. The reasonable solution to avoid a lengthy discussion here was to follow T. Canens suggestion and discuss i-bans issues here while other issues in a separate thread if needed. But in case the solution would be not about i-bans only, all this material is strongly relevant here, and perhaps I'd even suggest to de-collapse some of the comments. GreyHood ^Talk 21:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:TEA is certainly called for here, and maybe some collective light bulb turning as well. — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 21:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think you have half a clue as to what is going on here. Your suggestion is good-faithed, but displays nothing short of ignorance of the history and nature of the dispute. Thank you for commenting, but it's unnecessary and really kind of obnoxious. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

What on earth is going on here? A lynch mob?

This case is – or it should be – about breaking an interaction ban, nothing else. The way I see it several WP:EEML participants have broken the interaction ban imposed on them and unduly interacted with Russavia. Yes, Russavia had an agenda, he created a new article and intended to have it appear in the DYK section of the front page on April fools day on April 1. Any action that interfered with this process I consider banned interaction, whether it happened on Wikipedia or on some other external forum. This includes contacting administrators by email, making comments on Russavia's talk page, canvassing on external forums for participation on the DYK discussion, commenting on the DYK nomination, commenting in the AfD discussion, or commenting in the deletion discussion on Commons on an image that was used in the article.

Given the time constraints Russavia could not have taken the normal course of action for cases of IBAN violation, like reporting here. The fact is that Russavia's changes of getting the DYK approved vanished the moment the banned parties started interfering in the discussions. Even if their comments would have eventually been removed, the drama they caused would have produced enough negative publicity to ruin any change of success.

Several people in their comments here have made serious accusations against Russavia claiming that the article he produced is racist hate speech targeted at Poland. This is not the forum for this discussion; this is the arbitration enforcement page. The request posted here is about violating IBAN. Russavia is not under any sanctions for hate speech, nor is he banned from articles about Poland.

We must also note, that by nominating the article for DYK Russavia has exposed it to extensive public scrutiny. The article is now also discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polandball. The issue there seems to be notability and reliable sources, not hate speech. If these hate speech accusations were true, then most likely the article would have been speedily deleted by now. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I find it unacceptable that you both close the Polandball deletion discussion and come here to make an attack against Russavia. It is OK for you to have your opinion about Russavia and it is OK for you to express it here. However, if that is your opinion about Russavia, you should have stayed away from the AfD and let someone else handle it – you cannot be be a neutral and impartial administrator in this case. Furthermore, you are using your decision to delete as an argument against Russavia. What you are saying about the article does not reflect what was found in the discussion, at least not if you filter out the canvassing and banned interaction – as you correctly did in your closing argument there. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Not a lynch mob by a mile - I would note mass posting to arbs in some sort of effort to make Fae the issue here :harassment of editors" when the apparent problem here is use of noticeboards to complain about everyone else. :(. When trying to keep a low profile, posting to every arb in an accusatory tone is unlikely to help a lot. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

@WGFinley: Your statement that VM's last 3 blocks have been for interaction ban violations is not correct. Here is a breakdown of the relevant block record, earliest of the 3 to most recent:

• Block 1: "00:55, 1 May 2010 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) blocked Volunteer Marek (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 12 hours (account creation disabled) (Arbitration enforcement: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&action=history)"
  • Tznkai likely screwed up a copy-paste and did not post the proper link in the block log. However, searching through VM's talk history, we find this notification, which indicates that the block was for a topic-ban violation, not an iBan®.
• Block 2: "12:47, 10 August 2010 Sandstein (Talk | contribs) blocked Volunteer Marek (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 72 hours (account creation disabled) (Arbitration enforcement: Violation of interaction ban and disruptive AE request, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WP:AE&oldid=378171397#Result_concerning_Russavia)"
  • This is indeed an iBan® block. Nothing more to see here
• Block 3: "16:11, 27 October 2011 SarekOfVulcan (Talk | contribs) blocked Volunteer Marek (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (account creation disabled) (AEBlock per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=457675566)"
  • This is another iBan® block, this time a mutual one with R. However, we find that VM was unblocked 4 days later after he recognised he was in the wrong.

So we have 2, or probably actually 1-1/2 interaction-ban-blocks for VM. I shall not comment further (I did promise not to.... :/) other than to note that your indefinite, exception-less topic ban proposal is draconian, to say the least, and might as well be an indef-block for the both of them. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

@WGFinley: I lied, I am going to put in another comment. Looking at the chronology, it seems more than likely that VM "stumbled" into the DYK and AfD in response to Russavia plastering the cartoon across his userpage (06:42, 24 March 2012‎) and then linking the cartoon on his userpage to the article (01:41, 26 March 2012‎) in what is generally agreed here to be a pretty clear baiting attempt. That is the central provocation that started this whole ruckus. Note also that R only removed the offending giant-sized cartoon (08:00, 26 March 2012) after VM commented at the AfD (05:56, 26 March 2012‎) and the DYK (06:07, 26 March 2012). VM should not have taken the bait, yes. But R shouldn't have even lowered it into the water. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, are you still standing by the incorrect "last three are interaction ban violations" statement? You have neither changed this wording nor responded to my correction. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting the first block, yes, it was for a TBAN but it was regarding interaction with.....wait for it.....Russavia . Also, how would VM know what was on Russavia's page unless he was watching it? Again, the terms of interaction bans are not to preclude them both from commenting on the same article but when they are both very aware they are criticizing the position of the other and it's very clear they're aware the other one is involved that's a violation. This is two years of nonsense, it takes two to tango and VM's last three blocks have all involved Russavia. --WGFinley (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

John (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

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

16 March 2012 Not only is MONGO seemingly participating in an edit-war here, something he has previously been warned about, but his edit summary ("revert...he said she said...I say this is wrong article to be agenda pushing...by well established CT POV pusher") is highly combative. MONGO tends to use the label CT ("conspiracy theorist") to discredit those with whom he disagrees. I am at a loss to see how this latest spat, which seems to concern warnings given prior to the attacks, is anything at all to do with conspiracy theories.

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

Warned on 16 February 2011 by Beeblebrox (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I request a topic ban of MONGO from the area of 9/11 articles, broadly construed, in the interests of article improvement. Realistically this will always be a hot button article for many editors, but there is no merit in allowing an editor with this long a history (he was desysoped as long ago as 2006 over similar issues to this) to continue to edit in this area. The recent edit I am highlighting is part of a long-standing and ongoing pattern, and I would argue we are doing nobody any favours by aloowing this to continue.

I also see possible problems here with recent edits by

• The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) (two reverts on a controversial article)
• Tom harrison (talk · contribs) (seemingly joining the edit war immediately after successfully appealing a topic ban in this area)
• A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs) (not only joining the edit war but using his disclosed alternative account AQFK (talk · contribs) in a way that arguably breaches our policy on alternate accounts as it might give the impression that two different users were reverting rather than the same one twice under different names)

Finally, in the interests of disclosure, I disagreed with MONGO and his cohort pretty seriously over this article here. Lest this be seen as some kind of tit-for-tat filing, let it be known that I have no dog in this fight and am completely indifferent as to the details of what this article does and doesn't contain. --John (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a long-term problem with MONGO and this article. The last really problematic edits prior to the one he has apologised for and promised not to repeat are his three reverts here, here and here. These were over a year ago, but like GG I fear that MONGO's continuing involvement will only hold the article (and it's quite an important article) back. Here and here are samples of the tactics MONGO uses to keep this article the way he seemingly wants it; there's an ongoing problem of user conduct on that article with intimidation and the personalisation of disputes resorted to on a regular basis. I appreciate though that these edits are from six months ago and may not be actionable. Certainly I'd like a decision based on the diffs supplied, and an appreciation that this situation merits further attention going forwards. I don't think it would be fair if The Devil's Advocate was sanctioned without recognising the role other editors have played in poisoning the editing environment there. --John (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here

I've been participating in discussions regarding how much this "advanced knowledge debate" needs to be discussed in the article September 11 attacks...since we already have a daughter article on this advance knowledge debate. I have made very few edits in article space for some time to 9/11 articles. Nevertheless, my edit summary in the link provided by John was uncalled for and it won't happen again.MONGO 17:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick response to The Devil's Advocate...IF I ruled the article, I'd take half the sections there out and just have a series of see also links at the end of the article...that way we could concentrate on just the attacks, in order to maintain focus. This isn't so much an issue (though my edit summary indicated otherwise) about CT as about trying to keep peripheral things that belong in daughter articles out of this one...I don't think Tom, AQFK, Toa, myself or any other editors are trying to cover anything up...we're simply trying to keep the article managable and focused. We have the daughter articles and links to them for a reason...so we can expand on such material THERE. Whenever writing about a subject...what is the title...and the focus should be the title. I have a similar issue going on at the Elk article for example...it's an FA that is losing it's focus since it is starting (I think) to go off in discussion about similar species and subspecies...but I think the article should be focused on the title wiht little or no mention of these other similar animals since we already have other articles about those species.--MONGO 22:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I will do all I can to abide by our policies governing civility and NPA...I was out of line in my edit summary but stand by the edit itself. For uninvolved admins, The last time I made an edit to ANY 9/11 related article page (I have made numerous edits to talkpages) was on November 25, 2011......that was over 3 months ago. I also have to take issue with John's closing commentary...

• "Finally, in the interests of disclosure, I disagreed with MONGO and his cohort pretty seriously over this article here. Lest this be seen as some kind of tit-for-tat filing, let it be known that I have no dog in this fight and am completely indifferent as to the details of what this article does and doesn't contain"

which is patently untrue....by "cohort"...who is my supposed "cohort"? Some sort of sanction against me regarding 9/11 articles has been a long standing goal of John...where in just one of many examples, John clearly states "The idea of reactivating the 2008 Arbcom case to have MONGO removed from play is also not a ridiculous one" and prior to that in the same diff states "One possibility some way down the line would be for us (by which I mean the non-partisan editors with an interest in improving the article) to put together a sandbox version then build a consensus to switch to a more neutral and GA-compliant version." which indicates to me that he is most assuredly not "indifferent as to the details of what the article does and doesn't contain". John is attempting to misuse the dispute resoution process to gain an advantage in a content dispute...and his example here is what...one edit in the last 3.5 months? Please do tell me John, do you have further evidence to warrant a topic ban...cause according to you I am a POV pusher, live in a walled garden, and am ignorant...gosh.--MONGO 23:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Show a 3RR violation or else I doubt this will be taken seriously. Requesting a full-blown indefinite topic ban without any diffs showing a 3RR violation simply doesn't work and, and I hope this is dismissed quickly because this simply doesn't have much merit.Toa Nidhiki05 17:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

One revert and an uncharitable edit summary doesn't rate a topic ban. Mongo and AQFK aren't the problem; it's TDA's persistent determination to rewrite articles, even when there is a clear consensus against it. Determination in the face of opposition is a great character trait, but it makes The Devil's Advocate a difficult guy to work with. He's been asked before in unrelated areas to drop the stick and step away from the horse. Trying to force in his rewrite at September 11 attacks he ran up to the limit of 3rr yesterday:

• 21:04, 14 March 2012

• 03:17, 15 March 2012

• 14:38, 15 March 2012

Yesterday I tried to work with TDA's edits at September 11 attacks, and came to regret it. He was determined to have his way, even after AQFK expressed concerns. If he'd get consensus first, or make a couple of changes and then let them set for a day or two until people can at least read them and follow up the references, they'd be a lot easier to integrate into the article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

A Quest for Knowledge/AQFK's accounts are entirely in line with policy, and they aren't going to confuse anyone. Mischaracterizing this as an edit war is unnecessarily inflammatroy. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

One down, Two to go! How long before our main page just reads "WTC WAS AN INSIDE JOB?" Hipocrite (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I really wasn't wanting to note anything further on this and fill up this case with more information, but the recent actions by some of these editors with regards to the warnings section of the 9/11 article have pretty much exhausted my patience. At first things seemed to be going pretty good in the 9/11 article. Tom made a bold edit, then I went in and made some more bold edits. Tom responded in turn and I reciprocated again. At this point, everything was going as it should with gradual improvements being made without the need for lengthy talk page discussion. Then AQFK stepped in with a revert, causing everything to go downhill. First, AQFK reverted the changes manually in a way that removed all information about the August briefing and replacing it with an older version of a paragraph that was already included in the section, thus repeating the same material in the section. The two reverts John notes above are me trying to re-add the August briefing information that was mistakenly removed. Not only that, AQFK gave an unclear objection that the changes "may" not be supported by a source. It took nearly four days for AQFK to actually provide a specific objection to just a single sentence I added, that I then explained was verified by noting quotes from the cited source.

Had that been the end of it maybe things could be laid to rest, but as has been the case before, the response of these editors is to go in the exact opposite direction of compromise. Basically all discussion about improvements at the talk page was being tabled as they talked about removing the warnings section altogether. In the midst of this three separate editors who have been regularly involved in these disputes with me suggest they don't trust me to make improvements, demanding they be allowed to review my changes before they can be added to the article. Another editor stepped in to support keeping the section and, seeing there was a stalemate developing, I decided to start an RfC on the matter of whether the section should be included. Following several demeaning comments towards me, almost all from the editors involved in the previous discussion, DHeyward steps in and tries to close the RfC claiming there was a consensus despite it only being up for five hours. Even though this was plainly inappropriate another editor steps in twice to stop me from re-opening the RfC.

That, however, is not where it ended as another editor steps in to re-open the RfC and express support for including the section. At that point, the response is DHeyward creating a content fork with the material from the warnings section and leaving an edit summary saying that he is starting a "less CT article", referring to the existing advance knowledge article. He then guts the warnings section on the 9/11 article to much less than what it was before I even began making changes and links to the fork. Around that same time AQFK jumps on to the advance knowledge article talk page to suggest deleting the article as not being notable. I leave a comment noting that it is not a fringe issue and even just one aspect of it gets lots of mainstream coverage. AQFK's response is to rename the article "advance-knowledge conspiracy theories" and, when I note that I was plainly saying it is a mainstream issue and not a conspiracy theory, he responds that they "already have an article" for that, referring to the just-created-two-days-ago, three-paragraph-long content fork. AQFK also used his other account to remove information from the lede summarizing material from the body claiming it was "unsourced" even though this is generally typical for the lede, which is intended as a summary of info in the article. Tom steps in as well and rewrites the lede of the article in a way that implies it is a conspiracy theory to suggest warnings of an attack or intelligence relating to the hijackers was specific enough to warrant action, something that is actually regularly asserted in mainstream discourse on the issue.

Certainly I am prominently involved in these disputes, but I think it is counterintuitive to suggest my mere involvement in the situation makes me the problem in need of addressing. Most of these editors have had these issues well before I became involved. Really I am not even the one starting the disputes. The warnings section was inserted by a completely different editor two months before and I merely improved upon the section. All my involvement really achieved is directing a lot of negative attention to the section with the mere act of editing it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

@WG The only "edit war" being mentioned is that warnings section nonsense, but, as I explained, AQFK inserted a paragraph that repeated information from another part of the section and removed all information of an issue that had been in the article before I made any changes to the section. I explained as clearly as I could when I reverted the mistake what the mistake had been. Tom even noticed the mistake after he reverted me. Nothing else even comes close to edit-warring. Nothing about it was tendentious either as not a single editor raised a legitimate and unaddressed objection to the changes I made. All material that I added was sourced as I demonstrated on the talk page. Just because they don't like me editing articles in the topic area at all without their permission, doesn't make the act of editing itself tendentious.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify here are some of the conduct issues in that "almost frivolous" report Ed is talking about: .--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Without prejudice concerning the details of this incident, MONGO makes substantial positive contributions to the encyclopedia, including 9/11 articles, despite the fact that the latter lead him into conflict. MONGO has admitted fault concerning his edit summary, saying "it won't happen again". Unfortunately, based on my experience, I am almost certain something similar will happen again, as the whole CT issue touches a nerve with MONGO, and TDA is a major conduit for that at the moment. Also TDA can be provocative in his approach, which is something TDA needs to address. Anyway, the whole point of AE is to discourage such friction in controversial articles like these, but it isn't always clear how best to achieve that. Perhaps short topic bans (for a week or less) would be a better way to diffuse problems and tensions over minor issues than longer term sanctions. Geometry guy 23:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I have never begun a comment with "@" and I don't intend to start now: user talk is available for direct discussion. Based on my experience, I would concur with TDA that AQFK can be part of the problem as well as part of the solution. There is a complicated dynamic between these three 9/11 editors (MONGO, TDA and AQFK) making it difficult to consider any one behavior in isolation. Geometry guy 01:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"Tenditious" is not a word. Geometry guy 01:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This Wikiquette discussion may help to give some background here. As you may know, the admin who initially gave Tom Harrison the topic ban gave up his admin tools and left the project after being criticized. The bad blood in this dispute is really causing problems inside and outside of this topic area, and judging by the diffs in the Wikiquette discussion, sanctioning only the Devil's Advocate wouldn't be very fair, or probably very effective. There are several editors who are going way overboard on personalizing this dispute. Cla68 (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps in response to my post above, MONGO just took a shot at me in an MfD discussion. This is indicative of the same type of personalization of disputes that has been illustrated in this complaint. Cla68 (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to know what article edit TDA believes I have made that is problematic. In fact, I don't think I've made an article edit in that area for quite a while. I've made comments on talk pages mostly because I believe your "goal" is counter productive to the project but even that has been extremely limited. You can review almost a year or more of my edits on a single page and you will see very little edits to anything related to 9/11. As Cla68 has mentioned, this has poisoned my interest. It faded after a long and lengthy battle to get a problematic sock master, Giovanni33 banned and it drained my interest. Fighting the drama TDA creates leaves me with little motivation to actually try to improve articles as there are constant battles over idiocy. It's like trying to deal with someone with OCD, Asperberger, paranoia and infinite time on their hands to constantly disrupt the project. --DHeyward (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC).

Also, in general, I don't see the edits MONGO made after the warning. It seems the cart has been put before the horse. I am not familiar with what is proper protocol but I would think in fairness, the warning would need to be before the behavior, not simply a notification that a sanction is being sought. I would think the decision would say "notification" and not "warning" if that were the case. Did I miss something? --DHeyward (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I support a topic ban for TDA after reading the diatribe he has written and his suggestion to forum shop a sanction. It's clear where the problem lies. Everyone can see the topic ban coming so why extend the drama? (Actually I think a community ban is coming but a topic ban will just make that more obvious when his attention is focused elsewhere). --DHeyward (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Ghostofnemo and The Devil's Advocate have been tendentiously editing 9/11 conspiracy theories article for months now. The latest example is over the addition of a subsection on Able Danger:

• Ghostofnemo

This subsection on Able Danger contains one of the most blatant misuse of sources I've ever seen. The first two cited sources, aren't even about 9/11 conspiracy theories. The third source is essentially a primary source (a transcript of testimony given by Curt Weldon) and only contains a passing reference to CTs. The fourth source isn't about Able Danger conspiracy theories at all. It's actually about a fictional thriller film (not a documentary) named Able Danger apparently inspired by 9/11 conspiracy theories. Here's what the source actually says:

As best I can tell, there's not a single word specifically about Able Danger conspiracy theories. In fact, none of this content in the source is even in the article content. I've only been on Wikipedia a couple years, but this is one of the most blatant misuse of sources I've ever seen.

Please take a look at this article talk page discussion. I count 5 editors against this edit (me, JoelWhy, Tom Harrison, The Hand That Feeds You and DHeyward). The only editors in favor of this edit are Ghostofnemo and The Devil's Advocate.

Instead of waiting to get consensus on the article talk page, they preceded to edit-war it back into the article:

• Ghostofnemo
• The Devil's Advocate
• Ghostofnemo
• The Devil's Advocate

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

@Cla68: Your edit summary says that there was a "recent personal attack" but the diff you posted] doesn't contain a personal attack as far as I can see. Which part is a personal attack? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Unarchived outstanding request. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

MONGO has a tendency to be brusque in his talk page comments and edit summaries, but I find myself agreeing with his editorial decisions more often than not. He has been a staunch supporter of WP:WEIGHT by attempting to keep articles around the Sept. 11 attacks focused on the scientifically accepted facts, rather than the minority fringe views. While 9/11 conspiracy theories is specifically about CTs, it does not do our readers justice to fill it with every idea that has crossed the Internet. Some of these are the fringe of the fringe, thus needing no mention here.

A few editors, notably Ghostofnemo and The Devil's Advocate, are pushing for a more broad interpretation of what should be included in the article. Despite his name, TDA seems focused on providing a pro-conspiracy POV in the article, the antithesis of what I (and others) feel the article should focus on. This has led to friction on the Talk page and minor edit wars. I've taken several wikibreaks specifically because I'm tired of repeating the same arguments with TDA and GoN when they bring another fringe theory into the article.

MONGO has done nothing deserving sanctions. And while I would not be displeased if TFA were no longer inflating the talk page with long, drawn out arguments over fringe theories, I'm not certain he's deserving of a topic ban just yet. However, a close watch by more editors would be helpful. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Amending my prior statement. Given TDA's continued tendentious behavior, including this POINTy RfC when others questioned his edits to September 11 attacks, I think a topic ban is appropriate. I'm tired of his gaming and complete disregard for consensus. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:SNOW... The problem is not MONGO. The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) started pushing back in October on 7 World Trade Center with edits on the 24th, 25th (twice), 29th, and discussions at Talk:7 World Trade Center - Archive 8 sections here, here, here, and here (diffs for all of TDA's WTC7 edits can be found here). He has since been making the same arguments at Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories here.

TDA's WP:NPOV policy arguments are a moving target; For example his questioning of this guy does not comport with WP:ARB911 principle 15.1.2 Neutral point of view...

2) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars.

This is not atypical. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I recommend taking no action beyond advising everyone involved to be civil, and that Wikipedia does not have ownership of articles. I expect that MONGO will be sincere in ensuring such edit summaries "won't happen again." I think The Devil's Advocate's RfC was in good faith, but it would have been better to allow more free-form discussion first. It would be simpler if A Quest for Knowledge exclusively used the shorter username (or at least one username per topic), but I don't know if we can require that. Superm401 - Talk 22:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Please note, I don't really consider myself involved, but per the latest thread on my talkpage I'm willing to move this for now to avoid any appearance of impropriety. I certainly think that MONGO has lost it a couple of times there, but we don't require nor expect perfection. It happens, and for now it hasn't reached a level that I feel is sanctionable. I also think that The Devil's Advocate has chucked a boomerangI was interrupted in the middle of writing this, and as sometimes happens I wrote something that didn't make any sense at all isn't helping the situation, and I too would be good with a topic ban of some sort. 90 days would be fine with me, although I have no problem with anything longer. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the growing consensus to topic ban TDA. He is pushing his tendentious edits and blatantly and explicitly disregarding consensus. His recent RfC, an obvious abuse of the RfC system, is proof of his pointy behavior. He is becoming increasingly impossible to work with and he needs to be removed from the topic, as his previous topic ban did not teach him anything, evidently. The fact that almost every editor that has posted here has complained about TDA's editing behavior is really proof enough that he needs to be topic banned. Toa Nidhiki05 16:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

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

• I haven't taken as comprehensive a look as I would like to, but I did look in at this issue some time ago and again when I closed a topic ban removal discussion with regards to Tom harrison. Certainly few people in the topic area are free of fault (in fact, basically no one is, and I am not excluding MONGO from that), but it appears to me that The Devil's Advocate is one of the key problems with regards to the deterioration of the editing environment recently. I would propose a topic ban for TDA and a closing of this request without prejudice to refiling if things don't improve shortly. Thoughts? NW (Talk) 23:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Any other thoughts? I really don't want to spend the time to review properly if another administrator thinks that my suggestion is entirely off-base (as this report is one that I don't think I should close by myself). NW (Talk) 22:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• Moving comment, at least for now; see above The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• I think this is a spurious request at best.
  • Bringing up MONGO being desysopped is pretty much way out of line and has nothing to do with this. AE is not a criminal court where you bring out someone's "rap sheet" to beat them with when you don't agree with them. The filer should be admonished for continuing battleground behavior on AE.
  • MONGO should be admonished for the name calling but I can't see taking any more action than that. He's acknowledged it and apologized.
  • TDA continues to have his issues in this space and his issues seem to have hijacked this request, I'm not ready to do another TBAN on him at this time, I would admonish him as well that continuled battleground behavior is going to result in another TBAN. --WGFinley (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Having previously issued a TBAN to TDA I was reluctant to jump on and endorse another TBAN for him, I thought he needed a chance to show he could edit harmoniously here. After I posted my opinion he has continued to complain about being the only admin here willing to say he didn't deserve a TBAN, apparently. His conduct there has led me to reassess my opinion, although not in the manner he intended. Per my comments to him on my talk page:

I now concur with NW and the other editors here who have complained about his behvior. I propose a 3 month 9/11 TBAN for TDA and plan to close out this case if there are no objections in 24 hours. --WGFinley (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• I support this result. When Wgfinley originally sanctioned him last November for only one month that seemed a bit light to me. Since TDA should be more familiar with our system by now I had hoped that he would be working more harmoniously on 9/11, but that has not occurred. His recent complaint about DHeyward at this noticeboard does nothing to improve his reputation, being thin on significant content and looking like an attempt to silence an opponent. My own analysis of his complaint led to a sense it was almost a frivolous posting. It is understandable that editors with views that are somewhat out of the Wikipedia mainstream may find themselves appealing for admin action against their opponents, when getting support among regular editors proves difficult. Long term, the question of when to mention conspiracy theories or fringe views in our 9/11 articles should remain open for respectful discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Personally, I would have gone for six months, if not longer. I seriously doubt that TDA's behavior is going to improve in three months. T. Canens (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Don't have a problem with 6. --WGFinley (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Agree with a six month ban of TDA from 9/11. EdJohnston (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)