And again, more proxies have been blocked. The user has used nothing but anonymizing proxies to edit here. It is clearly the sock of an account being used to evade scrutiny and/or existing sanctions. That should be enough for an indef and for everybody to call it a day. At least until the next account name this person creates. nableezy - 15:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
I didn't begin this little bruhaha. If you look at my edit history you will see that a coterie of editors began shouting "SOCKPUPPET!" and "reverting all edits on sight". I would love to be able to engage in Wikipedia editing under a better atmosphere, a more "collegiate" atmosphere, but I never got the chance (one of them actually BLOCKED MY IP!). So I simply played their game and began undoing all their edits - or "edit-warring", if you will (not that it had any effect, as the gang is much bigger, as you can see). I find it quite hilarious how quickly this group jumps on a new member to prevent any editing of articles they seem to feel a sense of ownership over. AmiAyalon1969 (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by others about the request concerning AmiAyalon1969
yes, you are allowed to ban him and block him and give him 20 lashes without warning, but please - we have all seen much worse things get by with little or no punishment at all. so, why not explain it to him, give him 24 hours and then see what happens? if he is still edit warring, then fine - go for it. full blast. Soosim (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on AmiAyalon1969's comment - The probability of sockpuppetry is approximately 1. The probability of a sockpuppet lying = 1. I'm not aware of a single case out of the very large number of sockpuppet cases in this topic area where the editor hasn't blatantly lied in response to questions. When discussing matters with a sockpuppet there is no reason to believe anything they say about anything at all, so there is no reason to even talk to them or negotiate with them other than to collect further information about their linguistic, editor harassment and article targeting "tells" so that they can be more readily identified in the future. It isn't a question of whether they are edit warring or correcting spelling errors or wanting a more "collegiate" atmosphere. Nothing they do or say has any validity because WP:SOCK is a policy. They can't be here and they can't do anything. Revert, block and ignore is the way to minimise disruption. As has been said many times, assume good faith is not a suicide pact. Sockpuppetry is a persistently destabilizing influence on the I-P topic area, it's probably the thing that causes the most disruption and yet the topic area is largely unprotected from its negative effects. An obvious sock is obvious but the parent "sockmaster" account often isn't known which precludes filing an SPI report. We have what look like obvious socks editing in the I-P topic area and apparently no mechanism to deal with them efficiently. They make thousands of edits. They cause conflict across multiple articles. They harass editors. Disposable sockpuppet accounts are commonplace in the I-P topic area. They're used for feint retreats as we have seen here. There is a brief engagement with "the enemy" to draw fire followed by an attack via noticeboards or whatever by like minded editors acting in support of the sockpuppet. When aggressive POV pushing editors make a couple of thousand neutral, encyclopedic edits in areas outside of the conflict zone to articles about the arts, technology, science etc they will have earned the right to a more "collegiate" atmosphere. Sean.hoyland - talk06:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Sean.hoyland's "comment" - That would all be very fine, except, I AM NOT A SOCKPUPPET. And I've noticed no one has been able to produce a single shred of evidence that I am. So, that aside, your "comment", or argument, or hissy fit, boils down to: "It's my game, and if they don't play like me, I don't want them playing!" And with regards to "a couple of thousand neutral, encyclopedic edits in areas outside of the conflict zone"... I notice that looking at the histories of the gang that reverted me and accused me of sockpuppetry, edit almost exclusively on pro-Palestine, politically activist articles. And all of them seem to have been banned numerous times for "edit warring". And then I make precisely SIX EDITS, before someone gets an admin, not to block me, but to block my assigned IP! No procedure, no nothing. How ironic is that, given the "May 2011 Statement" that has popped up encouraging Wikipedia editors to broaden their base, and "not bite" the newcomers. From what I can see, there appears to be about 4-5 editors (all Anti-Israel) who have complete control over Israel-Palestine Wikipedia articles. AmiAyalon1969 (talk) 10:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since the above comment, AmiAyalon1969 has found a new internet connection and has resumed his aggressive editing under his regular account. I propose a one-week block, which would give time for a negotiation on his talk page to assess his attitude. This would help decide whether an I-P topic ban is needed. The vibes do suggest this could be a sock. EdJohnston (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
21:12, 5 May 2011 This reverts an edit by Brewcrewer [5]. Nableezy also made the same revert earlier ([6]), then self-reverted, then reverted his self revert.
20:06, 6 May 2011 edit summary says "now evert", done at 24hours + 22 minutes
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
Enforcement of this restriction requires no warning, but the user's activity on the board makes it clear he is quite familiar with it - see the request right above this one as one example.
This user was until recently subject to a fairly lengthy topic ban (4 months), which came after numerous other shorter topic bans and blocks for edit warring in the topic area. During his 4 month topic ban, he contributed very little - around 120 edits to main space. Since the topic ban expired, he resumed right were he left off - hundred of edits, the vast majority of which are reverts, edit warring, using this board and others as a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and as the diffs above indicate -gaming the system. He just does not get it.
@Malik: Yes, consecutive reverts count as one, and this is one revert with a timestamp of 19:38, 5 May 2011 (the earlier revert having been "canceled out of existence" by the revert timestamped 20:46, 5 May 2011.) But even if we were to generously apply the timestamp of the last revert, this would make it yet another case of gaming, with the revert occurring at 24hours + 54 minutes. With regards to 1948 Palestinian exodus, it may very well be that some else might have reverted AmiAyalon1969 - but that is beside the point. The point is that Nablezzy violated 1RR by not waiting for that someone else to do so. There are rules here, and he is not exempt.
@Sean: The editor who Nableezy reverted has not been blocked, I guess that makes you a liar. There is no exemption in 1RR for reverting what you consider "CAMERA Crap". You edit war and break 1RR - you get blocked. The rules should apply to Nableezy like they apply to everyone else.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
I reverted an obvious sockpuppet a bit early, so I self-reverted after checking the timing in the history. I then waited until the 24 hours was up. Ill note that the obvious sockpuppet's open proxy has been blocked by checkuser. I also note that the filing editor fits the profile of Mr. Hicks The III (talk·contribs), but that is another matter. There was no "gaming" here. I reverted an obvious sockpuppet a bit early. My revert of brewcrewer's edit took place at 18:29, 5 May 2011 not 21:12, which was a self-revert. That places all reverts outside of 24 hours. The most troubling thing here is the seemingly endless supply of sockpuppets and the willingness of certain user (cough cough, look above) to use those sockpuppets to their advantage. nableezy - 20:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezy
Unbelievable. We have an article on ethics. If would be great if more people read it. The second diff, 19:25, 6 May 2011, is a revert of an unsourced edit by a blatantly obvious sockpuppet, and a liar I might add, who was just blocked. I was reverting his edits on sight and I was planning to revert every single one of them if somebody else who "gets" that sockpuppetry is forbidden, didn't beat me to it. The "Gaming of the restriction" is more nonsense. First one, CAMERA crap, the rest, dealing with the disruption caused by sockpuppetry. Seriously what is wrong with people ? Is it really so difficult to understand WP:SOCK, the difference between right and wrong, honesty and dishonesty, following the rules and not following the rules ? Please, just block Tzu Zha Men for filing this disruptive rubbish and facilitating sockpuppety. Send a clear message. Sockpuppety and the defense of sockpuppets has to stop. Sean.hoyland - talk21:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
No action taken. Reversion of likely sockpuppet edits, blocked or not, are exempted from xRR rules. The fact that a checkuser determined that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a check is conclusive on this point. T. Canens (talk) 06:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by The Four Deuces
This is an arbitrary decision by one administrator with no input from other administrators. I do not wish to criticize the administrator, but would ask the arbitration committee to review the discussion thread and determine whether they agree or whether they have any questions. TFD (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Fred Bauder Despite extensive searching, I have been able to find only the following mention of Looveer in published books or articles:
Ian Hancock, The Liberals: a history of the NSW division of the Liberal party of Australia, 1945-2000 (2007), pub. by "The Federation Press", supported by the "Sesquicenternary of Responsible Government in NSW Committee".[10]
Lachlan Clohesy, Australian Cold Warrior: The Anti-Communism of W. C. Wentworth (2010), doctoral thesis, Victoria University, Australia.[12] This thesis cites War criminals eleven times.
1. mentioned that Loover accompanied Lyenko Urbanchich when the Liberal Party heard a request to expel him. 2. mentions that when Ervin Viks disappeared he issued a statement through Looveer, and also that she was a prominent member of the Liberal Party's Migrant Advisory Council, which included Laszlo Megay. 3. says that Looveer was secretary of Advisory Council and mentions other prominent members Laszlo Megay and Constantin Untaru. It also mentions William Wentworth, Douglas Darby, Col. J. M. Prentice, Eileen Furley and Arleen Lower. (p. 172) There is no other information about her in any of these sources. It says that ASIO, the Australian security intelligence service, reported to the Liberal Prime Minister and cabinet unfavorably on the activities of the council a group to which Megay and Untaru belonged.
I would not expect a lot to be written about the secretary of these organizations. However the sources are consistent about them. I see nothing wrong with adding information from these sources, and in fact other editors agreed to include information from the first source last year. I would welcome additional published sources, however none have been found. None of this in any way is critical of ethnic minorities and in fact most of the members of the council were of British ancestry. All of these sources appear to be reliable, and there are no sources that provide a different set of facts.
Since this sanction involves "generalized accusations... against a particular national or ethnic group", I would like to clearly state my opinion on that topic. I do not subscribe to collective responsibility. No nationality bears responsibility for actions that were taken by their compatriots. I realize first hand the unfairness of this characterization as my father was German and my girlfriend's father was a police officer in Latvia during the war. Neither were Nazis and both took personal risk in opposition to the German government. I have started several articles on right-wing and conservative topics, including: Radical right, Right-wing terrorism, Willi Schlamm and Kenneth Goff and made substantial revisions to Right-wing populism and Conservatism. None of those articles imply that right-wing ideology is more associated with a particular national group and none even mention Eastern European minorities. TFD (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would question the propriety of Fred Bauder, acting as an administrator in this case, joining the content discussion as he does at the article talk page,[13]WP:RSN#Book by former Communist[14][15][16] and on my talk page.[17] Incidentally the "Darby Report" recommended as a source by Fred Bauder is a political blog by Michael_Darby, son of Douglas Darby referred to above.[18] I would like the record to show that in fairness to Darby's new political party, the Christian Democrats, I removed the description far right from the article in 2009[19] and Tammsalu agreed with me.[20]TFD (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further reply to Fred Bauder: I would lke to see the reasoning you have used in this matter added to your proposal. You stated that both Mark Aarons' book published by Black Inc. and Lachlan Clohesy's PhD thesis "conflate anti-communism with Nazi collaboration".[21] You also stated, "A book by a scion of a family prominent in the Australian Communist Party about emigre politics has such a strong appearance of bias due to conflict of interest that regardless of its intrinsic qualities it can not be accepted as a reliable source...."[22] I am curous also how the prohibtion against writings of former Communists should affect the use of former communist Stéphane Courtois's introducton to The Black Book of Communism, which you have used extensively as a source. TFD (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point at issue is not the reliability of sources but the way in which the sources where used to synthesis and infer an association with alleged Nazi war criminals beyond what the sources actually state. --Martin (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I was one of the arbitrators who participated in drafting and adopting the original arbitration decision.
The decision was based on Section 8 and 12 of the remedies in the arbitration decision:
Section 8: All editors are warned that future attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies—may result in the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee. This applies both to the parties to this case as well as to any other editor that may choose to engage in such conduct.
Section 12: Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Attempts to discuss the problems involved with tarring members of the emigre community by citing information from sources which conflate anti-communism with Nazi collaboration were ineffective. During the arbitration enforcement discussion he advanced additional material of the same nature[23] that provoked the original dispute.[24] This behavior predictably provokes other editors and results in a great deal more heat than light. See Talk:Lia Looveer and note the prevalence of talk about Nazism with respect to a respected member of the Liberal Party of Australia.
I think the decision is reasonably limited, affecting only the ethnic populations which were victims of the Soviet gulag and the confusion resulting from the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and Soviet and Nazi occupation. User:The Four Deuces does not seem to understand the inappropriateness of ascribing Nazi views to this population by utilizing guilt by association and until he grasps the matter should not be engaged in ideological struggle on Wikipedia with respect to articles about members of ethnic minorities in the former Soviet Union. User:Fred BauderTalk02:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is the indefinite ban on TFD editing articles relating to any minority peoples in the Soviet Union inclusive of article talk pages or user talk pages where such issues are discussed, or only to actual edits on those articles proper? And is the term "minority peoples" broadly defined (that is, including nations where were formerly part of the USSR, but where the peoples are not "minority" in the current nation? I am not trying to be a nudge, but wanted to be entirely clear. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble originated at Talk:Lia Looveer which is an excellent example of the sort of trouble which results from TFD's acting in this way, so, yes, it includes talk pages. The term minority peoples of the Soviet Union includes every nationality other than Russian which was included in the Soviet Union such as Latvians, Estonians, Karelians, Baltic and Volga Germans, Crimean Tatars, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, particularly those who were impacted by mass deportation and the Nazi invasion. By its literal terms it includes all Soviet minorities, but many were not affected by those events and would be unlikely to be the target of ideological attacks against anti-communist emigres. Actually it probably should include Russian emigres also who are also potential victims of this sort of guilt by association, sometimes simply because they were prisoners of war. User:Fred BauderTalk13:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fred, could you please point out where TFD made generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies. I only see that he used sources that do that, but did not repeat these generalized accusations, but rather quoted specific (not generalised) statements from such sources about behaviour of specific individuals, rather than a particular national or ethnic group. - BorisG (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bottom line: playing pin the Nazi tail on the emigre donkey is a dirty game that has no place in Wikipedia. It causes a great deal of bad feeling especially among Soviet nationalities. User:Fred BauderTalk 8:27 pm, Today (UTC+8)
Fred, Russavia has a point below. Aarons is a respected researcher of Nazi war criminals here in Australia. The deliberately provocative title of his book suggests that Australia, not necessarily by design, has become a relatively safe place for those guys. I am not aware that he made accusations against entire ethnic groups. - BorisG (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that he does, it is TFD who uses his work in this way to tar emigres who are mentioned in the book as being associated with Nazi collaborators or sympathizers. The book is not easy to get, but I suspect is is both useful and accurate with respect to its subject matter despite its provocative title. User:Fred BauderTalk13:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources by communists can be used on WP in the same vein that sources by nationalists can be used. So f'ing what if someone was a member of the Aussie Communist Party. Does this make them unreliable? Yes, F.B. says! And anyone who disagrees with him will have the ban hammer brought down upon them.
Did he even bother to read the sources presented? Of course not, he just saw the word communist and hit the ban hammer coz he doesn't like it. Well, well, let's see. Mark Aarons was a member of the CPA until mid 70s. He was then a political adviser to a NSW Labor Premier.
From 1973 to 1993 Mark Aarons was a broadcaster and reporter in the ABC Radio Special Projects Department (later the Radio Talks and Documentaries Department). During that time he was Executive Producer, Producer, Presenter and Researcher on a series of programs broadcast on ABC Radio Two (later Radio National), including Lateline (1973-76), Broadband (1977-1980), Tuesday Despatch, Background Briefing (1980-1993) and several others.
In the late 1970s he began research into claims that there were numerous World War II war criminals living in Australia and that this was known by US, British and Australian intelligence agencies. The results of this research led to his 1986 radio documentary series 'Nazis in Australia' which prompted the Hawke government's inquiry into war criminals and the establishment of the Special Investigations Unit.
What's that? He was also a journalist and a researcher, and as a result of his research and journalism Bob Hawke initiated an enquiry into Nazi war criminals in Australia. He was profiled and interviewed by the Sydney Morning Herald. The N.S.W. Board of Jewish Education uses his works. That the LP allowed Nazis into this country has also been profiled and written about. He has been published by the Aussie-Israel and Jewish Affairs council[25]. His book "Nazis in Australia" is widely cited [26]. And on it goes.
Yet, we on WP have editors simply throw out "he's a communist" and all of a sudden anything this guy has done and any professional positions he has held, become totally irrelevant!
Additionally look at this book, which is published by a scholarly publisher and what the author has to say about Mark Aarons.
The final contribution in this part of the volume is from Mark Aarons who, as an investigative journalist in the 1980s, single-handedly did more than any other person to expose the presence of former Nazis in Australia who ought to be investigated and prosecuted for...
At NO stage has TFD insinuated or even stated that Balts are Nazi sympathisers/collaborators/war criminals, and neither has Mark Aarons. All that TFD has stated, and I will post it myself (and wait for a ban), is that material on Looveer is very thin (i.e. she is not notable), and that her article is built upon directory-type sources and sources which only mention her in passing. And here we have sources which also mention her in passing, and when this has been done it has brought to light that she associated herself with people with shady pasts. But some editors want to keep this out of the article. Why? There is nothing wrong with saying that she was on "this" council, which also included JoeBlow and BillyBob. Then we let readers decide for themselves whether she was a Nazi sympathiser. We don't whitewash articles to conform with Baltic histiography, just as we don't do it for Soviet histiography. --RussaviaI'm chanting as we speak12:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Below it is possibly being insinuated that TFD has misrepresented sources because one is not able to find reference to Looveer as a result of a Google book search. TFD has stated that the book is only available in snippet view. That one can't find the text in snippet view is not unusual. Take for example the article tibla - which is a vile ethnic slur used against Russians in Estonia - it is suggested that it also refers to "Soviet" and it used a source which is only available offline - the same type of search on Google yields no results, yet it is possible that it is contained in the book.
In fact, I have just noticed a discrepancy in what I posted earlier, in relation to this book. What I posted as the quote is not what is written in the book, but it is what was written in the Google book result, hence why I was able to copy and paste it. Why this discrepancy? Have I wilfully misrepresented anything? Or have I presented what I have been presented by way of a google search? Should I be perma topic banned for this?
We should be careful 1) before accusing editors of bad faith, because Google snippet view is not infalliable, and 2) before entering into articles anything that may be contentious based purely upon what one sees in Google snippet view, as it may not necessarily match up with what is actually contained in the text itself. We don't ever need a repeat of Talk:Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park) I am sure everyone can agree. TFD has done the right thing here by bringing the issue to the article talk page first, and he has made it clear it is a snippet view only, and that it would need to examined physically to see what is said, etc. There is nothing wrong with this, and he has not claimed that any significant portion of any ethnic group harbours Nazi sympathies, nor has he even stated Looveer herself was a Nazi sympathiser. Mark Aarons also has not said any such thing, but he has written that people who are either suspected of committing war crimes or of harbouring Nazi sympathies are people whom Looveer has possibly been associated with. There is nothing sanctionable in anything that TFD has done in this regard. --RussaviaI'm chanting as we speak13:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having read comments by numerous editors here, it would be best to topic ban all editors who are pushing fringe views on all sides of the equation. We hear about "official Russia" this and "official Russia" that. Fact of the matter is, "official Baltics" is no better than "official Russia", and it takes not much time to see who the extremist editors on both sides of the equation are. Whilst "official Russia" POV may not be supported 100% around the world, neither is "official Baltics" POV widely accepted. Perhaps all editors would be advised to read this from the EU-Russia Centre and take note of what is written there. --RussaviaI'm chanting as we speak14:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. To address the question of Mark Aarons's work and related work as not reliable sources, the problem is not they are not scholarly, or accurate, but that there is an obvious conflict of interest. A book by a scion of a family prominent in the Australian Communist Party about emigre politics has such a strong appearance of bias due to conflict of interest that regardless of its intrinsic qualities it can not be accepted as a reliable source, especially not by emigres. Doubtless emigres to Australia did not consider whether Australian communism might represent values different from those they encountered in Europe, but that is understandable. User:Fred BauderTalk19:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am giving notice that I am going into the city this week and when there I will go to state library and take note of what is stated about Looveer in the book, and will add it to the article myself. If you want to ban me for this, then go ahead. You say that the book nor author are reliable. I say that the material more than qualifies as a reliable source in terms of WP:RS. Whether this source is accepted by the emigre community means nothing to me nor to WP in general. We aren't here to present an encyclopaedia which is sanitised to conform with the opinions of any interest group, but we are here to present an encyclopaedia which includes info on what sources say and then let our readers decide. This is then clearly a content dispute; an area in which you obviously hold strong opinions. --RussaviaI'm chanting as we speak01:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find the book is not about her but about other people, one of who seems to have both a collaborator during the war and a sympathizer afterwards. We've probably seen every phrase here that she in mentioned in. She was in certain organizations others were in, serving as secretary in at least one. User:Fred BauderTalk00:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TFD has a tendency to distort what the sources actually say, just above in his appeal statement TFD claimed that ASIO reported unfavourably on the activities of the Liberal Party's Migrant Advisory Council, which Looveer was the secretary. After reading the source what ASIO actually reported on was the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations, which Laszlo Megay and Constantin Untaru were prominent members but not Looveer. Almost every discussion with TFD is similarly tedious, having to check sources only to find that he had misrepresented them. Mark Aarons and his book which TFD introduced here isn't the issue, but try as I might, I cannot find the quote TFD claims is in the source: ""Viks immediately disappeared, issuing a public statement through Lia Looveer of the Estonian Association. Looveer was also a prominent member of the Liberal Parry's Migrant Advisory Council, which included Laszlo Megay, the mass killer …"", I cannot even find a reference to Looveer[27].
Other claims made by TFD not found in the sources include adding material claiming Looveer supported alleged Nazi war criminal Lyenko Urbanchich.[28], stating on talk "The article should mention that the subject was on the executive of the Liberal Ethnic Council and supported the president Lyenko Urbanchich when the Liberal Party tried to suspend him." even though there is nothing published that she had done so. TFD makes an edit claiming that Looveer "defected" to Nazi Germany[29], claiming on talk "Looveer gave up her allegiance to the USSR when she went to work for the Third Reich.", "In other words, she "defected"." without any source to back that politically loaded term.
Add in the fact that TFD recently accused me of right wing extremist ethnic nationalist POV and then he stated he wasn't referring to me but claimed his remarks were directed at a respected professor of international law at Tartu University during the subsequent discussion, violating WP:BLP in the process[30], then claimed he didn't[31]. So who did he direct his remarks too then? TFD would have received a three month topic ban, but promised he will avoid implied slurs against others (and against large groups of people) on contentious talk pages in the future.
This is already a difficult topic area without having to contend with the added disruption caused by TFD, one only has to read threads on Talk:Lia_Looveer to see this apparent ongoing campaign to tar Lia Looveer. --Martin (talk) 13:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but I failed to find where concretely on this page [32] did TFD accuse Malksoo in extremism. In any event, since TFD openly recognised Malksoo as a reliable academic sources, and, importantly, since Malksoo himself expressed a viewpoint that was closer to the TFD's (and my) views than to your (and which had been rejected by you), it is highly unlikely that TFD could give him such a characteristic.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, TFD states in the very first line of his statement: "My comments were about the POV of the quote that Martintg presented rather than his personal point of view." The quote I presented was Mälksoo's quote from his monograph. The fact that he later retracted that after a long discussion on EdJohnston's talk page exemplifies the essential dis-WP:HONESTY of TFD. So the question remains unanswered as to who TFD was referring to with his comments, first he said he wasn't referring to my personal POV, but to Mälksoo's POV, then later claimed he never did that either. FWIW, I think you may be breaching AE etiquette by threading discussion in in other people's statements rather than confining them to your own. --Martin (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot agree. If I understand it correctly, the TFD's statement was about the quote, not about the source, which, btw, rejects the idea that the period of Soviet dominance in Baltics had absolutely no legal consequences. As I already pointed out, position of prof. Malksoo (expressed in his books, and in his e-mail, where he explains his viewpoint for us explicitly) is closer to the position of TFD, than to your position (let me remind you that TFD, I, and some other users stick to the viewpoint that, whereas the annexation of the Baltic states was illegal, and that it had many traits of occupation, it cannot be characterized using the latter term solely, and it had some legal consequences that cannot be totally ignored. By contrast to your views, this position is closer to what majority sources say, and it is more incyclopaedic and neutral.). In connection to that, could you please reserve your comments about dishonesty for more appropriate cases?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to get into detail about a content discussion that is better suited to the appropriate article talk page, where I have already explained what I see are the issues of your interpretation of particular sources. I'm not sure I understand this subtle distinction of TFD directing his comment at the POV of a quote of Dr. Mälksoo but was not directing it at Dr. Mälksoo's POV. I don't know what to make of that, some may conclude this is just wiki-lawyering, but certainly I was not alone in that impression as admins patrolling AE at the time where preparing to impose a 3 month topic ban when TFD finally reversed his position apologised at the 11th hour.
Another apparent case of dis-WP:HONESTY was when TFD then proceeded to mis-represent the facts about the renaming of Mass killings under Communist regimes when he stated "The reason we only have this mass killings article is that the article was original created by User talk:Joklolk who has been permanently banned as a troll, and called "Communist genocide". When the article was nominated for deletion because it was original research, editors decided to change the title"[33]. This is not true, and TFD claimed this previously and it was pointed out to him before. The move discussion started ten days before the AfD, being in two parts here and here The move discussion closed and the article was moved on 24 (or 25 depending upon time zone) September 2009, on the same day as the AfD was opened [34]. TFD fully participated in the move discussion and was virtually alone in opposing it, so I don't know how he could claim it came after the AfD. --Martin (talk) 06:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, I am confused. TFD called someone's POV extremist ethnic nationalist POV. It is not entirely clear who or what earned that honor, but someone or something did. Do you think it's ok to call either fellow editors (or their edits) or other living persons (or their statements) in this manner? This of course is old news, its relevance to the present case is only to th extent that TFD made a promise to refrain from such behaviour in the future. - BorisG (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I do not think to call someone's POV "extremist nationalist POV" is correct, and I do not think TFD's wording is always correct and appropriate (although in this concrete case TFD didn't blame anyone concretely in extremist ethnic nationalism). However, taking into account that the opposite party also resort to such statements "Soviet apologist POV", "apologists of Marxist terrorism", this TFD's characteristic (which I do not support) is more a demonstration of the overall level of the debates, rather than the sign of TFD's own non-politeness. In addition, taking into account the history of many of his opponents (many of whom have been subjected to various sanctions for disruptive activities, including sockpuppetry, edit warring etc.) I do think the "physician, heal thyself" dictum is quite appropriate in this case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've never used the phrases "Soviet apologist POV", "apologists of Marxist terrorism", so I reject Paul's mitigation of TFD's unjustified comments. --Martin (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taking into account your consistent support of the viewpoint of other users, who did use these phrases, it is not a big surprise for me that TFD extended his views on you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And completely TFD's choice. Per your own advice, contending you are not surprised by TFD's poor conduct (as if it's understandable) is perhaps not the reflection upon yourself you desire. What is at issue here is TFD's attitude as expressed on WP about the peoples of the Baltic nations and Lia Looveer as his personal lightning rod for contentions of being a traitorous "Nazi". His grossly offensive "defected to Nazi Germany" as article content in the absence of any such source is clear in its intent, is it not? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK18:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the we who don't agree with TFD are just as guilty as he is defense, if you're going to convict him you have to convict everyone. That's not how I read it, my misinterpretation. I don't believe I've ever lobbied for grossly offensive inaccurate content, though. I suggest we give this a rest and let our administrative folk decide whatever they wish to decide and close this wholly unfortunate affair rehashing the wounds of the last 50+ years. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK00:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please, correct me if I am wrong, but the initial Fred Bauer's rationale was as follows:
"I think it is possible that User:The Four Deuces believes in good faith that the work of Mark Aarons exposing Nazi collaborators and war criminals admitted to Australia is a suitable reference, and it may be in some contexts. However its broad use with respect to other members of the emigre community in Australia is a violation of the warning in Section 8..."
Whereas it sounds quite reasonable per se, I still cannot see what was the concrete ground for his decision. I believe it would be correct to state that most participants of the dispute, including FB and TFD agree that the source used by TFD is reliable. Therefore, the only question is if TFD used the source correctly. Concretely, I would like to know what concrete generalisations has been made by TFD which were not present in the source used by them. I believe, it would be correct if TFD presented extended quotes from the sources they used to give us an opportunity to judge if the statements made by them correctly reflected what the sources say. Similarly, I it would be correct if FB explained in more details what concrete TFD's edits (or talk page posts) violated the AE decision, and what this violation consists in.
Let me also point out that the discussion has deviated from the initial point. It was initiated by the TFD's report, which was somewhat frivolous. I can understand the FB's rationale, and I agree that TFD use enforcement request tool too frequently, and usually without success, so we probably can speak about imposing of some moratorium on the usage of AE requests by TFD (which will save the time of both TFD and of their opponents, thereby providing them with an opportunity to switch to somewhat more useful). However, instead of discussing this issue, BF switched to the TFD's edits, and, I failed to see any satisfactory evidence in the FB's posts that prove that any violations of the Section 8 did occur. Without seeing these evidences it is hard to conclude if FB's sanctions were justified, and since the burden of proof rests with FB in this case, I expect him to present these evidences.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Frivolous" is easy for you to say when someone files a request to permanently ban someone and it's not you. It's quite clear what TFD was hoping to accomplish, let's not trivialize it because it didn't work out as planned, just kidding, no harm, no foul. TFD's pursuit of a (my perception/characterization) Baltophobic vendetta also appears quite clear. This is unfortunate, as he seems to be more level-headed outside this topic area. As I've stated, I bear no ill will and am not lobbying for a permanent ban; however, TFD would serve himself best by following the example of other editors who have extracted themselves from the area of conflict and are now making positive contributions to WP. I am surprised to find myself commending Nanobear in this regard; and while some of the old conflict still simmers, we did settle a recent unpleasantry between us sufficiently well to put it to bed, if a bit grudgingly (perhaps on both our parts). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK19:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this does appear to fall under section 8 of that remedy, as Fred says (and since he helped draft it, he should know). Part of the problem here is that TFD has a history of suggesting that some individuals hold views or ideologies which they do not possess - which is what that remedy's about. This is true at the Looveer article and also with respect to Wikipedia editors (calling editor's edits "pro fascist, calling editors "far right anti-Russian", insinuate that another editors is "right wing extremist ethnic nationalist"). Sometimes this is just barely disguised insinuation so that they can be denied, but the there is a pattern.
The other problem is TFD's frequent over use of the AE board as if it was a dispute resolution process (with the "resolution" being "get people I disagree with banned"). Someone else can do an actual count of how many AEs TFD has filed or participated in [35].Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please, be more accurate when you quote others' words. Whereas the first link confirms that TFD characterized some edits (but not the editor) as pro-fascist, other two have been misquoted. The first quote is: "contributed to by a group that calls itself the Eastern European mailing list and collaborates to insert a far right anti-Russian bias into ethnic articles." Although I prefer not to return to the WP:EEML issue, because that can still be painful for someone, I have to remind to everybody that, according to the ArbCom decision, the EEML members did coordinate in order to protect each other and their point of view in articles against a perceived "Russian cabal", and that many edits of the former EEML members were really anti-Russian. Therefore, although this concrete TFD's can contain some exaggerations, the fact that it was correct at least partially is hard to deny. The last quote in actuality says: "While I have sympathy for Martintg's ethnic nationalism, articles must be written from a neutral point of view, not a right wing extremist ethnic nationalist POV" Although I agree that the language used by TFD could be less inflammatory, I do not think this quote can be interpret as a direct accusation of Martin in "right wing extremist ethnic nationalism". And, finally, I would like to suggest all participant of the dispute to avoid partisan behaviour: I noticed that some users participating in this dispute have a tendency to support (or at least not to condemn) the behaviour of non-polite (or even blatantly rude) editors who push certain viewpoint, whereas similar, or even less rude, behaviour of the users pushing the opposite viewpoint is being strongly condemned by them. The recent story of User:Marknutley (aka User:Tentontunic) is a clear example of that.
Anticipating a possibility that the same accusation can be directed against myself, let me re-iterate that, whereas I frequently support TFD's edits, I do not support his behaviour when it is inappropriate. Thus, I think that the AE request filed by TFD against Peters was somewhat frivolous, and I don't think TFD ought to do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, like I said, sometimes TFD's statements take a form of (pretty blatant) insinuation, but their meaning's clear so I'm not going to get into a pedantic discussion about the details here. Also I can't speak for anyone else, but I've supported appeals and defended editors on "both sides", according to their individual actions. I'm generally of the opinion that there's too much banning going around these parts, that most of it is counter productive and that AE often serves to inflame battlegrounds rather than calm them. However, in this particular case I think the sanction is warranted.
And for the record, as I've stated before, I never had any problem with any of your comments or edits, aside just from a plain ol' disagreement with them (which happens all the time in real life, it's not a big deal). So if anyone files a report against you or proposes a sanction against you, I will sincerely speak up against it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question if TFD's characteristics of other users were rude, of if the AE report was frivolous are irrelevant to this discussion. The sanctions have been imposed because "... its (source's) broad use with respect to other members of the emigre community in Australia is a violation of the warning in Section 8 ...", until the examples of these "broad use" have been presented, we cannot speak seriously about appropriateness of the sanctions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you agree that TFD's AE filing against me was "frivolous" (which I disagree with, by the way, his intent seemed serious enough to me) then WP:BOOMERANG applies with no further need for delving into his creating content labeling Looveer a Nazi defector. It is, in fact, this entire discussion which becomes irrelevant. I don't believe I'm mistaken on this one. Going back a bit I forgot to mention that if you have no wish to invoke/relitigate EEML then don't wikilink to it. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK23:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The AE filing was frivolous because TFD didn't approach to it seriously: he presented no serious evidences against you, so it is not a surprise that the request has been declined. Re BOOMERANG, that is just an essay. Re EEML, please, give all of us an opportunity to forget it as soon as possible: as some users pointed out on this talk page, your own behaviour is also not completely appropriate, reminding me something in the past, so the sooner all parties will abandon the present tactics the better.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Stephen Schultz, in that "uinvolved admin" section that only a select few chosen privileged grand masters level 35 and above superstars of Wikipedia can edit:
If someone sincerely believes that this dispute has nothing to do with Eastern Europe or DIGWUREN, they basically have no business commenting on this AE appeal. The idea that this is somehow unrelated to Eastern European disputes - or more specifically to Soviet vs. Baltic disputes is flatly ridiculous and I'm having trouble of seeing as how someone could even advance such a proposition. Where have you been for the past four years?Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two points, first that TFD did not approach me in any way prior to his filing an enforcement request for me to be blocked permanently. In that regard, I should mention that quite recently I contacted Nanobear regarding his calling my character into question and he refactored his on-Wiki post to remove the part I found most offensive. There are editors who are seeking to put conflict behind them whereas other editors look on conflict as an opportunity to permanently silence editorial points of view contrary to their own.
Second, regarding TFD and contentions of Nazism at Lia Looveer, this has been a pattern from the very beginning. TFD's first three contributions at Lia Looveer consisted of:
after which I added her being the recipient of a British Commonwealth award, category and link.
(The deletion nomination eventually failed.) TFD's next contribution was to
"NPOV" (!) my edit describing her escape from Estonia, indicating she "fled" to "Nazi" (added "Nazi") Germany (i.e., ran to safety with the Nazis) ahead of the "liberation" of Estonia (so, on two fronts, the Soviets did not reoccupy Estonia but liberated it, also, that Looveer feared the Soviets as enemies of the Nazis, not as enemies of the Estonian people), followed by
"defected", clearly indicating her to be a Nazi and traitor to the Estonian nation and peoples.
TFD's next contribution was to
indicate Looveer's support of a Nazi war criminal, Lyenko Urbanchich. Urbanchich was an inaugural member of the Liberal Ethnic Council along with Looveer, Liberal Party NSW branch. The Council was formed of 100 members of ethnic communities across Australia. The source mentions Looveer in (1) the caption of a picture in which she appears and (2) in a footnote as being one of a number of other individuals (in addition to the ones meriting mention in the main body of text) who accompanied Urbanchich to a subcommittee meeting at which allegations against him were to be discussed. Urbanchich's Nazi connections were eventually confirmed although Urbanchich was never arrested, tried, or convicted, and remained active in politics for the remainder of his life. One cannot maintain that the individuals accompanying Urbanchich the day Loover and others did, did knowingly supporting a Nazi war criminal in support of Nazism. This is the most vile manner of character smearing.
These are followed by examples of Looveer was member of X which also included member Y.
As clearly documented by TFD's initial activities at the Lia Looveer article, TFD has been out to either delete the article or, failing to do so, paint Looveer out to be an ardent supporter of Nazism, including
"fleeing" to safe haven in Nazi Germany when the enemies of the Nazis were descending once more upon Estonia to "liberate" it and
supporting Nazis at inquiries regarding allegations against them.
These article content edits date from November-December 2009. I did not review further edits, TFD's initial contributions sufficiently establish his intent. The point is not to bring up stale edits, but rather, to point a particular POV from TFD's inception of involvement at this particular article. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK22:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for the sanction currently in place regarding TFD, my understanding is that "indefinite" can be appealed after 6 months. I harbor no ill will, as evidenced by my recent support of YMB29's appeal. That said, editors need to understand that smearing those of a national origin with whose politics you disagree is not acceptable behavior, nor is attempting to control content debates through enforcement requests. I am not, however, advocating for any particular remedy. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK22:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for Mark Aarons, per Prof. Ieva Zaķe's research, "Such statements [referring to claims that the CIA and other government institutions secretly sponsored Nazi-led Latvian émigré organizations] subsided after 1988 and were revived again in 1994 by John Loftus (a former OSI staff attorney) and Mark Aarons who wrote that Eastern European 'Fascist immigrant groups' had 'a ready-made network,' which had been effectively transported from Eastern Europe to the United States by the CIA and established here in the form of such Right-wing émigré organizations as the Latvian Daugavas Vanagi. These ideas about American Latvian organizations originated already in [Howard] Blum’s assertions that Daugavas Vanagi, which was openly anti-communist, existed mainly so that the 'war criminals' from 'the Latvian SS regiment (Legion)' could survive until the day their countries such as Latvia 'would be again a fascist, anti-Jewish, anti-Communist state.'" She cites John Loftus and Mark Aarons, The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People, 1994. Howard Blum was author of Wanted! The Search for Nazis in America, published in 1977. I should note that the fiction that the Latvian Legion were Waffen SS Nazi war criminals convicted at Nuremberg is a (discredited) position that the Russian administration maintains to this day. The Legion were stationed as guards @ Nuremberg. I would parenthetically add that Daugavas Vanagi was founded as a self-help welfare organization among Latvians confined at the prisoner camp in Zedelgem where the Belgians shot and killed them for live target practice until they were informed the Latvians weren't Nazis. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK22:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging the article for notability is a normal practice and is not a demonstration of bad faith per se.
The same is true for COI;
taking into account that gscholar gives zero results for "Lia Looveer" [36], and google books gives less then 9 [37] the nomination for deletion does not seem so unreasonable, and also is not a demonstration of bad faith.
To add "Nazi" to the name of Germany in 1944 is not a demonstration of bad faith: that, along the Third Reich was a common name used throughout the world during this time.
The TFD's edit you refer to state that " Looveer was part of the inaugural executive of the Liberal Ethnic Council", Ubranchich was a member of, which is in a full accordance with what the cited source (p. 180) says. Of course, that is an indication of Looveer's close ties with of Lyenko Urbanchich, although that does not mean that the primary reason of their close ties was Ubranchich's Nazi past. Nevertheless, I agree that the second part of the sentence ("supported Nazi war criminal Lyenko Urbanchich when the state Liberal Party attempted to expel him") needs to be supported by a direct quite, which I failed to found so far.
In summary, let me point out that many editors I interact with have clear intent, and that fact is not a crime per se: we all have our own POV, and this in actuality is prerequisite for creating of really neutral content, which usually a result of a collision of two or more different viewpoint. The second prerequisite is a civil and respectful behaviour of the party towards each other. Sadly, TFD is not able to maintain such relations always and with everyone. However, I can tell the same about their opponents, therefore, you, Peters, complains are not fully clear for me.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Siebert, you have also accused me of equating the Holocaust to the Soviet occupation, an equating you bring up here elsewhere in an attempt to make this out to be simply related to a content dispute as opposed to the smearing of Baltic individuals.
I am merely stating that the current issue re: TFD at Lia Looveer article talk dates all the way back to TFD's initial involvement at the article. When I find an article lacking sources or one that is tagged as lacking sources, I go out to find sources to support content. My first action at an article is not tag it then nominate it for deletion. More specifically, I don't troll WP for articles on nationals of countries with whom I disagree regarding history (TFD's "liberated" per the USSR and official Russia, whereas the world says "occupied") to delete WP articles about them; or when those attempts fail, then move on to smear individuals with constructs such as "Nazi war criminal" with "supporting" to synthesize claims designed to tar someone's memory (i.e., smear those who contend not "liberated"). This has nothing to do about any "balancing" of POVs to achieve neutrality. Do not classify me regarding TFD as "also their opponents" as if I am some sort of mirror opposite on the other side of an "opinion." In this case that would be like my trolling Russia and Russian-related articles advocating for deletion of articles on lesser known historical personalities, and failing that, to resort to smearing their historical memory. Don't equate smearing someone as a Nazi war criminal supporter with a so-called content dispute. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK13:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully suggest you disengage here. The discussion here is not about our, as you would put it, "collision" of viewpoints, your own POV of late expressed elsewhere in response to mine (my emphasis) as:
"Re "USSR invaded and occupied... [mine]" Not correct. The Soviet actions can be better characterised as intervention, not invasion.""
This is not a forum to proselytize your personal historical perspective or to make the case this is all simply about equally reputable and valid historical POVs in conflict. That is not the locus of discussion here. Lastly, your (my emphasis)
"your post is in actuality a word in support of TFD, because it demonstrates what kind of opponents TFD have to deal with"
meaning TFD's so-called WP editorial "opposition" advocates to "rehabilitate Nazi collaborators, villianize [sic.] the Jews whom they connect with Communism and encourage discrimination against Russians living in their countries", steps over the line.
And I regret your resorting to personal attacks, per "In addition, taking into account the history of many of his opponents (many of whom have been subjected to various sanctions for disruptive activities, including sockpuppetry, edit warring etc.)". PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK14:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re my accusations, I do not remember I ever threw so general accusations against anyone, although I recall I did characterise you edits, which equate German occupation of the Baltic states with the Soviet regime there as inappropriate.
Re my post about "intervention", I took that from the Malksoo's monograph. I did that from memory, and I used not the original but the Russian translation made in the Tartu University (which, by contrast to the English original was available free of charge) so I cannot fully guarantee that I transmitted the author's idea fully correctly, however, I am almost certain that I didn't distorted the author's thought. In connection to that, I found your statement about my attempts "to proselytize my personal historical perspective" false and insulting, and I respectfully request to reword it. Moreover, taking into account that you frequently resort to such wording, dismissing your opponent's sources as minority or fringe (despite the fact that you have got a numerous evidences that my sources are reliable and almost always mainstream), this your post just makes your own positions weaker.
Re Lia Looveer article, as I already explained, I found the TFD's AE request against you frivolous, and I see no major problems with your edits. However, as soon as you started to comment on my editorial behaviour, I believe you will not mind me to tell few words about yours. I found your tendency to suppress the information that connects the Baltic nationals with Nazi regime not fully correct. Thus, it is quite correct and necessary to write "Nazi Germany" when we talk about Germany in 1944, and the fact that we do that in the article about some Baltic national is not the reason for not doing that. It is quite correct to write that many Baltic nationals had close contacts with Nazi authorities (including their voluntarily or semi-voluntarily service in WaffenSS, participation in the Holocaust, and especially in Jewish pogroms, which were almost spontaneous in Vilno, Riga, and some other Latvian and Lithuanian, but not the Estonian cities), and it is true that some of Central European war criminals continued to maintain contacts with other members of the immigrant community, which at least did maintain ties with them. And your attempt to attenuate these facts are hardly correct: anti-Communism in mid XX century was almost inevitably connected with Nazism/Fascism (especially in Central Europe), and to deny this fact absolutely incorrect.
Re personal attacks. Although I have no desire to develop this theme, you left me no choice. During last year, at least two users user:Justus Maximus and user:Marknutley (with his sockpuppet user:Tentontunic) have been engaged in various disruptive activities in Communism related articles, which eventually resulted in their prolonged blocks. These users expressed strong anti-Communist and anti-Russian attitude and none of the users who share the anti-Communist views (and I believe you don't mind me to describe you as anti-Communist based on the position you express openly and clearly) tried to stop them. By contrast, most anti-Communist users defended those two editors persistently and vehemently, thus demonstrating purely partisan behaviour. Moreover, taking into account the previous story with the notorious mail list (you probably noticed that I am trying to avoid any mention of this story as much as possible, but you force me to return to that), this partisan behaviour seems to have long tradition, so the discussion about the TFD's behaviour, which, again is not always appropriate, cannot be considered separately from this context.
For the records. I really don't like any references to EEML, and I think it is dishonest to refer to this list during talk page discussion. Moreover, I myself advised others not to do that, because the overwhelming majority of the ex-EEML members, whom I sincerely respect, learned due lessons from it. However, as soon as you characterised my post as "personal attack" I simply have no other choice than to provide the examples of disruptive behaviour of TFD's opponents during last two years.
And, finally, I totally agree that the dispute is not about you or about me. This dispute is, as I have outlined in this section[38] about the question if the sources about Nazi collaborators and war criminals were used by TFD redundantly broadly, and if they were, than what concretely is wrong with the TFD's edits. Please, provide concrete quotes from the TFD's sources to demonstrate that TFD misinterpreted these sources and thereby portrayed some Baltic nationals as Nazi supporters. Everything else is irrelevant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I addressed your last point with TFD's portrayal of Looveer supporting a Nazi war criminal, which as you recall, you agreed was not what was stated in the source.
In no particular order:
You harp on my "equating" things I do not, should I not defend myself?
I'll thank you not to use "notorious."
I am not "anti-Communist" or "anti-communist," I am merely opposed to Soviet versions of history which are not in keeping with verified facts.
Your bringing up sock puppets is what? Guilt by association?
That individuals, groups, and regimes have given communism a bad name reflects solely on those who perpetrate crimes against innocents in the name of an ideology. I rather thought I made that clear when I stated that "'X' Terrorism" cannot be discussed in the abstract divorced from those purporting to follow ideology "X" in justifying their acts of terrorism.
Malksoo also describes the USSR as crushing and occupying the Baltics. An objective source can always be invoked in a non-objective fashion.
We've already agreed that TFD's edit of Looveer supporting a Nazi war criminal which I reference initially was not supported as such by the source. As we are largely no longer on topic here, I suggest we disengage and return to potentially more constructive discourse in progress elsewhere. The alternative is we continue to respond to each other. Feel free to respond with a simple "Agreed" and we can close (and perhaps hab/hat as closed) this discussion. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK21:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re "equating". If you do not "equate" them, you will probably agree, for instance, with the description of the events in the Baltic states made by an (uninvolved) editor using the following terms:
"...incorporated in the Soviet Union in 1940, then occupied by Nazi Germany in 1941, and reconquered by the Red Army in 1944."
Such a terminology was being rejected by you in the past, however, by supporting it you have a good chance to demonstrate that you really do not equate the German Nazism and Soviet Communism.
Re "notorious". Again, as you already noticed, I always try not to return the EEML story, because I hate to remind peoples about their past sins, especially if they learned due lessons from them. And I would be grateful if you give me an opportunity to completely forget this sad incident. Unfortunately, the recent events do not allow me to do that.
Re "anti-Communist". I am glad that I was wrong. Let me point out, however, that your constant accusations of me in pushing certain POV, which is based on minority sources, sounds odd taking into account that I use primarily (if not solely) the top quality English scholarly sources, which do not present history from the Soviet viewpoint. I this situation your claim that you "opposed to Soviet versions of history" does not explain why do you reject my edits.
Re "Your bringing up sock puppets is what? Guilt by association?" No. For several months the sockpuppet of a very rude user, who formally observed WP policy had been active in the articles you and I are working on. This sockpuppet systematically and persistently reverted my edits, which were made based on the best quality English secondary sources, added the edits that directly misinterpreted the sources he used, insulted me, and forced me to waste my time in fruitless disputes, and this user was 'much more disruptive than TFD is. I agree that you didn't have to stop them, and I do not blame you in not doing that. However, you persistently and vehemently supported him, and the only reason was that he was pushing the POV you seem to share. That is I am blaming you (and Martin). And, please, note, that I do that not voluntarily: I have been forced to articulate this accusation clearly by absolutely provocative considerations about "Guilt by association". Please, note also that it is not a report, and it is not a request for any sanctions against you: I never requested for, I will not request for, and I will oppose to any sanctions against you.
Re ""'X' Terrorism" cannot be discussed in the abstract divorced from those purporting to follow ideology "X" in justifying their acts of terrorism." Partially agree. That may be a base for future consensus. Let's return to this issue in a more appropriate place.
Re "Malksoo also describes..." Malksoo explained his position in his e-mail. This position is closer to the position of Igny, Jaan and me. This position has been rejected by you, so for you it would be hardly correct to refer to Malskoo in this situation.
I did say I would have to respond if you did not agree to disengage. To your sequence starting with "incorporated": the Soviet presence of Red Army personnel and equipment on Baltic soil was coerced under threat of invasion, followed by "incidents" and "ultimatums" culminating in the Soviet invasion and occupation of the Baltic states, the usurping of Baltic sovereign authorities by Soviet-installed puppet regimes, followed by sham elections of parliaments in bogus elections whose "results," at least for Latvia, were released prior to the close of the polls, at which point the bogus parliaments "petitioned" to join the USSR in violation, at least for Latvia, of the constitution still in force (the Soviet version of history required that the Baltic states were still "sovereign" and petitioned to join "willingly"), at which point the USSR proceeded to illegally annex the Baltic states. The Baltic states were subsequently occupied by Nazi Germany, then re-occupied by the Soviet Union. (One should note the Red Army suffered between 300,000 to 400,000 casualties: killed, wounded, captured, attempting to stamp out the Courland pocket, which held out to the end of the war. Subsequent Soviet military accounts dismiss the Courland pocket as irrelevant and contend no serious effort was made to capture it, only to "contain" Germans and Latvians attempting to "break out.") The Baltic states formally restored their sovereignty on Baltic territory upon the fall of the Soviet Union, during which disintegration, one should note, the Russian Federation (prior to becoming the sovereign successor to the USSR) concluded a treaty with Lithuania which recognized the Soviet occupation in everything except the word "occupation." Subsequently, as part of it joining the Council of Europe, Russia approved documents which made specific reference to the "occupied" Baltic states. The current official Russian position contradicts treaties and covenants it has itself approved. I suggest, again, that this and the remainder of your points are best discussed at more appropriate venues. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK03:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from yourselves, you should be aware that whether or not they are uninvolved in this particular incident, all those participating here to date have been involved in the area of purported ideological conflict whether as proponents-antagonists or in a WP administrative capacity. (I should note that BorisG is familiar with the conflict having followed it and commented in the past mainly when the conflict has escalated into one of these affairs, but has not been a protagonist for either "side.")
@Jd2178, I thank you for your taking the initiative to investigate and comment and trust you will not be dissuaded or discouraged by what anyone says here, including myself. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK20:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That Shorne edited almost like User:Jacob Peters or maybe even like User:172. No, I do not think this makes anyone involved. Besides, it is a perfectly reasonable idea to look at the sources in dispute and comment about them. A lot of other uninvolved administrators (including FPS and Moreschi) did just that in other cases, and rightly so. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Fred Bauder: Certainly, Shorne appears to have taken up the cause denouncing "wreckers" of collectivization. As long as Russia fails to reconcile to the facts of its past, the conflict will continue. As for the current "involved," there is, of course, no impediment to anyone stating their position. My point was only that you and Jd2178 are the only editors who I did not recognize from prior conflicts as proponents of, generally speaking, one side or the other. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK04:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe there are considerations in addition to statements TFD has made and his creation of content labeling Looveer a Nazi "defector" and "supporter" of "Nazi war criminals" and continuing to lobby for similar through to the present. This is the only biography (AFAIK) where someone who has never been accused of being a Nazi during their life is being described as such by Wikipedia (per TFD), including the afore-mentioned defecting as a traitor to the Nazis, with not one whit of evidence to support these abhorrent contentions. Lia Looveer is not an isolated incident, it is rather (as you can see here by everyone who has come out of the woodwork to discuss everything except the case here) a nexus of the ideological conflict regarding which TFD has made his opinions abundantly clear.
Given that even editors generally supporting TFD here describe his AE request requesting I be banned permanently as "frivolous," I would advocate that some measure of WP:BOOMERANG may apply to discourage such frivolous acts in the future. 23:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Re: "Sorry, but I disagree. What you claim, in practice, means that individuals for whom we can construct some tentative chain to Eastern Europe are therefore protected from criticism. In particular, apparently, if they showed some anti-Soviet or pro-Western sentiment. That is not how I read DIGWUREN, and that is not a useful reading.", no I believe the position being advocated for is that one cannot misrepresent sources, use inflammatory sources, to contend that anyone is a card-carrying certified Nazi and "supporter" of "Nazi war criminals." Or are Eastern Europeans fair game for such character defamation? The bruhaha here and at Lia Looveer is not just related to the Lia Looveer article and I regret your (my perception) unfortunate and dismissive attitude. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK22:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the sources TFD used were not "inflammatory". The RSN discussion has demonstrated that everything is fine with the TFD's sources. Therefore, I conclude that your words about "inflammatory sources" refer to some other case, and, therefore, are irrelevant. Secondly, I do not think we can speak about cherry picking of sources by TFD. Thus, I have done the independent search and I found that all major databases, gscholar[39], Thompson ISI [40], jstor [41], google [42], Scopus [43] contain virtually nothing about her. Therefore, the quotes found by TFD were hardly cherry-picked by him, because they are arguably the only quotes he was able to found. Thirdly, the initial TFD posts contained snippet view text that TFD reproduced, as far as I understand, verbatim. If that is the case, then all accusations should be addressed to the books.google.com.
I was not talking to you. Nevertheless, TFD misrepresenting sources to call Looveer a supporter of Nazi war criminals in the article is justified how? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK00:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Stephan Schulz: Perhaps as you seem to think this is at least half a joke you should recuse yourself. Blatantly misrepresent someone of Baltic extraction as a Nazi and it's a source of amusement? I'm disgusted. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK00:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the picture was not required, but clearly my edit requesting the TFD contribute constructively or otherwise he's just trolling [for conflict] was justified given entire TFD's history at the article from the inception of his involvement there painting out someone who has never been associated with Nazism as a Nazi, a defector, a supporter of war criminals—and his immediately advocating to have me permanently banned. So, "my edits also problematic" is a problem for me. I'm not the one using WP to WP:ADVOCATE that someone is a Nazi who has never been described as such, anywhere, any time, by any individual EXCEPT on Wikipedia. What I see developing here is a continuing license to defame anyone of Eastern European extraction as a Nazi with zero consequences. The length of the discussion here is symptomatic. If you deal with the issue we won't need to deal with this again. If you believe that my accusing TFD of trolling given his history at the article was completely unwarranted, feel free to block me for incivility for an appropriate period, but do not contend that we were both equally to blame for something. That would be the true incivility. So, my question to you is, is Wikipedia a civil society, or not? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK13:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder who is going to work at this noticeboard? Even one of the most experienced wikipedia administrators has a trouble. Looking at this, I would like to make only one suggestion. Please do not divide this project participants to "us" and "them", "right-wing" and "left-wing" (everyone has POVs, maybe even administrators), or "involved" "tag-teamers" and "uninvolved" "neutral" editors. At least two editors in "uninvolved" section are heavily involved, but discussing this would be extremely unproductive. It does not matter if someone was "involved" or "uninvolved". It only matters if one contributes positively to discussion. Only administrators suppose to be uninvolved to rule on the sanctions. Yes, they are uninvolved (according to the case: "an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute.".) Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I wonder how Mathsci, with whom I had a severe conflict at the proceedings which banned his participation in Race and Intelligence articles, came to have an interest here. Oops, no, he denounced me at those proceedings over EEML. Not making any accusations and not casting aspersions, just noting that people should be aware of prior unpleasantries between editors making their appearance here. In these sorts of matters, I agree there is no "involved" and "uninvolved", "uninvolved" is only a bucket for editors to use to lobby that they are the voice of impartiality. It should simply be comments by other editors, and all comments taken at equal value without distractions arguing about who is involved or who cares about what or which "side" they are on or who has either at articles or administrative proceedings supported or opposed whom in the past. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK15:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What EEML? I am not even sure what you and other "regulars", like Russavia, Anonimu, and Paul Siebert, are doing here. This is not a dispute related to Eastern Europe, according to Stephan Schulz. This is all about Australia, is not it? Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting logic. Does that mean that my interest to, e.g, the Malayan emergency automatically places it into the Eastern European context? In addition, please, try to avoid to draw any connections between me and this dirty story: I never had any relation to that. The latter fact can easily be seen, because I never changed my username.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Out of respect for their desire to move on, I will not mention editors on the opposite side of the issue who have also "changed" their user name. Is there a particular need for this sort of pettiness? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK23:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I said what I said, namely, that I had no connection to the EEML story, and that fact can be easily traced, because I never changed my username. That story was dirty and I am not intended to tolerate any attempt to associate my username with it. With regard to the change of names by some users, I do not think we need to discuss that here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mean only two things (please see above). 1. Dividing this project participants to "us" and "them", "right-wing" and "left-wing", or "tag-teamers" and "good people" is damaging. 2. Nevertheless, I tend to agree with FPS that people previously involved in disputes must be very careful with their statements, simply because they are not objective. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having just read the Talk page of the article, I can't reasonably see TFD making an argument of guilt by association at the talk page. What I do see is TFD quoting reliable sources that make guilt by association arguments without actually stating a claim of guilt by association. I think Fred may have mistaken quotation and paraphrase of sources for editor conduct here. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am now convinced of this, TFD quotes reliable sources going towards the article's subject's notability, and summarises, "Seems funny to create an article about someone who is interesting because of her connection with colorful characters, then remove all the references. TFD (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)". TFD does not make any generalisations about Baltic-Australians, nor about Balts, nor about the article subject. I believe Fred has misstepped here. The article probably needs a nice cup of tea and a good lie down, but that is connected with mediation which ought to be requested, not WP:A/R/E. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC) (I'm not involved by the way, I believed I commented in this section when it was for uninvolved editors, but involved editors commented here after my comments)Fifelfoo (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OTOH, characterising a person as someone who is interesting because of her connection with colorful characters, is a tendentious WP:SYNTH at best. - BorisG (talk) 04:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be a content / notability judgement which ought to stay on Talk: or go to a noticeboard; it isn't an ethnic or Nazi connection slur. And I think it is a reasonable thing to infer from Aaron's book and the PhD thesis; both of which discuss the article subject in relation to politically colourful characters. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Fifelfoo, I disagree with you. I think characterising a person as someone who is interesting because of her connection with colorful characters, is a notability statement in form, but a thinly vailed guilt by association slur in substance. - BorisG (talk) 09:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Fifelfoo and Boris. Please notice that relevant Arbcom decision prohibits using wikipedia as a battleground, rather than anything else ("guilt by association", etc). Do you really believe that no one created battlegrounds after looking at all these diffs and AE request submitted by TFD? If so, then administrative action was not required.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 05:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@HN, I agree with you on this point. But for better or worse, this page has become that, battleground, for many participants. Admins don't seem to mind, often considering such requests in substance. Yes I agree TFD went sort of over the top in requesting a permaban on Vecrumba for mere sharp rhetoric. - BorisG (talk) 09:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TFD requested the treatment he himself is being given. The current ArbCom work on AE seems to back Fred Bauder here entirely. What I find most problematic is the aggressive battleground sort of wording. Collect (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC) (Note: this section previously stated "uninvolved editors" and in the matter at hand I am "uninvolved") Collect (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He requested "an indefinite block of Vercrumba." What his is getting is essentially a warning that there are limits to political struggle on Wikipedia and being restricted from an area he doesn't seem to be able to understand; he still thinks he did absolutely nothing wrong. User:Fred BauderTalk22:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand Fred Bauder's statement right, TFD got topic banned because he discussed in an article's talk page about the possible association between a member of the Australian Liberal Party and Nazism and, moreover, he brought a source to back this assertion. Did the powers bestowed upon admins extend so that they can unilaterally asses sources as unreliable (despite the lack of evident signs to point to that conclusion) and censure editors because they cite a source that the admin personally finds unacceptable? Anonimu (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, this case seems to have very little to do with sourcing or other content issues, but mostly with behaviour of users, as usual. The content issues should be debated at article talk pages, not here, even though some participants are doing just that. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder's statements makes it very clear that this is about content: "tarring members of the emigre community by citing information from sources which conflate anti-communism with Nazi collaboration" (note the unilateral assessment of the source by Fred Bauder), "he advanced additional material of the same nature" (followed by a link were TFD cites a doctoral thesis). "talk about Nazism with respect to a respected member of the Liberal Party of Australia" - again Fred Bauder's personal judgement about content. So basically, according to Fred Bauder's own admission, TFD is topic banned for presenting content and sources on a talk page. Anonimu (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not read all rants at this page, but in his official notice [44] Fred Bauer refers to enforcing this Arbcom decision which prohibits using wikipedia as a battleground. Indeed, this entire story looks very much as a battleground to me. That's the problem. You should also remember that any individual administration can impose sanctions in this areas based on his personal discretion (hence the "discretionary" sanctions), according to Arbcom remedies in this case.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you claim Fred Bauder lied in his statement above? ArbCom declined several times to give admins the power to unilaterally enforce content, and I doubt that the discretionary provision of the DIGWUREN case was meant as such a tool. The topic ban on the other hand amounts to exactly that: TFD's privilege to edit a large amount of Wikipedia articles is suspended because in a talk page discussion he cited some sources an admin considered wrong. Anonimu (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest to look at this proposed decision by Arbcom. It should soon be accepted, although no one has an obligation to follow it yet. It tells: "an administrator should clearly specify the basis of the action and the reasons it is being taken... A sanctioned editor may respond by asking the sanctioning administrator, in a civil fashion, to explain or to reconsider the imposition or scope of the sanction. The administrator should respond to appropriate questions raised by the sanctioned editor", and so on. Was it done? No. After making this notification, TFD just submitted this AE request, exactly as he submitted his request about Vecrumba. There was no "asking", no discussion with administrator, no suggestions to reconsider, and no promise to improve. This is a clearly problematic behavior. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taking into account that, according to the first TFD's post cited by you the far right extremists are the people, who:
"equate communism with fascism, deny the holocaust, trivialize it by comparing it with Ukrainian famines and promote the same conspiracy theories as the Third Reich?" [47][48], it is not clear for me what kind of "Soviet apologist" sources do you mean.
Taking into account that the second TFD's post you refer to tells nothing about far right extremism, and just explains that, according to TFD their opponents' views are fringe and extremist because they "have no recognition in mainstream thought and giving them any sort of attention turns the article into propaganda," I do not understand what problems do you see with that: if TFD's statement is wrong, one can easily refute it by providing mainstream academic sources that refute TFD's claims. In any event, this is a pure content dispute.
Taking into account that many scholars expressed a concern about a tendency to equate Nazism and Communism, which became prominent in some post-Communist countries, I do not see how this your post can serve as an argument against TFD. Equating Nazism and Communism sometimes really goes too far, and closely resembles Holocaust denial, so I again do not understand this your point.
In addition, if you imply that all not openly anti-Communist sources (in other words, most scholarly sources) are "Soviet apologist", your post is in actuality a word in support of TFD, because it demonstrates what kind of opponents TFD have to deal with. However, if I am wrong, and you do not claim that, please, explain me what was you actual point.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
what kind of opponents TFD have to deal with? TFD has opponents? Opponents can be only on a battleground. And according to TFD their opponents' views are fringe and extremist and you Paul don't see what the problem is? So you're advocating for editors like TFD to just go ahead an call their "opponents" views fringe and extremist? And Equating Nazism and Communism sometimes really goes too far, and closely resembles Holocaust denial? So if lets say somebody thinks that Nazism and Communism are really just different sides of the same coin it basically translates into Holocaust denial? I'm speechless, and not because I haven't seen such statements on wikipedia before but mostly because nothing has changed, it's seems such political rhetoric is completely acceptable on wikipedia.--Termer (talk) 05:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, I am not sure the sanction against TFD per section 8 is warranted, but I also take issue with your logic. Comparisons between Nazi and Stalinist atrocities are absolutely legitimate things to do, and is done in many reliable sources. It has nothing to do with Holocaust denial. The logic of these comparisons is that Stalin's atrocities were (almost) as appauling as Hitler's, not that both were OK. In the Baltic states in particular, after the Soviet occupation of 1940, Germans were seen by many as liberators, and German occupation was (or was perceived as) less brutal than the Soviet one (except for the Jews of course, who were nearly all killed or deported to death camps). This was the context in which some of these people collaborated with the Nazis and some even took part in Nazi atrocities. This is different from Nazi collaboration in places like Norway or France. If you called me an extremist for holding such views, it would be a personal attack. TFD has a pattern of calling editors, edits, sources extremist, nationalist, fascist, and I would suggest that he should cease such behaviour. (Disclaimer: I haven't checked if all these statements predate TFD's promise to refrain from such labelling). - BorisG (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't write about comparison, I wrote about the attempts to equate these two. Whereas the former is quite acceptable and correct, the latter may lead to trivialisation of the Holocaust, which is a form of Holocaust denial.
With regard to German "liberators", taking into account that (with exception of Czechoslovakia and Finland) most Central European countries by 1939 had authoritarian or semi-Fascist nationalist regimes, there were some categories of population in each central European country who had serious reasons to expect that foreign invaders may liberate them from the oppression. For instance, Ukrainian, Jewish and Belorussian population of Eastern Poland saw Soviet troops as liberators in 1939.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one is equating anything. Please refrain from raising the spectre of Holocaust denial you and other editors appear to cast any time editors point out Soviet aggression and Stalin's partnership with Hitler in starting WWII. (Odd that Russian state media's account of Russian history on Novosti's Russia Today English language site goes from Stalin coming to power right into the Great Patriotic War.) Shall I remind you of Moscow's premature telegram to Berlin congratulating Hitler on the fall of Warsaw—a pattern, Moscow also released the results of the Baltic "elections" prematurely—or that Stalin wound up with 51% of Polish territory in completing its partition with Hitler? Perhaps not, that's not the issue that we're supposed to be discussing here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK14:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fred, we discuss not the point of the ban, but the reason. You still provided no concrete examples of incorrect (redundantly broad) usage of the sources by TFD, which, according to your post was a reason for a ban. I respectfully request you to do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He repeatedly advanced point of view sources as reliable sources of evidence of guilt by association in furtherance of ideological struggle and continues to do so. The principle "Wikipedia is not a battleground" has been repeatedly re-affirmed in Arbitration Committee decisions. User:Fred BauderTalk17:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to confuse reliable and biased sources. In actuality, most sources are more or less biased, and WP policy does not request the reliable sources to be neutral, because neutrality is just an internal WP principle, which describes the way the sources should be represented in WP. Therefore, your responce should be understood as that you blame TFD in presenting unreliable sources as reliable ones. In connection to that, could you please explain, which unreliable sources have been used by TFD, and which of them TFD advanced as reliable? You again respond with just general considerations.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You Peters contradict to yourself. You claim that noone is equating anything, and simultaneously this your post (as well as many other talk page posts and the edits) imply directly opposite: that the USSR and Nazi Germany were essentially the same.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not continue your thinly veiled line of personal attack that I equate the Holocaust with anything, aka a form of Holocaust denial. The simple fact that the Baltic states were continuously occupied by two foreign powers over three contiguous occupations equates nothing, implies nothing. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK17:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is not personal attacks here: it is easy to see from your numerous posts and edits, including the previous one, that you believe that the USSR and Nazi Germany were essentially the same. In connection of that your claim that "No one is equating anything" is in a direct contradiction to the viewpoint you express openly and unequivocally.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You contend that my stating "triple occupation" is "equating occupation." It is not. Nothing equates to the methodical, planned extermination of Jews, from arrest to incineration, that we know as the Holocaust. Do not accuse me of "equating" again. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK20:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TFD's apologia saying he is a neutral editor on conservatives and communists alike is slightly belied by [49] I cannot think of a title but I can think of a description: mass killings of opposition and indigneneous people upon the pretext that they are part of an international communist conspiracy and also Really there have never been "mass killings of Communists" just mass killings of people with the excuse that they were "Communists". So the last title was better, if imperfect. It is like calling Salem "mass killing of witches".[50] shows more battleground mentality. [51]The reason we only have this mass killings article is that the article was original created by User talk:Joklolk who has been permanently banned as a troll, and called "Communist genocide". And on and on and on. [52] he appears to call deaths in Hungary in 1956 It seems to be more an act of war or counter-insurgency, and the scale was too small.The article does not explain that the connection between Communism and mass killings is a fringe theory, as explained in many peer-reviewed artcles, none of which are included in the article[53]. And also So basically the article is not supported by any sources and represents a far right view of history. There have been a number of attempts by the far right to create articles, including one about how the Jews control Hollywood. The argument they presented was that since some people believe that the Jews control Hollywood there is a controversy meriting a separate article. Fortunately the inherent bias and anti-Semitism of that article was obvious and it was deleted. Unfortunately the inherent far right racist and anti-Semitic bias of this article is less obvious, which is why it has not been deleted. Showing that TFD has a clear-cut battleground attitude on articles which do connect with Digwuren. We have, unfortunately, evidence from many other articles as well showing this, and his protestations to the contrary are belied. I had not wished to add this, but his apologia was entirely too disingenuous. Collect (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly speaking, I see no problems with the quotes provided by you. You probably believe these quotes speak for themselves, but I really do not see the point you are trying to make. For instance, during Cold war era anti-colonial wars most victims of colonial powers were really just perceived Communists. Removal of the content added by banned users is in full accordance with policy. Re Hungary, I also do not understand why to characterise Hungarian resistance as insurgents, and, accordingly, the actions of the authorities as counter-insurgency is incorrect. With regard to the TFD's tendency to see anti-Semitism where it is not present, I tend to agree, although this conclusion is not universal, because sometimes TFD appears to be right. One way or the another, I have absolutely no idea what point did you want to demonstrate by this post.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I note that your position has been highly consistent with TFD's. Which might explain your consistent position defending him, even when he has set records for making complaints about others (including a very large number of SPI complaints with a 20% accuracy rate). Intersecting at 1.Communist_terrorism, 2.Genocides_in_history, 3.Holodomor, 4.Jewish_Bolshevism, 5.Left-wing_terrorism, 6.Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes, 7.Terrorism and 8.The_Black_Book_of_Communism. At the talk page for 1, you have 800 edits, TFD has only 581. On 3 talk, 185 and 103 edits. On 5 talk, 36 and 128. On 6, 1127 and 1113 edits, respectively. Far outpacing any other editors by a few miles. You, however, do not routinely accuse others of being socks at SPI, nor do you routinely file AE complaints. Those are, however, part and parcel of the provblem (along with failure to note how TFD routinely posts battleground edits in the first place. Cheers. And have a cup of tea. BTW, [54] shows a distinct editing style. [55] also. And [56]. And for more battleground proof, look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Communist_terrorism_(3rd_nomination) with TFD saying "no sources exist" and [57] where TFD opined: "Google scholar returns nil hits for the subject" which is in direct relationship to the issue at hand about Soviet minorities entirely. A position which you did not assert. Can you now see TFD's clear pattern? Collect (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re "I note that your position has been highly consistent with TFD's." Please, no guilt by association arguments, especially here. By doing that you make your own point weaker.
Re "You, however, do not routinely accuse others of being socks at SPI, nor do you routinely file AE complaints." Thanks. However, I would expect you to avoid veiled accusations, because by writing that you have implied that I did that in the past. In actuality, if I remember correctly, I filed no AE complaint, and just one ANI report (against the user who has been subsequently blocked as a sock of blocked user, and who was being supported by you).
Re my failure to notice something. You yourself systematically and persistently supported the sock of the blocked user who was insulting me and preventing me from doing my WP job. Do you sinserely believe you are in position to blame me in anything?
Re the number of my talk page edits. Thank you for careful reading of my posts. Frankly, I am impressed with the large number of my edits. I believe, just two explanations are possible for that: either I am soapboxing, or I am trying to convince others in my viewpoint. Since no evidences of the former has been presented so far, the latter is the only plausible explanation. This is, in actuality, a demonstration of my good faith: I present new good quality sources, put forward new arguments, propose new texts, in other words I am doing exactly what good faith Wikipedian is supposed to do. Is that what you are blaming in?
Re google scholar. I do not understand that your point. Do you imply that TFD lied, or that the keyword choice was incorrect? The gscholar results are quite objective, that is recognized by numerous scholars and scientints, and I do not understand how can usage of this search engine constitute a violation of policy, guidelines, or other Wikipedia rules.
In summary, please learn from the mistakes of others. By filing frivolous report, TFD inflicted sanctions on themselves, partially deservedly. Similarly, by making this poorly formulated post you just made your own point weaker.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Stephen Schulz, the examples supra show the Digwuren connection clearly. TFD has sought repeatedly to remove any material even hinting that minorities may have been killed by the Soviets at two articles now clearly marked (Communist terrorism and Mass killings under Communist regimes) as now being under Digwuren. He has previously been warned (and appealed the warning!). The use of SPI and AE complaints etc. is directly associated with the warnings and Digwuren. He is here substantially because he has abused the AE process multiple times etc. He has exhibited massive interest in the article talk pages (1113 edits for a single article talk page does seem a bit excessive, to say the least). Need more? Collect (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At least one SPI demonstrated that the suspected user was a sockpuppet, so the complaint appeared absolutely justified. With regard to the rest, that needs in much more serious analysis, because the tendency to add absolutely ridiculous and POV charged content to these two articles was so strong that some material has been removed from there quite correctly. Re massive interest, it is rediculous to accuse anyone in making too many posts in the articles that are under 1RR: of course, all good faith changes are supposed to be preceded by extensive discussion, so I would rather accuse those who edit these articles without leaving posts on the talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow -- I take it you have not looked at TFD's many SPI reports then! He has a 20% accuracy rate on a large number of reports. He has a lower rate of success at his large number of noticeboard reports - including those at AE. I take it you did not even look at them, as you appear to state that only one sock was ever reported by TFD. BTW, I still consider "edits" which remove more than 90% of any article to be major edits and not just "some material". Your mileage appears to vary. Meanwhile, the Digwuren connection is now made abundantly clear.. Unless, of course, anyone needs more proof of him being aware of the decision, of the potential sactions, of his being given a direct warning about Digwuren, of him being listed on the applicable page as having been given the warning, of the fact that the sanctions were specifically noted to him, and to specific articles on which he has been active. I do not have any idea how anyone could possibly think the Digwuren decision did not apply, that the warning was not given, that he was conceivably unaware of them after having appealed his notification. In fact, I suggest that when one appeals a notification, it is really difficult to deny that one has received the notification. Collect (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I didn't, and I am not interested to. And I do not think to file 5 reports against perceived socks is too big crime as compared to the persistent support of a sockpuppet of the blocked user. Re my move of the content from one article to another, more appropriate article, I suggest you either to report me or to stop.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5 SPI reports from TFD? (Example at [58]). Try more like a hundred now. And only a score being well-founded (give or take). And the persistent use of AE and other noticeboards by him means nothing? As for your implied claim that I said anything nasty about you - that is misdirection here. You are not the issue, nor did I make you an issue. The issue is solely TFD at this point. By the way, note the AE request at [59] where TFD specifically tries to invoke Digwuren seeking to block me for violating Digwuren on one of the very articles not at issue where Mr. Schulz thinks Digwuren does not apply. As TFD sought to invoke Digwuren multiple times, he clearly must have been aware of the ability of an admin to enforce against TFD. Collect (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ed Johnston wrote" I think that the case might be closed if The Four Deuces will make some assurances about his future behavior. I've left a note on his talk page to see if he will consider that. EdJohnston (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC) in [60] and later It is not clear to me whether TFD will refrain from harsh criticism of perceived opponents in the future, but the data which has been gathered could serve as background for future sanctions if the problem continues.
In [61][hide]The Four Deuces is warned, outside of Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions, for an inappropriate edit summary. --Mkativerata (talk) Sandstein states invite The Four Deuces to give reasons why he should not himself be sanctioned for slow-motion editwarring as per the diffs provided by Tentontunic (I note that the most recent revert.
In [62]. [63] has Sandstein saying Recommending closure with a warning to Tentontunic The Four Deuces not to make invalid AE requests. Sandstein 20:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC). IOW, TFD has dodged at least three bullets for his routine incivility. Collect (talk) 01:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the reference to the TFD's collisions with the confirmed sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked user (who, btw, continues to use sockpuppetry to evade the block) is a good argument. I believe the admins who failed to identify this sockpuppet, and the users who were actively supporting him should share a moral responsibility for these past incidents. Taking into account that you were among the supporter of User:Marknutley aka User:Tentontunic, I am not sure you have a moral right to write that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow -- now you try "guilt by association." My posts at SPI were only to confirm that TFD has zero evidence to support his accusations. And had absolutely no evidence in the huge majority of his SPI allegations. Now you appear to say that I "supported" Nutley? Can you not see this is part of the problem here in the first place? The desire to find editors "guilty" of supporting "evildoers"? And you aver that I have no "moral right" to post here about matters of fact? Sheesh!!! (extra bangs deliberate). By the way, TFD has an extensive history on WP notiveboards. I fear you just did not know about it. But that "moral right" comment of yours seems to almost reach his level. Collect (talk) 09:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would point out to you that it was I who opened the SPI that lead to the exposure of User:Tentontunic as a sock of Mark Nutley. Prior to that there was no reason for any of us to suspect User:Tentontunic, so none of us share a moral responsibility for these past incidents, as you claim. --Martin (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concede that, whereas the question about possible sockpuppetry was raised not by you, by filing a request you demonstrated that you genuinely believed in Tentontunik's innocence. It is clear from the conversation on his talk page that you initiated this check to put an end to baseless (as you thought) allegations about Tentontunic's sockpuppetry.
I agree that during this story you did nothing that is prohibited by policy, but, if I were you (or Collect) I would abstain from any mention of this story on this talk page.
Note, I write about moral responsibility, because in my mother country the moral and legal aspects are clearly separated. Noone is speaking about any sanctions against you, I am speaking about some self-restriction any noble person is supposed to impose on himself after such a story. To avoid possible misunderstanding, under "legal aspects" I meant just WP policy (which is our "internal law"), by no means this is a legal threat.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I were you, I would refrain from telling anyone here that they have no "moral right" to post here. I suggest that anyone here can look at the vast array of SPI reports from TFD. Collect (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. By writing "If I were you, I would refrain from telling anyone here that they have no "moral right" to post here" you implied, may be unintentionally, that something in my present or past behaviour does not allow me to speak about "moral rights". I admit that that might be not what you wanted to say, however, if your point was different, then what it was? The references to TFD's behaviour are hardly relevant, because the opponent's behaviour, whatever unacceptable it is, cannot serve as an excuse when we speak about our own behaviour from the moral viewpoint.
In addition, you have already been explained that most SPI reports were justified, and although many of them had not revealed open sockpuppetry, in many cases the connection between IPs and the users has been confirmed. My advise in this situation is: forget about that. The more you develop this theme the weaker you major point is.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request: I am preparing a comment, and trying to sift through both the DIGWUREN decision, the scores of enforcement actions, and the diffs provided here. I understand that there are several years of conflict, but I am certain that I am interested in current behavior rather than bad interaction or behavior from 2009, and actually find the old diffs make it harder to sort through what's going on. I assume other uninvolved editors may feel similarly. Would editors bear this in mind as they choose how far back to document their claims? Thank you. Jd2718 (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion was not easy to follow, as much of it rehashes behavior from two years ago, and much of it argues emigre politics through the lens of how are editors here have portrayed them or attempted to portray them, meta-content if you will. It is worth stepping back and remembering what makes this area tricky.
For two hundred years prior to World War I, Estonia was part of the Russian Empire. After WWI Estonia gained independence, only to be incorporated in the Soviet Union in 1940, then occupied by Nazi Germany in 1941, and reconquered by the Red Army in 1944. Much of the nation, and the vast majority of the nationalist intelligentsia, yearned for independence, and found the greater threat in the East, as there was widespread repression (and much more recent history of domination).
Much as there is gray area when we consider if the Soviets were acting as communists or as Russian nationalists, so there is some gray area as we look to whether many Estonians were acting as nationalists or as anti-communists. Attempts to tar the entire nation as right-wing nationalist or fascist-sympathizing are repugnant, it's just not true. Yet there certainly were individual right-wing nationalists and fascist sympathizers. Especially in emigre communities (US, Australia, among others) during the Cold War, a blind eye was turned from the minority who had questionable politics, or who had actively collaborated with the Nazis. The post-war deportations only served to harden the hostility and resentment against the Soviets.
Estonia regained independence in 1991, after a four year popular campaign. Complicating the current conflicts (both here and external to Wikipedia), with independence, and with a large Russian minority, language and citizenship laws were adopted that promoted learning the Estonian language, but which were widely perceived by non-Estonians as discriminatory. It is also worth noting that far right wing parties do not play a major role in post-Soviet Estonian politics.
The decision singles out collective guilt by association arguments as sanctionable. The Four Deuces has come very close to that line. Some argue (I disagree, I don't see the "generalized accusation") he crossed it this month at Talk:Lia Looveer. Fred Bauder so reasoned when he banned TFD from a range of articles. But the decision does not say that there are no right wing Estonians, and that no Estonians were fascist sympathizers.
However, with this edit on the Lia Looveer talk page, TFD trolled Estonian-sympathetic editors. He was not proposing an edit. He was not proposing a deletion. He seems to have been trying to get a rise out of nationalist edit-warriors. "Today," this edit says to me "would be a good day for a fight..." And Vecrumba sank to the challenge. TFD tries to guilt Lia Looveer by association, and Vecrumba responds to the trolling by accusing TFD of smearing all Estonians.
Fred Bauder is an uninvolved administrator, and the sanction was within his discretion. Remedy 8 of DIGWUREN allows him to sanction for "generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group"..." harbor Nazi sympathies" - that has not happened here. However it also allows any uninvolved admin to sanction for "future attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground" - and that seems clearly to have occurred.
Looking just at the recent events, both The Four Deuces and Vecrumba displayed battleground mentality, though there is no question that initiating the brawl, as TFD did, is far more concerning. I would recommend Fred or another admin look again at how TFD's report of Vecrumba was closed, but with little sympathy for either editor. Edit warriors harm the project. Jd2718 (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One way or another TFD needs to quit engaging in ideological struggle in the context of ethnic minorities of the Soviet Union, and if he won't quit voluntarily because he has insight into its effect we will cause his behavior to cease involuntarily. By the way, indefinite means until he decides to change, not forever. User:Fred BauderTalk17:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I do not believe this was ideological struggle. And I think you miss when you apply the "generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group... harbor Nazi sympathies." Rather, it appears to me that TFD was taunting. He found Aarons, and used it to reopen a discussion that had been closed for a year, with no goal, as far as he indicated, to change the article. The source is reliable, and he knew or should have known it would provoke a fight with those who are loath to admit there are Estonians with unsavory connections. And, sure enough, despite no article's content being at stake, Vecrumba joined that fight. It is the battlefield mentality on both sides that is problematic. They were not even struggling over article content. Jd2718 (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so what would the appropriate remedy be if we adopt that view? However, I'm not sure anyone is loath to admit there were collaborators, or even actual Nazis; anyone is informed is aware of them. The issue is condemning anyone left of center, indeed, anyone who was not a ardent supporter of the Soviet government as a Nazi. User:Fred BauderTalk18:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My detractors will label me as combative for responding, still,... I would remind Jd2718 that I am not the one here who decided to escalate conflict by attempting to ban an editor who didn't agree with their smearing Baltic nationals or émigrés as Nazi supporters. Complaining about such conduct on the part of an editor as "trolling" on an article talk page, in the absence of any other proposed contributions by said editor and based on their past content edits at the article in question, is rather mild, I think, when I've been told to my face by at least one editor on WP that a "majority of Latvians were happy for Nazi rifles to kill Jews." I had no desire to escalate the conflict and take TFD to arbitration enforcement. I don't subscribe to controlling WP content by attempting to ban the so-called opposition. I can't debate someone I don't agree with if I get them banned, now can I? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK18:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But when he trolled with Aarons, which is what I think he was doing, you responded badly. First, you didn't need to reply, though you certainly had the right to. Second, when you wrote that he was "implying that all Estonian-Australians were Nazis" - that is certainly not what he had done, you were escalating. Look, I am not trying to equate the behaviors: he initiated this latest battle without cause, but what you did is not good. And even what you have written here, 2 year old diffs, and just above, an anonymous complaint about an unnamed editor... I think you are making things worse. Perhaps you should be reminded that Wikipedia is not to be used as a battleground.
(I began reading yesterday thinking I would recommend that TFD's appeal be partially granted. After reading, I am unable to make that recommendation). Jd2718 (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Peters here. Whereas the TFD's behaviour is not something outstanding as compared to that of many users they interact with, one feature is specific to TFD: they resort to AE too frequently, and files the reports that are usually are somewhat frivolous. By doing that they waste their own time, the time of their opponents, the time of their supporters, and the admins' time, which leads to nothing useful. In connection to that, the correct measure would be not topic ban, but AE ban. I seriously suggest to discuss this opportunity.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could agree, and some sort of AE ban might make sense, but this edit was gratuitous, it served no purpose other than to stir the pot. It was not made in the heat of the moment - the conversation was a year stale. The page is already in a known area of conflict, and the editor is well-aware of that. I really do wish I could agree. Jd2718 (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree re Vecrumba. Perhaps, though, he needs to be cautioned; it was far too easy to reignite this, and he bears some of that responsibility. Jd2718 (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a pattern of rotating articles pertaining to the Soviet legacy at which certain historical and other contentions are made generally by the same editors, with the same debate being had in line with Medvedev's truth commission countering "increasingly harsh, depraved, and aggressive" attempts to rewrite history on the one side and those who would generally be seen as representing the receiving end of the Soviet legacy on the other. The same debate can rise up anywhere at any time at any article that's otherwise been stable for quite some time, sucking that article into a debate that's likely current somewhere else, in this case, I believe, current editorial conflict at Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states being taken to an article which the same community editors would have on their watch lists, Lia Looveer. That is how the conflict is played and escalated. You will note that the proceedings here have degenerated into the same said debate. Let us not lose sight of the particular issue here going back to TFD's very first edits of article content including misrepresenting sources as indicating Looveer "supported" a (known, indicated by presence in same sentence) "Nazi war criminal." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK19:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@ PЄTЄRS J V. I would suggest you to remove your statement about Medvedev's truth commission. Although this accusation is veiled, it is a very serious accusation that needs to have been supported by equally serious evidences. Taking into account the circumstances both you and I are aware of (don't force me to explain that in more details), you have to have even more serious ground for writing that.
If you remove your last post, I will remove mine. I also authorize you to remove my post by yourself if I'll not do that by myself within 1 hr after you removed yours.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, did not notice this sooner. Contentions that the Baltic states were "occupied" are a top target of Medvdedev's truth commission. I likely don't need to remind you of the praise which state-controlled media heaped upon his "timely move" to save Russian history from the Ukrainian, Georgian, and Baltic "falsifiers" of history. You are obviously free to disagree with my characterization of the conflict on WP tending to move from article to article and for it including a strong component conflating defending Russia with defending the Soviet legacy. The pot being stirred may change, but the ingredients remain the same. As we are not connecting on "circumstances," feel free to communicate by E-mail so I may better understand what you would prefer be redacted. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK04:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If your concern is that I may be contending that the commission operates on WP, that is not my intent in any fashion. The phenomenon of collective memory reinforced by personal intellectual allegiances is more than sufficient to fully account for the ongoing conflict. Nor do I think that paid propaganda pushers I've taken on in the past who represented Russian interests were in any way connected with the Russian administration. If this isn't on target regarding your concerns, please let me know. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK04:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although I heard about the Medvedev's comission, I am absolutely not interested to know which concrete ideas this commission is pushing. As I already explained, my position has been formed based on what I read in English scholarly sources, and I use Russian sources much less frequently then, for instance, you do. After EEML incident I disabled my e-mail, I do not communicate with anybody in Wikipedia privately, and I am not intended to do so. I work absolutely openly, my all contacts with other users are being done exclusively via my talk page; I express my own, and only my own, position (I already explained what it is based on), therefore, the generalisations you made in your post are somewhat insulting, and, whereas I could reply in the same vein, I would like to abstain from doing that.
Finally, let me quote one Benedict Spinoza's aphorism, which, seems to be very relevant to this case:
I believe your will forgive me for changing the order of the names (in the Spinoza's version it was reverse). Try to remember this aphorism. It may be useful in future.
I've not victimized nor insulted anyone. You are free to disagree with my perception of the state of affairs either geopolitically or regarding Wikipedia. Obviously I was mistaken that there was something so wrong in something I stated regarding the historical truth commission that you could not address publicly that I thought a confidential contact was more appropriate. (I really don't care what your Email address is, and you can easily set up an account anywhere to send me an Email that is not traceable to yourself.) And you did reply in the same vein and in a manner which seemed more an attempt to pursue your status of victim by my hand than friendly advice. Just saying. I do agree that we have exhausted our conversation and the patience of others here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK18:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@jd2718 The recent edit by TFD[65] cannot be taken in isolation, but is part of an ongoing pattern of an ideological struggle articulated as opposing "The political implications in Eastern Europe have been to rehabilitate Nazi collaborators, villianize the Jews whom they connect with Communism and encourage discrimination against Russians living in their countries". jd2718 is correct in stating this recent edit[66] trolled Estonian-sympathetic editors. For some reason TFD thinks this idelogical goal is best served in trolling the article Lia Looveer, why that article and not some other? Well apparently he believes that a Wikipedian is connected to Lia Looveer[67], so the implication of this trolling is clear. Almost the entire talk page is filled with this type of trolling. It is tiresome and it is offensive, so much so that Looveer's son felt compelled to comment during the AfD discussion[68]. While TFD may think he is just carrying on some kind of ideological struggle, his actions do impact real people. The very fact that TFD has focused his ideological struggle this and related articles is itself an insinuation that Estonia-sympathic editors are engaged in "rehabilitate Nazi collaborators, villianize the Jews whom they connect with Communism and encourage discrimination against Russians living in their countries". TFD has already been cautioned numerous times, the last time TFD would have received a three month topic ban, but promised he will avoid implied slurs against people and groups in the future. --Martin (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised that Fut.Perf sees only a simple legitimate content dispute on Lia Looveer. Given his own ethnicity/nationality (as assumed by the fact that he indicates he is a native German speaker on his user page) one would think he, if anyone, would see the problem of slurring edtors, sources and public figures based upon association. Evidently it seems Fut.Perf thinks it's okay if someone trolled pages he worked on and labelled his edits as far-right ethnic nationalist POV of "rehabilitating Nazi collaborators, villianizing Jews and encourage discrimination", not on the evidence of his actual edits, but on the basis that his grandfather's uncle may have been one of the 43.9% that actually voted for the National Socialists in the 1933 general election, that today a tiny minority of his fellow German-speaking compatriots are neo-Nazi skinheads or that his government for a long time denied citizenship to the children of the longstanding Turkish immigrant propulation and even today require those German born of immigrants to naturalise by age 24. I thought Wikipedia was beyond that? But apparently it appears Fut.Perf is ready to turn a blind eye to editors who want to carry on the ideolgical fight by trolling article talk pages. I suppose it is easier to just dismiss this as "the usual in fighting and tag teams" rather than get to the root cause as Fred Bauder, who particpated in the original WP:DIGWUREN case that examined this same issue as an Arbitrator, has. --Martin (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find by TFD's statement that his "girlfriend's father was a police officer in Latvia during the war" who "took personal risk in opposition to the German government", is somewhat incongruent with the facts surrounding the demise and recreation of the Latvian police during the war. Taken together with the evidence that he wilfully misrepresented past situations[69] and his evident trolling of Talk:Lia Looveer and while making contentious unsourced edits that anyone with a modicum of knowledge of the history of the Baltics simply would not do, things that have expended any reserves of good faith, I have to question the truthfulness of his statement which has the appearance of being designed to win sympathy. --Martin (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that his girlfriend's father resisted Nazism and have never questioned that, what I was questioning (perhaps somewhat clumsily) was the claim he was a "Latvian police officer", which appears rather contrived given the locus of this current case, and when viewed conjunction with TFD's general absence of interest in Baltic topics apart from those particular articles he has been causing conflict and his propensity to misrepresent sources and events, as evidenced above. That's all. --Martin (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TFD purposely trolled the talk page of Lia Looveer to slur this person through association with alleged war criminals to apparently invoke a reaction, thus reporting that person to AE seeking an indefinite block. While these specific sources mention Looveer in regard to her capacity as secretary (and thus sometimes referencing her minutes) of various ethnic councils and committees within the Liberal Party of Australia, and as such in her role as secretary she came in contact with a wide variety of people, none of these sources explicitly claim any complicity or support by Looveer of those individuals exposed as alleged war criminals nor sympathy for Nazism. Yet these sources were used to imply, insinuate and synthesise such support or sympathy existed[70].
Now taken together with past tendentious misrepresentation of sources such as:
adding material claiming Looveer supported alleged Nazi war criminal Lyenko Urbanchich.[71], stating on talk "The article should mention that the subject was on the executive of the Liberal Ethnic Council and supported the president Lyenko Urbanchich when the Liberal Party tried to suspend him." even though there is nothing published that she had done so.
claiming that Looveer "defected" to Nazi Germany[72], claiming on talk "Looveer gave up her allegiance to the USSR when she went to work for the Third Reich.", "In other words, she "defected"." without any source to back that politically loaded term.
This [75], [76], [77], [78], [79] is a demonstration that the reliable source on this subject are really scarce. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the primary reason for posting the information about a new source was trolling. It was quite probable that the genuine motive was just to present a new source (in addition to the very limited amount of the currently available sources), although I admit that that was done not in the most polite form. However, taking into account that overall tone of the discussions in this area is far from what is normally accepted in Wikipedia, I do not think the TFD's behaviour was something outstanding.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TFD has been given at least four Digwuren warnings. He appealed (unsuccessfully) his being added to the Digwuren notification list. He has filed several AE actions based specifically on Digwuren, including the one which led to this action wherein he asked for an indefinite block of another editor. He has had several of his AE requests closed with notice that they were frivolous and that he faced substantial sanctions if he continued to file them (see above where Sandstein, Ed Johnston, and Mkativerata opinined in such matters, among others). He has dodged multiple bullets in the past. It is quite unlikely that he was not aware this could happen, considering the statements by those admins in the past, and his own seeking of blocks and bans of any whom he has had disputes with - including on the order of a hundred accused by him of being "socks" without any actual evidence. ArbCom showed concern about a 20% "false positive" rate on Scibaby SPIs. This false positive rates is vastly worse. I trust this summarizes adequately the fact that he was aware of the sanctions and warnings, and has been treated leniently thus far. Collect (talk) 09:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding sock accusations: [80] 11 IPs. [81] 5 insufficient evidence cases 16 Apr 2010. 26 Jan 2011 1 "no evidence" case. [82] 8 bad accusations. [83] 2 accused. [84] 20 Apr 2010 - 2 innocents. 25 September - 3 innocents. [85] another 3. [86] another 2. [87] 1 more. In short - 65 of his accusations failed. I think that represents a substantial number, in point of fact. I am not counting ones where later accusations by others actually had real evidence. It is possible that any sanctions might well include all noticeboard accusation sanctions rather than a limited topic ban. Collect (talk) 12:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AE requests: [88] "insufficient evidence" per HJ Mitchell. [89] "[hide]No action against individual editors, but the article is placed under additional restrictions instead" [90] clear. [91] no action taken in response to TFD's call for "User:Martintg is topic-banned from topics related to Eastern Europe."
For Eastern Europe connection see [92]You also claim the articles say "two of the subjects were unsuccessfully prosecuted for actions at a demonstration while the third was denied entry to Estonia.". That is not true, they were not prosecuted for actions at a demonstration - as stated in the articles, they were arrested on charges of organizing mass riots etc. showing TFD having a clear connection directly with Digwuren topics.
Also note Martintg has also recently edited Communist terrorism and participated in discussions on the talk page. A request for clarification has decided that this article comes under the Eastern European topic ban. TFD (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC) indicating further that TFD was "aware" of the Digwuren applicability to behaviour. TFD seeking to ban an editor at [93] and so on. His "clean block log" is a miracle of the first water. Collect (talk) 12:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A brief examination of just the first example ([94]) shows that those "11 IPs" in actuality shared the same geographical location and they were claimed to be suspected socks of a single user. Therefore, we speak about just one case, not about eleven. I have no time to analyze other cases, but I expect that the analysis will reveal the same tendency: those 68 cases will become 5. In addition, let me quote the opinion of the uninvolved user taken from the first link provided by you:
"@TFD: If you have a 30% accuracy ratio on SPI filings, then please keep up the good work! I'd certainly much, much rather see seven users of ten that you suspect subjected to the minor inconvenience of an SPI that turns up negative than let three of ten users you have reason to suspect just continue socking. Good on you: if you can maintain that level of accuracy then please file more of them. – OhioStandard (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)"
You mean if I named 20 users in one filing, as long as I claimed, without actual evidence, that they were one user, that only one person could have been harmed and not 20? A quite interesting point of view, that. Meanwhile, this appeal regards TFD, and does not need you dogging each post. The fact is that many IPs and registered userswere wrongly accused of being socks, and that they formed the vast majority of the accusations, and that evidence was not even furnished for the accusations in many cases. I am glad you feel that everyone in, say, San Francisco, as they are in the same "geographical location" could properly be included in a single list of "suspected socks." I, however, demur on such accusations. Collect (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant, if 11 different IPs located in Leeds, UK simultaneously expressed interest in right-wing politics, it was highly unlikely that all of them were independent. Obviously, they all (or almost all) are likely to belong to the same person, and, if this person is not a registered user, that is not a crime per se. Therefore, this 11 accusations are, the most likely, a single accusation. In addition, if I understand this case correctly, the user "ERIDU has admitted that the IPs are theirs", so I even don't think it is correct to claim that the accusation was totally wrong. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SPI reporting is for clear abuse. It is not for making editing life hell for those who disagree with you. And it is not for making accusations in so many cases with nothing more than "they disagree with me." Deduct Eridu, and you still have an extraordinary number of bad reports. With a worse percentage than the Scibaby ones noted by ArbCom. Collect (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see you conceded that the Eridu case was not a good example. Do you want me to examine other cases (including the Marknutley/Tentontunic case that you left beyond the scope)?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@T Canens. Not requiring the "same standard" but a question of "no evidence at all" - other than (for registered editors) disagreeing with him on article talk pages. Very few editors have anywhere near as poor a level of positive results as TFD has.Collect (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One example [95] 26 Jan 2011 is one of many where checkuser was specifically declined (I think you may be under the misapprehension that CU was performed on all of the cases?) Clerk note: Honestly, I too am having a hard time seeing the connection. It's true that they did edit some of the same articles, but their other edits are quite different. Jprw has been an editor since 2008, and without being able to do a CU, this gets a little tricky. Collect TFD, could you perhaps provide some specific diffs to support your claims, or some specific evidence that shows a connection? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC) is fairly clear, no? [96] did not need CU to show "unrelated." and so on. In short - cases are sometimes declined by checkuser to begin with due to the lack of actual evidence (other than having a conflict with TFD). Collect (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fred, TFD certainly must by now be aware of remedy 8 of WP:DIGWUREN, having had two prior complaints brought against him on precisely that basis here and here. The first case was deemed outside the scope of WP:DIGWUREN but he was formally warned in any case[97], the second case he would have received a three month topic ban but apologised at the 11th hour, there by escaping sanction.
Stephan, it isn't like we are discussing the imposition of a permanent site ban, but a limited topic ban which wouldn't impact his main area of interest but restrict him from a small area where he hasn't contributed anything other than disruptive soapboxing, trolling and generally creating a battleground. Fred Bauder was one of the Arbitrators who heard the original WP:DIGWUREN case and helped draft the remedies, I think he if anyone, would have a fair idea of whether or not TFD crossed the line. Discretionary sanctions apply to an area "defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, "broadly interpreted". The wider issue here is that TFD's trollish edits had a polarising effect, with others joining the fray[98]. I think our right not to be continually offended by TFD's battleground behaviour outweighs his right to edit a small topic area that is not his main area of interest. --Martin (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lia Looveer falls within the scope of "Eastern Europe"
Stephan Schulz questions whether Lia Looveer even falls within "Eastern Europe". Well TFD explicitly asked the ArbCom to rule on specific articles as "Eastern European" here. TFD actually asked if Lia Looveer was covered in the scope of "Eastern Europe". The ArbCom ultimatetly agreed with Arb Steve Smith's view "It is my view that a wide construction of the ban's scope, as prescribed in the remedies, would include all of the articles mentioned". This clarification was used as the basis of putting Mass killings under Communist regimes under a WP:DIGWUREN sanction. So there is no question that Lia Looveer also falls within the same scope. --Martin (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having followed some of the discussion here, I must say I agree with uninvolved Fifelfoo above, and partly with Russavia. Especially seeing Fred Bauder's latest contributions [99], I find he has been venturing far too much into the area of his own POV judgment of what is, in essence, still a simple legitimate content dispute, for me to be comfortable with him handing out this sanction. I also find the evidence of disruptive behaviour on TFD's part slim, certainly as regards the specific Lia Looveer episode under discussion here. I am also rather unimpressed with the way this whole process has again been derailed by the usual in-fighting by the usual tag-teams (one would expect they should know by now that turning up together at AE threads to support their friends or press for sanctions against their foes is not a good idea.) Right now, I'd tend to oppose this sanction. Fut.Perf.☼19:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to think that this represents a better approach than where I was heading. I also agree in particular about Fred's use of his own judgment in evaluating a source. However, I still see no content dispute, just talk page trolling and flaming, and that should not be happening. If TFD's appeal were granted, do you believe a warning (or reminders to both editors) about talk page decorum and WP:Battleground would be sufficient? Jd2718 (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the topic ban is justified for dubious use of sources, which even his friend Paul Siebert admits, and for repeatedly soapboxing on the talk page for nearly two years. Simon Wiesenthal only called Urbanchich a "Nazi collaborator" in that source (Hancock), which is a bit short of "war criminal". [100] Urbanchich was revealed to have been an anti-Semitic propagandist for a Nazi radio station during the war. Not even Mark Aarons calls Urbanchich directly a war criminal, but only uses the convoluted sentence "He was also the last, and most powerful, of the central and eastern European Nazi collaborators and war criminals." As the latest example of TFD's soapboxing, [101] the so-called "new evidence" is nothing more than a 2001 book by (same old) Mark Aarons, whose 2006 newspaper article was already (improperly) cited in the Wikipedia article. In that diff TFD launches at the bait-takers: "Seems funny to create an article about someone who is interesting because of her connection with colorful characters, then remove all the references." But at the time when he wrote that, the article had the (improperly sourced) phrase "Lyenko Urbanchich (a right-wing politician who was later exposed as a Nazi war criminal)." in it! The incorrect information had been added by TFD, and had been continuously in the article for about two years [102]. That summarizes TFD's contributions to the article. By the way, I have tagged the article Lyenko Urbanchich for massive copyright violation, but that's my level of involvement here. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to Fred Bauder Talk 19:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC) above: Given Australian libel laws, and that the Aarons book was published by a commercial press, it is unlikely to include untruthful statements. Additionally, while members of the CPA may have had a degree of animosity towards Australians (including immigrant Australians) on the right, the history of CPA publications is not one of lies (unlike, for example, the Soviet CP), but one of ideologically framed interpretations clearly made as such; even under Lawrence Sharkey. Aaron's book seems to fit to some degree into this case—his interest in the role of right wing Australians has an obvious ideological basis. In relation to "related works" the PhD thesis had an editorial oversight completely separate to the CPA or Aarons; and, follows on from the generalisation that high quality reliable sources are capable of "washing clean" primary sources—scholarly judgement is of its nature capable of piercing through the limitations of other texts and uncovering the verifiable truth within them. Both these sources are extensively explored at WP:RS/N. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators performing arbitration enforcement are expected to be dispassionate and detached. On this occasion, as FPAS has commented, Fred Bauder expressed a strong personal point of view, involving himself directly in a content dispute. He imposed sanctions without consulting other administrators based solely on that POV. This involvement has clouded the process of arbitration enforcement and would create an unfortunate precedent if the sanction is upheld. Mathsci (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder's latest diffs seem unconvincing, nor does it seem helpful in any way to use loaded words like "row" and "struggle". Mathsci (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@mathsci I respectfully disagree. Fred has imposed the sanction with a specific reference to the ArbCom ruling, mainly concerning conduct, not content. Btw, these are often two sides of the same coin. For instance, a particular content edit may be judged as using Wikipeda as a battleground, and sanctioned as conduct violation. Fred's judgement may be wrong but he has done nothing out of process. More generally, I think we have contributed more than enough for admins to digest - but they are conspicously absent so far. - BorisG (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. With respect, Fred Bauder should not be commenting in the "uninvolved administrators" section. Please could he move his comments to his own section? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I'll have to say I'm perplexed by this case. Fred's reasoning is not too clear. Fred, can you provide some diffs that show a violation of Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned? I've looked through TFD's edits, but found nothing obvious. Quite independent on wether the restriction is justified or not, I also find it to be overly broad and quite vague. My current tendency is to grant the appeal. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Diffs one and two are proposals of sources that, as far as I can tell, most uninvolved editor at diff three found reliable. Going to RSN when editors disagree about the reliability of a source is normal and recommended procedure. I'd also say that applying DIGWUREN in this is a stretch - I've not seen any "generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group" - the ruckus seems to center on a very specific person, and seems to be quite unrelated to her ethnic or national background (except, of course, in so far as that background forms the canvas of her life). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This whole thing is excessively confusing. Can anyone clarify a few things for me?
Was TFD given notice that a sanction is being contemplated and an opportunity to be heard before the sanction was imposed against him? We are talking about an indefinite topic ban on a long-term editor here, not a short-term sanction on an obviously disruptive SPA. Common sense dictates that we should at least afford them some minimal procedural fairness.
The rationale for the sanction is unclear. With all due respect to Fred, I must say that, having read over his comments in the original thread several times, I still can't figure out exactly which edits caused the sanction. I also don't see how the three diffs Fred linked to in his comment right above can constitute sanctionable misconduct. As Stephan noted, "[g]oing to RSN when editors disagree about the reliability of a source is normal and recommended procedure".
Even assuming for the sake of argument that there is sanctionable misconduct, what justified an indefinite topic ban for a long-term productive editor as the first sanction ever imposed on them?
Unless I missed something, I'm tentatively of the view that the sanction at issue should be lifted, both because of the procedural deficiencies, and because there is so far insufficient evidence that the editor actually engaged in sanctionable misconduct. At a minimum, the duration should be reduced to no more than three months, per usual AE practice.
@BorisG: Most admins are "conspicuously absent" likely because they are deterred by a 135KB-long discussion. The length of an AE thread is, generally speaking, inversely proportional to the chance that an admin will take action on it. T. Canens (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Collect: If the alleged misconduct is filing frivolous AE requests or SPI cases (and since it appears that Fred did find some problems with Vecrumba's edits, it's not entirely frivolous), then the appropriate sanction would be a restriction on filing AE reports or SPI cases. And in this case, Fred imposed an indefinite topic ban on an editor who has never been sanctioned, and for whom the most severe sanction ever proposed by an admin was a 3 month topic ban, when the editor was not, as far as I can tell, aware of the identity of the edits alleged to be sanctionable, or given an opportunity to respond to the allegations. Heck, even now I still can't tell which particular edits Fred based his decision upon - whether it's just the three diffs he gave in this subsection, or there's something more to it. T. Canens (talk) 10:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can you substantiate the "over a hundred" figure? Being a SPI clerk myself, I don't recall seeing such a large number of SPI requests from TFD. T. Canens (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If an SPI request is endorsed by a clerk for checkuser attention, or a checkuser ran a check on it, that means that there is reason to believe that abusive sockpuppetry is going on, and therefore the case is per se not frivolous. We cannot hold users without access to checkuser information to the same standard we hold for users with access to such information. T. Canens (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can see that I've failed here. User:The Four Deuce/s behavior falls squarely within the behavior forbidden by the arbitration decision: to not engage in political struggle while editing articles which concern Eastern Europe; Wikipedia is not a battleground. All we have done here is to battle ourselves. I think what should be done is a ban from the area, as it is obvious to me that political struggle is what he is engaged in. The attempt to craft a limited ban is not something he understands and is confusing to others. He chose a weapon, a book by a Australian with a family and personal history of communist activity, and a technique, guilt by association, which had predictable results when advanced on the talk page of an Estonian emigre. I suppose User:The Four Deuces, has, in a sense, never been warned, although the proposed three month ban, which I was unaware of, should have served. I suggest that the remedy I imposed be reduced to a final warning, with the understanding that further political agitation with respect to subjects relating to Eastern Europe, by which I mean historical cold war subjects, will be grounds for an indefinite ban from editing in this area. User:Fred BauderTalk18:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He was warned, but not in terms of a ban from the entire area of interest:
I've looked over WP:DIGWUREN again, and I really don't think it applies to this case. DIGWUREN deals with large-scale animosities between Eastern European ethnic groups and their champion editors. The locus of the current dispute is Lia Looveer, a (deceased) minor Australian politician from a somewhat conservative party. While she came from Estonia, she left it 65 years ago. This is not an Eastern European conflict, this is a (probably politically motivated) content dispute between a somewhat progressive fraction and a somewhat conservative fraction about a single individuum. The more progressive fraction (including TFD) want to include some information, the more conservative fraction tries to prevent this information from being added. Instead of a good-faith content discussion, both sides try to use wiki-processes to achieve their goals. Many of the editors involved (and commenting) have locked horns before because of their different political perspectives. I think nobody has shown their best behavior here (really, arguing that a journalistic book published by an academic publisher and an accepted PhD-Thesis at a decent accredited university are not RS is not among the best ideas). But this is not an ethnic conflict, let alone an Eastern European conflict, and hence stretching DIGWUREN here is a bad precedent. Argue it out. If you cannot argue it out, delete the article - I don't think anyone will miss it (The preceding sentence is a joke. Or at least half a joke.). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, she was an Estonian "freedom fighter" and awarded the White Star by Estonia, a nation occupied by the Soviet Union for 50 years. And if she is to be considered an Australian politician and "responsible" for the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, see User_talk:The_Four_Deuces#Conspiracy_theory because the premier had recognized Soviet sovereignty over the Baltic nations, that still fits within the scope of the decision. The gravamen of the offense is aggressive point of view editing which attempts to ratify Soviet verdicts and blacken the name of those who resisted. User:Fred BauderTalk19:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I disagree. What you claim, in practice, means that individuals for whom we can construct some tentative chain to Eastern Europe are therefore protected from criticism. In particular, apparently, if they showed some anti-Soviet or pro-Western sentiment. That is not how I read DIGWUREN, and that is not a useful reading. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
People who engaged in Nazi activity in Eastern Europe in the Soviet sphere such as Georg Leibbrandt, and there are reliable sources for it, should have that in their article, and there shouldn't be any fuss about it. User:Fred BauderTalk21:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that this discussion has run out of gas. So far, two reviewing admins have expressed disagreement with the ban, and none were in favor. Do you want to lift your ban, or propose something different? Incidentally thank you for participating at AE. All former arbitrators are welcome :-). EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess reduce the ban to a warning that continued aggressive tendentious editing of articles, including provocative talk page edits, which relate to ethnic or political conflict in Eastern Europe may lead to a topic ban. The ban was justified, but I do feel I blindsided him. The arbitration decision was fair but harsh and meant to be, however it may have not been clear that taunting might lead to a ban. I am not familiar with TFD abusing Arbitration Enforcement, but if you feel that has been a problem it might be an appropriate matter to address. User:Fred BauderTalk18:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the proposed language for a warning of TFD to be added at WP:DIGWUREN?:
Continued aggressive tendentious editing of articles, including provocative talk page edits, which relate to ethnic or political conflict in Eastern Europe may lead to a topic ban.
Continued disruptive editing by The Four Deuces (talk·contribs) which relates to ethnic or political conflict in Eastern Europe may result in a topic ban.
Sorry, I was offline for the weekend. The Un ballo in maschera performance in Zürich is spectacular, and I very much recommend it ;-). I have no qualms with a warning per se. But I still feel that the connection to Eastern Europe (and DIGWUREN in particular) is extremely tentative here, and hence would prefer not to stress it. I've seen claims of Nazi accusations, but the diffs I've seen need a lot of interpretation and bad faith to be interpreted that way (because irony travels badly, read the previous as "cannot reasonably be interpreted that way"). If there are more obvious diffs, I'd likely change my mind.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Three uninvolved admins have reviewed Fred's action: Future Perfect, Stephan and T. Canens. They all favor lifting TFD's ban. So this appeal is successful and the ban is lifted. I am logging a warning to TFD in the case, per the above discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Note: I'm aware that these diffs are spread over a long period, and that some of the older ones (especially the first one) ordinarily could be considered stale. However, what I'm trying to demonstrate is that Volunteer Marek's incivility and assumptions of bad faith have been an ongoing problem since he became involved in these articles around a month ago, and I think the only way to demonstrate this is with diffs spread over a long period.
April 14 Incivility: "Stay the hell off my talk page. You're not welcome here."
April 25 More incivility: "This "stability" argument is about the dumbest argument I've encountered on Wikipedia (not just here but in some other contexts as well)."
April 24 "Yes, the usual three involved editors, all with accounts which all became operational in October or November 2010, shortly after the Race and Intelligent ArbCom case closed, tag teaming on this and other articles." This comment is a way for Volunteer Marek to say that all of the editors who disagree with him on these articles are actually sockpuppets, without actually saying it.
April 26 "mustihussain, what would another arbitration case do? After it closes and bans and blocks are handed out, we'd just get a fresh crop of SPA accounts that pop up and pretend to be new to these articles, while the watchers loose interest." Another backhanded accusations that I and the other editors disagreeing with Marek are socks, without saying it directly or providing any evidence.
April 26 Volunteer Marek creates an acronym to use as a personal attack against the people who disagree with him: "YAR/IRSPA (Yet Another Race/Intelligence Recent SPA)" (This was his entire response to user:QuintupleTwist)
May 3 "Let me guess, next step is to claim "no consensus" because a bunch of created-right-after-end-of-Arb-Com-case-on-Race-and-Intelligence single purpose accounts will object no matter what." Volunteer Marek posted this comment while unreverting a revert of a contentious change he'd made, without trying to discuss it first. This was his justification for doing that: that the opinions of the editors who disagree with his changes don't matter because of who we are.
May 3 Referring to his previous comment, when his changes were reverted a second time: "And did I call it right, or did I call it right?", while linking to the diff of the revert. Note that contrary to Volunteer Marek's claim, the person who reverted him (User:SightWatcher) is not a single-purpose account. The majority of Sightwatcher's participation is in articles about books and movies: [105]
May 5, May 5 Both of these whole comments are uncivil, but one good example from the second diff is him referring to my own point as "nonsense" and saying "cut the nonsense". Also note in the first diff his again lumping of Sightwatcher into the group that he calls "created-right-after-end-of-Arb-Com-case-on-Race-and-Intelligence single purpose accounts", even though the majority of Sightwatcher's participation is outside this topic area.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
Warned on August 8 by Sandstein (talk·contribs) about making attacks against other editors unsupported by evidence (at the time Volunteer Marek was known as Radeksz, but that username now redirects to his current user page). This warning was an enforcement action for a separate arbitration case, but it was for the same type of behavior at issue here. On August 10, Sandstein blocked him for continuing this behavior.
It might be helpful for admins to read some of the discussions that Volunteer Marek has been involved in on the talk page of the race and intelligence article. Apart from his incivility, there has been a lot of discussion there about his disregard for the WP:BRD process. When he makes a change to the article with which others disagree, and which is reverted, instead of waiting to discuss it with other editors he immediately reinstates it. For example: [106] and then [107], or [108] and then [109] Volunteer Marek explained in diff #6 above why he does not think he needs to engage in discussion with the editors who disagree with him before reinstating his changes: he disregards our opinions because we haven't been registered for long enough. When I linked him to WP:REVERTING to try and show him that it goes against normal BRD process for him to reinstate changes that have been reverted without waiting for discussion, his response was that he ignores this essay because it was "written by what looks like a clueless naive 12 year old."
By constantly harping on the fact that I (and a few other editors who disagree with him) registered within a few months after the R&I arbitration case, and saying that this discounts our opinions and entitles him to reinstate his changes if we revert them, Volunteer Marek is implying that he thinks we're sockpuppets. If we weren't sockpuppets, how long we've been registered wouldn't be a valid reason for him to do this. Marek could start an SPI if he really believes this, but he's never done so. Instead, he's responded by belittling the editors who disagree with him, and reinstating his changes when we revert them. This makes working collaboratively with him almost impossible.
As linked above, in August Sandstein warned and then blocked Volunteer Marek aka Radeskz for similar behavior. Quoting Sandstein's explanation for the block: "As Russavia's statement correctly notes, the request is additionally disruptive in that it makes veiled allegations of what sounds like serious misconduct on the part of Russavia ("I'm pretty sure something else is going on here which I do not care to discuss on Wiki") without offering any (onwiki) evidence. This is a serious problem given that the Committee, at WP:EEML#Improper coordination and WP:EEML#Radeksz, found that Radeksz has previously been engaged in similar misconduct, and that I yesterday warned Radeksz not to make serious allegations against others without useful evidence." Volunteer Marek's veiled accusation that everyone who disagrees with him on these articles are sockpuppets seems to be a continuation of the same behavior for which Sandstein blocked him.
Response to Marek
Two main points for now:
Part of Marek's argument here seems to be "my conduct was fine because I was right as far as content is concerned," and that there was no reason to remove the content that he added except WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'm not sure if it's appropriate to address content disputes here. But if we're going to discuss content, it needs to be pointed out that most of the content added by Marek was eventually opposed by the majority of editors who have been involved in the article for a lot longer than me or Marek. In the example he mentioned involving the Pioneer Fund, the content he added was opposed by Maunus [110] VsevelodKrolikov, [111] and Victor Chmara [112] Admins can see from reading these diffs what the reasons were for removing this material, and that it was not just because of "no consensus." As Maunus and Victor Chmara explained, the problem is that all of these researchers have many different affiliations, and it isn't neutral to single out the Pioneer Fund and mention none of their other affiliations. Marek has not made any attempt to respond to this argument. His characterizing the reasons for removing this material as IDONTLIKEIT, and ignoring the actual reasons that were given, is a good example of the attitude that makes working collaboratively with him difficult.
Marek does not seem consistent about whether or not can assume good faith about the newish editors that he listed. For the purpose of this report, he says he doesn't know whether we're editing in good faith or not. However, in diff #4 he referred to a "crop of SPA accounts that pop up and pretend to be new to these articles" - what does it mean for us to "pretend" to be new if he isn't claiming that we're trying to conceal earlier involvement under different names? More importantly, in diffs #3 and #6 he used the fact that we registered somewhat recently as a justification to discount our opinions and to unrevert any time one of us reverts him. If treating an editor this way because of how long they've been registered isn't an assumption of bad faith, then it's WP:BITE behavior, which is just as bad.
Response to Piotrus
In light of the history of this topic area, I can somewhat understand suspicion about new editors. That said, if submitting to an SPI is necessary to clear my name, then that's fine. My status as an "SPA" is due mostly due to the fact that this relates to my area of study at university, and it's a topic area that clearly could benefit from improvement. I was not aware at first that SPAs are frowned upon here and I'm still not entirely sure why they are. But given that they are, I recently received some advice from Maunus to try and edit in other topics a bit, which I intend to follow if time and interest permits. As for my knowledge about the history of this topic area and policy in general, these things are not difficult to learn by reading and researching page histories, user contributions, block logs, and the many DR processes that have taken place in this topic area, including (obviously) the big R&I arbitration case. Learning how to lay out an AE thread is pretty easy when you read the page on it and then look at the formatting and procedure for prior threads.
Even so, I do not believe my editing to be tendentious. This is my area of study, but I am not socially or politically invested in the topic. I have been very careful to remain calm and civil, and I've never reverted anything more than twice in a 24-hour period. As I pointed out previously, my standpoint regarding Marek's insertion of the PF line was supported by several other seasoned, respected, non SPA-editors. If anyone can offer me specific advice for how to improve my editing or conduct, rather than just nebulous accusations of POV-pushing or tendentiousness, I will certainly listen.
Additional comments
Since there seems to be some suspicion about my level of experience with Wikipedia in general, I should mention that I lurked here (and sometimes edited) for a long time before creating this account. I’m a reformed former vandal. I was previously active as the IP 24.60.23.30(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), and since July 2009 I used to mess around on various articles making edits that should have been in the sandbox. I didn't want to get into this because of possible outing issues, but the majority of my Wikipedia knowledge comes from a college class wherein the professor was encouraging us to learn how to use Wikipedia kind of similar to these projects WP:SUP but with less direct involvement. So I registered an account and stopped vandalizing, although until last month my roommate still occasionally used this IP for less than stellar edits. Last month I asked him to stop, so there should be no more vandalism from this IP from now on.
If anyone does not believe that this IP is me, there are a few edits from it such as [113] and [114] where I meant to post from my account but forgot to log in. I did not first become active at Wikipedia in November 2010. As can be seen from the IP's contributions, I have been here since July 2009. November 2010 is when I registered an account, stopped vandalizing, and began trying to actually improve articles here. It's more than a little frustrating that this change of heart is causing more suspicion, not less. I would like to edit the topic area I know best. I am a psychology student and a radio producer in Boston, and I'd like to keep Wikipedia separate from real life. It's frankly a bit ridiculous that accusations are being leveled at me because I know how to use proper formatting etc. As I said before, if you want to start an SPI, please feel free.
Comments on Volunteer Marek's content editing
I hoped this AE thread would be a fairly brief matter of getting Volunteer Marek warned for incivility. But now that it's turning into something more complicated, and Fred Bauder wants to look into whether POV-pushing has been happening, I think we also need to discuss Volunteer Marek's content editing patterns.
[115][116][117][118][119] These are five edits on five different articles, in which Marek has added the same accusation against the Pioneer Fund to every article he's participated in that mentions it. I don't have any reason to doubt that the sources support this material, but adding the exact same accusation of racism to five different articles is borderline soapboxing. Additionally, although on the J. Philippe Rushton article this information is presented as criticism of Rushton (it's mentioned in the same sentence that Rushton is the fund's current president), several of these sources don't mention Rushton, or mention him only in passing without criticizing him. Using a source as criticism of a living person, when the source does not actually criticize that person, smacks of WP:SYNTHESIS. I explained this in more detail on the talk page here. With this in mind, I tried removing the sources that don't mention Rushton and changed the material to match the remaining sources that actually are criticizing him, but as usual Marek immediately reinstated his material.
Marek has also added similar accusations of racism against individuals rather than institutions. [120][121] As can be seen from their articles, Hans Eysenck and Corrado Gini are known for a lot more than racism and eugenics, but the most negative information available about them is the only information that Marek thinks is worth mentioning. In Eysenck's case, at least one other (uninvolved) person has complained to Marek about this in his user talk: [122][123]
But when there is well-sourced information defending these individuals or institutions? Marek removed that. [124][125] I think the second edit is especially telling because this information had previously been in the article for months, and Marek's rationale for removing it was completely nonsensical. The source for the information that he removed is Ullica Segerstrale, who is a very well-respected academic, and nobody considers her "crazy."
No doubt Marek could come up with an individual justification for some of these edits, but what matters is the overall pattern, and the pattern is not hard to see. The apparent purpose of Marek's involvement in this topic area is to add accusations of racism against individuals and institutions that support viewpoints he doesn't like. Also sometimes to remove sourced content that defends them or makes accusations against people with whom he agrees. The material that he adds is usually supported by the sources, but the sources are also always polemical, and as Fred Bauder pointed out, his argument for including it is generally just "it's in the book."
Marek's editing looks like a mirror image of Miradre, who tried to add material defending these individuals and sometimes removed well-sourced criticism of them. The main differences are that Miradre was more civil than Marek, he was an SPA, and as Tijfo098 pointed out Miradre also made some unequivocally useful contributions in this topic area. Ultimately, Miradre's editing was judged to be tendentious enough that he was warned for it.
[126] If AE ends up concluding that Miradre's behavior warranted a warning but that Marek's doesn't, it is going to cast some doubt on whether AE can neutrally enforce policy without showing favoritism toward individuals based on what their viewpoint is.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Sigh. Boothello has been engaged in tendentious editing related to Race and Intelligence. He has repeatedly removed well-sourced content from these article based solely on WP:IDON'TLIKEIT grounds:
Canvassing [129][130]. The phrasing Edits like this [131] which I reverted, and other edits on articles in this topic area like these [132][133] (which I brought up on the talk and tried to explain what's a problem with them) would benefit from having another set of eyes on them. is pretty much an indirect, and somewhat sneaky way of asking these users for tag-team reverts. Note that while User:SightWatcher was not canvassed on-Wiki as far as I can see, he did in fact show up soon after and make this revert [134].
[135][136][137] removing sourced content, despite numerous sources provided on talk [138]. Here is the RfC where every uninvolved editor disagreed with Boothello [139].
misleading edit summary. Note that Boothello calls an assertion unsourced, removes some texts, re-inserts the assertion way down in the article and then sources it. This looks more like removing text and trying to hide it within an article.
weaseling and pov pushing. Note that the inserted statement, AFAIK, is also untrue. Horowitz didn't defend the book itself, just the right to publish it.
removing reliably sourced content under false pretenses with a misleading edit summary. Boothello removes two paragraphs claiming that "Eugenics.org" is a self published source. This is true, but there's three or four other sources in those two paragraphs. More over - these are reviews of the book so using the actual reviews (i.e. "self-published" in a book by a particular author) makes sense.
POV pushing, poisoning the well - an attempt to suggest that the only people who have disagreed with a piece of racist research have been "Marxists".
removing sourced content per IDON'TLIKEIT. This time the pretext is that this is an image - correct thing to do would've been to expand article text, as the image is clearly relevant and caption well sourced.
(placeholder for more diffs)
Out of the specific accusations provided above:
1. I get to decide which comments stay on my talk page and which don't. In this particular instance, I had just told this particular editor that I did not wish to have any interaction with him [140]. He then came and posted on my talk page. I removed it. To put it quite simply, since this is the "Race and Intelligence" topic area, there's some people that I simply do not wish to interact with because of the views they hold. I can't completely avoid that on article talk pages, but there is no reason why I need to provide my own talk page as another forum for their views.
2. Is not a personal attack directed at anyone in particular, but simply my view on this whole "stability" argument (and it is a dumb argument - I can find half a dozen Wikipedia pages that have been "stable" for a long time but which are total junk)
3-6. This is about me stating the easily verifiable fact that virtually all accounts, including Boothello, on the so-called "herediterian" side of this dispute have been started soon after the conclusion of the Race & Intelligence case, and pretty much all of them stick to editing articles related to Race and Race issues (notwithstanding a few "legitimizing" edits in other topics made once in a while to justify their presence). I will address that in a bit more detail below, but for now, just note that nowhere did I state that these guys are sock puppets. That's just Boothello's imagination - but I am not responsible for that. Honestly, I have no idea whether these are sock puppets, meat puppets or "clean starters" or even folks who just accidentally happened to start their account just as the R&I case was concluding.
Please also note, that my comments here, though I was not explicit about it at the time, were also motivated by the fact that I was aware that Boothello has been canvassing some of these very accounts to intervene on the article on his behalf [141], [142]. It was soon after these canvassing posts were left on these users' pages that SightWatcher showed up.
7. This has been the tactic employed by the above accounts. When an edit they don't like is made, even if it is well cited to a reliable source, one of them removes it citing "no consensus". If someone else restores the edit, then they cycle through and revert always claiming "no consensus". No matter what is said, what kind of argument is made, what kind of sources are provided it's always "no consenus". There isn't a chance at all that they will agree to any kind of edit that is critical of the herediterian view which holds that Blacks are just naturally, genetically, dumber than Whites on these articles. So there's always "no consensus", even if the text being added is cited to very reliable sources.
8. Note that Boothello was actually the first person to use the designation "nonsense" in a bad faith misrepresentation of my edits. I stated that he should not remove text cited to reliable sources. He replied "oh so you're saying that you can add any old nonsense to the article you want". See the problem with that line of argument? He then said that I was saying that "all herediterians have connections with the Pioneer Fund" (a racist organization). This is false - what I said was that all the people listed in the lede had connections with the Pioneer Fund, which they did (and the source specifically discussed their affiliation with the organization). So he was misrepresenting what I was saying. For like a third or fourth time in the row. My patience was running thin, true - but there's no incivility in my post. (I also suggest reading the first diff provided here, which describes the situation quite well I think)
Response to "additional comments"
All this shows is that after somebody removed well sourced text without discussion and for what looked like IDON'TLIKEIT reasons I restored it. Let me stress again that this was sourced text, faithful to the source. The actual problem is with editors who continuously remove sourced text, in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:TE.
WP:REVERTING is in fact an essay, and one which I disagree with. Here's another essay I disagree with: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, revert, revert. This essay I find pretty pointless: Wikipedia:About essay searching. On the other hand, here is an essay I find particularly relevant to this discussion: Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing (#1 check, #2 check, #3 sort of check, #4 check, #5 really big check, #6 even bigger check, #7 let others decide if that's a check, #8 ok, not really a check, #9 check, #10 well that'd be this very report). Also see WP:SFoD (that's one of mine)
SightWatcher(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) - account created Oct 12, 2010. 439 edits [145]. First 15 edits not related to Race and Intelliegence, but then jumps in head first. True, about 200 of the edits are non-Race and Intelligence related. But the nature of the edits which are speaks for itself and folks can draw their own conclusions.
There are also several other users/accounts which had also been created shortly after the ArbCom R/I case and which have edited pretty much R/I articles but since they are not mentioned in this report above I do not think it's necessary to bring them into this.
Of the above, Boothello and Miradre were in fact created soon after the conclusion of the ArbCom case and do edit exclusively on Race/Intelligence topics. SightWatcher was also created soon after the conclusion of the ArbCom case. He actually edits in two areas - films and Race/Intelligence, but his connection to this particular topic area is well known. The other two users are of more recent vintage but are also focused exclusively on R/I topics with the same POV as others.
Hence my characterization above was pretty much correct. Note, again, I did not say that any of these were sock puppets. I'm not a checkuser so I have no way of knowing. They could be. They could be meat puppets. They could be new recruits resulting from the ArbCom case itself. They could be "clean starters" - users who had not been sanctioned but who abandoned their old accounts to have a "clean start" (perfectly within policy ... unless same old conflicts arise). I guess there is a chance that one account was just accidentally created at this particular time. But the probability that all of these, or even just those 3, accounts were created just as the R/I case closed simply by coincidence is very very low. (If the probability of a single new account appearing at this particular time is, say, 25% (which would be HUGE - more like 5%), then the probability that all three appeared at this particular time would be only 1.56%). It is what it is and there's no sense of Boothello trying to shoot the messenger here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see this discussion [148] and specifically these comments by Shell Kinney[149][150] as they relate to the incidence of meat puppetry in this area. In fact, Shell stated in regard to some of the known meat-puppets in this area: They've not been blocked because we want to give them a chance to become editors in their own right... but if they continue with their disputes or other issues in the topic area, they will be banned from the topic area as well. Best I can make out from the discussion, this statement applies to SightWatcher in particular - who obviously "continues with the disputes or other issues in the topic area" - but probably also other editors of that kind.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Fred
All books and sources have a POV, that's never been (nor should it be) a criteria for inclusion. The criteria is whether or not a source is reliable, which here, it is. Also, it's pretty common knowledge within the field that the people listed in the text are all associated with the Pioneer Fund. For each individual a half dozen sources - many "less POV" then this one you're objecting to - could be found. The source I used in particular had the advantage of discussing ALL of these individuals in one place simultaneously. So by using it I was making sure that nobody tries to accuse me of violating WP:SYNTH.
I would also like to point out that I was quite amenable to different wording and, of course, to the inclusion of other non-PF names into the text. At the same time, there is a group of researchers who are associated with an organization that has been often been labeled as "racist", this is an article on "Race and Intelligence", some of the editors involved often try to pass of the works of these researchers as reliable or outright promote them on Wikipedia - for all these reasons, the association of these individuals with PF is a very important piece of info.
But this is something to be discussed on the talk page of the article not here. The new SPA accounts which took over right where the editors who got banned in the R&I case left off have been shown lots and lots of patience. Some of them have admitted to having edited before, while others were shown to be meat puppets of banned editors (see the AN/I thread I linked to above, as well as Shell's comment). I do think that if articles in this area are ever going to be cleaned up, or at least, cleaned up before they end up making Wikipedia look like a laughing stock and a forum for scientific racism, then, yes, a bit of boldness is needed. Allow me to point out that boldness, and being critical, is not the same as incivility which is the basis for this report, but which I did not engage in.
Oh yeah, I might as well point out that technically, I was never notified of the R&I discretionary sanctions, but, you know what, I'm not gonna Wikilawyer that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Boothello's second statement
All the diffs provided by Bh (by Maunus, Vsevolod and Victor) came later on, long after I made any edits to the article. Furthermore Maunus is speaking in general - that PF shouldn't be overemphasized - not that that particular mention of PF was incorrect.
WP:AGF and WP:BITE are not supposed to be a cover for suspicious behavior. There is in fact a history of meat-puppetry in this topic area [151] and WP:DUCK applies.
And to the third
I see that I'm gonna have to waste more of my time responding to Boothello's spurious accusations. Let's see...
[106] [107] [108] [109] [110] These are five edits on five different articles, in which Marek has added the same accusation against the Pioneer Fund to every article he's participated in that mentions it. I don't have any reason to doubt that the sources support this material, but adding the exact same accusation of racism to five different articles is borderline soapboxing. - yes I added roughly the same information to five different articles. Yes, in each case it was highly relevant and important to the topic. Yes, the sources most certainly support the material. No, this is not soapboxing, Boothello does not seem to know what soapboxing is.
several of these sources don't mention Rushton, or mention him only in passing without criticizing him. Using a source as criticism of a living person, when the source does not actually criticize that person, smacks of WP:SYNTHESIS. I explained this in more detail on the talk page here. With this in mind, I tried removing the sources that don't mention Rushton and changed the material to match the remaining sources that actually are criticizing him, but as usual Marek immediately reinstated his material. - no, that's not what happened. I listed about a dozen sources to back it up on the talk page [152]. I didn't think it necessary to add the whole dozen to the article (to make it look like this [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]) so I just picked two or so. Because one (out of a dozen) of the sources is criticizing PF in general (of which Rushton is a the head) and not Rushton specifically Boothello's made a big deal out of it, accused me of SYNTH and completely ignored the other sources I provided. An RFC was opened [153], at least three editors agreed with me and not with Boothello [154]. Why is this being brought up here? If anything this is evidence of Boothello's IDIDN'THEARTHAT attitude.
Marek has also added similar accusations of racism against individuals rather than institutions. [111] [112] As can be seen from their articles, Hans Eysenck and Corrado Gini are known for a lot more than racism and eugenics, but the most negative information available about them is the only information that Marek thinks is worth mentioning. - yet another total misrepresentation (and yes, I am getting quite irritated by this). I did not add accusations of racism to Eysenck's and Gini's articles, where, I agree it might be undue. However, Eysenck's and Gini's views on race are very relevant in an article related to Race & Intelligence. This is common sense. The "complaint" Boothello links to wasn't much of a complaint - hell, the person leaving it qualified it with a statement feel free to disregard, as I don't know the full context).
Marek removed that. [115] [116] I think the second edit is especially telling because this information had previously been in the article for months, and Marek's rationale for removing it was completely nonsensical. The source for the information that he removed is Ullica Segerstrale, who is a very well-respected academic, and nobody considers her "crazy." - alright. I'm starting to get pissed now. This is the second time that Boothello is repeating this, after I explained it to him already, which means he is knowingly misrepresenting facts - i.e. blatantly lying. Here is my explanation to Boothello [155]Also, I would appreciate it if you didn't misrepresent my statement. I didn't say Ullica Segerstrale was part of the "crazy part" of the ideological spectrum. What I said is that all kinds of non-crazy people - not just those associated with Marxism - have criticized this racist research. What I obviously meant was that maybe Marxists were "crazy" (according to some) but they were not the only ones criticizing racist research. (This was in response to this comment from Boothello [156] in which he calls my edit summary "nonsensical" - exactly what he thinks is "incivil" if I do it). He responded to this comment [157], hence he saw it and saw my explanation. Yet, he tries to misrepresent it again here. How does one have an honest conversation with such a person?
No doubt Marek could come up with an individual justification for some of these edits, but what matters is the overall pattern - no, the overall pattern is the sum of its parts. And every single one of these edits is legitimate, and article-improving. Boothello is misrepresenting them.
The apparent purpose of Marek's involvement in this topic area is to add accusations of racism against individuals and institutions that support viewpoints he doesn't like. - uh, the apparent purpose of my involvement in this topic area (a topic area called RACE AND INTELLIGENCE) is to add information on the racist views held by racist individuals - and that ain't me calling anyone racist, it's multitudes of reliable sources. Boothello and his friends try to remove this information per IDON'TLIKEIT. But yes, I don't "like" these viewpoints. Does anyone here like these viewpoints?
sources are also always polemical - bullshit. At most the one source mentioned by Fred was "polemical" (yet still reliable). Boothello is making things up; note this is completely unbacked by any kind of evidence.
Marek's editing looks like a mirror image of Miradre - I can take that as either a personal attack or a compliment. I'm just gonna ignore it.
As it may be apparent from my statement above, I consider Boothello's newest batch of accusations to be extremely manipulative, misrepresentative, false and in a few places seemingly purposefully so. Below Fred suggested filing an AE report on other editors so that their behavior can be examined. Since I think these kind of tactics are fairly representative of Boothello's general behavior in this topic area, my response above, along with other evidence, can very well be made into an AE report, unless, per BorisG, this is dealt with here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by others about the request concerning Volunteer Marek
I find it very curious that Boothello (talk·contribs), an account with <500 edits that begun editing only half a year ago (November 7, 2010) is displaying such an extensive knowledge of our our DR/AE policies to be able to fill in such a detailed report, worthy of an experienced Wikipedian. I see that up till now he has only commented on AE once, and did not comment in any other Wikipedia namespace other than two AfDs. The user has never commented in the Wikipedia talk namespace. His user talk namespace interactions are very limited, dating only to this April, and numbering <20 edits. Despite that, Boothello reports has diffs, links, uses WP:ABBREVIATIONS, templates (user), and shows he understand DR well enough to research and present history of sanctions against a user who has had a (sanctioned) name change. I am not familiar with the Race and Intelligence case, but I'd strongly advise the admins to investigate this as a SPI sock; ditto for QuintupleTwist (talk·contribs) (WP:DUCK/WP:SPADE is quite loud here).
At the same time, I'd advise VM to be less forthcoming with accusing others of being SPIs on regular discussion pages. If concerns arise, I'd suggest bringing them to a DR forum and/or consulting with admin who knows how to handle SPIs first. Commenting on a talk page does little rather than inflame the situation and give ammunition to the culprits, who can (as here) try to claim they have been "personally attacked" (by being called for what they are...but in the wrong place...sigh). Per DUCK/SPADE, I'd hope that admins here would focus on taking care of the ban-evading SPIs rather than shooting the messenger. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Boothello's response. You write: "If anyone can offer me specific advice for how to improve my editing or conduct...". Simply, trying to talk things over through mediation would be much nicer then launching an AE, which suggests bad faith and an attempt to win a dispute through administrative procedures. (Not saying that all or most AE requests are like that, but they usually involve editors previously sanctioned in specific areas, which does not apply to either of you, AFAIK). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the most discouraging aspect of this case is the mention of sloth and laziness. The enforcement of disruptive behavior evidenced by egregious policy violations has never been a serious problem. Obvious problem editors are handled properly and effectively. The problem is that this topic is plagued by WP:CPUSH editors. This has generally taken the form of non-neutral single purpose editors who advocate for promoting their own viewpoint through the misuse of sources. While edit warring is one tactic taken by these editors, the more problematic behavior is the persistent pov pushing and incessant over emphasis on controversial sources.
I appreciate that actually going to the talk page to review the behavior of all parties requires a non-trivial amount of time and energy, but when faced with the problem of civil pov pushing WP:CPUSH, simple diffs are not going to be sufficient to communicate the extent of disruption. In that vein, instead of offering diffs, I suggest that any admin wishing to review the situation read the talk page at Race and intelligence, specifically:
I realize that's a fair amount of reading to undertake. But that's one aspect of civil pov pushing. By creating mountains of discussion without moving forward in a collaborative way, ignoring policy, and ignoring editors, disruption can be cloaked. When I have a chance, I'll go back and give a brief summary of all the sections above to at least aid in separating some of the signal and noise.
Note, that there are a lot of editors that participated in the above discussions. I think the behavior of all participating editors, including myself, should be scrutinized, and that any disruptive behavior handled appropriately. aprock (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The R&I articles have long been an area of contention. I have not been active there for a while, however, generally speaking my participation there was seen as thoughtful and constructive. I regret that looking at Boothello's edit history and command of WP:ALPHABETSOUP they appear to be someone returning to R&I under a new persona, and the attempt to control content through AE requests points, equally, to a veteran of past R&I conflicts. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK01:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion on the talk page, Talk:Race_and_intelligence#all_of_them_ARE_in_fact_associated_with_PF of the disputed edit seems quite incomplete in that a number of obvious alternatives were not discussed. The title, "all of them ARE in fact associated with PF", chosen by Volunteer Marek, is quite argumentative so the conversation kind of gets off on the wrong foot. The source, The race gallery: the return of racial science, obviously has a debunking point of view which seeks to characterize research in this area and link it to discredited ideology. These and other considerations, such as Pioneer Fund being the source of most funding for research could all be considered with respect to how to characterize the role of Pioneer Fund and those associated with it and the research and researchers it has funded. Volunteer Marek is not being very patient and seems unwilling to consider alternatives. He is presumably correct that the material is in a book, but it is a POV book, thus raising questions about how to handle the sourced "fact" which need to be discussed patiently and at length, not short-circuited by a simple assertion that "It's in the book". Editing in an emotionally and politically charged area such as race and intelligence may require more patience than Volunteer Marek has and a topic ban might be appropriate it that is, in fact, found to be the case. User:Fred BauderTalk09:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of simply removing a sourced reference either, on the ground that there is no "consensus"; the last I heard reality is not determined by consensus. The role of the Pioneer Fund seems significant and some researchers are associated with it; the question is how to integrate that sourced information into the article in an appropriate way; for example, in a section rather than in the lead, or with qualifying language such as many researchers are associated with or funded by the Pioneer Fund. Bottom line, it's not black and white and if someone can't get beyond black and white thinking they probably should not be trying to edit the article. User:Fred BauderTalk09:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there are meatpuppetss and SPAs that needs to be dealt with here, not by adopting an ugly attitude. Reasonable courtesy and good faith is required by the specific terms of the arbitration decision. Being unable to definitely link new accounts to the accounts banned from the topic by the arbitration decision is not a barrier to enforcing those bans on new SPA accounts, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Regarding_Ted_Kennedy#Sockpuppets. Hard as may be to maintain it, a user needs to have sufficient faith in administrators' integrity to bring problems up here, not take an attitude that nothing will be done. Engaging in aggressive behavior with the excuse that nothing has been done or would be done when you yourself have done nothing is not acceptable. If you think there are special purpose accounts who are or should be subject to the topic bans imposed on this area bring it up here. Each individual account should receive a warning regarding aggressive tendentious editing in this area by special purpose accounts. User:Fred BauderTalk13:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Boothello(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) began editing November 8, 2010, a few months after the decision in the arbitration case was finalized. His first few edits, all in areas related to race are wikignomish but display a sophisticated knowledge of simply Wikipedia templates. Obviously the account is an alternative account of an experienced Wikipedia editor. 02:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Boothello's explanation of the sudden appearance of his account is accepted the question remains as to whether edits by Boothello have been so disruptive that standard discretionary sanctions should be applied, see Wikipedia:ARBR&I#Case_amendments. I think analysis of their editing patter viewed a whole is required. But perhaps I making too much work out of it. Some egregious examples of POV or disruptive editing might settle the matter. User:Fred BauderTalk11:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Fred: I am not sure filing of separate cases is necessary. There is a warning at the top of this page that if you come here with unclean hands you will bear the consequencies, and that the record of ALL parties will be scrutinised. Thus the record of Boothello can and should be scrutinised here and now. Third parties can be handled separately. I suggest to VM to submit, at the bottom of his statement, a concise evidence regarding Boothello to be examined by admins. Not necessarily by Fred. Does this make sense? - BorisG (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Boothello: your latest statement about your prior history just confirms that suspicions of your past involvement with Wikipedia were not unfounded. I know nothing about this topic and its history, and so cannot judge whether this clears up your entire story (though you do sound convincing). But given your own admitted history, filing a case against an established editor on the grounds of borderline incivility does not seem like a wise move. Rather it looks like an attempt to solve a content dispute by banning an opposing editor. While VM could indeed be advised to be more careful with summary allegations, you don't show yourself in a good light, in my view. - BorisG (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion concerning other accounts that Volunteer Marek alleges are editing disruptively
Until specific allegations have been made and notification made comment is inappropriate.
SightWatcher(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) - account created Oct 12, 2010. 439 edits [161]. First 15 edits not related to Race and Intelliegence, but then jumps in head first. True, about 200 of the edits are non-Race and Intelligence related. But the nature of the edits which are speaks for itself and folks can draw their own conclusions.
I initially had a good impression of Miradre because of him cleaning up some unverifiable statements at Ashkenazi intelligence; and so had other editors it seems. On the other hand, Miradre's insistence on removing accusations of racism from J. Philippe Rushton seemed suspicious. It's true that he only argued to remove indirect accusations, but I had little trouble finding direct ones myself. [163] (supported by the sources already cited in the article) Tijfo098 (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Recently issues have arisen off-wiki connected with the accounts of SightWatcher and Ferahgo the Assassin. I have forwarded details to Shell Kinney as well as the arbitration committee mailing list. Mathsci (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Miradre stopped editing on 22 April after a period of intense activity. She/he had a logged notification of WP:ARBR&I from 2over0. [165]. There was a recent extensive discussion [166] about Miradre's editing on this noticeboard (pace Tijfo098's comments above), No action was taken because it was unclear whether WP:ARBR&I applied to articles like Race and crime. Clarification was later sought from ArbCom, who passed a motion as a result. Mathsci (talk) 03:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Marek (talk·contribs) is warned that he may be banned from editing with respect to the topic of race and intelligence if he fails to extend good faith and reasonable courtesy to others who edit with relationship to that topic. He is required to bring complaints about alleged special purpose accounts or established accounts who he feels are engaged in aggressive tendentious editing the topic of race and intelligence which violate the decision in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Remedies to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement or some other appropriate forum. User:Fred BauderTalk14:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From my talk page:
Disappointed:
You know, Fred, I always thought you were one of the more clear minded and big picture guys around here, but this is disappointing. You are picking up on a good editor, and ignoring the SPI/sock issues. This is very much "lets focus on the letter of the policies and ignore their spirit and the good of the project" bureaucratic attitude ("I don't care if you discovered a terrorist nuclear plot, you filled in the wrong form to report this and you'll be fined for that") that I did not expect from you :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, but I plead sloth: it is easy to determine that Volunteer Marek is being rude; it is hard work to determine if a number of other accounts are violating the arbitration decision in a broad way, especially when Volunteer Marek is not naming names and providing evidence. And by the way, 24 is a TV program. Controversy regarding race and intelligence is not time limited, in fact, it appears to be perpetual. User:Fred BauderTalk19:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More from my talk page:
@Fred. If you're going to plead sloth, then it might be best to withdraw the proposed result. It's hard to see how superficial treatments of AE disputes can lead to good outcomes. aprock (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SightWatcher(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) - account created Oct 12, 2010. 439 edits [169]. First 15 edits not related to Race and Intelliegence, but then jumps in head first. True, about 200 of the edits are non-Race and Intelligence related. But the nature of the edits which are speaks for itself and folks can draw their own conclusions.
Each of these should be carefully investigated and appropriate action taken. However, it will take a while as each of these accounts are entitled to a fair hearing. A request for arbitration enforcement may be made by Volunteer Marek for each of the accused accounts. In other words Volunteer Marek, or any other concerned editor, shall make the request on this page, notify them individually, and present evidence of any improper editing behavior by each ip or user. If there is evidence of tag team editing a request may also be made with respect to the team. User:Fred BauderTalk21:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that we go ahead and close this request with the warning to Volunteer Marek that was proposed above by Fred Bauder. If there is truly a problem of WP:CPUSH on the R&I articles, it may exceed the willingness of individual admins to do their own research. If problems continue, it would be less trouble to impose three months of full protection on each of the affected articles. This would allow consensus changes to be made through {{editprotect}}. As an alternative to full protection, editors could bring individual AE cases against SPA editors that are accompanied by full diffs. This was Fred's suggestion:
In other words Volunteer Marek, or any other concerned editor, shall make the request on this page, notify them individually, and present evidence of any improper editing behavior by each ip or user. If there is evidence of tag team editing a request may also be made with respect to the team.
If there is no objection, in a few hours I will close this request per the above rationale. I also observe that there is no blanket 1RR and no semiprotection in place on the affected articles. Imposing these restrictions could be considered in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per my statement above, Volunteer Marek is warned. No other sanctions. Editors who remain concerned about civil POV pushing on race and intelligence by the single purpose accounts listed above, including Boothello, may consider filing new AE reports with complete diffs. Admins are unlikely to search through hundreds of edits on their own to look for possible misbehavior. When considering which accounts to be most worried about, I recommend looking at their edit count. You should also check whether they've made any well-sourced contributions that seem to improve the articles. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
