User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2011/8

User:Timeshift9
Hi Tim. As the MfD closer of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9, would you take a look at User talk:Timeshift9? There is a disagreement about whether 's recreation of User:Timeshift9 with blog-like material is in violation of the MfD close. I have also contacted, the DRV closer. Cunard (talk) 07:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello there. Further to this, are you open to admin recall?--Surturz (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cunard: I'm on my semi-annual one-month admin tools break due to travel. That said, it does look pretty bad to me, and even if he didn't quite cross the line he's definitely deliberately pushing its limit, which isn't good. A "drama board" posting, as Spartaz put it, looks like a good idea before another MfD if needed.
 * Surturz: I use Julian's process. T. Canens (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing the page. I have asked the community to review the user page at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Cunard (talk) 01:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarity
It's been eight months since you imposed sanctions. I want to make sure 100% since I've seen other editors get their bans extended for editing prematurely. I won't make any edits to controversial articles for now. Thanks. Wikifan Be nice 06:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC) You should probably weigh in here. I had no idea my first edit would be considered a revert since the material I was restoring was removed many months ago. So I really hope this infringement - which I believe is trivial - to be dismissed as you can probably see my past editing history of the last 8 months with very little issues. I don't want to see this mutate into something it isn't. Thanks. Wikifan Be nice 22:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

How to appeal
I wish to appeal for my topic ban to be narrowed to Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I have had no other problems with other parts of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but I don't know where to appeal. Little help?-- RM ( Be my friend ) 18:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Follow the instructions at WP:AE. T. Canens (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Where to go if I escalate a complaint.
Hi Tim,

I'm posting here as you are an admin with plenty of AE experience and may be able to tell me whether something falls best into the AE scope.

An editor was community topic-banned late last year. In an Arbcom case early this year, Arbcom endorsed the topic ban. They also have extended the scope of the usual discretionary sanctions to this subject area. In the past few hours, the editor in question made a post in violation of the ban which I reverted. He then reverted me saying I was too involved which I'm sure does not apply to reverting blatant topic ban violations. I have reverted again and posted to his talk page saying I will escalate if it happens again. Looking at his talk page, the original ban notification is still sitting there with the standard phrasing and so is a reminder of its scope. If I do decide to escalate, should I go to AE or ANI? Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk)
 * Either is fine, though IMO AE is probably preferable to ANI, since the discussion is more structured and record keeping is easier. A community topic ban is the community's even if arbcom endorsed it (or declined an appeal from it), but a violation would almost certainly warrant the use of discretionary sanctions, which is best dealt with at AE. T. Canens (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have gone that route.--Peter cohen (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Three IPs being used by a banned user
I was looking through the edit history of the article 'Cold fusion', and found a suspicious user with a blanked userpage and talk page, named VanishedUser314159. I looked at the two pages' histories and saw that the user was previously named Joshua P. Schroeder, and ScienceApologist before that, and that he had been banned from editting by the arbitration committee earlier this year. I saw that FT2 pointed out that he had used the IP address 128.59.169.49 as a sockpuppet, which I noticed to be almost identical to an IP which had recently editted the cold fusion article- 128.59.169.46. Those two similar IPs are from Columbia University. I investigated further and found that the IP 128.59.169.46 has been used to edit several of the same pages that VanishedUser314159 had editted, and in the same way, indicating that it is clearly him. He hasn't behaved well under his new IP either, having been blocked twice for edit-warring and trolling. After digging further through the edit histories of the articles that Schroeder frequented, I found two more IP addresses that he uses: In the edit history of the article 'Parapsychology', I found the IP 128.59.168.240- another similar IP, which edits the same pages that VanishedUser did, and in the same way. In the edit history of the article 'Tired light', I found the IP 140.252.83.241, which edits the same pages that VanishedUser did, and in the same way. If there is any doubt that the latter IP is used by Schroeder (since the IP is not similar to the others), you can see in the user contributions that there are edits to the article 'Columbia University'. Rachel the nerd (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban
Hello I searched for the mentor but no one really want to step in this mess.Could you at least allow me access to the talk pages as my is nearly over?Thank you for you consideration.--Shrike (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello, Tim. Shrike asked me to be his mentor. I'll happily help him, if he accepts a couple of conditions, and if you think I fit the job. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * At this point, I must say that, with the topic ban expiring in less than 3 weeks anyway, I'm not inclined to tinker with it further. As to the indefinite 1RR/week restriction, I don't think I'll be suspending it even if there's a mentorship arrangement. So a mentorship arrangement is not going to have an immediate effect on the restrictions, and so you don't need my approval for it. With that having been said, if Shrike manages to have a successful mentorship arrangement, that will be looked upon very favorably when he tries to get the 1RR/week lifted. T. Canens (talk) 10:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR's appeal
Timotheus Canens, is it appropriate for me to comment at those proceedings. I did not received any notification, and it appears that they are concerned only with Faintites's conduct, so I am assumed that as someone involved in the dispute, my participation is neither needed or desired, is that correct? And if it is correct, where would I formally request that the actual ban itself be reviewed by uninvolved admins? --Nuujinn (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I feel I must point: Nuujinn is the user who actually wrote the "1st proposal" draft, from Talk:Draža Mihailović/ethnic conflict drafts, that is supported by Fainites. The user has a vested interest in getting me (as the opposing user) banned, which will result in his version of the disputed section being included in the article free of any bothersome compromise. --DIREKTOR (TALK ) 22:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears that the current appeal is focused on whether Fainites is involved, correct. If the currently pending appeal is closed as lifting the ban on that ground, then you may make a request at WP:AE, supported by the relevant diffs, for a review of DIREKTOR's conduct. Note that AE admins are not bound by the terms of the request, and may choose to review the conduct of all parties, at their discretion. T. Canens (talk) 01:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clairification. As DIREKTOR has stated that he will be offline for some weeks, so long as he stays offline there is, I think, no reason to proceed in that direction at this time. My personal hope is that the break will allow him to return in a less combative and accusatory state of mind.
 * There is no doubt that there are many ways in which my actions could have been better, in this area as well as others, but it seems to me that if I am not open to review by others at pretty much any time, I shouldn't be here. If you have any suggestions as to how I can improve, I'd appreciate hearing them, now or later, should you be so inclined. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Timeshift9 (unresolved)
Hi Tim. We previously discussed User:Timeshift9 at User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2011/8. Per your suggestion, I started an ANI discussion, but it was archived to Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive714 with no guidance as to how to proceed. Another MfD is undesirable. As wrote at ANI, "To keep taking Timeshift's userpages to MfD as xe creates them? This will frustrate both the community and Timeshift. I think we need to decide on some general agreement instead of forcing Timeshift to keep trying different things until one version is acceptable." What are your thoughts about how to resolve this user page issue? Cunard (talk) 06:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Cerejota (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR's appeal
Timotheus Canens, is it appropriate for me to comment at those proceedings. I did not received any notification, and it appears that they are concerned only with Faintites's conduct, so I am assumed that as someone involved in the dispute, my participation is neither needed or desired, is that correct? And if it is correct, where would I formally request that the actual ban itself be reviewed by uninvolved admins? --Nuujinn (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I feel I must point: Nuujinn is the user who actually wrote the "1st proposal" draft, from Talk:Draža Mihailović/ethnic conflict drafts, that is supported by Fainites. The user has a vested interest in getting me (as the opposing user) banned, which will result in his version of the disputed section being included in the article free of any bothersome compromise. --DIREKTOR (TALK ) 22:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears that the current appeal is focused on whether Fainites is involved, correct. If the currently pending appeal is closed as lifting the ban on that ground, then you may make a request at WP:AE, supported by the relevant diffs, for a review of DIREKTOR's conduct. Note that AE admins are not bound by the terms of the request, and may choose to review the conduct of all parties, at their discretion. T. Canens (talk) 01:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clairification. As DIREKTOR has stated that he will be offline for some weeks, so long as he stays offline there is, I think, no reason to proceed in that direction at this time. My personal hope is that the break will allow him to return in a less combative and accusatory state of mind.
 * There is no doubt that there are many ways in which my actions could have been better, in this area as well as others, but it seems to me that if I am not open to review by others at pretty much any time, I shouldn't be here. If you have any suggestions as to how I can improve, I'd appreciate hearing them, now or later, should you be so inclined. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 09:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

clerking at SPI
How does one goes about that?--Cerejota (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Normally you ask at WP:SPI/CN, though I believe that the general agreement among the current clerks is that we have enough clerks right now. T. Canens (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Timeshift9 (unresolved)
Hi Tim. We previously discussed User:Timeshift9 at User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2011/8. Per your suggestion, I started an ANI discussion, but it was archived to Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive714 with no guidance as to how to proceed. Another MfD is undesirable. As wrote at ANI, "To keep taking Timeshift's userpages to MfD as xe creates them? This will frustrate both the community and Timeshift. I think we need to decide on some general agreement instead of forcing Timeshift to keep trying different things until one version is acceptable." What are your thoughts about how to resolve this user page issue? Cunard (talk) 06:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the delay. I am traveling so Internet access is rather sporadic. I'm not exactly sure what's the best way to approach this. The problem, I think, is that we don't have quite a clear-cut line. Right now I can see three things that can be done. It would be best if the matter can be settled by simple discussion with Timeshift9, but given the history here I doubt that they will be very receptive. It might also be a good idea to get NOTBLOG clarified via an RfC since it is a bit of a grey area. The last option is another MfD, which isn't really the best way out of this, as you noted, but if all other alternatives are exhausted and you still want something to be done about it then that's the only option left. In the end, though, I'm not quite sure it's worth all this trouble. I think virtually everyone agrees that the userpage is not that great of an idea, but I can't help but wonder if spending this much volunteer time attempting to remove a page that probably not many people will see anyway is a wise thing to do. Oh, and I just noticed User:Surturz/AdminWatch and the associated ANI, DRV and MfD. Oh well.... T. Canens (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice, and no worries about the delay. I understand. I will drop the Timeshift9 userpage issue for now, as I don't want the resulting drama and the abusing of the closing admin. However, if Timeshift9 expands his userpage with even more blog-like material, I will reconsider renominating it at MfD. I'm glad you missed User:Surturz/AdminWatch until it was over. I wish I missed that needless drama. Best, Cunard (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

EEML people and Russavia practice mutual surveillance
Assuming this is correct, you can understand why Arbcom would want to be somewhat even-handed in handing out sanctions between Russavia and his opponents. We like it when the EEML people improve articles, and we like it when Russavia improves articles. (Russavia has over 70,000 edits). I see no benefit in Russavia and the EEML people continuing to practice surveillance on each other. It seems to me that's one of the reasons we see so many AE complaints in which Russavia or one of the others is a participant. In particular, they watch each other on articles regarding Estonian politics.

Interaction bans are one method of stopping the mutual-watching behavior, but they are not completely successful. We get complaints of violations here in which we are regaled with all the details of the misbehavior of the other side, which the interaction ban prevents them from presenting elsewhere. I don't have an immediate solution to present, but (at the risk of abusing your talk page) I'll list all the cases I found of AE complaints involving Russavia since Feb 2010. See the collapsed section below.

15 March 2010 Russavia filed a giant AE complaint against Biophys under DIGWUREN, complaining of edit warring, POV pushing, and editing on behalf of the banned user HanzoHattori. This AE complaint got converted into WP:ARBRB.

13 May 2010 FPS blocked Vecrumba 3 weeks for violating his interaction ban with Russavia on an evidence page of the ARBRB case: - from the EEML log

27 June 2010 Sandstein blocked Russavia 48 hours for violating his interaction ban with Colchicum. - from the ARBRB log

8 August 2010 Radek filed a complaint against Russavia regarding interaction ban with EEML editors, on London Victory Celebrations of 1946. The result was that Radeksz was blocked 72 hours, while Russavia and all editors with Eastern-Europe-related sanctions were banned from the article. 

22 August 2010 Colchicum filed a complaint against Russavia for violating his interaction ban with Biophys. The complaint became stale and no admin action was taken. 

12 June 2011 AGK blocked Russavia 5 days for reverting an edit by Sander Säde at Russophobia - from the ARBRB log

6 July 2011 Russavia and Tammsalu were each blocked 24 hours for violating the EEML interaction ban. 

24 August 2011 Tammsalu reported Russavia for breaking their interaction ban at Karen Drambjan. . Closed with no action on the assumption that Russavia was not aware he was reverting Tammsalu.

This sounds like SirFozzie was hoping to put a stop to the mutual-watching behavior when he voted to accept WP:ARBRB as a case. — EdJohnston (talk) 05:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ed, the above "accusations" of myself surveilling other editors would be a great basis on which to write a John le Carre novel, however, the reality is quite different. My directorate is tasked only with content creation, whilst surveillance is handled by a different directorate altogether, and there is no interaction between directorates; they each operate independently of one another. Is it really that difficult to believe that I might edit an article which was in the news at the time? Is it really that difficult to believe that I might edit an article on one of the most contentious issues in Russia's foreign relations? Of course not. It isn't all cloak and daggers ya know, at least not from where I am sitting. --Russavia Let's dialogue 07:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I need to set the record straight. You quote FeelSunny: "main purposes of the Eastern European mailing list members was to pester HW007 and …" and make the assumption that he is correct. Well he isn't. The EEML had nothing to do what so ever with HW007's topic ban which was caused by disruption in South Ossetia topics, read the statement by the sanctioning admin FPaS in the AE case where you quote FeelSunny. As far as I recall he didn't even rate a mention on the EE mail-list. The EEML has been accused of many things, but it is rather a cheap shot by someone sanctioned for disruption to blame the EEML for provoking them in order to gain some mitigation. There were some 18 or so members of the EEML, all are individuals with minds of their own, just because one of them may have a dispute with someone on the article Albania does not mean it has anything to do with me or any other former member of the EEML.

In regard to your conclusion of mutual surveillance, in your list of AE disputes Colchicum is listed twice, but he was never a member of the EEML. The other cases resulted not from surveillance but direct "stepping on toes".

If you look at the dates of the AE disputes they tend to be clustered between long periods of peace followed by a short period of disputes, which indicates this isn't a constant surveillance thing. What I think is at play, based on my first hand observation, is this: Editors tend to have their core areas of interest and focus on those areas during the peaceful period. But then, don't know why, but perhaps it the warm summer nights (AE disputes seem to occur in the June-August period) leads them to get into this combative mood where they feel compelled to cross into the core interest area of their perceived opponents for a bit of pot stirring. No doubt during these short intense periods there is surveillance going on, but it is the exception rather than the rule in the perspective of the whole year. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Topic ban
the talkback template doesn't work so, '''Hello, T. Canens. You have new messages at Someone35's talk page.''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone35 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Strict liability interaction bans
Tim, now that I've seen your proposed result for WP:AE, I wonder if this might not be a chance to impose your new type of interaction ban between Vecrumba and Russavia. The existing interaction ban is from Arbcom, and we don't have authority to modify that. So this would be an additional restriction, but following the 'strict' IBAN would automatically take care of observing the original one. Here is an expanded form of what you proposed for strict-liability IBANs:

If A and B are under a strict-liability IBAN, then:

(Note that WP:ARBRB made a stab at separating the warring groups from each other using targeted topic bans. Biophys was restricted from articles on the former Soviet Union, for example). — EdJohnston (talk) 05:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) A and B must not edit articles edited by the other person in the last month.
 * 2) A must not enter any discussion in which B has participated and vice versa. This does not prevent each of them from discussing some content issue on their own talk page, without mentioning the other party or their views.
 * 3) A must not file AfDs against articles originated by B and vice versa (This follows from the rule against participating in the same discussion).
 * 4) A must not make comments about groups of people that appear to include B and vice versa, on any page of Wikipedia
 * 5) A may not file AE requests against B except to clarify issues about the interaction ban itself. Any such request allows for a 200-word statement from each party. Other than that, A and B must never participate in the same AE request.
 * 6) A must take no part in the handling or licensing of B's image uploads and vice versa.
 * 7) If a certain interaction ban is producing too many AE complaints, the admins may consider imposing topic bans on the parties. These would exclude them for working on the same material. Such bans could be worked out based on their respective plans for content development.


 * (Sorry to butt in...) #5 is unclear as to what "any such request" means. Is it only AE requests against A or B by third parties?  Also, don't you want to also stop A and B filing complaints against each other at AN/I etc? Zerotalk 13:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how workable this is, as it is open to gaming and either party can effectively lock out the other party permanently by doing a small edit every month. How about using the existing mechanism that is in place. Rather than agonise over whether a revert was intentional or not, treat it as a bright line 0-revert rule, if they do not self-revert immediately when they are made aware of it, block. They will soon be more careful later and that is what we all want, isn't it? There has been enough AE reports now to have a fair idea of what is permissable, why throw all that out and replace with a new set of rules where there will be uncertainty and people are bound to test the boundaries all over again. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Given the history of gaming the system by various groups of editors, does one really think that such bans wouldn't be gamed in a flash? I have already given an example of how #1 can be gamed. #5 also goes against a recent Arbcom clarification...apparently editors are allowed to bring things for enforcement...if one wants clarification they go to the committee, not to AE. If one wants to report a breach of a sanction and enforcement, they then go to AE. #6 is absolutely laughable, and is something that I would ignore outright. Yes, I would ignore it. #7 is absolutely ridiculous and is open to gaming. Take for example, the only reason we are now at this point is because Vecrumba engaged in personal attacks against myself (not the first time) and I have reported it. Hence, it is myself who gets to be made look disruptive, when that couldn't be further from the truth. People aren't topic banned from areas because of AE reports, but because Arbcom found them to be disruptive in the area over a long period of time, given the evidence. --Russavia Let's dialogue 14:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Any bright-line rule is by definition gameable. This is why 3RR isn't the only case of edit warring, for instance. The idea is to forcibly achieve complete physical separation of the two, when milder measures have failed to work. Moreover, if any type of gaming behavior is observed, then the perpetrator will likely be rewarded with an indefinite forced break from the topic.
 * On the specifics, #6 is an natural extension of #1. More generally, #1 should apply to all non-discussion pages, while #2 apply to all discussions, regardless of location. #3 also needs tightening and expansion. Perhaps #1 should include pages created by the other party at any time, along with pages that have been edited by the other party within the past month, and #3 should cover any process particularly affecting, and any discussion substantially relating to, pages covered by #1 (borrowed from WP:ARBCC). #5 is a necessary condition, it seems, given what AE threads tend to become. (And whatever arbcom intended by its own restrictions does not limit admin discretion to impose fresh sanctions if the arbcom ones failed to solve the problem, as is the case here.) As to #7, we can deal with it when the time comes, though since there should be little room for borderline cases it should be quite straightforward. Filing baseless complaints will lead to a topic ban; persistent noncompliance will result in the same. We should also make it clear that it is the responsibility of the editor to verify that they are not violating the ban before making the edit, and that the normal allowances for self-reverts etc. do not apply - i.e., if there is a violation, there will be a block, period. With a little bit of tightening, I think this is worth trying. Given Russavia's own admission that he's going through Tammsalu's contribs - which is pretty much the opposite of what is expected for interaction-banned users - this seems quite needed. T. Canens (talk) 11:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't say that I was going thru Tammsalu's contribs. Only after his filing of the latest AE request by Tammsalu did I have a quick look at the contribs, only in order to see if this editor had posted anything anywhere else in relation to the report. I then saw that they had uploaded an image under PD rules, which I then transferred to Commons. Please tell me, where is the disruption here? Truth is, there isn't. I am not going to allow this harrassment by these EEML members to continue against me, and I am sure as hell not going to allow admins ignore the facts yet again...it happened last time, it ain't gonna happen again. Also Canens, please tell me where in the above section on your talk page I am able to comment, because I am all but locked out of that conversation due to the appearance of the rest of the EEML peanut gallery. --Russavia Let's dialogue 12:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And to prove another point to you, I did go thru some image uploads of different editors, and the image shown here was uploaded by one of the EEML members, but it was only present on enwp. I copied it to Commons, and then proceeded to place the photo on ALL of the other language articles on which the image is now present. Going by your own "strict" ban, an editor could bring this transfer to AE for enforcement, and I would be blocked for breaking an interaction ban, even though I am clearly bettering the entire project by making this image available for all language Wikipedias to use. Please tell me where is the disruption there? I am truly trying to understand what I think is a very warped POV on your part in relation to this. And it is why I have said I would ignore it if implemented. --Russavia Let's dialogue 12:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Russavia, as to whether you're allowed to comment here in this thread, I would say so, because all parties may care about how interaction bans work in the future and this thread is a good-faith exception. Your mention of the image uploads suggests you are still fighting to let content work take precedence over the interaction ban. You're swimming against the tide here. By deciding to place the bans Arbcom has already made a decision on this matter. They have decided that some increment of good content is not worth the disruption. If you see an image issue that needs fixing and you are not allowed to do it directly, make a proposal to some admin as to what should be done. EdJohnston (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ed, unfortunately, your proposal is also against the interaction ban. Going by your own strict proposal, an editor is not allowed to comment on anything in relation to another editor, even for the purposes of legit dispute resolution. So my bringing up to an admin that an image needs to be moved (or deleted) is breaking the ban as well. I prefer to operate by the words of Carcaroth at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision:

"You could restrict yourself to commenting on content and not the contributors. And before you or anyone else gets upset, that applies to more than just you. It should apply to everyone, and it is one of the ways to deal with the fractured relationships and loss of trust in this area. Refocus on the content."

I have already stated on the record that I am happy for editors to interact with me, in any way, shape or form, so long as those interactions are focussed on content. Personal attacks I will not stand for, as it has nothing to do with content, but is an outright attack on myself. But discussions on content are fine by me. How about other editors? Are they of the same opinion?

Also, refer to Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive65 where FPaS states:

"As a matter of principle, in an issue like a no-interaction ban, I'd go by the principle of nemo iudex sine actore: sanctions are warranted only if the person who the sanction was supposedly meant to protect has actually complained, or at least there is indication they felt offended/annoyed or whatever."

Sandstein, everyone's favourite AE admin lol states:

"I agree with that, and I normally also do not sanction interaction ban violations that are not disruptive and that nobody complains about."

Does that mean that I should now wait for AE to filed about my image edits. Are they objectively disruptive? Of course not, as I am focussed on content only.

I suggest that Ed and Canens obtain opinions of the committee themselves on this, as there is cleary many varying points of view in relation to these interaction bans. --Russavia Let's dialogue 13:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The admins at AE have the authority to make a stronger interaction ban if the one that is currently in place (from Arbcom) is not sufficient. Maybe infractions that bother nobody would be winked at but here you are again at AE, so something is not working. Perhaps you can find a way to target your editing so you will get into fewer conflicts with the former EEML people. They are unlikely to fight you on aviation articles, for instance. If your top priority is Estonian politics I don't see a peaceful future. If you were working on different articles from the EEML people there would be much less chance of personal attacks or editing disputes. Your recital of mantras like focussed on content only is not preventing new complaints from being filed at AE, and these filings are not always the fault of other people.  Five out of the last eight AE disputes involving you ended up with sanctions against you (see the above list).  Several different admins closed these cases. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ed, I am back here at AE why? Because another editor has engaged in yet another personal attack on myself (and have outright lied about it). It is not my fault that other editors are not able to only focus on content. I edit Wikipedia in such a way that I only concentrate on content, if other editors are unable to do so, then this should not be held against me. I don't only have an interest in aviation, and to suggest that I stay away from other articles is essentially handing editors ownership of articles, and this goes directly with EEML. The reason for the personal attacks on myself in the past (and certainly in the present) was part of the harrassment on myself in order to have me sanctioned and/or driven away from editing. And here we are now, whereby I am focussed on content, and others are engaging in personal attacks, and it is I who two admins are all but suggesting essentially be topic banned from areas within my editing interest. 5 of the last 8 AE disputes may have ended up with sanctions against me, but there are also incidents whereby other editors have engaged in personal attacks on myself which I have not brought to AE, and there is also the example of Miacek and myself, whereby we are able to interact because we are first and foremost concentrated on content. It is wrong of you to suggest that I stay away from articles so that others don't engage in personal attacks on myself. You should instead be reminding them of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, etc, etc and suggest that they concentrate on content only. Again, I have made it clear I am happy to interact with anyone, so long as content is the only thing being discussed. Why not ask the same question of other editors, and then we can see truly where the problem lay, and then we can go from there. --Russavia Let's dialogue 16:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you relentlessly return to the kind of article where you get into conflicts with EEML editors, that is a comment on both you and them, and it doesn't speak well for either party. Arbcom said to you in big letters, 'AVOID THE EEML PEOPLE' but you are not listening. You and Miacek is a good precedent, and nothing prevents you from arriving at truces with individuals if you can do so again. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't need to arrive at truces with anyone, as I am not at "war" with any editor. I have already stated, and I am now sounding like a broken record, that I am willing to collaborate with any editor, and discuss anything with any editor, so long as everything is about the content. Also, to say that I am relentlessly returning to the same type of article, is a misnomer...I have edited articles in the standard course of editing. I can not, and will not, allow editors to assume ownership of articles, nor be handed same ownership, based upon a belief that WP is a battleground, when it is not. --Russavia Let's dialogue 17:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Editors who work in troubled areas sometimes use their personal diplomatic skills to stay out of trouble. It sounds like we can't count on any diplomacy from you. Admins may have to resort to targeted topic bans to keep you and the EEML people away from each other. We may have to divide up Estonia.  If you can make any positive proposals, I would be very interested. Please don't keep repeating how willing you are to collaborate when your rhetoric is so warlike.  GIve us a specific proposal that shows you are willing to collaborate. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to WP:AGF that what I say what I mean and I mean what I say. My only rhetoric is aimed directly at your ridiculous proposals, not against other editors, nor anything to do with the content-driven areas of WP. And you have no grounds to topic ban me from any area; the topic ban would be based upon what exactly? I have already given you a proposal; I am willing to collaborate and discuss anything with any editor on WP, so long as any discussion is focused on content, and only on content. I am not going to stay away from articles which are in the news, nor am I going to stay away from articles which have anything to do with Russia, Russians or how Russia relates to the outside world. And I'll be damned if I am going to allow you, or any other admin, to hand ownership of articles to editors, when numerous Arbcom members have stated that this is not what they intended when they passed numerous remedies. It would be going against everything that the Committee themselves have written. It seems we are now going to have to seek clarification on the issues you have raised with the Committee directly.


 * As to your plan to divide up Estonia, what did you have in mind? Russian-speaking areas are handed to Russia and Estonian-majority areas are left to form a rump state. This plan could be frought with danger, but perhaps it may finally put an end to the endless disputes. The only big problem I see is that I don't think the Estonian nationalists in the real world would take heed of a pact between Russavia and EdJohnston to divide up their state, especially seeing it has been independent within the current borders now for 20 years. But if this is something you would really like to pursue, contact me and we can negotiate this in secret. Shit, did I just have deja vu? --Russavia Let's dialogue 19:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to use email, but you can leave a note on my talk page if you want. EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I give up. I propose that we just throw this over to arbcom, for them to make good on their promises in ARBRB. I just can't see anything good out of this. T. Canens (talk) 11:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't give up yet! Russavia and I are having a discussion on his talk page. If there is no other way to avoid the collisions it is worth considering targeted topic bans. The problem is well-defined, AE has enough authority, and it's only a question of what solution is best. I don't believe that short-term blocks have helped very much but bans or voluntary agreements should be considered. The articles involved in the disputes (from the collapse box above) are:
 * Putinjugend
 * London Victory Celebrations of 1946
 * Pyotr Chaadayev
 * Russophobia
 * Occupation of the Baltic states
 * Karen Drambjan
 * — EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Canens, don't give up, there needs to be discussion, myself and Ed are discussing on my talk page, or hope that we still will be. I would ask that you await my response in the next 24 hours and go from there. --Russavia Let's dialogue 14:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 09:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)