Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:53, 15 October 2010

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important informationShortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against an editor violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted an editor who engages in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with fewer than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. Reports are limited to two individuals: the filer and the user being reported. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

83.147.186.140

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

Request concerning 83.147.186.140

User requesting enforcement

O Fenian (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case

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

1. First revert to IP's previous version
2. Second revert to same version, within 24 hours of the first

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

1. Warning by O Fenian (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Block (currently blocked for 12 hours, as of 15:47 UTC)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I explained what the problem was with the edit, and was largely ignored. 3 minutes before making the second revert, the IP removed the notice, so were clearly aware of the restriction. O Fenian (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning 83.147.186.140

Statement by 83.147.186.140

Comments by others about the request concerning 83.147.186.140

Result concerning 83.147.186.140

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

I have added an explanation of why the policy exists to the editor's talk page. Suggest we leave this open for a while, and if the editor violates the remedy again after the 12 hr block expires, impose a one week block. If the editor complies, I don't see a need for further action. Looie496 (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley

Request concerning mark nutley

User requesting enforcement

The Four Deuces

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Digwuren case 1RR on Mass killings under Communist regimes.

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

First revert: 17:45, 13 October 2010 (remove POV pushing "Some anti communists"? Seriously?)

Second revert: 15:37, 14 October 2010 (rv this is being discussed, why insert it before a consensus is reached?)

Third revert: 17:12, 14 October 2010 (rv BLP exemption you can`t call a BLP an anti communist without solid reliable sourceing)

Enforcement action requested (block).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

mark nutley is well aware of the 1RR restriction on this article having earlier warned another editor.

TFD (talk) 16

22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply to mark nutley

There are two discussion threads concerning this edit, in which you and I and other editors have participated, and as your comments there make clear is a continuation of the ongoing disagreement over neutrality of the article, particularly the lede. TFD (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is is a continuation of the ongoing disagreement over neutrality of the article, so why did you choose to make matters worse by reinserting contentious text which was under discussion? mark (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Following mark nutley's reply below, he has now reverted a third time, which I have added to the list above. TFD (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You think removing a BLP violation ought to be sanctioned? How peculiar mark (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If you believed that referring to a specific scholar was a BLP violation, you could have merely removed his name. TFD (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply to SPhilbrick

Three other editors have also reinserted the sentence. While the sentence is unsourced so is the rest of the lead with one exception. I realize that I should have added sources and in fact provided them in the discussion pages. TFD (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply to 2over0

This article is under a 1RR restriction and you have now complained about editors on both sides who made one edit. If you believe the article should be under a 0RR restriction then please add one, rather than penalize editors using a retroactive ruling. Also, editors new to the article may not realize that 1RR will be interpreted as 0RR. The best way to impliment a 0RR restriction is of course to lock down the article. It is further unfair that you have listed editors who have had no opportunity to reply. If you do not remove these warnings I will complain at the ANI noticeboard. TFD (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Mark Nutley

Well obviously i made a mistake here and seeking a block over this is petty beyond belief, blocks are meant to be preventative not punitive and i am obviously not edit warring here. The first diff shows when i removed the text. However i went straight to the talk page to begin discussing what is obviously a contentious addition. The only remark TFD has made in this debate was This is a topic that does not exist in the academic mainstream and the article should not pretend that it does. TFD (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC) then he proceeded to reinsert the text knowing full well it was contentious and under debate. This is disruptive behaviour. This was an honest mistake on my part and i think a block is a bit much mark (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

One other thing, two editors recently broke the revert someone go straight to talk rule, i told them of it and even though they did not go to the talk page to explain i did not seek enforcement against them. Because everyone makes the odd mistake. Trying to get someone blocked because you disagree with them is a bit much for me. mark (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

The insertion of an unsourced claim involing living people into the lede is the real problem. I would suggest the "some anti-communists" phrasing was to indicate that only a minority of an extreme class of some sort supported the statement. Nikita Krushchev is clearly, in this context, an "anti-communist." I suggest the seven or so AfD discussions about the page are germane in understanding the conflict between those who have iterated desires to delete the page as being "anti-communist" and (the prevailing view) that the article is proper in Misplaced Pages mainspace. Collect (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

WRT any belief that only the person being complained about can be sanctioned - such has not been the prior rule. Collect (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

WRT "mechanical enforcement" it is clear that User:Petri Krohn is in the category of "two reverts in under ninety minutes" per at 18:22 today and at 16:57 today (the Rummel addition was in addition to a specific revert - not just an addition to extant text). Collect (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

WRT any claim that introducing the same sentence twice after it had been removed is somehow not two reverts bends the definition of "revert" as used in WP on its head. There is no question that the reverts each introduced the same language which had been removed - though the second also added a few more words. That does not, however, change the fact that each was, indeed, a revert under WP policies. Collect (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion concerning mark nutley

• The original insertion of the sentence Some anti-communists assert that these mass killings in communist states are a direct result of communist doctrine. could charitably be construed as the first step of BRD cycle, although most editors would realize such a statement requires a solid reference.
• Nutley's first revert is the logical next step in a BRD cycle.
• Nutley's post to the talk page, two minutes later is the initiation of the third step of the BRD cycle, in a timely way.
• TFD's reinsertion of the material is quite inappropriate, given the lack of consensus of the discussion. Had TFD not seen the discussion, perhaps it could be forgiven, but TFD participated in the talk page discussion.
• Nutley's removal of the material, under current discussion, but not yet agreed to, is technically a violation of the1RR, because, while the next calendar day, it is less than 24 hours later. For that MN should be admonished lightly, but the edit summary (this is being discussed, why insert it before a consensus is reached?) makes clear that MN was trying to follow the BRD cycle. TFD deserves more serious admonishment for knowingly re-inserting unsourced contentious material even while a discussion is in progress.--SPhilbrickT 17:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• - Well presented, from your evaluation I support a block for the User:The_Four_Deuces for escalating the dispute and then making a report in an attempt to have user Mark Nutley blocked. User:Petri_Krohn reinserted it again also, replacement of disputed content as disruptive in the middle of a discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

<-I urge avoidance of Misplaced Pages:Coatrack. The action of Mark are clearly relevant, as are the actions of The Four Deuces, both because TFD brought the action, and because the TFD insertion and revert of the insertion are the edits in question. While others are involved in what is shaping up to be an edit war, if not there already, dragging in Petri's edit should not be done here. If someone find's problems with Petri's edits (and I do not), I think they should be addressed separately, to avoid turning this into a tar baby.SPhilbrickT 19:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not a fan of those who block shop to get the upper hand in content disputes, particularly when they themselves have also been involved in edit warring. FWIW, recent practice on this board has seen the requesting party and other involved parties sanctioned. Given that there is no evidence of any formal warning having been previously logged (discretionary sanctions explicitly require a formal notice to be placed on a user's page before being blocked under the provision), the best course of action is to formally warn both TFD and Marknutley via formal notice and protect the article for a month. --Martin (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a raging edit war at that article right now. Participants should be summarily blocked for disruption. Those who have previously been warned should get a logged block under the sanction. Edit wars like this should never happen on articles under discretionary sanctions, because they shouldn't be allowed on any article. Tasty monster (=TS ) 19:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that a case can be made, that we would need a source in the lede section if we were to imply, as I did, that R. J. Rummel is an anti-communist. If this truly was the issue, it would have been remedied by removing the word "anti-communist" from "some anti-communist scholars". Instead, Mark chose to make the third blind revert to his preferred version in less than 24 hours. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

None of the reverts were blind reverts petri, in fact on the one were i erred (the second) i went straight to the talk page to explain why. As i had with the first. If you wish to imply the a BLP writes anti communist propaganda then you need solid sources, it was a clear BLP violation and you should not have added it in mark (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

1RR doesn't mean "no blind reverts." I don't know why these arguments are being made. I cannot believe that participants in this edit war are still discussing it here now and have not been blocked. --TS 21:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I was not edit warring tony, i made a mistake is all. And i believe people ought to be allowed to say their piece before being blocked, don`t you? mark (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Strangely enough. no. Participation in edit wars is a trigger for a block. Participation in edit wars when you've been warned of discretionary sanctions is a trigger for a good long block. --TS 21:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I was`nt warned about discretionary sanctions, just the 1r restriction and that if you revert you have to go to the talk page mark (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Petri Krohn

Some people are making very serious accusations against me, namely that I have

1. edit warred
2. broken the 1RR rule

Both claims are unfounded. My edits fall within WP:BRD, as I will demonstrate with diffs. Per Misplaced Pages:Edit warring, BRD is not edit warring: This is known as the bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle, and is not edit warring. My edits were intended to produce a compromise version everyone could agree on, and thus end the revert cycle. I was also fully aware, that if I failed to stop the edit warring by a suitable compromise, the article would be protected from editing.

Here is a list of edits today, with a diff to the previous version closest to the new version:

My two edits. Both edits introduce new content.

• 1 – introduces R. J. Rummel, addresses weasel words issue objected to by Collect
• 2 – totally deferent content: "Cold War anti-communists propaganda", + new reference.

For comparison, here is a list of edits by other editors today. All are blind reverts to a previous version.

• The Four Deuces
• mark nutley
• Jrtayloriv
• 72.20.28.22
• Rick Norwood
• Collect
• mark nutley (2)
• 72.20.28.22 (2)

With eight blind reverts (+ Mark's original revert), it is clear that an edit war has been going on. I have not been involved in this edit war.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• - Comment - WP:BRD is only an essay and is not an excuse to violate one revert article restriction. Off2riorob (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

  Response – Misplaced Pages:Edit warring is a policy, that is where my citation originates from. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Response to T. Canens – Re: "R. J. Rummel, which has been a disputed point" – No, there is no dispute that R. J. Rummel sees a causality between communism and mass killings, this is the central topic of the article and the one and only thing everyone working on this article can agree on. What was disputed by Mark Nutley was the characterization of R. J. Rummel as an anti-communist. My second edit made no such claim or inference. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Zloyvolsheb

Collect's accusation that Petri Krohn has violated 1RR appears to be unfounded. The two diffs he provides and for Petri Krohn's edits on that day are simply showing us that Petri made two different edits to one section of the article.

The first is a general statement that "Some anti-communists assert that these mass killings in communist states are a direct result of communist doctrine", the second the referenced assertion that "Linking communist ideology to mass killings became a recurring theme in Cold War anti-communists propaganda. " These edits are actually expressing two semantically different propositions, however otherwise related thematically they may be. (No terrible wonder, given that they are both propositions inserted into the same article by Petri Krohn, whose background, personality, and interest in history are much the same as Petri Krohn's.) It's very true that Petri's earlier edit is partially a revert to text that someone inserted earlier, but that, unlike Marknutley's editing, still counts for only one revert. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment by SandyGeorgia

I note that ten minutes after The Four Deuces reverted Marknutley, Jrtayloriv made his first edit ever to this article to make the same revert. This is similar to the editing that occurs at the Venezuela/Hugo Chavez articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning mark nutley

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

Arbitration sanctions are not negotiable, and marknutley has clearly violated this one after acknowledging that it applies. Misbehavior by other editors is not at issue here: if they have violated the sanctions, a separate enforcement request should be opened. My inclination is to impose a 1 week block. Looie496 (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Looie496's comment above. It's hard to see how we will get people to respect an article-level Digwuren sanction unless it is mechanically enforced. (Also, most people who are editing this article would know this is a hot-potato article that has caused lots of trouble in the past). So I support the 1-week block of Marknutley for a 1RR violation. It is hardly shocking to put down R. J. Rummel as an anti-communist even though the wording about him might be tweaked. BLP is not usually accepted as an excuse in 3RR situations unless it is blatant defamatory material. Even if we were to accept the BLP excuse then Nutley's three reverts in 24 hours would be reduced to two, which is still a violation of 1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with one week block. I also notified MN formally about the discretionary sanctions. Note that notification is not required for the 1RR block; the editnotice on the page serves as the warning, per ArbCom clarification. T. Canens (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Also note that I have blocked 72.20.28.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 24 hours for 1RR violation. That's the only two 1RR violators I can see from the history. T. Canens (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I missed the one Collect pointed out. I'm inclined to impose a 1 week block on Petri Krohn (talk · contribs) as well, given the history. T. Canens (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me note that, having been an admin for all of four days, I don't yet feel quite ready to take actions in cases like this, so in spite of the wording of my initial statement, I am going to leave this to somebody with more experience to resolve. Looie496 (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, the disputed clause first appeared in the article in this edit by Rick Norwood (talk · contribs) as part of a largely stylistic update to the lead. Marknutley (talk · contribs) removed that sentence three times over the next day, claiming the BLP exemption on the third. As noted above, no attempt was made to edit the remaining text to bring it in line with policy; reading Rummel's article, I do not think that the characterization qualifies for the exemption, but I think that its assertion is credible. The some anti-communists sentence was added today by The Four Deuces (talk · contribs), Jrtayloriv (talk · contribs), and Rick Norwood, and was removed by Marknutley, Collect (talk · contribs), and the IP noted above. Petri Krohn (talk · contribs) attempted compromise wording twice, responding to both the weasel words and the lack of sourcing. He might have been better served with a little more patience, but I do not find fault with Petri Krohn's edits here, despite his history with the article. T. Canens has already added Marknutley to the Digwuren case, and I am adding Jrtayloriv, Rick Norwood, The Four Deuces, and Collect as well for participating in an edit war.

I protected the article earlier today unrelated to this thread. That protection was not taken under the auspices of discretionary sanctions, and may be reversed without invocation of wheel warring (though I would appreciate a note letting me know). - 2/0 (cont.) 22:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

is a revert because it restored text removed by Collect; and is a revert because it reintroduced the reference to R. J. Rummel, which has been a disputed point. I agree though that there is an attempt at compromise wording here - which ought to be encouraged - but the proper way to do so is to propose such wording on the talk page, especially after the first attempt was reverted; I would agree to a shorter block here, say, 31 hours? T. Canens (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that the change in context and attempt at compromise in the second edit are enough to get him off the hook, but only marginally. I would not object to your proposed block if you think it best. An article-but-not-talk ban might also work, but I worry about dragging this case out too much. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree this is edit warring, but I am concerned this is stretching Digiwuren beyond its intent. The sanction was written somewhat broadly, but the infractions that generated it were much more narrow. The aspects of this article that relate to the Digiwuren related topic material more specifically, I can see a case for applying it to, but this was a generic section in the lede of an article which covers much more ground than Digiwuren applied to.

I'm willing to go with consensus on this, but ... Let's think it through a bit, ok? Whacking everyone for edit warring a bit is fine, I agree that happened. But we shouldn't stretch AE out of whack on marginal cases. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

In response to the other admin comments, I suggest one week to MN, but a shorter block (24-31 hours) to Petri Krohn who technically violated 1RR, but was trying to add new material to address others' objections. (In response to him, BRD does not confer an exception to 1RR). The month of full protection imposed by 2over0 would be maintained unless peace breaks out. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)