Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Edit this section for new requests

Please give a gentle reminder in regards to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2

Resolved

User:DreamGuy's edits at Talk:Jack the Ripper continue to approach, and occasionally cross, the lines drawn by the edit restrictions imposed on him by this RfArb. He is very knowledgeable on the subject and I am not sure I really think a block is appropriate at this time... But I think he needs at least a gentle reminder.

User:Arcayne believes DreamGuy may have used an IP login in bad faith to bolster his position, although DreamGuy denies it. I have not looked at the evidence myself. In any case, DreamGuy is not really adhering to the edit restrictions imposed by the previous arb, and I think at the very least he could use a reminder that his behavior could lead to a block. --Jaysweet 20:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he didn't deny it; he simply evaded answering the question. That way, if he was shown to have been using the account, he couldn't be shown to have lied about it. He has been specifically told not to edit under duplicate accounts, and the one in question, 71.203.223.65 has a substantial history behind it, something you wouldn't ordinarily see with someone who simply forgot to sign in (most IP addresses aren't that static). He's rather screwed up here, as admitting to it is a violation of the RfC and ArbCom restrictions placed upon him, and denying it would get him banned outright. He has even created yet another account using this anonymous account, as seen here, anon 82.38.177.222, who has also contributed to the Jack the Ripper article. So what we are essentially dealing with here is someone who is creating at least two different anonymous IP addresses to edit within the article, and the edits and comments of one (71...) his DreamGuy account eventually defends.

I had noted some of the edit summaries in the last section of the ripper article Discussion regarding unprotection, but here are the specific diffs showing anon user:71's contributions and then DG's reentry under his primary account:

As user:71.203.223.65

• August 31, 2007@12:42
• September 4, 2007@10:17
• September 11, 2007@9:51
• September 13, 2007@17:10
• September 15, 2007@17:59 - reverting to "last good version"
• September 21, 2007@08:32
• September 25, 2007@08:52
• September 26, 2007@11:46
• September 27, 2007@17:08
• September 27, 2007@17:10 - created account 82.38.177.222

(posts from anon user 82.38.177.222 occur in this gap - see below for posts to Jack the Ripper article under that anon IP)

As user:82.38.177.222

• September 12, 2007@15:56 - this edit is actually vandalsim of the Scrubs (tv series) article
• September 27, 2007@16:43
• September 27, 2007@16:44

Again, as user:71.203.223.65

• September 29, 2007@14:56
• October 18, 2007@12:33
• October 20, 2007@09.59 - edit summary: "Reverting back to last good version... absolute nonsense that some editor would blind revert changes to approved version of page just out of spite"
• October 20, 2007@10:03 - post to my User Talk page, referring to "blind reverts"
• October 20, 2007@10;06
• October 20, 2007@10:07
• October 20, 2007@10:16 - created discussion section entitled "Blind reverting"
• October 20, 2007@10:24 - posting replies to own user talk page. Note the similarity in language to that of DreamGuy_2.
• October 21, 2007@16:19 - edit summary "reverting back to last good version -- got some editors here who insist upon ignoring long standing consensus out of misplaced ownership or anti-IP editor status or something"
• October 21, 2007@16:21 - article discussion attack "not paying attention"
• October 21, 2007@16:23 - article discussion again, "blind revert accusations"
• October 21, 2007@16:29 - article discussion yet again, referring to 'prior consensus', 'blind reverts', how I need a "crash course" (in editing, I presume), and bizarrely, how the user recalls me and Colin working the article at some point in the past (don't think I was on my watchlist until very recently)
• October 21, 2007@16:31 - article discussion again, referring to "prior consensus"
• October 21, 2007@16:32 - article discussion again, referring to 'prior concensus' and how colin needed to seek a new consensus, but points out that it "won't happen"
• October 23, 2007@14:54 - blanking user talk page of comments and complaints over behavior

At this point, user 71.203.223.65 went silent. During the first of the edits by this anon user, DreamGuy's account was silent (ie., no edits from August 24th until October 22nd), After DreamGuy's account became active, he frequently posted around the same times as user 71..., in one instance only 10-15 minutes apart (here and here).

As the civility of the responses as well as some of the exact wording was utilized by both anon user 71.., and DreamGuy_2, it almost positive that these two users are in fact the same. I have not heard back the results of the CheckUser I filed a few days ago, but considering the backlog, itmight be a while. Repeated requests asking if DG was in fact the anonymous user went specifically unanswered. It should be noted that not all of the diffs of users 82... and 71... are contentious, but it is my reasoned belief that they aren't meant to be such, but instead hidden 'supporters' of DG's edits, to be utilized in providing 'consensus'. However, writing styles as confrontational as DG's are pretty hard to mask, and the similarities between the two are both remarkable and unmistakable.

Additionally, DreamGuy_2 has engaged in edit warring in the article (both under his primary ID and the two anons), reverting the versions of the main article until it was locked by admins. Furthermore, he has continued to make accusations, personal attacks and in generally raising the bar for uncivility. His uncivil behavior and edits under his DG account begin less than 10 days after his ArbCom restriction.

As per his ArbCom restrictions, DG is:

"subject to a behavioral editing restriction. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below."

As well, he has been repeatedly asked by admins and editors to not create alternate accounts to edit from, as per both ArbCom as well his his first and second RfC's.

This continued pattern of uncivility, personal and ad hominem attacks and evasive use of alternate accounts to avoid editorial linkage to his primary account seem to clearly (at least to me) indicate that DreamGuy_2 is aware that he is violating the ArbCom restrictions, and simply tinks himself the smartest guy in the room. Normally, that last part could be applied tomany of us, but when coupled with the lack of respect shown his fellow editors, the edit-warring and the barely-concealed hostility he has for anyone 'daring' to question his edits, it presents a picture of a deleterious and corrosive influence in Wikipedia. I think that blocking is absolutely necessary. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the issue here? There is a lot of general complaining here, but I don't see any links to actual ongoing civility or edit warring problems. If there are any, please supply the relevant diffs. Dmcdevit·t 06:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for not being clear. The many above-noted diffs were to point out that DreamGuy_2 specifically created anonymous IP addresses to use while editing within the article Jack the Ripper, and then denied editing using them. His edit summaries under the first anon IP address (71.203.223.65) reverted en masse previous edits by another editor without discussion, using as it's edit summary,"Reverting back to last good version... absolute nonsense that some editor would blind revert changes to approved version of page just out of spite". he then posted to my User Talk page, accusing me of "blindly reverting" his version. this turn of phrase kept recurring under both the anon IP and DreamGuy_2, when he eventually signed in under his primary account. As the anonymous user, he edit-warred with another user and was uncivil in both edit summaries for article edits ("reverting back to last good version -- got some editors here who insist upon ignoring long standing consensus out of misplaced ownership or anti-IP editor status or something") and in the discussion page.

After signing out as the anon users 71.203.223.65 and 82.38.177.222, Dreamguy signed back in to edit Jack the Ripper. The uncivil edit summaries, however, continued: "reverting back to last good version, over the blind revert of an editor who has a long history of wikistalking me", continuing the edit war and eventually violating 3RR (though it became stale before the connection between the anon user and DreamGuy became apparent) through the last mass revert of the article version here which, despite the edit summary, did not occur asa result of discussion agreement. the page was locked a day later until the underlying disputes could be resolved, and extended when the discussion bore no resolution.

I wish I could provide a single diff that would indicate the level of civility displayed in the discussion page, but that would literally be over a dozen instances of digs on other users, assumptions that they "need to learn how WP works", making veiled accusations of collusion with other editors, and so on. It would present a smaller list to provide examples of when he has been civil.

While DG provides a lot of insight into the subject of Jack the Ripper, his behavior there is toxic, driving away and intimidating other editors. i approached the article determined to give DG a chance to redeem himself and acted politely and civilly towards him. It has been tedious to sidestep his personal attacks and uncivil behavior. Wikipedia is supposed to be fun, and he simply sucks all of the fun out of editing in the article - in any article - he contributes to. He is not reverting and being uncivil to simple vandals; he is behaving to editors who are contributing in good faith to the article - or at least, trying to do so before being reverted by DG or his anonymous IPs.

The ArbCom and double RfC in specifically addressing DreamGuy's behaviorhave restricted his behavior, enjoins him to be more civil in his interactions with other editors - a unanimous decision from ArbCom. After looking at his behavior from before the RfC's and ArbCom and after, I find no improvement of his behavior. I see no real attempt to be civil, polite, and his personal attacks litter and gum down the discussion page, as others address them instead of focusing on the article. I see no attempt to reign in what appears to be a consistent patern of uncivil behavior, of ownership of articles he contributes to, specifically Jack the Ripper (where he claims to be an expert, a "Ripperologist", dismissing and berating the comments of 'amateurs').

He has created at least two anonymous IP accounts (that we know of) to edit in the same article to provide a false consensus for his views, and has argued unremittingly (without a single example of compromise) for a version of the article which he has made twice as many edits as any two other editors combined. He has used these accounts to sidestep the ArbCom decision, evidenced by his uncivil behavior as the anonymous IP, and edit-warring and 3RR violation by reverting the article under both the anonymous IP addres and as DreamGuy.

This is someone who has had almost two dozen editors contribute to two different RfCs and an actual ArbCom interaction, complaining about his behavior. this is someone who was specifically told in no uncertain terms that his behavior needed to improve or else. Are the actions described above the actions of someone attempting to modify or attenuate their behavior? From even a cursory examination of just the Ripper article discussion, it is clear that DreamGuy_2 sees no reason to heed ArbCom's rulings and in fact considers them to be a 'club' to be feared. He has not learned how to work with others. He chooses not to learn how to work with others. Wikipedia only works when people works together, and when two dozen, long-time, editors with solid backgrounds say that this guy is toxic, then its time to consider that maybe they are right. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The lack of a specific diff that shows DG going way over the line is why I was hesitant to make this report in the first place. In fact, his present behavior is only worrisome in the context of the previous ArbCom ruling: He was warned to pay particular attention to civility and personal attacks. I have not seen him break WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA in a manner which I would normally consider reportable -- but at the same time, in terms of the good faith editors I come in contact with, he would probably rank in the bottom quartile in terms of his level of civility and respect for other editors. Given the previous ArbCom ruling, I found that troubling.

I don't know, I'm starting to reconsider the original report. I just wish I knew how to make DG chill out a little bit! --Jaysweet 16:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears that DG wasn't aware of the enforcement complaint at the time of its filing. I've remedied by notifying him via all three accounts (Dreamguy_2's, User:71.203.223.65 and User:82.38.177.222). I just noticed that DG had not responded here as of yet, and went a-looking. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who has looked at my edits I am bending over backwards to try to be civil, even in the face of many rude comments, assumptions of bad faith, and so forth, by User:Arcayne and User:Colin4C as a result of differences in opinion over the article Jack the Ripper, for which they cannot gain consensus (in fact they don't even seem to support each other on the topics they feel most strongly about). User:Colin4C said straight out that he doesn't consider my opinions valid and tried to use the ArbCom ruling as justification for why others should ignore me as well, while User:Arcayne seems to be taking a slightly different tack, for example claiming that I am using sockpuppets to try to get a false consensus when the actions of the IP addresses he is trying to connect with me couldn't possibly be construed as sockpuppet behavior, and trying to claim that my saying he had blind reverted the article is a personal attack when he himself admits that he reverted and didn't care what errors and so forth were included in the revert as long as it undid what I had done. Jaysweet seems very well intentioned here, but I think the biggest reminder that I need to always stay civil is that certain people are watching me like a hawk. Certainly ArbCom decision to encourage civility should not be used like a club, it should be a reminder that everyone needs to meet those standards. DreamGuy 23:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What I find disconcerting about this response by DG is the presumption that anyone who disagrees with his edits must be working in concert against him (ie, the noting that we don't even 'support each other's edits'). It has already been shown that you have edited under these IPS addresses (and continue to do so with at least one of them). that you choose to evade admitting it as well as the information above pretty well indicates that you have ingored completely the strongly-worded RfC that specifically enjoined you from creating and editing under different accounts int he same article. Had you meant to use them as dopplegangers, you would have readily admitted to them. That you were uncivil in the same articleas anonymous user 71. that you normally edit in as DG, and you reverted the version of both, violating 3RR indicates a clear attempt to avoid the ArbCom restriction on uncivil language and behavior. Edit-warring, unless something has changed drastically, is considered uncivil, is it not?

While it has been explained on at least five different occasions that the revert was to stabilize the article from the edit-warring going on, wherein you were at risk for being blocked for 3TT and /or edit-warring. My edit summary said as much, and strongly urged you to discuss your edit differences. As it successfully ceased the behavior, i considered it then (as I do now) an intervention by a neutral party, and not some contribution to the feud between yourself, Colin and anyone else who apparently disagrees with you.

ArbCom isn't being used like a club, DG. Were you civil and polite and didn't edit-war, ArbCom couldn't be able to find fault with you. These violations aren't pulled from whole choth, they are examples that you have failed to learn from over a dozen experienced editors who have given you several chances to adapt your behavior to 'play and work well with others'. Unfortunately, you haven't learned that lesson, and that is specifically why the ArbCom restrictions on your behavior feel like a club. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I really have no interest in replying at length here, but anyone who looks at my edits versus your claims will see that there's nothing to your complaint. There was no sockpuppeting, there absolutely were no 3RR violations, you can't rationalize your own edit warring via blind reverting out changes made by many different editors to restore it to an older version which never had any consensus as an attempt "to stabilize the article" because it most certainly did not, and so forth and so on. And I certainly never said ArbCom restrictions themselves were a club, just that certain people seem to be using it as if it were a weapon and not for the purpose they were intended. DreamGuy 17:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, there was no edit-warring on my part. I edited to create a cease-fire fromthe edit-warring and to bring you and colin to the discussion page. It was successful in doing so. I certainly didn't involve myself in what amounted to a lame dispute over a consensus that clearly did not and does not exist. Consensus not a static thing. While Colin was incorrect to edit-war, your edit-warring in return makes you just as incorrect, and its notable that he wasn't under Arbcom restriction to refrain from such activity - you were.

So I am clear as to your contentions, you are stating unequivocally that you have not edited Jack the Ripper under accounts (including anon IPs) other than your DreamGuy_2 account? As well, as you also unequivocally stating that you have not acted uncivilly and have not edit-warred over versions under two different accounts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 20:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the silence from DG speaks volumes. Even now, when presented with proof of his use of alternate IDs to edit uncivilly (or to use another term, 'sock-puppeting'), he refuses to admit or apologize for their usage. - Arcaynet (^{cast a spell}) 19:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I do not believe 82.38.177.222 was a sockpuppet of DG. I'm not sure about the other IP though... There were definitely some red flags.

I think we can take this off the AN/AE noticeboard at this point. I don't think any admin feels we've presented evidence that is worthy of an enforcement, and I'm having second thoughts as well. I am starting to think what we really need is an RFC to get more eyes on the Jack the Ripper article. Right now, Arcayne and DG can both very correctly argue that the other does not have consensus behind them ;) --Jaysweet 19:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I see long winded arguments to punish DreamGuy, but no conclusive diffs. If you see a negative activity that you can present concisely with diffs, feel free to report it here. If you suspect sockpuppetry, WP:SSP is thataway, and so is WP:RFCU. Otherwise, find some other sport besides trying to get DreamGuy banned or blocked. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You see only that, do, do you? Splendid. Thank you for the suggestion of SSP; I've since filed. I thought I had filed a Checkuser, but apparently not. I shall pursue that avenue as well to provide foundation for this complaint.

As for your rather unfair assertion that I consider this sport, perhaps you might 'agf' just a wee bit and realize that I would much rather be spending my time doing something else, instead of repeatedly pointing out that which both the RCFU and the SSA are going to clearly illuminate in short order. I guess I can wait until those results are in, at which time I will be able to point out specific uncivility on the part of the anonymous users that DG has chosen to use as socks, and that he used those accounts to commit vandalism and post uncivil comments and attack other users, sidestepping the ArbCom restrictions. Even though it appears (from a quick scan of DG's user talk page) you are clearly defending him and his edits, I certainly hope you are going to consider yourself neutral enough to render an honest opinion in the matter. However, I will do what you have chosen not to do for me; I will presume your good faith.

As soon as I hear back from RFCU and SSP, i will post the results here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy blocked, case review requested

I've blocked DreamGuy initially for one week for abusive sock puppetry, incivility, and edit warring. I am requesting a review of the sanctions because there are additional factors that ArbCom was unaware of. I recommend increasing the length of the block, and also a checkuser to confirm what appears to be an obvious case of sockpuppetry. See ANI thread and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dreamguy 2. - - Jehochman ^Talk 13:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, you need to specify what you felt was abusive sock puppetry, incivility, and edit warring, with concise evidence. This modus operandi might be good enough if and/or when Durova becomes an arbitrator, but, for now, do feel yourself obliged to remain empirically-grounded. El_C 16:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The ANI thread and SSP report contain the evidence. I didn't repeat everything here, but can if the committee asks. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Where is the organization? The coherence? The intelligibility? Please reference your claims. El_C 17:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no statement to make about that, but it appears that if the IP was DG when logged out, he violated 3RR pretty badly. I would have expected a blocking admin to wait for RFCU to work out, given that it would almost certainly be conclusive in the case of what appears to be a static IP, but given DG's refusal to deny that the IP is him, it is at least understandable in that light. I expect that ArbCom will wait for the results of a RFCU before pronouncing on the block, if at all. Relata refero 19:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yet you submit no evidence "he violated 3RR pretty badly." At least Jehochman sends me elsewhere for non answers. El_C 20:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The supposed evidence is the "elsewhere" that Jehochman sent you. I intended to submit no evidence, merely clarifying the accusation. Relata refero 21:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It would only have meant you pasting four links, to prove your claim of a 3RR breach. But if you won't ,you won't. El_C 23:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read the above sentence. I made no claim. attempted to clarify the accusation for your convenience, which last will henceforth be a matter of complete indifference to me. Relata refero 06:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent. for Great Justice) Sorry, I was out to dinner; here are the 3RR difftimes El C has asked for:

• 1st revert: 16:19, October 21, 2007 as 71.203.223.65 (talk · contribs)
• 2nd revert: 13:50-13:59, October 22, 2007 as DreamGuy
• 3rd revert: 14:00, October 22, 2007as DreamGuy
• 4th revert: 14:12, October 22, 2007 as DreamGuy

I am aware that the reverts are a bit stale. Until we were aware of the connection of DreamGuy to the anonymous editor 71.203.223.65 (talk · contribs), it was assumed that DreamGuy had only made 3 reverts (which he was warned about at the time). It now appears that he was using the anonymous IP in an hostile manner and to violate 3RR. He has been repeatedly warned about this specific practice of using anon logins to "avoid scrutiny" in other administrative actions (diffs available upon request). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement request re Kosovo

• Gazimestan speech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nikola Smolenski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Articles related to Kosovo are currently under article probation following Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo. Unfortunately the probation has repeatedly been broken by User:Nikola Smolenski on Gazimestan speech, with edit-warring, POV-pushing and repeated reversions against consensus. The dispute concerns the characterisation of an historical issue on which Serbian and non-Serbian sources have different views. Nikola has repeatedly sought to delete any mention of the non-Serbian POV, declaring a particular Serbian nationalist POV to be a "a scientifically established fact." (See the article history.)

A request for comments was held on the article's talk page (at Talk:Gazimestan speech#Request for comments), in which two other editors uninvolved in editing Balkans-related articles participated. Armon, an experienced editor of Middle Eastern articles, found a compromise form of words. Nikola has now repeatedly reverted it, claiming it to be "nonsense".

After attempting over a period of two months (1) to explain what NPOV means, (2) involving other editors and (3) finding a compromise form of words, I now believe that Nikola has no intention of respecting NPOV or the article probation. I have refrained from reporting his violations of article probation until now, but following his latest bout of edit warring I see no likelihood that further attempts to discuss the matter will reach any useful result.

It is probably relevant that according to his talk page, he has described himself as a sympathiser of an ultra-nationalist far-right party in Serbia; his edits reflect this political alignment and it seems to me that we have a case of soapboxing here. At any rate, he has clearly repeatedly and systematically violated article probation. I would be grateful if another administrator could review this matter and take any appropriate action. I should note for the record that I have previously blocked Nikola for knowingly linking to external copyvios (he has also been blocked in the past by JzG for edit warring). -- ChrisO 23:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Nikola doesn't seem to "get" the principle of NPOV and isn't providing evidence for his position other than one partisan source. Chris has been dealing with him for a lot longer than I have, so I'll defer to his judgement as to whether Nikola should be blocked now, or blocked if he continues to edit in opposition to policy, article probation, and the RfC. <<-armon->> 23:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What Chris wrote here is completely devoid of any connection to reality.

First of all, it should be noted that Gazimestan speech was not part of the Kosovo arbitration. It was pushed under probation by ChrisO, after he completely rewrote it. The article is not central to Kosovo issues, either in reality or on Wikipedia, and doesn't need to be held under the same scrutiny as central Kosovo-related articles. Four months after I wrote it, it had no significant edits.

The dispute seems to be about whether during a period of Albanian rule over the province Kosovo Serbs were abused by Kosovo Albanians, which led to them emigrating from the province, or merely complained about being abused without actually being abused. Version of the article which I initially preferred was:

The province had controversially been given extensive rights of autonomy in the 1974 Yugoslav Constitution and had been run by the province's majority-Albanian population. This development led to Kosovo's Serbs and Montenegrins being opressed by Albanian authorities, which, together with poor economy, caused their emigration from Kosovo[reference: Ruza Petrovic. The Migration of Serbs and Montenegrins from Kosovo and Metohija. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)].

while version which Chris initially preferred was:

The province had controversially been given extensive rights of autonomy in the 1974 Yugoslav Constitution and had been run by the province's majority-Albanian population. This development led to complaints from the Kosovo Serbs that they were being discriminated against by the province's predominately Albanian police force and local government.[reference: David Bruce MacDonald, Balkan Holocausts?: Serbian and Croatian victim-centred propaganda and the war in Yugoslavia, p. 65. Manchester University Press, 2002. ISBN 0719064678] [differences highlighted]

I believe that saying "this led to complaints from the Kosovo Serbs that they were being discriminated" implies that they were not in fact discriminated. This was never called into question during any discussion, so I believe other editors agree.

It is not true that Serbian and non-Serbian sources have different views about this. I support my version with an extensive study of this specific issue. Chris supports his version with a few cherry-picked quotes from various books about Kosovo. Chris never established notability and expertise of the authors of the books. Furthermore, the quotes he picked don't support his assertions. No author said that Kosovo Serbs were not abused: they either don't mention the emigration at all or claim that it was because of other reasons (while not explicitly saying that there was no abuse). And, no author supported their words by anything: what they write is their personal opinion about the events. All Chris has to offer is his interpretation of personal opinion of a handful of authors. The authors are non-notable and not experts in the field, and Chris' interpretation is wrong.

So, Chris calls the assertion that Kosovo Serbs were abused "serbian POV", and the assertion that Kosovo Serbs were not abused "non-Serbian POV". I believe that Serbian POV has much stronger backing than non-Serbian POV. Even mentioning both would be OK, but no: Chris' version of the article mentions only this non-Serbian POV, while Serbian POV is nowhere to be found. He then calls his version of the article NPOV. While conversing with me, Chris will frequently cite me some policies, apparently to create impression that I don't know them: I know them well, and he is not respecting them.

During the course of the last RfC, User:Armon suggested a compromise rewording:

The reassertion of Albanian nationalism and a worsening economy led to a large number of Serbs and Montenegrins leaving the area in the 80's.

I agreed with this rewording. However, while Armon suggested (or so I understood) that the problematic sentence in question is replaced by his, currently, Armon's compromise rewording is in the article next to the problematic sentence, which remained unchanged. So, the article still pushed non-Serbian POV.

Chris claims that I am edit-warring, POV pushing and reverting against consensus: I see that it is he and User:PalestineRemembered who are edit warring and POV pushing and I don't see that there is a consensus. For example, during the RfC, I haven't edited the article at all - I even reverted myself when I saw that Armon initiated a discussion. After the RfC was seemingly finished and I saw that Armon's proposal was in the article, I have only removed the problematic sentence without touching Armon's proposal. I don't think that this is edit warring, this is exactly how things should be done: during the discussion the article was stable, after the discussion I continued to edit. I haven't participated in the discussion since, because I have not noticed it - I removed the sentence on October 22, and Armon replied on October 24. I of course do not intend to revert during this discussion but I would be glad if other editors would have as much courtesy.

Chris finishes his tirade a personal attack on me. On my talk page, user User:PaxEquilibrium asked me what I find sympathetic about Serbian Radical Party (which, by the way, cannot be reasonably described as far-right), claiming that I told him that I am their sympathiser. I don't recall of ever telling him so, and it is not true. And even if it would be true, it is accepted across entire political spectrum of Serbia that Kosovo Serbs were abused during this period and so it is irrelevant. I also find it strange that he is asking me that out of the blue, without any apparent reason, in precisely the same moment in which Chris could find it so convenient to use his question against me.

Blocking of me by Chris was wrongful, because the links in question are acceptable by Wikipedia policies, and Chris is lucky that I didn't have the nerves to push the issue further. Blocking of me by JzG was also wrongful as, in that point of time, it was PalestineRemembered who started the edit warring, and he reverted the article more times than me, so if anyone, it was he who should be blocked.

I cannot agree with Armon's statement that I provide one partisan source. I did provide two sources, and neither of them is partisan. The first is the already mentioned study, and the second is a standard history textbook. Nikola 05:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside all the above verbiage, this matter resolves to the following key points:

• Serbian and non-Serbian sources provide different interpretations of the historical issue in question.
• You regard the Serbian POV as "a scientific fact" ([1]) and the non-Serbian view as "nonsense" ([2]). This is entirely your personal opinion.
• You have repeatedly edit-warred over a period of two months, reverting the contributions of three different editors to delete the non-Serbian view from the article. ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and so on back to August).
• Your attempts to present the Serbian POV as "the truth" with no mention of the non-Serbian view violate WP:NPOV, a non-negotiable principle, which states: "multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one." This has been explained repeatedly to you on the talk page, but you have completely disregarded it.
• Your attempts to elevate your personal opinion above multiple reliable scholarly sources are an obvious violation of WP:OR.
• The article is currently under probation, which is intended to prevent "continuous edit warring", "questionable ... editing" and "any persistent violations of policies", all of which we've seen from you in this case. You have been aware of this from the start, but you haven't shown any hesitation in edit warring or seeking to violate NPOV.

Your conduct has seriously disrupted the editing of this article. As we've seen before, you seem to think that a reliable source is one that supports your personal POV, and that an unreliable source is anything that contradicts your personal POV. Obviously that's not the way that Wikipedia works. But given your refusal to accept Wikipedia's most basic policies, I've been left with no choice but to request enforcement action. -- ChrisO 08:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No, nothing of that is true also.

• Serbian and non-Serbian sources provide very similar interpretations of this historical issue. The only difference is whether abuse of Serbs or economic factors were primary for the emigration of Serbs from Kosovo. Serbian sources claim that abuse was the primary factor, where some non-Serbian sources claim that economic factors are primary, but even these sources do not dispute that abuse was one of the factors. You claim that there was no abuse at all, and that Serbs only complained about it. That is not supported by any sources.
• If a view is supported by a peer-reviewed scientific study, published by a respected institution, then it is a scientific fact, and I don't think that anyone will disagree. If you claim that a group of people complained about being abused, but were not abused, and don't provide anything to back your claim, sorry, I will call it nonsense. I do not see why is that a bad thing.
• Your description of the edit war is very wrong. The last consensus version of the article was created by me on August 13 when I, in response to concerns stated on Talk, added economic reasons for the migration to the sentence in question[8]. The article remained stable for nearly two months when, on October 5, PalestineRemembered, completely replaced this sentence while using a misleading edit summary of Badly spelled POV been inserted into this paragraph.[9]. After this, you and he started reverting to his version repeatedly. During this time, Isarig edited my version trivially and apparently found no problems with it[10], Armon reverted only once, and I stopped reverting after that while discussion was underway.
  To avoid the trap you are luring me into, yes there were previous edit wars, but not over this period of two months.
• It is you who are constantly presenting anti-Serbian POV as "the truth", with no mention of Serbian view anywhere. As I explained, it is generally accepted among both Serbian and non-Serbian sources that Kosovo Serbs were abused, and that this was one of the reasons for their emigration from Kosovo. I believe that view that this was the main reason has much stronger support, but I am open to all compromise solutions, and have suggested a few. Armon suggested a compromise which I accepted, though either I misunderstood him or he later changed his opinion to also include the POV sentence in the article. So far, you suggested no compromise whatsoever, and kept pushing for the version of the article which strongly implies that Kosovo Serbs were not abused at all. This your version is the one that does not present one of conflicting perspectives, and which gives undue weight to an unsupported minority view.
• I made no attempt to elevate my personal opinion above multiple reliable scholarly sources. It is in fact you who is elevating your interpretation of several sources, which could hardly be called scholarly, reliability of which you never bothered to establish, over a reliable scholarly source. That is prime example of WP:OR. Sources you cite do not say what you want them to say, get over with it already!
• As I explained above, the edit warring wasn't started by me, but by PalestineRemembered. Why are you not filing a complaint about him?

Your crusade against Francisco Gil-White and TENC under guise of removing linkspam only shows that you mislead people then as you are doing now. It is you who are introducing unreliable sources to support your personal POV. Nikola 09:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

---

A reference I found today, in response to Armin's inquiry for more references: expert report by Audrey Helfant Budding given to the ICTY for the prosecution against Slobodan Milosevic[11]:

Yet it is one-sided to ignore economic factors in discussing Slavic emigration from Kosovo, it is also inaccurate to present them as the only reason for emigration. In 1985-86, the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences conducted a survey [that is the study we are talking about all the time] [...] This study must be treated with some caution [...] Nevertheless, a review of the SANU survey and a consideration of other more anecdotal evidence suggests that inter-ethnic tensions - and in some cases acts of intimidation or violence - played a role in many emigration decisions.²³¹

Audrey Helfant Budding has a PhD in history and is a lecturer at Harvard. She is more reliable than all of Chris' authors together squared, even if they would say what he would like them to say. Nikola 10:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the content issues, it is clear that Armon and Nikola have been both been edit warring at Gazimestan speech recently. If it either continues, they should expect a block, but this is a bit old now. Dmcdevit·t 06:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh? OK, well don't worry about me then. I was just trying to help. You guys work it out. <<-armon->> 10:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a total misreading of it, Dmcdevit. This request for enforcement was occasioned by Nikola edit warring to state one side's version of events as "the truth". In doing this, he's opposing the consensus of the other editors on the article. Three editors - Armon, PR and I - have tried to find a compromise solution, but have been rebuffed by Nikola. He seems to have given up trying to push his POV for now; however, given his past record, I expect that he will resume edit warring in due course. I can understand your confusion; Nikola is adept at obfuscating the issues with verbiage. -- ChrisO 13:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Chris, do not repeat lies about me. I am asking you to withdraw what you said. You are the one who is POV pushing and representing a non-notable opinion as "the truth". I am not edit warring. I have not "given up" but was patiently waiting for someone to continue discussion in talk with new sources I presented.

Given that it did not happenened, I have edited the article to what I believe is a compromise version. If it is reverted, I'll start a mediation about this.

I absolutely agree that Armon is not edit warring. Nikola 08:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have in fact started a mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gazimestan speech. Nikola 08:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Giovanni Giove

Hi.
Hereby I report that user:Giovanni Giove has breached its one-year edit restriction, as decided by Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dalmatia.
As You can see from the history of editing of article Jakov Mikalja [[12]], Giovanni Giove has not given any explanation of his actions. All he did was moving of the talkpage to its version. His edit from 18 Oct 2007 [13], in 13:12.
On the article page, he did four edits (these edits are reverts) on 18 Oct 2007 [14] in 13:12 (moving), [15] on 13:15, [16] in 13:16, [17] in 13:24.
He again ignored other users' contributions, repeated his behaviour pattern shown and described in the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dalmatia/Evidence, for which he was "punished".
I don't want to engage in the edit/revert war. I've given a bunch of material on the article talkpage. I don't know what to do anymore.
Please act as Wikipedia policies say (remedies, enforcements and blocks).
Sincerely, Kubura 07:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note

Marco Polo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dalmatian Italians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Giovanni Giove

This matter concerns the final decision of the Dalmatia Arbitration Committee and its final decision (here [18]) wich restricted User:Giovanni Giove and myself to "one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism)", and it is required we discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
With this final decision not one week old, User:Giovanni Giove has already made, not one or two, but a little under two dozen reverts of varying size in the Marco Polo (history page: [19]) and Dalmatian Italians articles (history page [20]).
In the Dalmatian Italians article (besides reverting more than once) he also made no attempt whatsoever to discuss his edits, and the discussion page does not have a single explanation of these numerous reverts and provocative edits ([21]).
In the Marco Polo article he quite flagrantly ignored the instructions of the ARBCOM and reverted on several occasions this week (on the same article).

(To whom it may concern,) I edited as well on a few occasions myself, but (as per instructions) i made only one revert per week per article, along with a thorough discussion each time ([22], [23], [24], [25]).
DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia was up because of continual edit wars and a few unresolved RFC's in several Dalmatia related articles. In all cases User:Giovanni Giove was an iniciator of discussions but concentrated more on his "outistic" editing of the articles and constructively absent in the talk pages. A person totaly blind for sources presented by others. Zenanarh 18:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin response He made a lot of changes, but so far what I saw was editing, not reverting. If you disagree, you can revert (once per week) and then try to discuss the substance of the changes on the talk page. If you believe he has been reverting to previous versions, please show diffs of the old version and the reverts, because I didn't see his edits as reverts. Thatcher131 13:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, Thatcher131, take a look again.

I gave those diffs above, 6 days ago (these deal with article Jakov Mikalja and Talk:Jakov Mikalja). These are from 18 Oct, 13:12 (redirecting; in this sense, it's a kind of revert, because the involved parties had disagreements because of the article name) [26] and reverting 13:15 [27], and upgrading of revert/his original research, 18 Oct, 13:24 [28].

See the lines he removed, his removing of adjective "Croatian", as well as his POV-izing/original research/off-topic (section: "Controversy"). In the latter two he also ignored the sources given previously.

Talking about the talkpage of the article Jakov Mikalja (Giovanni Giove must explain his revert actions according to the RFARB decision), user Giovanni Giove gave no explanation till this very day, 30 Oct (12 days have passed and no admin reaction yet!?). And he was supposed to promptly give the explanation (!?!). All he did was the redirect of the talkpage [29] (see the history of the talkpage changes [30]). In other words, revert warring even on the talkpage.

Other parties substained from edit warring, although Giovanni Giove persisted in his upgrade of his original work (e.g. here [31], on 29 Oct, in which he ignored all previously given sources on the talkpage).

That's what I call "edit-slaughter". We, obedient users are idiots, because we obey the rule and tolerate the propagandist/vandalic/trollic behaviour and stay calm, while at the same time, Giovanni Giove calmly edits "unprotected" article, without any disturbance from opponents that avoid revert actions and edit war and wait the RFARB enforcement/waiting the admins to react.

Have in mind that Giovanni Giove was blocked (on 24 Sep, 15:47; 72 h block) because of 3RR rule violation (!!!) (see his block log [32]), during arbitration case (where he got his current, too mild, punishment), that dealt with him. Neither proposed remedies, given before Giove's blocking haven't changed his behaviour (4 days before his blocking, one arbitrator already voted for proposed remedies and enforcement regarding Giovanni Giove). Kubura 10:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to say... Giovanni Giove advises me to be more creative, but I feel this is a simple matter. The fact that he did revert is painfully obvious. The diffs are here, the violation is here, the only problem is that it isn't easy to search out the reverts among the million other edits this guy made. I know its a pain, but someone must take the time to do this. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's my third reaction on the admin's noticeboard, after the ones from 24 Oct and 30 Oct.

Director gave reports on 26 and 30 Oct.

Zenanarh gave report on 26 Oct.

Has any of admins ever read what we wrote on RFARB, on the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia/Evidence page ?

Regarding Jakov Mikalja case, as I see, Giovanni Giove is 15 days overdue (today is 02 Nov), more than 2 weeks. And he was supposed to give explanation on the talkpage promptly, according to the explicit and strict order of the Arbitration Committee. We have rules on Wikipedia.

He repeated his behaviour in which he removes all adjectives "Croatian" (replacing it with some amorphous or Frankestein adjectives, despite the scanned original documents, that point exactly to terms Croatian and Croat), and/or when he tries to lessen any connection of Mikalja with Croats. Just compare the history pages between other users and him. His edits weren't the "upgrading edit", that was ordinary revert. Compare the versions. See his previous reverts.

This is not a place to explain why is his contribution full of POV's, original research and misrepresentations, as well as his anti-Croat attitude, I (and others) have given a bunch of explanation on the talkpage of article Jakov Mikalja previously (the same talkpage that Giovanni Giove ignores since for 09 July 2007, that's almost four months, or 116 (one hundred and sixteen) days!).

Honorable admins, Yours task is to act as rules require. Sincerely, Kubura 14:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Giove's recent vandalistic behaviour on the talkpage

On 6 Nov 2007 in 11:05, user Giovanni Giove has deleted my explanations on the talkpage of Jakov Mikalja [33]. He deleted them the very same day I've posted them (my message was from 10:44).
Giove's comment was "deleted insults and personal attacks)".
This is the text that Giovanni Giove deleted "19 days have passed since Giovanni Giove violated the decisions from the Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dalmatia/Proposed_decision). See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dalmatia#Remedies and section Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dalmatia#Enforcement
- Since then, other users have abstained from editing. Giovanni Giove abused that for his editslaughter.
- Because of repeated ignorant behaviour of user Giovanni Giove (described in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dalmatia/Evidence), I've restored the version before Giove's violation of RFARB decisions. ".
It's a shame that admins allow Giove to pull all other users (including admins) by the nose. Kubura 07:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Here're Giove's reverts and undiscussed and unexplained POV (and original work) actions exposed on the talkpage (and described on the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dalmatia/Evidence.
Talk:Jakov_Mikalja#Giove.27s_unexplained_reverts.2C_trolling_and_vandalisms_since_RFARB.
To remind you, since his first (undiscussed and unexplained) revert (18 Oct), 20 days have passed, several user reports, no admins reaction yet. Kubura 11:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)