Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:25, 21 June 2009

WP:AE

Requests for 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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors 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 editors who engage 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 less 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.

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,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331

Gragg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request concerning Gragg

User requesting enforcement: Grandmaster 05:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: Gragg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: Just one example of edit warring on one article: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: The contribs of Gragg (talk · contribs) almost exclusively consist of page move wars on AA articles. Please check his contribs: [8]
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): revert restriction, page move ban.
Additional comments: Gragg was repeatedly warned of edit warring (check his talk page), including a warning with a link to arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 a year ago: [9] No signs of stopping.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [10]

Discussion concerning Gragg

Yes, Gragg has been move warring. I'm inclined to grant this request unless persuaded otherwise by Gragg's reply. Sandstein 06:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, that's move warring;a ban against page move and revert restriction seems completely appropriate. Shell ^babelfish 03:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am completing Grandmaster's report by presenting you the other user whom Gragg is move-warring with. Note that there was a CU request in the past on Baki66 which was unanswered as well as a report here. Either users should discuss on the appropriate name usages for articles or refrain from this senseless move war. Thanks. - Fedayee (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Fedayee. I've warned him about the arbitration case. We can't sanction him now because he does not seem to have been warned previously. Sandstein 05:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from User talk: Sandstein:) About Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Requests for enforcement, complain on me, Gragg. I badly know English, and mostly edit Russian Wikipedia. I do not know where discuss rename the article in enwiki.

As far as I know, articles about the geographical object in Nagorno-Karabakh should be named, as they named in 1988, until war. I watched several of these articles (in ruWiki) and saw that the name of the some English articles do not satisfy this rule. So, I have to rename them. But my change was removed Baku66, аnd other members warned him for breach of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: [11].

Please do not deprive me the possibility to rename the article. I am ready to discuss the names of those articles. Gragg (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Gragg

A sanction is appropriate here because Grag continued move-warring in spite of warnings. If one does not speak English enough to participate in discussions, one should not edit the English Wikipedia at all. For advice on how articles should be named, see WP:MOSNAME.

Gragg is sanctioned as follows for six months each with respect to pages relating to Armenia or Azerbaijan, broadly defined:

He is banned from moving such pages, but may propose or discuss moves on discussion pages.
He is banned from making more than one revert per page per seven-day period. Sandstein 05:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Offliner

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request concerning Offliner

User requesting enforcement: Biophys (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: Offliner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: *unilateral deletion of an article

1.unilateral deletion of an article and again, and again, and again, and again
2.unilateral deletion of an article
3.unilateral deletion of an article
4.deletion of sources and sourced text in the same article
5.removal of sourced text, and again, and again
6.indiscriminate deletion of links
7.deletion of links to publications by the person described in BLP, and again, and again, with offensive edit summary
8.removal of links to commentaries by the person described in BLP, deletion of other sourced information in the same article
9.deletion of good links
10.removal of good links
11.removal of soured and relevant information
an offensive suggestion by Offliner at my talk page
Endless block shopping and personal attacks by Offliner [12]. [13], [14], [15],but he still believes he never started baseless threads

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: Sustained edit warring, unilateral deletions of whole articles and materials this user does not like, no matter how well the materials are sourced. The materials are on Russian/EE subjects.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): topic ban, RR restriction
Additional comments: He was warned many times by users with different political views and by an uninvolved administrator:

12.by Russavia
14.by William M. Connolley
15.by me (unilateral deletion of articles), and again
16.by Peltimikko

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

here

Discussion concerning Offliner

1: This article was created by Biophys by cutpasting material from an old version of Web brigades (a version he had reverted many times to; many people had edited and improved the article after that version.) I don't think such behaviour is acceptable and to me it was a clear POV fork.
2-3: Same story. Biophys created the articles by cutpasting material from an earlier version of Russian apartment bombings. Also clearly a POV fork.
That I said, I think doing edits 1-3 was clearly a mistake on my part. I should have been more patient and used speedy deletion or AfD instead. 1-3 are months-old now, and I won't be doing similar things in the future, now that I have more experience and more knowledge of the Wikipedia policies.
4: the first one is a deletion of a link farm per WP:EL, I don't see anything wrong about that. The second one is a content issue, as explained on the edit summary.
5: is again a content issue, discussed on the talk page and edit warred over by all sides. Both me and Biophys were blocked for this later.
6-7: are link farm cleanup. According to WP:EL, "long lists of links are not acceptable." If they are useful at all, the links should be used as sources instead. About the last one with the "offensive edit summary": as stated in the edit summary, I had already explained my argumentation on the talk page, yet Biophys kept insisting that I had not.
8-10: are again link farm cleanup. I really don't know what this has to do with WP:DIGWUREN sanctions. I know that there are many other users who agree with me that EL sections should be kept at minimum, links that are useful should be used as sources instead and not as ELs; the selection of links should be balanced and justification for every link should be given if requested (this was not done by Biophys.)
11: is a content issue, discussed thoroughly on the talk page.
13: this "warning" is cherry-picked. Please also read the follow-up by Connolley (he agreed with my report and blocked Martintg for edit warring after made it more clear why 3RR was broken.)[16]

I admit that 1-3 were impatient solutions and that they were wrong. 5 was also stupid (although many other users agreed with me that the section does not belong in the article) and I was already punished for it by User:Nakon. The others are simple content issues and link farm cleanups, and I don't see anything wrong with them. Offliner (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With heavy heart, I must endorse this arbitration request, and add another incident. In [17], Offliner is clearly assuming bad faith. Polling is a normal part of Wikipedia's editorial process; disrupting polls based on who initiates them can't be constructive. Дигвурен Дигвурович_Аллё? 15:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Here is the problem. Offliner does not want to follow WP policies.

It was explained to him that he should nominate an article for deletion or to mark it for merging discussion if he thinks the article is a content fork. But he countinued unilateral deletions of articles when his suggestions to move or rename the articles were not supported like here and here
He simply does not want to seriously discuss merging/deletion at article talk pages, for example here, here, and here and continue his unilateral deletions. On other issues, I asked if he needs direct citation; he did not reply [18] and simply continued his removal of links and reverts.
The instruction about WP links tells which links should be included and which links should be avoided [19]. However, he simply removed everything. That was explained to Offliner by Alex_Bakahrev and me many times but Offliner ignored explanations and continued doing the same, without replying at the talk pages: [20], [21], [22], [23].

Offliner is fully aware of Digwuren case sanctions, as he reported Digwuren to ANI [24] Biophys (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I find it strange that all the diffs in the evidence section are more than a month old, this for an editor who made 500 edits only between May 29 and June 18. The actions taken by the community shouldn't be punitive, but preventive... what's to prevent when all Offliner's supposed breaches of the arbitration decision date before May 10 (save one from May 28, which look likes a simple content dispute), considering that Offliner is a heavy contributor to Wikipedia. Also, some of the articles concerned are mind-blowing, and their editorial content seems strongly against Wikipedia policies ( Evidence of FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings ??? , what's next Evidence that the US didn't land on the Moon? ; in Russian influence operations in Estonia a comment from a secret service report was transformed in a full-fledged article, even with the utter lack of such topic in the scholar (and non-scholar) media; Internet operations by Russian secret police, while a reasonable topic, includes such ludicrous sections as details about a contact phone number placed on the website of a Russian intelligence agency). As for the supposed assumption of bad faith, it seems merely a statement about a state of fact. The ArbCom recently acknowledged that blocs of editors do exist, and the AfD of two of the concerned articles ( here and here) suggest that there are two blocs of editors in this topic (one which favors articles with allegations about supposed negative actions by Russia, and one which disfavours them), with minimal external involvement. Considering these, a topic ban at the current time could only show disapproval of Offliner's editorial opinions, without making Wikipedia better, just making it more prone to systemic bias. Anonimu (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In accord with what Anonimu said earlier, in order to have an unbiased review of this case, you have to discard with prejudice all the endorse votes from the bloc of editors (Biophys, Digwuren, Colchicum, Elysander, to name a few) who have systemically harassed Offliner for quite a while. You can also safely discard all the votes from the opposite bloc (Russavia, HistoricWarrior to name a few). The case may have wide implications in the future (see also the AE report against Biophys below) and it is actually a part of the bigger picture, a battle on Wikipedia raged over the Eastern Europe's pre and post- Soviet history. (Igny (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - I agree with Anonimu and Igny. Having closely observed Offliner's conduct over the past month, it's obvious that he has not engaged in any "unilateral deletions" (which were supported as removals POV forks by other users, anyway) since at least the date given by Anonimu. Hence, one has no ground to bring this here at all regarding remedying things through preventive sanctions. Otherwise, venues such as WP:AE descend into methods of blocking legitimate content opponents without due cause, as from all indications appears to be the rationale here. This is backwards justice. At the same time, User:Biophys seems to have recently arrived at a spurt of interest in blocking an opponent...Offliner...Beatle Fab Four...well, pick any one you like. What this smacks of is an instance of such blockshopping (every one of his opponents has even been accused of being a sockpuppet at some point) against an editor after a prolonged attempt to bait an opposing party with numerous content forks. PasswordUsername (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Between the fact that many of these diffs are aged (some even more than a month) and the case is greatly over stated (i.e. "unilaterally deleted" when the edit was actually turning a fork into a redirect) I don't see anything here in need of sanction. Offliner has already indicated that s/he recognizes that some decisions were made too quickly and served a block for the edit warring. As a side note, if I were to hand out sanctions here, I'd be very tempted to restrict the reporting party for combative behavior/edit warring as well. Shell ^babelfish 03:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This request is clear WP:BATTLE behavior. I agree with Shell that the filing party, and I'd add Digwuren as co-agitator, should be sanctioned for bringing it here. . Jehochman ^Talk 14:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I had no idea that filing a legitimate request to an appropriate noticeboard (whatever it is: BLP, ANI, or AE) can be punished by editing restrictions. I can be wrong, but I made this request in a good faith (as also explained in my response to Offliner below). If Sandstein tells me: "please do not file AE reports any more without consulting with me", I would gladly follow such advice.Biophys (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is not enough, you can ban me from AE pages. Sorry, but I thought my report was appropriate because Offliner systematically removed sourced content and good links from numerous WP articles, and he systematically refused to discuss the matter (I thought that was clear from the diffs I provided above in the evidence and discussion sections). Biophys (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly Jehochman sees WP:BATTLE behavior in Biophys, but not in Offliner, yet the evidence is quite clear that Offliner has been relentlessly shopping across multiple boards and admin talk pages since May. In regard to "unilaterally deletions", well of course it is not a real deletion, only admins can do that, but turning an article into a redirect effectively removes the content article from the view of the reader. Afterall, one of the outcomes of an AfD is to redirect. --Martintg (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need to reopen this case, per my comment below. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Offliner (only uninvolved admins should comment here)

No action. This is an unpersuasive request, and I am frankly put off by its many deficiencies:

At least one of the diffs cited as evidence, [25], is not by Offliner at all. The other diffs described as "personal attacks" are, in fact, not personal attacks (even should what they assert be wrong), because they address a user's on-wiki conduct in a mostly reasonably polite tone.
The diffs described as "unilateral deletions" , such as [26], are in fact redirections, not deletions. Only administrators can delete pages.
"Removal of sourced text" is not by itself sanctionable conduct; there can be many good reasons for removing sourced text. The request should explain what policy or generally accepted norm of conduct such a removal violates, and how. The same goes for "deletion of good links"; there are many reason per WP:EL to delete external links. The request should not only explain why the removal of links objected to violates that guideline (on such issues reasonable people can often disagree about), but also why this amounts to sanctionable conduct.
A request accusing an editor of "sustained edit warring" can reasonably be expected to include, as evidence, a chronological sequence of edits demonstrating the edit warring. No such evidence is submitted here.
Many diffs are months old, with no comment on what bearing they might have on the current need for sanctions.

The request is therefore not ripe for review. This is not meant to excuse or endorse any misconduct on the part of Offliner that may have occurred (there are, indeed, several indications in the evidence that it may have), but any such misconduct would have to be demonstrated much more persuasively.

I am more inclined than Shell and Jehochman to assume good faith on the part of Biophys, but I agree that he should in the future be more careful in raising any well-founded concerns he might have, or I would indeed not rule out sanctions for battleground mentality. Arbitration enforcement requests, like requests for arbitration, should not be made lightly. The same applies, incidentally, to most of the editors participating in these current Eastern Europe AE threads. Sandstein 16:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, I ask you to modify your close and topic ban Biophys from editing all EE pages and disputes, including WP:AE, for some reasonable period of time. I had previously warned him at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive37#Discretionary_sanctions_requested not to use WP:AE for playing games. The current thread consists of frivolous complaints. Assuming good faith is fine, but not when an editor has been directly warned and gone back and done the same thing again. Jehochman ^Talk 15:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, I assume you are an uninvolved administrator for WP:DIGWUREN purposes? In that case, I do not think that it is necessary for me to modify my closure: the remedy authorizes you to issue any discretionary sanctions that you deem necessary on your own authority, with no need for my approval. Or am I wrong? I'd appreciate it if you'd restore my archiving of this thread and open a new one if you think the issue of sanctions for frivolous complaints requires further discussion. But perhaps you should wait with any action until the request for arbitration that you recently initiated resolves. (Involved editors, please do not comment here, we've had enough drama, thank you.) Sandstein 15:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I am still a sysop is that I do not take actions that I know other administrators object to. It is better to keep the thread open and see if a consensus for action emerges. I am not keen to replace your opinion that no action is required with my opinion that some action is required. We need more administrators to comment before anything can be decided. Jehochman ^Talk 01:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am closing this request on the theory of unclean hands. The filing party has made a number of errors (or worse, been playing games with WP:AE). There is a thread open below about the filing party. We can decide what to do about their behavior at that thread. Jehochman ^Talk 20:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Biophys

Request concerning Biophys

User requesting enforcement: Offliner (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: *1. Edit warring and article ownership at Web brigades. Observe the repeated reinserting the section "poland", etc.

[27][28][29][30]

2. More edit warring at Web brigades. Massive reverts to an old version. Observe the persistent restoring the section on poland ("Russian "Internet brigades" reportedly appeared..."), etc.

[31][32][33][34]

3. Creation of POV-fork Internet operations by Russian secret police
- comparison: old version of Web brigades: [35]. Internet operations by Russian secret police:[36].
4. Edit warring and article ownership at Russian apartment bombings

[37] [38][39][40][41][42][43][44]

5. More edit warring at Russian apartment bombings. Obverse reinsertion of "attempted bombings", etc.

[45][46][47][48]

6. Edit warring and article ownership at Alexander Litvinenko, observe removing "alleged career at MI6",etc.

[49][50]

7. More edit warring at Alexander Litvinenko, including massive reverts to an old version. Observe, for example, removal of chapter "allegations" and material from it, e.g."zyberk".

[51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63]

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: It should be easy to see from the diffs that Biophys has been persistently edit warring, and that this is a bad case of article ownership. Biophys is often reverting to a months-old version, undoing a large number of edits done by different editors in the process.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Block for edit warring and a topic ban on Russia-related subjects.
Additional comments
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [64]

Discussion concerning Biophys

Response.

Some of the diffs (web brigades) are dated 2008. All others are two months old.

1. and 2. (web brigades). I inserted sourced text deleted by Russavia and Offliner. My edits are fully explained at article talk page.
3.(Internet operations). This is a different and a wider scope article. Please compare current versions of these articles. They are completely different.
4 and 5. (the Bombings) This is a content dispute (see talk page of the article). I can explain all details if asked. One of key points: Offliner inserts a conspiracy theory about non-existing "Liberation army of Dagestan". It is true that Offliner and me were blocked for editing this article. Since then I did not edit it.
6. I removed some consipracy theories about Litvinenko. That was a content fork to article Alexander Litvinenko assassination theories. I created latter article to remove dubious materials from main article. They were reinserted back by certain POV-pushers.
7. I created a compromise version of article Alexander Litvinenko as explained at this article talk page. Everything was reverted back by Russavia and Offliner. They reverted me right in the process of editing. I tried to use "Inuse" template, but I was told that they will always revert me right in the process of edit: [65]

As about my future plans, I am going to edit much less on controversial Russian subjects - this is simply impossible anyway with the group of Russian editors who enforce their POV by reverts and complaints (see below). I will also try to stick to 1RR.

Yes, I asked an advice from Colchicum being unsure about reporting this. Finally, I decided to report, mostly to let everyone know about the persisting problems in the "Russian sector". I am not sure if something can be done about this, but it is better to go public and perhaps receive an appropriate advice.Biophys (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Jehochman. I have no idea why you blamed me of "unclean hands" [66]. I did not make any false statements, and everyone can make errors. I had no idea that filing a legitimate request to an appropriate noticeboard can be punished by editing restrictions. OK. I am not going to submit any other requests in the future without asking a permission from an uninvolved administrator. If this is not enough, please officially ban me from AE pages. Sorry, but I thought my report was appropriate because Offliner systematically removed sourced content and good links from numerous WP articles, and he systematically refused to discuss the matter (I thought that was clear from the diffs I provided above in the evidence and discussion sections).Biophys (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- (In response to now deleted comments about coordination by Biophys) The coordination here seems to involve members of your party. Continuously recoursing to use of the victim card on this note is getting very old, I really think. PasswordUsername (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where did I play a victim? There is no any "Party". I do not like Parties after living under the Communist Party. I also do not work for Berezovsky as Offliner suggested (see last of my diffs in request about him).Biophys (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Party" is just another way of saying "group." That's where the political sense of the word comes from - OK? PasswordUsername (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That was fast. Weren't black books found problematic in an earlier ArbCom ? Дигвурен Дигвурович_Аллё? 17:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you assuming bad faith? If you have any evidence of such "black book" you should present it. As for the evidence presented, it has the some problem as Biophys' above: if the last occurrence of problematic behaviour is weeks old, why was the behaviour brought to administrator scrutiny only now? I understand bringing old evidence when problematic behaviour escalate. But why do it when there's no recent disruption of Wikipedia? Content disputed are not solved by trying to get rid of the other side.Anonimu (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last diff is from 8 June. The behaviour described in the diffs has been going on for a long time; there is no indication that he stopped for good 10 days ago. There have been other breaks, but afterwards the edit warring has presumed. I only want the admins to examine the diffs and take whatever action they think is best. Offliner (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comment by William M. Connolley is of possible interest. Дигвурен Дигвурович_Аллё? 18:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also read the follow-up by Connolley: [67]. He accepted the report and blocked User:Martintg after I provided more evidence. Offliner (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys has a strong POV and he relentlessly removes sourced material from articles that does not conform to it, as always, substitutitng frivolous edit summaries, hijacking Wikipedia to be used as a WP:SOAPBOX for his own views. The inanity of his edit summaries whenever Biophys removes sourced data is such that it can serve no purpose other than to exhaust the patience of Biophys' content opponents:
[68] - Biophys deletes sourced content by historian Arno Mayer.
[69] - Biophys deletes sourced content by Mayer without providing any reason again, asking to "discuss" on talk page. He does not justify this on Talk page himself.
[70] [71] Biophys twice reinserts inaccurate information which is dismissed at talk as not connected to the content of the article–without even bothering to look at the Talk page. When Beatle Fab Four reverts asking him to see talk, Biophys tries to canvass for a block of Beatle Fab Four at User talk:Colchicum. Administrator Alex Bakharev tells Biophys to stop antics like that, as he did not even bother to consult the talk page.
[72] - Biophys removes sourced material about the politics of controversial Russian opposition leader Kasparov, claiming "undue weight for biography of a world chess champion."
[73] - Biophys reverts "per talk" without adding anything to the talk page after three others engage in a heated discussion.
[74] Biophys insists on retaining one sentence of nonsense removed in good faith by an IP.
[75] - Biophys is warned by Viriditas to stop inserting nonsense into the Human rights in the United States article while ignoring the changes that take place on the Talk page.

PasswordUsername (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I explained and debated these edits at article talk pages, and I can explain each specific situation if asked.Biophys (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, WP:AE shouldn't be used as a means for getting the upper hand in content disputes, as appears to be the case here. Biophys attempts to provide a neutral viewpoint (via published sources) that contradicts the particular viewpoint (which could be described by some as pro-Kremlin) promoted by those calling for his sanction here, and thus he is a valuable and honest contributor who attempts to balance the efforts of Team Offliner in injecting their POV into Wikipedia. --Martintg (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment fixed: You are right, WP:AE shouldn't be used as a means for getting the upper hand in content disputes, as appears to be the case here. Offliner attempts to provide a neutral viewpoint (via published sources) that contradicts the particular viewpoint (which could be described by some as anti-Kremlin) promoted by those calling for his sanction here, and thus he is a valuable and honest contributor who attempts to balance the efforts of Team Biophys in injecting their POV into Wikipedia.

That is precisely why I am asking to strike out opinions of the anti-Offliner bloc here. (Igny (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

But not strike the opinions of the anti-Biophys bloc, evidently. --Martintg (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above, but I will repeat again just to make myself clear. Nothing of value, and certainly not impartiality, would be lost if opinions of both of the blocs are discarded in the review of these cases. (Igny (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comment This constitutes continued accusations of bad faith by PasswordUsername using accusations they themselves lodged as some sort of "evidence." For example:

(In response to now deleted comments about coordination by Biophys) The coordination here seems to involve members of your party. Continuously recoursing to use of the victim card on this note is getting very old, I really think. PasswordUsername (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section on And more of the same traveling circus of which the above is part, was a massive demonstration of bad faith by PasswordUsername attempting to enlist an unsuspecting admin in support of their attack against a number of editors they count as their editorial opposition. If you can't attack the content, attack the editor. This in fact succeeded, as at one point Hiberniantears even accused me outright of being a single purpose account, a contention they later retracted based on the facts. This behavior is little more than well-orchestrated back-stabbing. PetersV TALK 03:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PetersV, I'm not now accusing you of any coordinated editing, although as pointed out above, even ArbCom recognizes that blocs of editors exist. My response here was only to Biophys' original accusations (which he removed, as opposed to stricken out as customary). These were the very confused [76] (alleging that I filed Offliner's report for him - whereas I only added more diffs) and this next one [77] (also deleted - there, Biophys is alleging a "high degree of coordination" among a number of users, including myself). Now, I am not pressing any charges on this, but given the original context, it's only fair to respond noting that I am relatively new here as a registered user, whereas Biophys and a number of others (including yourself) have been "collaboratively editing" years before I first managed to even step here, which you all admit. (As for myself, in fact, my first encounter with the bunch occured on May 10, following which both Biophys and Digwuren came to accuse me of being a sockpuppet of Anonimu...) This isn't a bad faith edit–this is calling a spade a spade on hypocrisy-of-victimhood. Incidentally, Biophys should probably not pretend that he reverted his Talk page to "an older version of anyone who wants to review it" if he cherry-picks the incidents (he's ommitted a number of recent things he appears to find unhelpful.)PasswordUsername (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact that Offliner has been involved in endless block shopping:

Offliner filed three false 3RR reports (one of them was about Russian editor Colchicum) - see this warning by William M. Connolley.
He made this comment to Tiptoety
He asked for a block from Nishkid64, and yes, he received it from Nakon.
He asked for a block at the ANI
He made a similar ANI comment at another occasion.
And he still believes that he never started baseless threads and complains here.

Can somebody put an end to this. --Martintg (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Clearly I should have looked down before commenting on the report above. Perhaps both Biophys and Offliner should be placed under a topic ban- this looks a lot like battleground mentality. Shell ^babelfish 03:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps we should examine both edits one by one, and distinguish violations clearly? After all, there is a precedent in the extremely recent Shotlandiya case, where this was done, leading to a topic ban against Shotlandiya despite opposition from multiple editors to the effect that the opposite warring party had been just as bad. Moreover, from the way I see it, preventive sanctions would help editors who have been warring days ago would help more than sanctions against Offliner - whose breaches are months old (Biophys' "unilateral deletions" actually all date back to April)? PasswordUsername (talk) 03:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The thing is, I'm seeing the same thing in this request - some of these diffs are from 2008 - there appears to be less than a handful that I'd consider remotely current. Your comments, among those of others that seem to be involved in this somehow, aren't really at helpful to sorting out the situation. I'm of the opinion that both reports are trumped up and being bolstered by opposing sides in a content dispute. Shell ^babelfish 04:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are a number of particular edit diffs in my list (which I posted in the discussion section) that seem to be pretty current. (It took just two articles where policy had been breached recently to issue a block to Shotlandiya.) With Biophys' editing, this has been a recurring pattern with Biophys since he first arrived here years ago, as has been recorded in multiple cases like this:[78][79][80][81][82][83] Biophys seems to perennially wade into conflict over tendentious editing, back then years ago and in the most recent diffs provided now. I don't know if these are actionable, so if you don't think this is merits a sanction at WP:AE, I'll take your judgment. PasswordUsername (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All cases cited by PasswordUsername were either debated at ANI and other appropriate boards or voted by ArbCom. All required actions were taken. Yes, I was involved or commented in many cases. Yes, I have been a target of numerous unproved accusations during the process; some of them are made by a user banned by ArbCom.Biophys (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not the recent diffs. PasswordUsername (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Shell, both AE reports are mirror images of the other, concerning the same topics. This is clearly a content dispute and AE is not the venue to sort out such disputes. Biophys should be admonished and formally warned not to use AE in this way. This should be case for Offliner too, however he also submitted a second AE report below against Digwuren, recycling old issues that were earlier aired on other notice boards. Since Offliner was previously warned against vexatious litigation in another forum, he should now receive some kind of further sanction to get the message through. --Martintg (talk) 05:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With these constant accusations of block shopping thrown around, the following may be relevant. Biophys was block shopping several times at User:Tiptoety's talk page. For example here he raised the same non-issue of "unilateral deletion" of articles and citing the same Digwuren's case. (Igny (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

What I see here, is harassment of Biophys by several editors, in particular, by Offliner. This really needs to stop. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update evidence: For a more recent example of Biopyhs' POV-forking: please compare

The see why I think this is a POV fork, please see Russavia's comments on the AfD discussion: [84]. Most of the material in the fork was cutpasted from the main article. All criticism of the theory of FSB involvement was dropped in the process. Much of the material was also available in yet another article [85] at the time.

Also, to make it clear why the last revert on Litvinenko mentioned above [86] (from June) is not "a compromise version" as Biophys claims, but actually a wholesale revert to an older version, observe how Biophys removes the interwiki link be-x-old:Аляксандар Літвіненка. The link had been added in May. Notice also the restoration of the wrong spelling "Persecuition" - this had been fixed many times before, yet Biophys keeps restoring it. Offliner (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response. I wanted to create sub-articles and then briefly summarize the corresponding content in the main articles. However, certain people did not allow this to happen by reverting me in the process of edits, regardles to "inuse" template, as expalined for example here. Editing restriction was placed by Nakon on article "Russian apartment bombings". Finally, I stopped editing these articles. Biophys (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need to reopen this case, per my comment below. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, are you involved or uninvolved in EE controversies? Jehochman ^Talk 18:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I consider myself uninvolved in the non-Lithuanian Baltic EE controversies. What about you? PS. Please try not to mispel my nickname - thanks. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you're involved in the disputes involving the folks on these enforcement threads. Please stop commenting as if you are uninvolved, and in general, don't comment unless you have useful evidence to present. You appear to be shielding various wrong-doers from sanctions. Jehochman ^Talk 18:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find your comment to be quite bad faithed and improper for a professional admin at AE. I am as (un)involved in those disputes as you are, or Sandstein, Moreschi or any other admin that chose to comment here in the past. Let me repeat: other then for some general interested in all EE issues (which leads me to comment when I see those issues being discussed on various foras) I am quite uninvolved in the non-Lithuanian Baltic issues, having edited very few articles in this field and having taken no admin actions in it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Biophys (comments by uninvolved admins only in this section)

No action. As in the request against Offliner above, most diffs are many months old and it is not made clear why they warrant sanctions now. While there are strong indications of edit-warring with respect to Alexander Litvinenko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in particular, I expect Biophys to adhere to his promise to "try to stick to 1RR" (although I am not at this time making this a formal sanction).

More generally, I agree with Shell that this report and the one against Offliner above may be attempts to "win" content disputes through the arbitration mechanism, which is frowned upon, and that many of the editors involved in these issues surrounding contemporary Russian politics, on either side, tend to exhibit a regrettable battleground mentality. I am not sure if there is an adequate AE response to long-term disputes like this one, but I am beginning to warm to Shell's suggestion that if we continue to see reports and discussions like this (including some recently at ANI, I think), topic bans all around may be the best way to prevent continued conflict. Sandstein 17:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with closing this thread. The involved editors have been warned extensively. Let's try to make a decision here, or else we should go to arbitration. Jehochman ^Talk 16:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I thought that you had already gone to arbitration? But do go ahead if you think this is an actionable situation. Sandstein 17:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but a couple arbitrators scolded us and said we should deal with the matter. I am willing to pursue both paths in good faith in hopes that one or the other will be productive. Let's not close these threads until either we resolve what to do, or the committee accepts the case. Offliner has concerns and wants them addressed either here or at arbitration. My reason for filing arbitration was that I was pessimistic about resolving matters here, but who knows, maybe Kirill and FloNight are correct and some uninvolved administrators will appear to help us generate a consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 19:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus is required for discretionary sanctions; like blocks, they are unilaterally imposed by administrators. Consensus must only be sought if sanctions are appealed, as per the "appeals" section of the remedy. I've already expressed my opinion that the request does not properly establish the need for sanctions. But if you disagree, after having examined the situation more closely, I would recommend that you just go ahead and impose whatever sanctions you deem necessary. Sandstein 19:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ohconfucius

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request concerning Ohconfucius

User requesting enforcement: AKAF (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#Ohconfucius_automation
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: [87]
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: Ohconfucius is prohibited from using automation in article space indefinitely.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Delete and salt User:Ohconfucius/monobook.js
Additional comments: I have no additional reason to think that this is anything on top of his normal behaviour. The Arbcom finding just needs to be enforced, and this is a user who is unreliable about self-policing. While you're at it though, it might be a good idea to delete and salt User:Lightmouse/monobook.js and User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/test_script.js, which were the cause of this arbitration. This script is still being used by a number of users.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [88]

Discussion concerning Ohconfucius

cThis is very odd: I see 13 minutes between his previous edit and this one. No wonder, since presumably the chronological items were unlinked manually as he performed the other article improvements during that edit. I note that previous and subsequent edits made yet more improvements to the article, a wider gnoming context. This complaint appears to show no evidence of the use of automation (one or two minutes for this amount of article improvement and the chronological unlinkings, yes; but not 13.) And as an aside, it's great to have the date formats fixed so they're Australian, as MOSNUM has requied for some time, quite separately from the ArbCom "Dates" Case. I suggest that this complaint be dismissed as soon as possible. Tony (talk) 02:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm - one diff? I'm not clear how that's to be evidence of using automated tools? Shell ^babelfish 02:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this thread on what constitutes "mass date delinking". Also, deleting Lightmouse's script would also remove helpful functions such as making already-delinked dates consistently formatted. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not only is this a poor example, but the edit was wrongly taken out of context to try to prove the editor's guilt. See this series of edits, clearly more than just date delinking. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, so would it be correct to say that your concern here is not whether or not his edit was automated but rather that this was an instance of mass date delinking? Shell ^babelfish 04:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think so. Clearly User:AKAF wants the script to disappear from WP, and I say that isn't going to happen. I am the only one not allowed to use automation, per Arbcom, so the request to delete and salt Lightmouse's monobook script is actually quite out of order. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad this has come up, because it was bound to sooner or later. Anyone examining my edits would clearly see that the main thrust of my actions is to align dates to a single format, in accordance with WP:MOSNUM. I have done this on articles which have date links as well as on articles which have been previously delinked by other parties. If they are linked, I delink them by hand. As has been pointed out above, I do try incorporating other improvements in the same series of edits. For example, this edit was followed by a number of edits over a period of 5 days, which brought about the transformation of the article you see here. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any evidence here that the edit at issue was automated. If such evidence is not provided shortly, I intend to close this thread as not actionable. Sandstein 05:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Ohconfucius

No action. No evidence that the edit at issue was automated has been provided. Sandstein 17:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Digwuren

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

Request concerning Digwuren

User requesting enforcement: Offliner (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: Digwuren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: *1. Implying that other editors are neo-nazis:

[89][90]

2. Implying that other editors are working for the Russian state to censor articles:

[91]

3. Abusing article talk pages for ranting and to express personal political opinions:

[92][93]

4. Edit warring at International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. 3 reverts in 24 hours. (Changing "partially recognized" to something else.)

[94][95][96]

4. Edit warring at Timeline of antisemitism. Persistent removal of same material.

[97][98][99][100][101]

5. Edit warring at Kaitsepolitsei. Persistent removal of same material.

[102][103][104][105][106]

6. Edit warring at Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee. Persistently changing "Estonian media reception" to something else.

[107][108][109][110]

7. Edit warring at Nashi (youth movement). Reinserting "Putinjugend", reinserting "The movement has evoked comparisons..." to the lead, etc.

[111][112][113][114]

8. More edit warring at Nashi (youth movement). Removal of category "anti-fascist organizations", etc.

[115][116][117]

9. Edit warring at Mark Sirők. For example, persistent removal of the category "Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia", and then of the successor category "Human rights in Estonia", removal of the text "His arrest was condemned by the International Federation of Human Rights", etc.

[118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126][127]

11. Edit warring at We Don't Wanna Put In. Persistent reinsertion of same external link (it was deemed copyvio by others.) Last 4 reverts are in 24 hours.

[128][129][130][131][132]

Additional diffs provided by PasswordUsername:

12. Edit warring at the BLP article of Rene van der Linden, including reinsertion of blog materials (after these had been previously removed by myself yesterday) and subsequent tendentious Wikilawyering giving undue weight to unproven allegations of financial interest in the Russian Federation:

[133] [134]

13. Deliberate POV-pushing at the article Eesti Ekspress - summarized as "NPOV" editing:

[135]

14. Further edit warring at the same article (doing 4 reverts in 24 hours as other editors reject the obvious bias of this "NPOV"):

[136] [137][138][139]

15. Deliberate insertion of nonsense into edit summaries of deletionist edits (comments in Estonian on English Wikipedia, etc.):

[140][141][142]

16. Continued abuse against other editors, despite WP:DIGWUREN's stress on adherence to policy and "behave reasonably and calmly" rather than "insulting and intimidating other users":

[143]

17. Content opponents are "drunks" hired to "show up on Wikipedia and support United Russia":

[144] (edit summary)

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: Digwuren was blocked for a year following WP:DIGWUREN for edit warring (among other reasons). I think the above diffs clearly demonstrate that he hasn't changed his ways and is continuing to edit war. Also note that he was recently blocked for disruptive editing.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Block of a suitable length for continuing disruptive behaviour after expiration of last block.
Additional comments: The first 5 diffs were discussed at a recent WP:AN thread, but I decided to repost them after this discussion with an admin.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [145]

Discussion concerning Digwuren

The AE is not for content disputes. I wish all you guys be banned from this noticeboard and others for disruption. Digwuren has not accused anybody of harboring Nazi sympathies. As I understand it, he said that the allegations Offliner and Russavia strived to include was produced by Risto Teinonen, who is a notorious neo-Nazi, as reported in numerous reliable sources, and not a reliable source. And I can certify that Russavia and Offliner edit-warred to keep neo-Nazi material in Kaitsepolitsei is an accurate factual statement, Digwuren was most probably right in his opposition to this. It wasn't Digwuren who created a battleground in that particular case. I invite everybody to examine the history of that article and the sudden attention that Russavia and Offliner started to pay to the Estonia-related topics entirely foreign to them (to provoke a confrontation in a known hotspot? Let's assume good faith for now, but it seems increasingly likely). Note: the material was neo-Nazi rather than the mentioned users, and I have little idea about their actual sympathies. As to the alleged edit-warring, you know, it takes (at least) two to tango. In most cases Digwuren merely restored the status quo version, aggressively provoked by contentious edits made by Offliner and his associates, which were bordering on policy violations and not supported on the talk page (e.g. insertion of the said neo-Nazi material, controversial categorization of Nashi (youth movement) as an "anti-fascist" organization, despite other sources claiming exactly the opposite, addition of the category Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia, which was in blatant violation of NPOV and not supported by sources in the article, and so on). All this should be dealt with in a separate ArbCom and not here. Colchicum (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The way I see this, Biophys, Digwuren, and you, Colchicum, as well as others have long been engaged in edit wars with Russavia, Offliner, me and others over a number of highly controversial topics, including a number of newly created POV titled articles. In the process we all tried to piss each other off, blamed each other for violation of WP policies (some justifiably so). In most cases that confrontation was qui pro quo, creation of one POV article followed by a creation of the opposite POV article. This case of Digwuren and Biophys is no more than a symmetric response by Offliner to his own case above. I think in all 3 cases, Offliner, Biophys and Digwuren the result of the arbitration should be the same or similar in harshness, otherwise the arbiter who makes the decision would be punishing one of the sides unfairly, possibly endorsing one of the sides in this conflict. (Igny (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Without any diffs that counts as a personal attack. I barely remember you and I have never edit-warred. You have. Certified. Russavia has. Certified. Offliner has. Certified. PasswordUsername has. Anyway, this is not what we are discussing here. Colchicum (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Also you have earned this dubious distinction: [146]. Wow. How could I miss that. Colchicum (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I just noticed that none of the users (excluding Igny and Russavia) was officially listed in the log of Digwuren case. This might be a problem as debated above. This supports your argument of addressing the matter to ArbCom (if warranted) rather than here.Biophys (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Having no 3RR violations means nothing except for how well you know the WP rules. You, Colchicum, still engaged in a number of edit wars, as well as guilty of a number of personal attacks against me and others. You know that and I know that. I do not have to honor your diff request, but anyone interested can look the diffs up in your edit history. (Igny (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  - On that note, it's true that Colchicum has not edit warred, although he has consistently done rather close "collaborative editing" on contentious topics with the group of editors exactly specified by Igny. I would say this certainly counts as a contribution as far as it is taking sides with one of the parties in an edit war, but I don't see how fruitful this sort of thing is at the moment. The diffs are here for the administrators to examine–perhaps we'd better stay back from back-and-forth at WP:AE, which only muddies the waters for those reading the comments and summaries and does not help anybody. Colchicum is very aggressively kidding here if he thinks this is some sort of specious personal attack against him–and playing the tendentious innocent victim card in this way is rapidly becoming old hat at the moment.PasswordUsername (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The most recent edit war, broadly defined, occurred over categorization of Nashi (youth movement). You can look up the participants of that edit war yourself. (Igny (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
      - Wow, there's Colchicum - or somebody using his name. I guess it's not revert warring if you don't break 3RR... PasswordUsername (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, Igny, we all know that you think that Wikipedia is a game. I don't agree, however. Colchicum (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have to agree with Colchicum's opinion. Note how Igny and PassportUsername attacked Colchicum after his comment. Seems to me Offliner, Igny and PassportUsername are attempting to mis-use AE to get the upper hand in content disputes over their contentious edits in articles mainly related to Estonia. Note that PasswordUsername was recently blocked for 72 hours for what was described by the blocking admin as his repeated insertion of nonsense into Estonia related articles and his anti-Estonian campaign, which I think somewhat vindicates Digwuren's attempts to maintain balance in these articles. Most of the issues raised against Digwuren have previously been raised in other fora and thoroughly reviewed with no action required [147], [148], thus this latest attempt represents forum shopping, and is bordering on harassment in my view. It is telling that rather than seek a topic ban in the AE request, Offliner is after an outright ban. I fully expect to be attacked by Offliner, Igny and PassportUsername after this comment. --Martintg (talk) 01:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I fully expected your arrival here when I talked about the bloc endorsing above, but as I said neither your nor my opinion should matter here if an unbiased review of all these cases is an ultimate goal. (Igny (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Right, I got blocked. (Thank you for piling on.) Kindly let me know when that makes it OK for Digwuren to do what he's been doing since he got back from "vacationing." PasswordUsername (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digwuren's edits related to the ones cited here were already discussed in a number of forums, including the ANI case that led to your 72 hour block. Recycling them here really is a continuation of the vexatious litigation Offliner was warned about. --Martintg (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, deliberately muddying the water like this won't help as you'd like. The edits that led to my 72-hour block were completely unrelated to the recent diffs which have been posted here. Good job, Martin. PasswordUsername (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC) For that matter, a great part of the diffs provided here are fresh-as-fresh and have not been recycled from anywhere, really. PasswordUsername (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, examination of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive545#User_PasswordUsername_and_Crime_in_Estonia will reveal your allies bringing in other articles such as Kaitsepolitsei, which is mentioned in this AE report. --Martintg (talk) 06:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, another article was briefly mentioned at the WP:ANI discussion as an instance of Sander Säde's revert-warring. Both Sander Säde and I reverted at Kaitsepolitsei, Sander made six reverts, and I did four. This is well-documented on both Talk pages. But I wasn't blocked for the same offense twice, so bringing in the 72-hour block as though it were relevant here is simply being dishonest. No diffs from that report were provided here. PasswordUsername (talk) 07:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is being dishonest here? The accusation made in your ANI report here, having gained no traction there or on AN, is raised again here in this AE report. This is classic WP:FORUMSHOPing. As for alleged edit warring, Colchicum is right, Digwuren was merely restoring the status quo version, aggressively provoked by contentious edits made by Offliner and his associates, for example in the case of Kaitsepolitsei inserting the view of a notorious neo-nazi and claiming it is a valid criticism. Note the carefulness not to technically breach 3RR in the following tag team sequence: Offliner [149],[150],[151] then Russavia [152],[153],[154] then Offliner again [155],[156],[157]. --Martintg (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Martin. The one accused of edit warring on Kaitsepolitsei in your link to the ANI case isn't me, it's Sander Säde and company. By Russavia. What does it have to do with my 72-hour block? Was I blocked twice for the same offense - inadvertently doing four reverts against Sander's six at Kaitsepolitsei? Did you even see that it was mentioned as an example of abuse by Säde, who happened to be reverting me? What led to my 72-hour block was a report on my edits at Crime in Estonia. None of the diffs at that article by anyone, including Digwuren, have been included here as examples of abuse by Digwuren, which, as evident from the diffs here, both preceeded and came after the incident in question. Alas, Martintg: what you have written about me here is not relevant to the diffs provided. How much lower than this can you get?

Nice job. And you can always file a report here about my behavior if you think the blocks I got from AdjustShift wasn't enough. Water's muddied as hell, ain't it now? ;-)

Nice diffs. I think your buddy Colchicum just said above that it takes two to tango. File your own report. PasswordUsername (talk) 10:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being Russian myself, I feel ashamed looking at this group of Russian editors who constantly attack editors from Baltic states. It was not enough to occupy their country and sent their best people to Gulag. There is now a directive to label their governments as fascist in all mass media controlled by the Kremlin. Now this plague came to WP.Biophys (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putting collective responsibility on a national group and implying government control over fellow WP editors ? Not only does this look like a gross breach of civility, but may also have further implications, considering a remedy in Digwurens's Arbitration Case.Anonimu (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am telling about nationalist plague in wikipedia. This does not concern me and Offliner since we are both Russians, but it concerns the conflict between Russian and Baltic editors.Biophys (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Russian, sorry. And Anonimu is Romanian, as far as I know. For the record, I'm American by citizenship and by location, as Biophys himself, having gotten hold of my IP number and regional location. And I'm Jewish, so I'm a bit sensitive to having material removed from articles about antisemitism with Martintg (and now Biophys) accusing me of being a Russian nationalist. I suggest you refrain from further implying things about my background. PasswordUsername (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is really getting annoying; Offliner's "evidence" is extremly poor and all I see is block shopping / harassment / battleground creation. I suggest Offliner (and perhaps PasswordUsername, who seems to be following closely in his steps) should be put on DIGWUREN's restriction list if he is not already, topic banned from EE content area, and restricted from commenting on EE editors unless they comment on him first. Perhaps a mentorship is needed, too? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence of Digwuren's disruptive behaviour is the following edit warring [158][159][160][161][162]. This is similar to the behaviour he was blocked for recently, when he removed a speedy deletion tag from an article he created 7 times inside 30 minutes: [163] [164][165][166][167][168][169]. In WP:DIGWUREN he was given a 1 year block for edit warring (among other reasons), yet he is still doing the same. The following description of him by admin User:Tanthalas39 might also be useful: [170]. How long will he be allowed to continue? Evidence of his tendentious editing should also be evident from the diffs posted in the original report above.

Admins are also invited to take a look at other issues such as tag teaming to circumvent 3RR, etc. in the articles in question, in case the ArbCom refuses to do this. Offliner (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry.. I looked at some of your "evidence" and I have to say that they are not evidence at all or are really weak in my opinion. This is not my problem here therefore I will try not to comment on this anymore but you should carefully review your so-called "evidence" again and find something more solid against your opponent. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 04:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Offliner seems to be conducting a personal vendetta against Digwuren to drive him off the project. The latest set of diffs are in relationship to an event that was already dealt with but is again recycled here. Offliner has been running a long campaign against Digwuren since May across multiple admin talk pages as well as multiple boards such as AN, ANI and here, as mentioned above. --Martintg (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Digwuren was an object of personal attacks by certain users. Please look at the previous AE case which is relevant here.Biophys (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Piotrus (see below). If the result were banning or issuing long term blocks for a number of active contributors (most likely from both parties - let us not fool ourselves, neither party will crush the other here ;-)), Wikipedia will lose more than it benefits. Wikipedia survives despite casual IP vandalism and disruption caused by unregistered users, it'll survive with problematic yet constructive users listed in those threads here. So, I do suggest avoiding any blocks right now, as neither of those users (Biophys, Offliner, Digwuren) appear to be engaged in edit-warring at the moment. During the last Piotrus Arbcom case, a number of users were eagerly waiting for Piotr to be crucified, nothing of the kind happened, and both Piotr, Renata and Novickas survive with not much trouble recently, it seems. --Miacek (t) 18:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request by Digwuren

Offliner has listed 39 distinct diffs. Each of them has quite a bit of context. Having taken a glance at them, I'm confident I can defend myself against all the accusations; however, it will take some time. As I already estimated to Sandstein, the expected time expenditure for this project is on the order of 20 hours of work, which I can't, quite simply, do in any single day. Accordingly, I request that any actions in this matter be delayed until evening of Tuesday, June 23th, so I can mount adequate defence.

-- Дигвурен Дигвурович_Аллё? 14:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must have miscounted. The diffs are numbered 85–138, which means there are 54 diffs. Дигвурен Дигвурович_Аллё? 17:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Even if I complete this work, this won't be the end of it; the same silly battling will rise up soon again, and again, and again.

Wikipedia's social structures are hopelessly misbegotten, full of all sorts of perverse incentives and destructive feedback loops. I have lost all faith that they can be repaired, and I don't care anymore. I will not be presenting anything here, as I will leave Wikipedia and head towards more rewarding projects. Дигвурен Дигвурович_Аллё? 16:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion by Piotrus

I think we should not create more dramu than needed. Those requests should be reclosed, but if new ones are launched by said parties, we should most likely issue said topic bans/restrictions/paroles. But let's AGF and hope that our strict warnings above will have some moderating effect on the parties. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins

I note that several admins have moved for closing this case without action, with Jehochman being the hold out. Perhaps Jehochman should disclose his personal interest in persuing Digwuren [171]. --User:Martintg 21:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...most interesting thing being, that Jehochmann's interest in and dislike of Digwuren seems to trace back several years. This shows that Jehochmann's assumption of being an uninvolved person here rests on rather dubious footing. --Miacek (t) 21:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Digwuren (comments by uninvolved admins only, please)

Tit for tat arbitration enforcement requests are not helpful. I am suspicious of requests filed by parties who engaged in disputes with each other. Since Sandstein decided to assume good faith above, in the Offliner thread where Digwuren requested sanctions, I think we shall do the same here. Please do not bring your battles to this board. If you have content disputes, mediation and the noticeboards are available. If there is a behavior problem, I suggest you ask an uninvolved, experienced editor to review the matter and give you feedback before posting here. (If they think your gripe is legitimate, they can file the request or provide a supporting comment.) It is too easy to see what you want to see in the midst of a heated dispute. This board is not a tactic for gaining the upper hand in a content dispute. Jehochman ^Talk 17:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am reopening this request. I'd like another administrator to review the evidence and I think some sort of topic bans should be employed. There are editors here who have been fully warned and notified, yet they continue to play games with Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 15:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily, I favour leniency in the course of sanctioning editors, but I do suspect that, thus far, cautions have done little in the way of neutralising disruptive conduct in this subject area. I think that this thread should probably be closed without action, but I would ask the other administrators who staff this noticeboard to, in future, ensure that they evaluate all complaints filed under the Digwuren case quite unsympathetically: my general impression is that assuming good faith has systematically been shown to be an unwise approach. AGK 19:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Unless there is a finding that Digwuren's editing has been acceptable, we should keep this thread open and decide upon an appropriate sanction. Digwuren is one of the most warned and sanctioned editors on Wikipedia. They do not need any more chances to reform. Jehochman ^Talk 20:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are adamant that the matter be exhaustively examined, then I'll be willing to review the situation at length, but I won't have the energy to do so until tomorrow; it's late, and I've already investigated one AE matter (below)! AGK 22:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shelly Kinney has said that she is reviewing the editing histories of the EE cases currently open. Before you undertake major work, you may want to ask her for status to help avoid any unnecessary duplication of effort. Jehochman ^Talk 23:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brandmeister

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request concerning Brandmeister

User requesting enforcement: Fedayee (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: Brandmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: [172] and [173]
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: That's 2 reverts in less than 2 days, violating his sanction of 1 revert per week.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): A block from editing for at least 24 hours in order to prevent escalation of edit warring.
Additional comments: Brandmeister was very recently put under 1RR if you check here and here.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [174]

Discussion concerning Brandmeister

The diffs provided are not reverts, but compromissed edits elaborated in talk with another user. I suggest Fedayee assuming good faith and making any token in the discussion before reporting. This is close to WP:POINT. Brandt 09:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What means compromissed edit, if you reverted twice and that "another user" seems is not agree it is a "compromisse" [175]. Gazifikator (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary for Brandmeister's first edit seems misleading, since there was no consensus for his change on the talk page.[176] The second edit seems entirely in line with the first. Although discussion was place, neither user made any effort to reach some sort of compromise before editing the article. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus over disputed article is now reached, so I think it is worthless of further discussion. All two diffs are manual edits to establish consensused version, not reverts as per Sandstein's decision. Brandt 14:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Brandmeister

Reverting means undoing the actions of another editor or editors, see WP:3RR. With [177] on 17 June, Brandmeister first reverted to a version he previously wrote at [178]; it can be recognized by its inclusion of the phrase "The formation of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic in 1918 ...". Later he submitted a similar version at [179] and [180] on 18 June. Both edits were reverts because they at least partially undid edits by others. By these edits, Brandmeister violated the revert restriction imposed at [181].

As a sanction pursuant to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement, Brandmeister is blocked for 48 hours. Further violations will lead to longer blocks and/or restrictions. Sandstein 21:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Beatle Fab Four

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Request concerning Beatle Fab Four

User requesting enforcement:
Colchicum (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Beatle Fab Four (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Editors warned

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

The user in question has a history of edit-warring across a wide range of Eastern Europe-related articles, supporting other Wikipedians in edit wars. He seems to be generally mindful of 3RR, stopping just short of the limit. However, reverts constitute nearly 100% of his edits in the mainspace (and I mean 99-100%, not some 80-90%), and discussions on talk pages never help. He doesn't make other edits in the mainspace. It is therefore impractical to compile a list of diffs, just look at his edit history. See e.g.

Valeriya Novodvorskaya (note his disregard of the discussion on the talk page)

Russian apartment bombings

Dmitry Medoyev

Anti-Russian sentiment

Victory Day (May 9)

History of the Jews in Latvia

Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee

Federal Security Service (Russia)

Allegations of harboring Nazi sympathies: [182] - see the edit summary of his revert

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
He was warned many times and asked to be civil and take part in discussions instead of edit-warring, both formally and informally (see e.g. [183], User talk:Beatle Fab Four#Valeriya Novodvorskaya, Talk:Russian apartment bombings#Related events). Several blocks for edit-warring and incivility haven't changed his conduct. For a taste of his attitude towards the possibility of discussions: [184], [185], [186].

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
As BFF doesn't contribute anything other than blind reverts, 1RR doesn't make much sense here anyway. This editor repeatedly and seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia. Hence topic ban from (the mainspace of) all EE-related articles or a one-year block is in order (it would be legitimate under WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions).

Additional comments:
I know you are all tired of related stories, but as the ArbCom has delegated this to AE, so be it.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[187]

Discussion concerning Beatle Fab Four

I just don't understand how to respond to this nonsense. The only thing I see that this Colchicum doesn't like me. Ok. So what? I could also say that he is a edit-warrior, uncivil, bla-bla-bla (even with real diffs, in contrast to him). So what? Beatle Fab Four (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The ultimite question here is not about "edit-warring", "disruptive editing" and all these sacral curses, but about CONTENT. My strong view is that this team (Colchicum, Biophis, Digwuren, etc.) often tries to push falsified information, not supported by solid sources. A perfect example here is the story with the Soviet War Memorial in Treptower Park (Berlin). (See, e.g. Alex Bakharev's note warning Biophys [188]) When they realize that the editor doesn’t agree with them, they try to block him by any means. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 22:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Beatle Fab Four

A review of Beatle Fab Four's contributions shows that an overwhelming majority of their edits are reverts in Eastern European related articles. The few times the editor engaged in discussion they were frequently incivil and attacked other editors.

Pursuant to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions, I am topic-banning Beatle Fab Four from all Eastern European related articles for a period of six months. Shell ^babelfish 01:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

77.83.185.252

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Request concerning 77.83.185.252

User requesting enforcement:
Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested:
77.83.185.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia_2#All_related_articles_under_1RR_whenever_the_dispute_over_naming_is_concerned

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

[189] Reverts to deprecated name "FYROM"
[190] Reverts again, violating 1RR sanction

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

[191] Warning by Heimstern (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
A block of the IP or possibly semi-protection of the article (as these IPs tend to come in large numbers).

Additional comments:
Note that the sanction applies to "articles in which how Macedonia will be referred to is an issue". The enforcer may note that I, too have reverted twice. This is because of a clarification by Rlevse here that reverts of edits in which the name FYROM is added are considered exempt from the restriction because there has for long been a solid consensus not to use this term.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Discussion concerning 77.83.185.252

Result concerning 77.83.185.252

IP blocked for 48 hours for violating the 1RR restriction per WP:ARBMAC. If the IP range comes continues, semi-protection would be a good idea. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Xenovatis

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

Request concerning Xenovatis

User requesting enforcement:
Jd2718 (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Xenovatis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Discretionary_sanctions

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

(→Human rights violations: replaced cited section) At Turkish invasion of Cyprus, battleground both in tone and content, inflammatory, with a thicket of references for a single complex, accusatory sentence. The content is clearly non-encyclopedic. The content is clearly not NPOV. This form of "citation" is clearly obfuscatory.
(replace referenced and cited material) Population exchange between Greece and Turkey Revert on an article he'd already been blocked for 3rr/edit warring. Obviously not NPOV. Inflammatory. "Thicket" citation. Note "at the insistence of Kemal Ataturk who had previously ethnically cleansed..."
(see talk, also read WP:Civil about vandalism accusations) Fourth edit/rvt at Souliotes in an edit war for which he was blocked
(I opened a discussion in talk and user Balkanian word has not yet replied but insists on edit warring) Third at Souliotes
(I assure you I have conceded to nothing of the sort nor do I see this supposed consensus in Talk. Now see talk before making any more changes.) Second at Souliotes
(sources say they spoke albanian not that they were chams, discuss in talk before reverting) First edit at Souliotes in an edit war for which he was blocked
(rv turkvandal, next time you will be reported and banned) Restores photo of severed heads to Turkish Armed Forces (revert).
(rv mindless vandal) Restores severed heads to Turkish Armed Forces (revert).
(rv vandalisms) Reverts Turkish Armed Forces to add unflattering (and somewhat NPOV) text on Cyprus and on Kurdistan.
[192] Adds (improperly sourced, now deleted) of severed heads to Turkish Armed Forces.
Undid revision 294599500 by Offliner (talk) Undoes an edit without explanation at Human rights in Greece.
(jesus christ this is an FA, give it a rest) Fights over "disputed" tag at Names of the Greeks.

He was not editing from February through June, so I only used diffs from these last 3 weeks.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

(→Civility warning (may fall under a 2007 arbitration): new section) Warning by jd2718 (talk · contribs), June 17, 2009, with the full uw-balkans2 template.
[193] Warning by jd2718 (talk · contribs) Incivility at Turkish Armed Forces, June 14, 2009.
[194] Warning by jd2718 (talk · contribs) 3rr at Population exchange between Greece and Turkey, June 13, 2009. user:Xenovatis was subsequently blocked, not necessarily for the reverts, though that was possible, but for arguing about them and denying them at the noticeboard.

The break in warnings reflects the user's absence from WP from February 8, 2009 through June 7, 2009

[195] Warning by Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs) for incivility at Greek genocide on February 8, 2009.
[196] Warning by Hiberniantears (talk · contribs) Adding editorial content at Turkish Armed Forces January 12, 2009. Hiberniantears later removed the warning.
[197] Warning by Nixeagle (talk · contribs) Edit warring at Skopje airport December 19, 2008.
[198] Warning by kwamikagami (talk · contribs) 3rr at two alphabet articles: Glagolitic alphabet and Early Cyrillic alphabet December 18, 2008.

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

In theory I should ask for the least restrictive restriction that will ameliorate the situation. However, the issue is battlefield editing rather than generic edit warring, so 1rr is simply not sufficient. Again, if we could narrow the area of the ban... but he battles on articles involving all of Greece's neighbors: Albania, Macedonia, and especially Turkey... limiting the scope of the remedy would likely redirect his energy to another of Greece's neighbors.

Additional comments:
user:Xenovatis has been editing for over three years, has performed over five thousand edits. However, his presence has a net disruptive effect, and contributes to the ongoing difficulties in editing in this area. He returned June 7 from a four month hiatus, and has already managed to get himself blocked twice. When he returned, today, he jumped back in to continue his most recent conflicts.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [199]

Discussion concerning Xenovatis

Some of the material presented is concerning, and I think a topic ban of Xenovatis from all articles relating to the Macedonia arbitration cases could be warranted. (Any such topic ban would, I think, be only from the article space; I have seen no evidence of Xenovatis disrupting discussions in the talk space.) However, the main caution - warning #1, above - was issued on 17 June; most of the diffs illustrating disruption predate that warning. Although one would hope that an editor such as Xenovatis - who, as observed by the filing editor, is experienced and has been editing for good while - would be able to conduct himself without being cautioned, I am tempted to dismiss this complaint until we are presented with a more substantial folio of evidence of disruption committed after the 17 June warning. Thoughts on this note from other uninvolved administrators and from involved editors would be welcome. AGK 22:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first two diffs are post-warning. He made three edits upon his return today: those two, and a talk page edit at Souliotes, which is fully protected. Not a promising return. Which is why I came here. The bulk of this report is based on two weeks of editing, with two blocks, after a four month break. On the other hand, while the unfortunate necessary outcome is clear to me, there is not urgency, and I would certainly understand slow, deliberate consideration. I don't favor dismissal (I wouldn't have filed if I did), but I would understand dismissal for now as well. What is clear to me may not yet be clear in the diffs. Jd2718 (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: the complaints about Xenovatis are not really directly related to the Macedonia case, at least not in the narrow sense of the naming dispute treated in WP:ARBMAC2 (although they do of course fall under the scope of the general sanctions of ARBMAC1). As far as I can see, these are partly Greek-Albanian and partly Greek-Turkish issues, not Macedonian ones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was concerned about that, but ARBMAC was drawn very broadly:

1) The disputes presented in this case, while focusing specifically on issues related to Macedonia, are part of a broader set of conflicts prevalent over the entire range of articles concerning the Balkans; see, for example, the Dalmatia case and the Kosovo case. Many of these conflicts are grounded in matters external to Wikipedia, including long-standing historical, national, and ethnic disputes in the region. The area of conflict in this case shall therefore be considered to be the entire set of Balkan-related articles, broadly interpreted.

Jd2718 (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Future Perfect: By "[topic banned] from all articles relating to the Macedonia arbitration cases," I did not mean "from articles relating to Macedonia" - but rather from all subject areas involved in the arbitration case named "Macedonia." In other words, my comment referred to Macedonia (arbitration case) and not to Macedonia (subject area). AGK 23:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Xenovatis

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] 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.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 428: / Line 428: @@
 :::I disagree.  Unless there is a finding that Digwuren's editing has been acceptable, we should keep this thread open and decide upon an appropriate sanction.  Digwuren is one of the most warned and sanctioned editors on Wikipedia.  They do not need any more chances to reform. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 20:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 :::: If you are adamant that the matter be exhaustively examined, then I'll be willing to review the situation at length, but I won't have the energy to do so until tomorrow; it's late, and I've already investigated one AE matter (below)! [[User talk:AGK|AGK]] 22:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
+:::::Shelly Kinney has said that she is reviewing the editing histories of the EE cases currently open. Before you undertake major work, you may want to ask her for status to help avoid any unnecessary duplication of effort. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 23:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 == Brandmeister ==