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.
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)
With heavy heart, I must endorse this arbitration request, and add another incident. In [6], 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)
Offliner is fully aware of Digwuren case sanctions, as he reported Digwuren to ANI [13] Biophys ( talk) 16:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
No action. This is an unpersuasive request, and I am frankly put off by its many deficiencies:
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)
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)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Colchicum (
talk) 18:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
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.
Allegations of harboring Nazi sympathies: [16] - 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.
[17],
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:
[18],
[19],
[20].
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:
[21]
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)
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 [22]) 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)
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)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Heimstern Läufer
(talk) 11:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
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:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
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.
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)
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.
[36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]
[50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]
Some of the diffs (web brigades) are dated 2008. All others are two months old.
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)
Response to Jehochman. I have no idea why you blamed me of "unclean hands" [65]. 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)
Wow. That was fast. Weren't black books found problematic in an earlier ArbCom ? Дигвурен Дигвурович Аллё? 17:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
This comment by William M. Connolley is of possible interest. Дигвурен Дигвурович Аллё? 18:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
PasswordUsername ( talk) 18:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
Can somebody put an end to this. -- Martintg ( talk) 03:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
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))
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)
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: [83]. 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 [84] at the time.
Also, to make it clear why the last revert on Litvinenko mentioned above [85] (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)
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)
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)
Comment The only thing that I would ask for at this stage is some sort of sanctions for Biophys on the
Alexander Litvinenko article, because I believe that his behaviour on that article is egregious and in violation of policy, and it is actionable. The lead for this article was determined after Biophys himself demanded that myself and Offliner discuss every change to this article on the talk page (negating our ability to be
WP:BOLD whilst asserting
ownership over the article). This was done, and myself, Offliner and Grey-Fox discussed and tweaked the lead so that there was some consensus. Disregarding his own demands of us, Biophys went and changed the article quite considerably, changes which included reverting the article to a months old state. This reverting has been done on several occasions, and I have pointed out in minute detail why his changes have been reverted by myself. One can read this
here. If one looks at Points 11 an 12, one will see that I have removed
WP:LINKVIO (this is policy) from the article, only to have them blindly reverted everytime by Biophys. The reverts reinserting the linkvios after it was made crystal clear that we don't link to copyright violations are
[86] and
[87]. Given the actions over a long period of time on this particular article, I do believe that some type of restriction on Biophys on this article is warranted, particularly after I was blocked for a week for 3RR for keeping BLP out of the article (
Talk:Alexander_Litvinenko#Paedophile_claims_removed_as_WP:BLP. And this is regardless of whether retirement has occurred, because as per Offliner, one has seen this many times in the past, so a sanction is warranted. --
Russavia
Dialogue 07:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Further comment I have also noticed edits made to
Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park). Back in April it was ascertained that Martintg had engaged in what I can only describe as a gross violation (given the material being added) of
WP:V and
WP:OR, and once it was ascertained that material was inserted into the article in violation of those two core policies, it was
removed. Last week Biophys
reinserted the same information which is not in compliance with WP:V or WP:OR. If one looks at the article history, Beatle Fab Four has removed it with an edit summary as per talk, but Biophys has reinserted, only to be undone by Biophys, then undone again by BFF, only to be reverted by Digwuren. The kicker is that BFF's revert pushed Biophys to
ask Colchicum whether BFF should be reported; sokmething that was done and has resulted in BFF being topic-banned for 6 months from EE topics. Given that it was BFF that did the digging into the Soviet War Memorial sources, and it was BFF that ascertained that V and OR were blatantly breached, I think that a wider sanction on Biophys is needed here, as the talk page was completely ignored by Biophys and Digwuren, even after it was pointed out no less than 3 times in the edit summaries. Given the nature of what was being inserted into the article, this is egregious editing in my mind. --
Russavia
Dialogue 07:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
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 ( | 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)
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.
[117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126]
[143] (edit summary)
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)
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 [146], [147], 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)
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)
More evidence of Digwuren's disruptive behaviour is the following edit warring [157] [158] [159] [160] [161]. 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: [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168]. 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: [169]. 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I don't see why Russavia has escaped with a formal notice while I should be upgraded to a 1RR. Looking at Shell's analysis I have compared myself with Russavia here. Could somebody explain to me how my behaviour warrants a 1RR parole while Russavia doesn't. Otherwise could someone place Russavia on 1RR, as he fits the same criteria given when the 1RR was applied to me, i.e. a block log showing a history of recent 3RRs in the same topic area. -- Martintg ( talk) 02:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
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 [if the evidence checks out]. There are editors here who have been fully warned and notified, yet [there are allegations] they continue to play games with Wikipedia.
Jehochman
Talk 15:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC) and 14:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I have reviewed some of the diffs. While there are possibly problematic diffs, I also found some that appear to be over-stated. It looks like an inconclusive situation that calls for deeper scrutiny than I have time to provide today. The fundamental problem is that the thread is filed by a party adverse to Digwuren, which could lead to cherry picking of diffs. A proper investigation may require looking at Digwuren's recent contribution history to see if these diffs are representative or not. I am not going to close this thread yet as Shell Kinney is examining the matter. If she is willing to check things more carefully than I did, she may be able to make a determination. Jehochman Talk 15:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Based on my review of the diffs and arguments presented, the following remedies are enacted. I reserve the right to reconsider this case within the next 24 hours, so please do not close it. Other admins may add additional remedies at their discretion. Discussion to the talk page please.
- Thatcher 21:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
ChrisO (
talk) 23:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
SQRT5P1D2 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
SQRT5P1D2 topic-banned for one year
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
# Not applicable.
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
I have
warned the user against violating the topic ban again, but given that this is a clear-cut violation a stronger response may be appropriate.
(update) SQRT5P1D2 is continuing to violate the topic ban despite earlier warnings and the present discussion, and he has publicly dismissed Coren's clarification of his topic ban here. A lengthy block would now be appropriate given the egregious nature of the ongoing violations. It's clear that he's going to continue unless he's blocked.
Additional comments:
<Your text>
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[193]
Quoting from the arbitration page, I was "topic-banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages, as defined in All related articles under 1RR for one year.". Quoting from the "All related articles under 1RR" section "articles related to Macedonia (defined as any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to Macedonia, Macedonia nationalism, Greece related articles that mention Macedonia, and other articles in which how Macedonia will be referred to is an issue) fall under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned". According to Wikipedia, an "article is a page that has encyclopedic information on it" and articles "belong to the main namespace of Wikipedia pages"; this "does not include any pages in any of the specified namespaces that are used for particular purposes". The centralized discussion is not a Macedonia-related article. Furthermore, the claim I've edited is unverified (there is not a single reliable source available, with an official list), but that's another story. SQRT5P1D2 ( talk) 01:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
In my own opinion, this may warrant an amendment to the case, but as it stands now I don't think SQRT is technically in violation. J.delanoy gabs adds 02:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Per Coren, this ban can in fact be enforced in the project space: [194]. He also recommends not applying it retroactively, so I guess it's best not to make any blocks unless SQRT5P1D2 edits the Centralized Discussion again. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
SQRT5P1D2 ( talk · contribs) blocked for 24 hours for violating the topic ban restriction despite warning. PeterSymonds ( talk) 19:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Ευπάτωρ
Talk!! 20:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Brandmeister (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Two reverts within a week, despite the imposed restrictions. His recent block just expired.
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
N/A. He was blocked five days ago for violating the same arb restriction.
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
Block
Additional comments by
Ευπάτωρ
Talk!!:
Two violations in less than 5 days. This is unacceptable.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[199]
In compliance with WP:BRD and WP:IAR the last two edits, as could be verified ( [200], [201]), were made prior to Gazifikator's concern in the relevant talk section I opened before. Gazifikator himself was warned by an admin in one of the previous reports I filled and still continues point-pushing over Julfa. Brand t 20:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Brandmeister is in violation of his revert restriction. His statement above does not address this restriction. I am blocking him for a week under the authority of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended_Remedies and Enforcement. Also, since he appears to be unwilling to obey the revert restriction, I am also hereby topic-banning him from all pages (including discussion pages) related to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran, and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area (all broadly construed) for six months as of this message, also under the authority of the remedy referred to. The revert restriction remains in force for the eventuality that the topic ban is lifted for some reason. Sandstein 20:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Erik9 (
talk) 01:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Sligocki (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#Mass_date_delinking
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
[202]
[203]
[204]
[205]
[206]
[207]
[208]
[209]
[210]
[211]
[212]
[213]
[214]
[215]
[216]
[217]
[218]
[219]
[220]
[221], a large number of edits for the sole or primary purpose of date delinking
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
Block
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[223]
Hello everyone. I'm a little surprised that I got a RfA case against me. It appears that you've dropped the case, but I'd like to be in harmony with the Wikipedia community. If you guys have any comments about troubling aspects of my edits or about delinking dates in general, please let me know. I do not like most linked dates and I try to clean them up when find them in pages. I have no intention of covering that up and usually put MOS:UNLINKDATES in the comment. Please let me know if I should not do this, or not do it so frequently, I respect the opinions of the community. Sligocki ( talk) 02:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to be mass delinking according to my understanding of what "mass" means. This is casual and infrequent in my opinion. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 12:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd have to agree. It does not appear to be a concerted effort to delink all dates. Delinking in and of itself is not prohibited. KillerChihuahua ?!? 12:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I think this is testing the limits and game playing. Why are any dates being unlinked when there is a specific instruction not to do so. Debating the meaning of mass is a poor idea. It would be very easy for the user not to unlink any dates. How many is too many? I am not sure, but the user is being needless provocative. I'd like them to agree to stop, otherwise I am prepared to apply enforcement measures.
Jehochman
Talk 16:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
There was no mass delinking going on there and frankly it is a bit shocking that there are editors who don't have anything better to do then to complain and request blocks for people who are doing something as useful as removing the completely useless datelinks. Loosmark ( talk) 16:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Upon re-reading the case, I see that this activity is not a problem. This request is closed. Jehochman Talk 00:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
BatteryIncluded (
talk) 13:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Stevertigo (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
<Your text>
Additional comments by
BatteryIncluded (
talk):
Stvertigo's revert, risruptive behavior, profuse forum-like ramblings and absolute disregard to the requirement to cite references makes the Talk page virtually useless for the article improvement.
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.
It did not take long to discover that this is a vexatious request. The reported diff has nothing to do with the arbitration sanction. BatteryIncluded was blocked on June 23 for incivility against Stevertigo. [226] This request looks like retaliation. Stevertigo's plain talk could be improved, but that's a matter for wikiquette alerts, not arbitration enforcement. My inclination is not to block BatterIncluded this time, but if such requests are filed again, some sort of deterrence may be appropriate. Jehochman Talk 13:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
User requesting enforcement:
DrKiernan (
talk) 13:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Domer48 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Per
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Community asked to develop a procedure,
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration is developing a process to decide on Ireland article names. After very, very extensive discussion spanning months, pages and immense bandwidth, a poll is underway. Domer48 disagrees with holding a poll, and is consequently attempting to disrupt it in contravention of
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Conduct and decorum. See:
Wikipedia:Gaming the system (example 7 in particular),
Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Refusal to 'get the point', and
m:What is a troll?#Pestering.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
He has persistently made the same points repeatedly, refuses to accept the community's decision to hold a poll, and proposes a discursive-based process which has already been rejected by the community.
[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]
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not required
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
Ban from
WP:IECOLL talk pages for one month; in essence, a topic ban on discussing Ireland article page names for one month. This would not preclude him voting in any current or future poll.
Additional comments by
DrKiernan (
talk):
I appreciate that some of the responses from other editors to his actions have been driven more by humour and exasperation than good conduct, but that doesn't excuse his own actions in trying to disrupt a process that everyone else has worked extremely hard to take forward.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[253]
[254]
Let me begin by saying that I have at no time intentionally or otherwise attempted to disrupt this project by actions, edits or opinions. If fact quite the opposite. I have tried throughout to maintain the standards of the project, and have consistently maintained throughout that Wiki policies can address this issue, if only they were impartially applied. The attitude of my detractors is that our policies have failed, and on this point I will not concede. I’d like to thank the members for their comments below indicating that I have not engaged in incivility or personal attacks that make this much easier for me.
It is my considered opinion that our policies can address what ArbCom has described as a content dispute. That is what has us here now. ArbCom while not becoming actively involved, laid out a number of Principles to encourage and promote a final resolution. ArbCom set out what they considered to be the Locus and state of dispute. They were:
ArbCom asked the community to develop a procedure for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. Failing that, ArbCom would designate a panel of three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure.
The community failed to develop a procedure for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. Instead they focused on establishing a poll for the most suitable title according to each others POV. This lead to the break down of the process. No attempt was made to address the Locus and state of dispute outlined by ArbCom above. No discussion was had on whether consensus was properly obtained for the moves, or weather current article titles conform to the requirement of maintaining a neutral point of view. While there was endless discussion about the ambiguity or otherwise for the designation "Ireland" no discussion was had as to the extent of the ambiguity.
Arbcom did make specific reference to Naming conventions in the section titled Principles and pointed to the fact that :
Wikipedia:Naming conventions, a longstanding policy, provides that:Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
This is justified by the following principle: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.
Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.
While this allows for a “reasonable minimum of ambiguity” this was never discussed. The one and overriding issue was the establishment of a poll, needless to say this went no were. This was reflected by ArbCom and the designation of a panel of three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure. While the administrators did try to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure, and attempted to establish facts, findings and opinions the requested statements was again dominated by the same editors trying to push for a poll. The Administrators did intend to assess the validity of arguments but were never given the opportunity. The discussion was dominated by these discussions on a Poll. The three Administrators would later resign [255], [256] [257]. I was however very interested in Edokter comments and took them on board.
It was my understanding that once the Administrators were appointed that the issue was taken out of the hands of the community having failed to reach agreement, and would be left to the Administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure. But as I have illustrated above, the role and function was undermined from the very beginning. The mistake they made IMO was by not carrying out their function and instead referring back to the community the very ones who have failed to reach any agreement they doom the process they tried to initiate.
ArbCom then appointed new Administrators only one of whom has participated and far from leading the discussion has been lead by it. In fact they have now themselves become apart of it. I questioned the Administrator on this
on there talk page. To date the only suggestion that the Administrator has been able to devise is a poll. I’ve objected to this based on the fact that no policy based discussion has ever taken place. No assessment of the validity of arguments has been attempted and no alternative to polling is being considered. This was the approach adopted by the original Admin’s but it was not allowed to get of the ground. This is what prompted my questions. I was later informed by ArbCom that
Remedy#1 still valid so I attempted to develop a procedure for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles.
My proposal: Based on the my experience to date and having reviewed the reams of material on this I came to a number of conclusions:
Based then on this I develop a procedure which would prevent disruption, remove the possibility of incivility, create a fact and policy based discussion, and test the validity of arguments of editors. It would also allow editors put forward proposals and test them in a more productive environment. Based on the original Admin's suggestions and a number of wiki policies I simply devised a number of guidelines and placed them in an easy and workable format. An example of it can be seen here. The reaction I received took even me by surprise.
I first raised my proposal here and was disappointed when it was ignored by Masem. I then posted here on the talk page, and outlined my rational. I raised it again here but Masem insisted that a policy based discussion had been tried before and I questioned this here. It was then that the attacks on the process and proposal began. As can be seen from the discussion I tried to address the concerns of editors but I was not going to allow the process to be derailed. This is some of the comments which were removed and which had nothing to do with the process or proposal:
This is the type of conduct which had plagued this process, and it really needed to stop. My genuine efforts were being undermined and I need to be able to at least try to resolve the issue free from this type of conduct. However the most active in this disruption was an Admins. Rockpocket an Admin, edit warred [258] [259] to keep their snide remarks in ignoring the block on the Proposal page to again to insert them. That they tried to suggest that they were not aware the page had been protected even when they went on to say "even if (they) had known it was protected (they) would have still made the edit." To then say that "once the page is unprotected (they'll) be withdrawing both (their) !vote and (their) comments" "and that they would encourage everyone else" into withdrawing their vote, saying that “lack of engagement will doom it much quicker and with much less drama than any official sanction” and so scupper my attempt to move things forward show how hollow their arguments are and disruptive there actions were. Likewise SarekOfVulcan edit warred on the talk page to put comments back in the inane comments: [260], [261], [262], and on the proposal page, [263], [264] and then protecting the page which Rock ignored. It is wrong for an Admin to use their tools in an edit war, they were warned about this already so they know they should not have been the one to protect the page. There were a number of attempts to disrupt the proposal: Bastun edit warring to make a point when the question I asked was clear an unambiguous. [265], [266] and had to use incivility to make a point. Comments which were removed from the proposal page, and added to the comments page and commented upon on the talk page. [267] [268] [269] [270]. None of which addressed why they opposed the proposal and ignored the guidelines. Comments removed from the talk page, [271], [272], [273], [274], [275], [276]. Notice how no mention was made on two of the comments which are from editors who agree with me. Now we know I informed the moderator of my intensions but they went on as if they had never heard about it going on to say "state that you are doing this here, otherwise, as happens here, it looks like a submarine attack on the process and thus disruptive." How did they manage to miss the whole discussion were I did tell editors about my proposal. This disruptive conduct was all ignored.
However it did not end there, I put forward another proposal using the same process and again meet a negative reaction. In this proposal I made a genuine effort to compromise but this was ignored. Yet another tread was opened on the process having already explained how it worked, this was yet more disruption. Now this removal of topic comments is not unusual, and the guidelines were very pacific. I've left out all the times claims of censorship were thrown at me, but you can read them yourselves in the discussions all over the talk page.
From then on I was subjected to a number of personal attacks, uncivil remarks and demeaning comments with all my questions just stonewalled or met with inane responces: [277], [278] which drew this reply [279], [280], [281], [282], [283], etc... Attempting to try get editors to respond to questions I put in place holders, which were then removed [284], asked by an editor why they removed them there reply was [285]. The same editor went over the head of Masem with a poll and circulated notices all around the project with a group of editors suggesting this was agreed to, when masem themselves said differently [286], [287] on two occasions. Trying to establish were this agreement was reached, I began to ask were this happened, were there was agreement on the poll, the options in it, the comments under each option, to place notices all over the project, agreement on the notice, this is the type of responces I got. DrKiernan provides a diff's [288] which was this discussion here the section title says it all "Draft Poll on Ireland (xxx)" which clearly shows no such agreement. They were followed up with [289], [290], [291], [292], [293], [294], [295], [296], [297], [298], [299] this is the same editor who used this comment [300] followed up by this edit summary [301] now I could go on, I finished up with this post here and got this reply [302].
Now as far as I concerned this type of conduct is in clear breech of the ArbCom Principles with regard to the Purpose of Wikipedia, not to mention Conduct and decorum and the Wikipedia editorial process. As editors and Admins have pointed out I have remained civil, and it is my intension to remain so. I'll take a week off in order for you to review my commets and sorry for the detail, but I felt it was needed. I have as is my norm, provided diff's to support my comments and I hope they help. If I've missed any please let me know when I get back, thanks again for giving me the oppertunti to present my side in this discussion. -- Domer48 'fenian' 21:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I support DrKiernan's complaint. I could easily describe Domer48's repetitive questioning as trollery. When he doesn't get an answer, or an answer that he wants, he asks the question again, and pillories other editors for violating the Wikipedia. It is beyond tiresome. The project in question is the result of a request for Arbitration that I made in order to help solve a particularly thorny and long-standing problem. It's true that there are many emotions and POVs involved. But I would call Domer48's contributions "disruptive" at best, and "mendacious and manipulative" at worst. Most of us have given up trying to respond to his questions: they are always traps. -- Evertype· ✆ 14:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Closed with no action. Other editors should just ignore Domer48 if and to the extent that he persists in disagreeing with any relevant and established consensus, taking into account that consensus can change. Sandstein 10:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
ChrisO (
talk) 07:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Darko Trifunovic (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
Indefinite block
Additional comments by
ChrisO (
talk):
For at least 18 months,
Darko Trifunovic (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log) has systematically disrupted
Darko Trifunović (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) using at least two sockpuppet accounts and a series of anonymous IP addresses, including apparent open proxies. This appears to be an instance of a BLP subject with a bad case of
WP:OWNitis; he seems to want to have total control of "his" BLP, insisting on replacing the sourced content with a copy of his own resumé despite being told repeatedly that he can't do that. He has engaged in repeated bouts of edit-warring and has been blocked for a total of three weeks under the Darko Trifunovic account. He has evaded blocks by editing while logged out from a range of IP addresses on his ISP, and has used what appears to be an open proxy server in Israel to continue his disruption. A
checkuser request has confirmed his use of these IP addresses. He seems to have no interest in doing anything on Wikipedia other than vandalising and attemping to control "his" BLP. Other editors have attempted to address his concerns but he has only responded with more vandalism and disruption. If anything, his behaviour is becoming worse - he is vandalising the article on a daily basis, several times a day. Given the fact that his previous blocks have had no effect, the length of time that this has been going on, and the egregious circumstances (systematic vandalism, edit-warring, the use of proxy servers and dynamic IP addresses to evade blocks) I think the time has come for an indefinite block of the "master" account,
Darko Trifunovic (
talk ·
contribs). Enough is enough. --
ChrisO (
talk) 07:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
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.
User indefinitely blocked for persistent disruption. PeterSymonds ( talk) 12:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
User requesting enforcement:
Jd2718 (
talk) 20:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
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:
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):
The break in warnings reflects the user's absence from WP from February 8, 2009 through June 7, 2009
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: [332]
- 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.
If the diffs provided initially are not sufficient to show editing "failing to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia... and the normal editorial process" then you should close this report without sanction. However, if those criteria, and not some more stringent criteria, have been met, the suggestions others have made for a sanction less than topic ban may be appropriate. Jd2718 ( talk) 23:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Gazifikator (
talk) 09:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Jarvis76 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Log_of_blocks_and_bans, also
[334]
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
{{{not required}}}
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
block
Additional comments by
Gazifikator (
talk):
The user Jarvis76 is pov-pushing to
Armenian Genocide article, while it is under 1RR rule
[337]. During a 24-hour period Jarvis76 reverted the lead of article twice, without any explanations at talk.
Gazifikator (
talk) 09:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[338]
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.
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)
With heavy heart, I must endorse this arbitration request, and add another incident. In [6], 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)
Offliner is fully aware of Digwuren case sanctions, as he reported Digwuren to ANI [13] Biophys ( talk) 16:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
No action. This is an unpersuasive request, and I am frankly put off by its many deficiencies:
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)
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)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Colchicum (
talk) 18:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
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.
Allegations of harboring Nazi sympathies: [16] - 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.
[17],
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:
[18],
[19],
[20].
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:
[21]
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)
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 [22]) 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)
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)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Heimstern Läufer
(talk) 11:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
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:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
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.
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)
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.
[36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]
[50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]
Some of the diffs (web brigades) are dated 2008. All others are two months old.
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)
Response to Jehochman. I have no idea why you blamed me of "unclean hands" [65]. 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)
Wow. That was fast. Weren't black books found problematic in an earlier ArbCom ? Дигвурен Дигвурович Аллё? 17:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
This comment by William M. Connolley is of possible interest. Дигвурен Дигвурович Аллё? 18:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
PasswordUsername ( talk) 18:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
Can somebody put an end to this. -- Martintg ( talk) 03:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
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))
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)
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: [83]. 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 [84] at the time.
Also, to make it clear why the last revert on Litvinenko mentioned above [85] (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)
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)
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)
Comment The only thing that I would ask for at this stage is some sort of sanctions for Biophys on the
Alexander Litvinenko article, because I believe that his behaviour on that article is egregious and in violation of policy, and it is actionable. The lead for this article was determined after Biophys himself demanded that myself and Offliner discuss every change to this article on the talk page (negating our ability to be
WP:BOLD whilst asserting
ownership over the article). This was done, and myself, Offliner and Grey-Fox discussed and tweaked the lead so that there was some consensus. Disregarding his own demands of us, Biophys went and changed the article quite considerably, changes which included reverting the article to a months old state. This reverting has been done on several occasions, and I have pointed out in minute detail why his changes have been reverted by myself. One can read this
here. If one looks at Points 11 an 12, one will see that I have removed
WP:LINKVIO (this is policy) from the article, only to have them blindly reverted everytime by Biophys. The reverts reinserting the linkvios after it was made crystal clear that we don't link to copyright violations are
[86] and
[87]. Given the actions over a long period of time on this particular article, I do believe that some type of restriction on Biophys on this article is warranted, particularly after I was blocked for a week for 3RR for keeping BLP out of the article (
Talk:Alexander_Litvinenko#Paedophile_claims_removed_as_WP:BLP. And this is regardless of whether retirement has occurred, because as per Offliner, one has seen this many times in the past, so a sanction is warranted. --
Russavia
Dialogue 07:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Further comment I have also noticed edits made to
Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park). Back in April it was ascertained that Martintg had engaged in what I can only describe as a gross violation (given the material being added) of
WP:V and
WP:OR, and once it was ascertained that material was inserted into the article in violation of those two core policies, it was
removed. Last week Biophys
reinserted the same information which is not in compliance with WP:V or WP:OR. If one looks at the article history, Beatle Fab Four has removed it with an edit summary as per talk, but Biophys has reinserted, only to be undone by Biophys, then undone again by BFF, only to be reverted by Digwuren. The kicker is that BFF's revert pushed Biophys to
ask Colchicum whether BFF should be reported; sokmething that was done and has resulted in BFF being topic-banned for 6 months from EE topics. Given that it was BFF that did the digging into the Soviet War Memorial sources, and it was BFF that ascertained that V and OR were blatantly breached, I think that a wider sanction on Biophys is needed here, as the talk page was completely ignored by Biophys and Digwuren, even after it was pointed out no less than 3 times in the edit summaries. Given the nature of what was being inserted into the article, this is egregious editing in my mind. --
Russavia
Dialogue 07:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
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 ( | 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)
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.
[117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126]
[143] (edit summary)
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)
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 [146], [147], 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)
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)
More evidence of Digwuren's disruptive behaviour is the following edit warring [157] [158] [159] [160] [161]. 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: [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168]. 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: [169]. 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I don't see why Russavia has escaped with a formal notice while I should be upgraded to a 1RR. Looking at Shell's analysis I have compared myself with Russavia here. Could somebody explain to me how my behaviour warrants a 1RR parole while Russavia doesn't. Otherwise could someone place Russavia on 1RR, as he fits the same criteria given when the 1RR was applied to me, i.e. a block log showing a history of recent 3RRs in the same topic area. -- Martintg ( talk) 02:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
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 [if the evidence checks out]. There are editors here who have been fully warned and notified, yet [there are allegations] they continue to play games with Wikipedia.
Jehochman
Talk 15:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC) and 14:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I have reviewed some of the diffs. While there are possibly problematic diffs, I also found some that appear to be over-stated. It looks like an inconclusive situation that calls for deeper scrutiny than I have time to provide today. The fundamental problem is that the thread is filed by a party adverse to Digwuren, which could lead to cherry picking of diffs. A proper investigation may require looking at Digwuren's recent contribution history to see if these diffs are representative or not. I am not going to close this thread yet as Shell Kinney is examining the matter. If she is willing to check things more carefully than I did, she may be able to make a determination. Jehochman Talk 15:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Based on my review of the diffs and arguments presented, the following remedies are enacted. I reserve the right to reconsider this case within the next 24 hours, so please do not close it. Other admins may add additional remedies at their discretion. Discussion to the talk page please.
- Thatcher 21:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
ChrisO (
talk) 23:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
SQRT5P1D2 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
SQRT5P1D2 topic-banned for one year
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
# Not applicable.
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
I have
warned the user against violating the topic ban again, but given that this is a clear-cut violation a stronger response may be appropriate.
(update) SQRT5P1D2 is continuing to violate the topic ban despite earlier warnings and the present discussion, and he has publicly dismissed Coren's clarification of his topic ban here. A lengthy block would now be appropriate given the egregious nature of the ongoing violations. It's clear that he's going to continue unless he's blocked.
Additional comments:
<Your text>
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[193]
Quoting from the arbitration page, I was "topic-banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages, as defined in All related articles under 1RR for one year.". Quoting from the "All related articles under 1RR" section "articles related to Macedonia (defined as any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to Macedonia, Macedonia nationalism, Greece related articles that mention Macedonia, and other articles in which how Macedonia will be referred to is an issue) fall under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned". According to Wikipedia, an "article is a page that has encyclopedic information on it" and articles "belong to the main namespace of Wikipedia pages"; this "does not include any pages in any of the specified namespaces that are used for particular purposes". The centralized discussion is not a Macedonia-related article. Furthermore, the claim I've edited is unverified (there is not a single reliable source available, with an official list), but that's another story. SQRT5P1D2 ( talk) 01:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
In my own opinion, this may warrant an amendment to the case, but as it stands now I don't think SQRT is technically in violation. J.delanoy gabs adds 02:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Per Coren, this ban can in fact be enforced in the project space: [194]. He also recommends not applying it retroactively, so I guess it's best not to make any blocks unless SQRT5P1D2 edits the Centralized Discussion again. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
SQRT5P1D2 ( talk · contribs) blocked for 24 hours for violating the topic ban restriction despite warning. PeterSymonds ( talk) 19:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Ευπάτωρ
Talk!! 20:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Brandmeister (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Two reverts within a week, despite the imposed restrictions. His recent block just expired.
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
N/A. He was blocked five days ago for violating the same arb restriction.
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
Block
Additional comments by
Ευπάτωρ
Talk!!:
Two violations in less than 5 days. This is unacceptable.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[199]
In compliance with WP:BRD and WP:IAR the last two edits, as could be verified ( [200], [201]), were made prior to Gazifikator's concern in the relevant talk section I opened before. Gazifikator himself was warned by an admin in one of the previous reports I filled and still continues point-pushing over Julfa. Brand t 20:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Brandmeister is in violation of his revert restriction. His statement above does not address this restriction. I am blocking him for a week under the authority of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended_Remedies and Enforcement. Also, since he appears to be unwilling to obey the revert restriction, I am also hereby topic-banning him from all pages (including discussion pages) related to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran, and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area (all broadly construed) for six months as of this message, also under the authority of the remedy referred to. The revert restriction remains in force for the eventuality that the topic ban is lifted for some reason. Sandstein 20:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Erik9 (
talk) 01:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Sligocki (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#Mass_date_delinking
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
[202]
[203]
[204]
[205]
[206]
[207]
[208]
[209]
[210]
[211]
[212]
[213]
[214]
[215]
[216]
[217]
[218]
[219]
[220]
[221], a large number of edits for the sole or primary purpose of date delinking
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
Block
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[223]
Hello everyone. I'm a little surprised that I got a RfA case against me. It appears that you've dropped the case, but I'd like to be in harmony with the Wikipedia community. If you guys have any comments about troubling aspects of my edits or about delinking dates in general, please let me know. I do not like most linked dates and I try to clean them up when find them in pages. I have no intention of covering that up and usually put MOS:UNLINKDATES in the comment. Please let me know if I should not do this, or not do it so frequently, I respect the opinions of the community. Sligocki ( talk) 02:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to be mass delinking according to my understanding of what "mass" means. This is casual and infrequent in my opinion. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 12:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd have to agree. It does not appear to be a concerted effort to delink all dates. Delinking in and of itself is not prohibited. KillerChihuahua ?!? 12:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I think this is testing the limits and game playing. Why are any dates being unlinked when there is a specific instruction not to do so. Debating the meaning of mass is a poor idea. It would be very easy for the user not to unlink any dates. How many is too many? I am not sure, but the user is being needless provocative. I'd like them to agree to stop, otherwise I am prepared to apply enforcement measures.
Jehochman
Talk 16:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
There was no mass delinking going on there and frankly it is a bit shocking that there are editors who don't have anything better to do then to complain and request blocks for people who are doing something as useful as removing the completely useless datelinks. Loosmark ( talk) 16:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Upon re-reading the case, I see that this activity is not a problem. This request is closed. Jehochman Talk 00:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
BatteryIncluded (
talk) 13:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Stevertigo (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
<Your text>
Additional comments by
BatteryIncluded (
talk):
Stvertigo's revert, risruptive behavior, profuse forum-like ramblings and absolute disregard to the requirement to cite references makes the Talk page virtually useless for the article improvement.
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.
It did not take long to discover that this is a vexatious request. The reported diff has nothing to do with the arbitration sanction. BatteryIncluded was blocked on June 23 for incivility against Stevertigo. [226] This request looks like retaliation. Stevertigo's plain talk could be improved, but that's a matter for wikiquette alerts, not arbitration enforcement. My inclination is not to block BatterIncluded this time, but if such requests are filed again, some sort of deterrence may be appropriate. Jehochman Talk 13:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
User requesting enforcement:
DrKiernan (
talk) 13:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Domer48 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Per
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Community asked to develop a procedure,
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration is developing a process to decide on Ireland article names. After very, very extensive discussion spanning months, pages and immense bandwidth, a poll is underway. Domer48 disagrees with holding a poll, and is consequently attempting to disrupt it in contravention of
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Conduct and decorum. See:
Wikipedia:Gaming the system (example 7 in particular),
Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Refusal to 'get the point', and
m:What is a troll?#Pestering.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
He has persistently made the same points repeatedly, refuses to accept the community's decision to hold a poll, and proposes a discursive-based process which has already been rejected by the community.
[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]
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not required
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
Ban from
WP:IECOLL talk pages for one month; in essence, a topic ban on discussing Ireland article page names for one month. This would not preclude him voting in any current or future poll.
Additional comments by
DrKiernan (
talk):
I appreciate that some of the responses from other editors to his actions have been driven more by humour and exasperation than good conduct, but that doesn't excuse his own actions in trying to disrupt a process that everyone else has worked extremely hard to take forward.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[253]
[254]
Let me begin by saying that I have at no time intentionally or otherwise attempted to disrupt this project by actions, edits or opinions. If fact quite the opposite. I have tried throughout to maintain the standards of the project, and have consistently maintained throughout that Wiki policies can address this issue, if only they were impartially applied. The attitude of my detractors is that our policies have failed, and on this point I will not concede. I’d like to thank the members for their comments below indicating that I have not engaged in incivility or personal attacks that make this much easier for me.
It is my considered opinion that our policies can address what ArbCom has described as a content dispute. That is what has us here now. ArbCom while not becoming actively involved, laid out a number of Principles to encourage and promote a final resolution. ArbCom set out what they considered to be the Locus and state of dispute. They were:
ArbCom asked the community to develop a procedure for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. Failing that, ArbCom would designate a panel of three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure.
The community failed to develop a procedure for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. Instead they focused on establishing a poll for the most suitable title according to each others POV. This lead to the break down of the process. No attempt was made to address the Locus and state of dispute outlined by ArbCom above. No discussion was had on whether consensus was properly obtained for the moves, or weather current article titles conform to the requirement of maintaining a neutral point of view. While there was endless discussion about the ambiguity or otherwise for the designation "Ireland" no discussion was had as to the extent of the ambiguity.
Arbcom did make specific reference to Naming conventions in the section titled Principles and pointed to the fact that :
Wikipedia:Naming conventions, a longstanding policy, provides that:Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
This is justified by the following principle: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.
Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.
While this allows for a “reasonable minimum of ambiguity” this was never discussed. The one and overriding issue was the establishment of a poll, needless to say this went no were. This was reflected by ArbCom and the designation of a panel of three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure. While the administrators did try to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure, and attempted to establish facts, findings and opinions the requested statements was again dominated by the same editors trying to push for a poll. The Administrators did intend to assess the validity of arguments but were never given the opportunity. The discussion was dominated by these discussions on a Poll. The three Administrators would later resign [255], [256] [257]. I was however very interested in Edokter comments and took them on board.
It was my understanding that once the Administrators were appointed that the issue was taken out of the hands of the community having failed to reach agreement, and would be left to the Administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure. But as I have illustrated above, the role and function was undermined from the very beginning. The mistake they made IMO was by not carrying out their function and instead referring back to the community the very ones who have failed to reach any agreement they doom the process they tried to initiate.
ArbCom then appointed new Administrators only one of whom has participated and far from leading the discussion has been lead by it. In fact they have now themselves become apart of it. I questioned the Administrator on this
on there talk page. To date the only suggestion that the Administrator has been able to devise is a poll. I’ve objected to this based on the fact that no policy based discussion has ever taken place. No assessment of the validity of arguments has been attempted and no alternative to polling is being considered. This was the approach adopted by the original Admin’s but it was not allowed to get of the ground. This is what prompted my questions. I was later informed by ArbCom that
Remedy#1 still valid so I attempted to develop a procedure for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles.
My proposal: Based on the my experience to date and having reviewed the reams of material on this I came to a number of conclusions:
Based then on this I develop a procedure which would prevent disruption, remove the possibility of incivility, create a fact and policy based discussion, and test the validity of arguments of editors. It would also allow editors put forward proposals and test them in a more productive environment. Based on the original Admin's suggestions and a number of wiki policies I simply devised a number of guidelines and placed them in an easy and workable format. An example of it can be seen here. The reaction I received took even me by surprise.
I first raised my proposal here and was disappointed when it was ignored by Masem. I then posted here on the talk page, and outlined my rational. I raised it again here but Masem insisted that a policy based discussion had been tried before and I questioned this here. It was then that the attacks on the process and proposal began. As can be seen from the discussion I tried to address the concerns of editors but I was not going to allow the process to be derailed. This is some of the comments which were removed and which had nothing to do with the process or proposal:
This is the type of conduct which had plagued this process, and it really needed to stop. My genuine efforts were being undermined and I need to be able to at least try to resolve the issue free from this type of conduct. However the most active in this disruption was an Admins. Rockpocket an Admin, edit warred [258] [259] to keep their snide remarks in ignoring the block on the Proposal page to again to insert them. That they tried to suggest that they were not aware the page had been protected even when they went on to say "even if (they) had known it was protected (they) would have still made the edit." To then say that "once the page is unprotected (they'll) be withdrawing both (their) !vote and (their) comments" "and that they would encourage everyone else" into withdrawing their vote, saying that “lack of engagement will doom it much quicker and with much less drama than any official sanction” and so scupper my attempt to move things forward show how hollow their arguments are and disruptive there actions were. Likewise SarekOfVulcan edit warred on the talk page to put comments back in the inane comments: [260], [261], [262], and on the proposal page, [263], [264] and then protecting the page which Rock ignored. It is wrong for an Admin to use their tools in an edit war, they were warned about this already so they know they should not have been the one to protect the page. There were a number of attempts to disrupt the proposal: Bastun edit warring to make a point when the question I asked was clear an unambiguous. [265], [266] and had to use incivility to make a point. Comments which were removed from the proposal page, and added to the comments page and commented upon on the talk page. [267] [268] [269] [270]. None of which addressed why they opposed the proposal and ignored the guidelines. Comments removed from the talk page, [271], [272], [273], [274], [275], [276]. Notice how no mention was made on two of the comments which are from editors who agree with me. Now we know I informed the moderator of my intensions but they went on as if they had never heard about it going on to say "state that you are doing this here, otherwise, as happens here, it looks like a submarine attack on the process and thus disruptive." How did they manage to miss the whole discussion were I did tell editors about my proposal. This disruptive conduct was all ignored.
However it did not end there, I put forward another proposal using the same process and again meet a negative reaction. In this proposal I made a genuine effort to compromise but this was ignored. Yet another tread was opened on the process having already explained how it worked, this was yet more disruption. Now this removal of topic comments is not unusual, and the guidelines were very pacific. I've left out all the times claims of censorship were thrown at me, but you can read them yourselves in the discussions all over the talk page.
From then on I was subjected to a number of personal attacks, uncivil remarks and demeaning comments with all my questions just stonewalled or met with inane responces: [277], [278] which drew this reply [279], [280], [281], [282], [283], etc... Attempting to try get editors to respond to questions I put in place holders, which were then removed [284], asked by an editor why they removed them there reply was [285]. The same editor went over the head of Masem with a poll and circulated notices all around the project with a group of editors suggesting this was agreed to, when masem themselves said differently [286], [287] on two occasions. Trying to establish were this agreement was reached, I began to ask were this happened, were there was agreement on the poll, the options in it, the comments under each option, to place notices all over the project, agreement on the notice, this is the type of responces I got. DrKiernan provides a diff's [288] which was this discussion here the section title says it all "Draft Poll on Ireland (xxx)" which clearly shows no such agreement. They were followed up with [289], [290], [291], [292], [293], [294], [295], [296], [297], [298], [299] this is the same editor who used this comment [300] followed up by this edit summary [301] now I could go on, I finished up with this post here and got this reply [302].
Now as far as I concerned this type of conduct is in clear breech of the ArbCom Principles with regard to the Purpose of Wikipedia, not to mention Conduct and decorum and the Wikipedia editorial process. As editors and Admins have pointed out I have remained civil, and it is my intension to remain so. I'll take a week off in order for you to review my commets and sorry for the detail, but I felt it was needed. I have as is my norm, provided diff's to support my comments and I hope they help. If I've missed any please let me know when I get back, thanks again for giving me the oppertunti to present my side in this discussion. -- Domer48 'fenian' 21:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I support DrKiernan's complaint. I could easily describe Domer48's repetitive questioning as trollery. When he doesn't get an answer, or an answer that he wants, he asks the question again, and pillories other editors for violating the Wikipedia. It is beyond tiresome. The project in question is the result of a request for Arbitration that I made in order to help solve a particularly thorny and long-standing problem. It's true that there are many emotions and POVs involved. But I would call Domer48's contributions "disruptive" at best, and "mendacious and manipulative" at worst. Most of us have given up trying to respond to his questions: they are always traps. -- Evertype· ✆ 14:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Closed with no action. Other editors should just ignore Domer48 if and to the extent that he persists in disagreeing with any relevant and established consensus, taking into account that consensus can change. Sandstein 10:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
ChrisO (
talk) 07:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Darko Trifunovic (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
Indefinite block
Additional comments by
ChrisO (
talk):
For at least 18 months,
Darko Trifunovic (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log) has systematically disrupted
Darko Trifunović (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) using at least two sockpuppet accounts and a series of anonymous IP addresses, including apparent open proxies. This appears to be an instance of a BLP subject with a bad case of
WP:OWNitis; he seems to want to have total control of "his" BLP, insisting on replacing the sourced content with a copy of his own resumé despite being told repeatedly that he can't do that. He has engaged in repeated bouts of edit-warring and has been blocked for a total of three weeks under the Darko Trifunovic account. He has evaded blocks by editing while logged out from a range of IP addresses on his ISP, and has used what appears to be an open proxy server in Israel to continue his disruption. A
checkuser request has confirmed his use of these IP addresses. He seems to have no interest in doing anything on Wikipedia other than vandalising and attemping to control "his" BLP. Other editors have attempted to address his concerns but he has only responded with more vandalism and disruption. If anything, his behaviour is becoming worse - he is vandalising the article on a daily basis, several times a day. Given the fact that his previous blocks have had no effect, the length of time that this has been going on, and the egregious circumstances (systematic vandalism, edit-warring, the use of proxy servers and dynamic IP addresses to evade blocks) I think the time has come for an indefinite block of the "master" account,
Darko Trifunovic (
talk ·
contribs). Enough is enough. --
ChrisO (
talk) 07:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
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.
User indefinitely blocked for persistent disruption. PeterSymonds ( talk) 12:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
User requesting enforcement:
Jd2718 (
talk) 20:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
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:
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):
The break in warnings reflects the user's absence from WP from February 8, 2009 through June 7, 2009
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: [332]
- 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.
If the diffs provided initially are not sufficient to show editing "failing to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia... and the normal editorial process" then you should close this report without sanction. However, if those criteria, and not some more stringent criteria, have been met, the suggestions others have made for a sanction less than topic ban may be appropriate. Jd2718 ( talk) 23:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
User requesting enforcement:
Gazifikator (
talk) 09:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Jarvis76 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Log_of_blocks_and_bans, also
[334]
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
{{{not required}}}
Enforcement action requested (
block,
topic ban or
other sanction):
block
Additional comments by
Gazifikator (
talk):
The user Jarvis76 is pov-pushing to
Armenian Genocide article, while it is under 1RR rule
[337]. During a 24-hour period Jarvis76 reverted the lead of article twice, without any explanations at talk.
Gazifikator (
talk) 09:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[338]