Hi. do we need a discussion section here, re cases in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic area? looks like quite a few cases are popping here. just thought I'd mention it, and note that here. thanks. feel free to add any comments or resolution efforts. thanks. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 20:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests Input requested from arbitrators and arbitration enforcement regulars on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests. I have no idea why this case and only this case has set up a special enforcement page out of site of the usual mechanism; it appears to be largely a walled garden where the same participants yell at each other some more. (see below) I'm thinking it should be merged into WP:AE and enforcement reports handled via the normal routine mechanism. Thatcher 14:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

The only reason I can see for having a special dedicated page would be if requests pertaining to one case were dominating this board to the extent that other matters were being swamped out or not being attended to. Short of that situation, I don't know of any reason that one case would require a dedicated page and would trust to the instincts of the administrators who regularly handle AE requests (such as yourself) as to the best page set-up and formatting. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

If you do, get ready for a flood of neverending AE cases. It was set up because we were the only folks willing to give a damn to try to keep this thing in bounds and because the usual suspects were running to us anyway. If AE wants to take it off our hands, well, not quite "good riddance to bad rubbish", but I'm glad someone else will be dealing with them. SirFozzie 128.222.37.20 ( talk) 15:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

(ec)I am neither an arbitrator nor an "arbitration enforcement regular", but am one those who has been involved in discussion of the enforcement of Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, to which as an admin I was a named party. I was not involved in creating the The Troubles/Enforcement requests page, but my understanding is that it was done because of the sheer volume of enforcement issues arising from that arbcom, and the benefits of centralising them, However, I agree that it would be useful for this to be more visible and to involve more outside parties. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

As far as "sheer volume" is concerned, I count 10 logged enforcement actions against 4 editors in 4 months. That's not a lot, all things considered (check the enforcement logs of Armenia-Azerbaijani 1 and 2, or look in the archives and count the complaints against ScienceApologist). The value of WP:AE I think is that reports are made, investigated, and closed, and we try to keep the partisan squabbling to the minimum needed to evaluate the complaint. And of course any admin is welcome there as at any specialty page. Thatcher 15:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

That's only the ones that are logged. You're missing Sarah777's block for incivility recently (although that was more the Great Irish Famine ArbCom case), Vintagekits and David Lauder's bannings for running sock farms, and the constant low level warfare over the Ulster Banner, and that's just what comes to mind in a few seconds thought. It's gotten so bad between the partisans on both sides, that even the "Board of Outer Darkness where there is Gnashing of teeth" had to lock down threads with the usual suspects, because it got so freaking ridiculous. Again, good luck, you'll need it. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, for starters fix the log, please, then. Thatcher 15:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually, the only one that's not logged is Sarah's (which I won't comment on, because I wasn't around for the discussion). So now, I get to formally wash my hands of the whole thing, and go back to my break. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

The very fact that editors who were blocked & editors who are banned (and complaining through their sockpuppets) are complaining at all? Is reason enough to keep this AE in tact. There's alot of political agendists out their (not to mention, alot of hard heads). GoodDay ( talk) 16:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Well actually Fozzie I wasn't involved in that; I had my very own RfC some short time earlier arising from a different dispute. The earlier Famine Arbcom nonetheless made a bizarre ruling that I be banned from making "anti-British" remarks on talk-pages, since when (predictably) numerous drones have tried to characterise all manner of edits and comments as such. That has led to more trouble than my remarks ever did. As I have not been blocked under the terms of the Troubles Arbcom I must insist that you most certainly do not log my illigitimate blocks (including one from yourself) here. Thanks. Sarah777 ( talk) 18:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

As I said, Sarah, I have formally washed my hands of the whole situation. I will not be logging any of your blocks, (whether you feel they are legitimate or not), anywhere. SirFozzie ( talk) 18:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Good. Because you may (or not) recall that the last flurry of blocks arose not from editing or from making references to "the Troubles" but rather for annoying edit-warring Admins who alleged "incivility". Sarah777 ( talk) 18:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

If Newyorkbrad and Thatcher want to devote their energies to all this conflict, then I think that's something to be welcomed. And if they are just hoping to involve other admins, that's great too, because it will be well-deserved respite for John, Rockpocket, Tyrenius, Alison, SirFozzie and the other admins who have been firefighting this conflict for ages. Any further requests which I receive for admin intervention in this area will be directed to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

(AOL)Me too.(/AOL) SirFozzie ( talk) 18:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

The Troubles does not need a specialist enforcement page. Overwhelming volume, my balls. Have you checked the log of WP:ARBMAC recently, or even WP:ARBAA and WP:ARBAA2? That page should be redirected here where reports will get more eyes. Moreschi ( talk) 20:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I want to thank all the administrators and editors that have helped out with enforcing The Troubles ruling (and all the other rulings the Arbitration Committee makes.) It is a thankless job, indeed.

I think that merging the Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests is a good idea since it will help bring more fresh eyes to the situation. One of best aspects of the wikistyle of collaboration is that we can hand off issues for others to handle so we do not get too burn out when dealing with frustrating situations. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

• I want to emphasize again that any uninvolved admin is welcome to help out with WP:AE. There is no anointed priesthood, its not reserved for Arbcom clerks or anything like that. I've done a lot of the work over the last year but lately there has been a surge of new involvement which has been greatly appreciated, and more is always welcome. Thatcher 22:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

• • Merge complete. Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests move to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive16, and two active disputes copied to the main WP:AE page. I think the stray redirects are mostly fixed. Thatcher 22:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I'd like to ask a question, if i may. Is it possible to request the active mediation and intervention of administrators of this page in discussions here, to prevent them from going too far off track? i feel this might behelpful in the section pertaining to Jaakobou, in which both sides have reasonable concerns, but it seems hard to prevent a whole slew of issues of related issues from getting tossed in as well. thanks. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 13:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Reports should be concise. Editors are discouraged from trying to re-fight the Arbitration case here. Thatcher 22:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply

www.hi.wikipedia.org

All Administrators of Hindi Wikipedia are involved and particularly (1) Rajiv Mass (2) Purnima Varman and (3) Manish Vashistha confirmed. Other three are in line of confirmation.

Rajiv Mass has opend dummy account in name of Ravi Jain on Hindi, Gujarati, Marathi, English and many languages with IP 124.124.36.4 of Rajiv Mass and harassing other members on many languages.

hi.wikipedia gu.wikipedia mr.wikipedia en.wikipedia

Everything with fact is given on Hindi Wikipedia and all Admn. know.

In case all Admn. on Hindi wikipedia are involved, please, bring this fact to entire world.

I am from India and feel very ashmed that my brothers are involved in Vandals activities on wikipedia.

For this notice board fact can be seen by nacked eye on :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vkvora2001

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jainjain

copy of this is pasted on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics

I signed as vkvora. vkvora2001 ( talk) 18:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Mr vkvora

First of all, it's totally incorrect complaint posted by Mr. V K Vora. He has long been publishing incorrect materials. We suggested them to move to proper format and don't write incorrect, sensitive materials. He did not listen and instead started abusing other people. At that point, He was banned by my fellow administrator Mr. Rajeev Mass for 3 months. Afterwards, he started using different IP Address and started spoiling many articles. He started putting all incorrect information in administrator talk pages, community talk page. Many of the IP addresses were temporarily locked, but Mr. V K Vora did not stop. Ofcourse, One administrator could be wrong, but how come it's more than 5 administrators which found this behavior very abusive. We can't ban all IP addresses and we won't do that either. The IP Address which Mr V K Vora use, is probably from MTNL India. As an administrator on Hindi Wikipedia, I would ask you to ignore Mr Vora's activities everywhere.

Thanks. Hindi Wikipedia Administrator - Manish Vashistha - 21 March 2008 18:34 UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.186.80.1 ( talk) 18:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Abuse on Hindi Wikipedia

The above post is not signed and I request Manish Vashistha to sign it after log in. I signed. vkvora. vkvora2001 ( talk) 02:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC) reply

(moving from closed thread)

This was a cowardly block by an arbitrator with a conflict of interest. It was executed to disguise the fact that the Arbcom had performed a complete U turn on one of their own passed resolutions. It is further evidence of this flawed and failing Arbcom. Giano ( talk) 14:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Bullshit, and off topic. You were blocked because of your approach. If you want to the thorn in the side of arbcom, by all means to so, but if you want support you need to act appropriately. John Vandenberg ( talk) 14:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply

John, that was a clear breach of WP:Civility; though I imagine you are in no danger of any sanction. Sarah777 ( talk) 22:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Need anyone point out the irony of swearing at someone to defend a civility block? Please temper your language. Risker ( talk) 14:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply

At least he didn't tell Giano to "get lost," which would have been really uncivil. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 13:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply

• The block has expired. Giano's opinion is noted. This is now a closed issue. If it is necessary to further debate the matter, Giano's talk page or WT:RFAR would be more appropriate. Thatcher 15:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm afraid Thatcher the matter is far from closed, but your opinion is noted too. You will obviously be sanctioning your foul mouthed friend above, or does incivility only exist in the minds of certain Arbitrators. Thank you Giano ( talk) 15:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply

No evidence of a persistent problem, and no arbitration sanctions in place, although under the circumstance I agree with Risker that the words were poorly chosen. Thatcher 15:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply

FYI, per discussion at the WP:AE#User:Lokyz thread, I have added the following to the AE instructions. [1]

:* (recommended) A diff showing that the user has previously been cautioned at their talkpage about the sanctions

I'd actually like to go a step further, adding a section higher up on this AE page that a warning is an excellent idea both "on the spot" of an infraction, and at a user's talkpage. I think that this may also help ArbCom sanctions to scale more gracefully. It gets the community more involved with reminders about enforcement, and then limits posts here at AE only to those cases where users are clearly ignoring their sanctions, despite reminders to the contrary. Before I actually add a section though, I wanted to test the waters here though. Anyone else have an opinion on this? -- El on ka 19:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually I would like to propose more improvements, mainly:

• that person/s who is/are "accused" should be informed on his talk page about complaint, and this notification diff should be presented in the case; same goes with articles (notification on proper article talk page).
• Another one, that ruling (especially in regard to sanctions) should be implemented at least with 24h. delay starting from then notification is presented to user/article talk page, mainly because due to different time zones as it can be hard to respond to the case. M.K. ( talk) 12:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply

My problem with this that I have seen in the past users who warned others accused of harassing them. Also, if a user is involved in a dispute, him warning the other user may be biased. Again, requests for a neutral party to review the situation have been portrayed as "block/warn shopping". If we would change AE, I'd like to make sure that such incidents as the above would not reoccur.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I agree. "Block shopping" is a big problem - as is blocking by Admins involved in disputes of the people they are in dispute with. Sarah777 ( talk) 23:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Blocking if you are involved is bad. What about warning? What about asking a third party for input? Does it differ if you contact an editor, or post to a public forum? We need a clear guideline how asking others for input differs from block shopping. Too often I have seen a pattern: "Editor A does something editor B finds problematic, Editor B complains about editor A seeking neutral parties to review Editor's A behavior, Editor A complains about harassment/block shopping/defaming coming from Editor B...". -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I received this message, can someone enlighten me on what this is supposed to mean, what I am expected to do, or some other insight into why this is on my page? It looks bad to me, and I'm a bit afraid to remove it and incur someone's wrath. User:Pedant ( talk) 07:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply

You have been contributing to articles related to 9/11. There has been a recent arbitration case about conduct on those articles, and you are being warned of it. The arbitrators found that there was a history of poor editorial conduct on these articles, and have encouraged administrators to be more active about policing user conduct. Read the linked case for more details. Absent a specific note from the placing admin, I don't know whether the warning was triggered by any specific conduct of yours or simply by noting that you are being significantly active on related articles. GRBerry 13:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply

According to my reading of {{ uw-9/112}}, this template is for users who have "caused disruption or made contentious edits" (otherwise {{ Uw-9/11}} should be used). I too am curious as to why diffs and/or links were not also provided; "implications of inappropriate behaviour" without reference seems a rather unconstructive message. — the Sidhekin ( talk) 13:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh, and the "placing admin" does not appear to be an admin. Rollbacker, yes; sysop, no. — the Sidhekin ( talk) 13:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Good catch! I didn't even look at that. I've cautioned the one issuing the warning. Unless a report on the project page shows specifics, it will go nowhere. The warning is a good general caution, so need not be retracted, but in the absence of specifics (which ICB declined to provide upon request), it is not very meaningful. GRBerry 14:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I didn't even know it was significant; I'm just in the (often bad) habit of correcting mistakes where I find them.  :)

However, seeing as it is significant, might it be a good idea to add to (the noinclude parts of) {{ uw-9/11}} and {{ uw-9/112}} something along the lines of the following?

• "Arbitration case warnings should be given by administrators; others are advised to seek the attention of an uninvolved administrator ( WP:AE is the recommended forum) should the arbitration case need enforcing."

It is currently not obvious to the uninvolved. — the Sidhekin ( talk) 14:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Normally the committee imposes that requirement themselves in the case. I don't see it in this case's non-standard language, and haven't dug in to figure out if the omission is intentional or an oversight as they wrote the non-standard language. So I don't want to do it myself. GRBerry 14:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, I have a question that I don't think is major enough to warrant an official "Request for clarification", but I was still wondering if someone could help...

I'm currently sorting through a number of disputes involving Hungarian & Slovakian editors, which fall under the scope of the Digwuren case. Now, I understand about notifying the most disruptive of the editors that they're under editing restrictions, and I know about putting the template on their userpage, and logging it at the case.

However, I've got a couple of these editors who are evidently "account-hopping" through anons, changing every few days, and I'm trying to figure out how to handle it. Do I "warn" each one individually and log it? This could fill up the log with a lot of IPs pretty quickly, especially if I'm in a situation where as soon as I warn one anon, they drop it and move to another anon, before I've issued any blocks.

Or, should I just use my best judgment, keep an eye out for disruptive anons and block them if they look like they're part of the same pattern (making the same reverts on the same articles, using the same incivility)?

Or, do I have the authority, as an uninvolved admin, to tell an anon, "You are under editing restrictions, you must use a single named account"?

Has anyone dealt with this situation before? How have you handled it? Thanks, El on ka 01:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I think that disruptive unregistered editors should be blocked with little fuss. If they want to rethink their behavior and register, they can send an @ with such a request - but as you've noted, many of them are little more wiki-experienced trolls. The less time we waste on them, the better.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Per the arb policy section WP:AP#Final decision, on the difference between a Remedy and Enforcement, will someone, preferably an arbitrator, please clarify if Remedies of the form 'arbcom instructs....' are actionable by admins without an enforcement section in a case, if the instruction is not adhered to.

I quote from that section: "Remedies and Enforcements, once the case has closed as described below, may be enforced by intervention by administrators" and "Remedies (binding Decrees on what should be done)".

So, as I currently read it, remedies instructing.... are binding decress, enforceable by administrators. MickMacNee ( talk) 16:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply

As some may know, as part of the ArbCom Palestine-Israel articles case, a Working Group was established to spend six months investigating the problem of ethnic and cultural edit wars, provide data about the problem, and recommendations on how to proceed. The final report from the working group is now available, so anyone that wishes to review it, please see: Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars/2008 report. -- El on ka 19:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Is there some forum where ordinary editors get to comment on/discuss this proposal? Sarah777 ( talk) 16:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't know about everyone else, but I exhausted of how much worse the drama on Wikipedia gets when people get snippy on AE trying to get their "day in court" or whatever it is that drives people to low behavior. While I would love to see some sort of heightened civility restriction on all of the Administrator noticeboards, that seems like it would go over like a lead balloon. What I propose is a pilot program on AE, since that page is probably the "biggest deal" of them all.

• Editors are warned at the top of AE, and on the edit page for AE, that only civil, measured, and reasoned language is acceptable, and that bickering is right out.
• Instances of uncivil posts and bickering is refactored on sight (depending on how people feel about it some set of arbitrators, clerks, administrators, auto confirmed, all editors may refactor). User is informed on their talk page, and a notification that the comment was refactored for civility is left by the post.
• Repeated instances of the above will lead to a warning.
• Failure to abide by the warning, especially in bad faith, means the offending editor is banned from editing WP:AE for a week. Editor may respond to accusations against him or her on his or her user space only.
• Violations of the ban lead to escalating blocks.

This is probably a draconian measure, and I know that refactoring is a dangerous thing, but if people are going to treat AN like a courtroom to air their problems, lets at least get the respect a courtroom has.-- Tznkai ( talk) 15:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I support this initiative. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Try it out and see how it goes. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Many of the threads on this noticeboard concern civility paroles, and from my experience there has not been a consensus on what constitutes impermissible incivility. If we can't agree on what is uncivil on other pages I don't know how we'd agree on what is uncivil here. Further, it appears to restrict access to the page where complaints are filed. That is a bad practice in my opinion. Blocking users for violating rules created just for a single page is another bad idea, in my opinion. This isn't an island, the general rules of Wikipedia are sufficient. Furthermore, in my experience editors who want to bicker will do so one way or another. If they can't do it here they'll do it somewhere else where it may be even more disruptive. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Agree with Will. I have yet to see a civility parole or similar that has actually worked. There are some things I will block on sight (serious racial slurs, serious threats), but there are also oodles of thin-skinned people who think telling them their opinion is wrong is incivil, and a similar number of people who will complain about trivial issues over and over again trying to get the upper hand in content or personal dispute. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 21:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

(Edit Conflict)Thanks for both of your feedback, and you raise valid points. My hope was to try to create a zone of sanity, a zone where standards of behavior are raised from the norm. In my opinion these standards should be global, but civility I feel is at low wiki wide, especially on the the Admin notification boards. As for the thin skinned complainers, the complaints are also to be refactored away. The idea is to use refactoring as a crucible: burn away the impurities and leave only the core of the complaint.

Both of you raised issues with the blocks, I was hoping you could address the refactoring.-- Tznkai ( talk) 22:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I have no objection to the careful refactoring of language that is unequivocally inappropriate, here or on any page. But it should be limited to removing or rephrasing the offensive language, not deleting an entire post, especially since folks are either bringng complaints or defending themselves. Obviously, the refactoring should not be done by parties to the conflict but other than that any editor may intervene. If there's a dispute over whether the language is uncivil it's probably better just to leave it. The point of this page is to enforce ArbCom decisions, not to serve as an oasis of civility or a zone of sanity. I'm still trying to find those. ;) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

The problem is, most of the bickering that happens on the administrator noticeboards are in that wonderful gray area where its not blatantly "uncivil" but it isn't "civil" either. Its a lot of spin, well poisoning, and squabbling worthy of an election campaign. The idea behind the zone of sanity is that the constant back and forth of "Editor X is just upset because he believes ducks are blue when thats clearly against WP:NOT WP:DUCKand all of Wikipedia's rules" damages the effectiveness of the project as a whole, and escalates disputes brought here. Since the behavior is seldom addressed, it only gets worse.

To put it another way: do you have a better plan? I would honestly love to hear one, I fully admit my idea is draconian and prone to drama and misinterpretation if non-sensible people try to apply it, I just don't have any better ideas yet.-- Tznkai ( talk) 00:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

The premise of the proposal is that WP:AE is dysfunctional, but I don't think that has been established. Incivility is the issue that accounts for perhaps half of the complaints to this noticeboard. We can't agree on what constitutes incivility elsewhere so it is not productive to extend special enforcement of WP:CIVIL here. I think that rather than making rules for this single page our effort would be better expended on clarifying the policies on civility as they apply to all pages, and in particular as they apply to editors on civility parole. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Bad idea offered in good faith. It would in reality function as an open invitation to many kinds of wikilawyering, I'm afraid. Bishonen | talk 22:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC). reply

If you don't mind me saying so Bishonen, that you even feel it needed to say that I would offer a bad idea in good faith is a sign of how low our expectations have gotten.-- Tznkai ( talk) 22:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm sure Bishonen's comment was well intended. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I know Bishonen's comment was well intended. I'm saying, if things were the way it should be, she wouldn't even have to mention it. We'd genuinely assume it. I doubt Bishonen meant anything by it, I'm just saying its a reflection of the generally low standard of behavior endemic to the area.-- Tznkai ( talk) 00:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

this edit is a rolback of content added by User:Moulton, I think there was an arbcom case involving him a while back. He's been a rather problematic contributor on Wikiversity for several months since, and rangeblocks were widened yesterday on Wikiversity ( info here). -- SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

That link you provide is unclickable. There isnt an arbcom case on him, more a WMF-wide ban on him, so yes, revert on site and rangeblock is the right move. MBisanz ^talk 15:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Ah sorry, fixed the link now. You're saying I should rangeblock that on Wikipedia? His ISPs serve a rather large customer base. -- SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Reminder notice: On January 21, 2009, the Arbitration Committee opened a Request for Comment regarding arbitration enforcement, including a review of general and discretionary sanctions. This post is a reminder that the RfC is still open for comment. All editors are encouraged to comment and contribute. The Committee will close the RfC at 02:00 UTC on February 21, 2009. After the closing, the Committee intends to formalize reform proposals within one month. Carcharoth ( talk) 18:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I am continuing the discussion here as the main case is closed.

What specific remedy has been breached? What is the name of the arbitration case, and the remedy number? - Jehochman

User:White_Adept has breached almost all the remedies of the second arbitration commitee. This is a more serious issue than just editwarring by an editor.

Second arbitration remedies breached by : User:White_Adept

1) User:White_Adept is a strong critic of Sathya Sai Baba and has conflicts of interest. He has been breaching Arbitration rulings adding banned Priddy references inspite of repeated warnings. He has been using wikipedia for pushing POV. Here are some proofs of his conflicts of interest.

• User:White_Adept started contributing from Jan 8th 2009. From Jan 8th - Jan 17th he made 190 edits in the article. Why will any editor make 190 edits in just 10 days and restructure a controversial article completely?. All his edits were mainly adding defaming criticism on Sathya Sai Baba.
• User:White_Adept has openly praised the negative attack websites and other critics of Sathya Sai Baba in the Sathya Sai Baba talk pages.
• User:White_Adept has repeatedly used the same attack website for which the earlier editor was banned and has added endless unreliables stories criticising / defaming Sathya Sai Baba.
• User:White_Adept rewrote the article from 40% criticism to 95% WP:UNDUE Criticism on Sathya Sai Baba. I can provide the history of User:White_Adept edits if required.

• 2)The second arbitration says poor negative material can be removed anytime from the article with out discussion. He breaches this rule almost every day. If anybody removes any unreliable source from the article which was added by User;White_Adept he blames the editor's action as vandaliam and adds it back.

Here's the problem:

The article is in a mess as a result of User:White_Adept massive edits.

I don't see how this article can be improved with [[User:White_Adept] POV pushing and conflicts of interest. Here's an example of his edit warring.

When I tried to remove gruesome images added by User:White_Adept based on attack websites Priddy and another unreliable source Premananda he editwarred with me for a couple of days. Here's the link of the section with those images from unreliable sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Murders_in_ashram.

Here's my question:

User:White_Adept has caused extensive damage to this article with his massive edits. Many of the sources he used are unreliable and even negative attack web sites. This article has lost his balance and reliability and breaks most of the WP:BLP rules.

Can this article be reverted to the earlier version Jan 7th 2009 before User:White_Adept massive edits?

• The earlier version of the article was balanced and the main contents of the article was maintained in wikipedia for a long time since the second arbitration. It had NPOV subtitles. I can provide more details comparing the versions if needed.

Please advice. Radiantenergy ( talk) 06:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello... opinion needed here with regards to the injunction against mass linking or delinking of dates. I would like to:

• find a page that already has linked dates using the existing double-bracket format; and
• convert that page's dates from links ([[01 June 2009]]) to the newly live Mediawiki code ({{#formatdate|01 June 2009|dmy}}) that allows autoformatting without links

The purpose of this edit is to test the code in a real-world application. Again, this would be only one page, and it would be a page that already has linked dates. Ideally, I would even try to find one that has not been through a delink-relink revert cycle just for additional transparency. However, given the seriousness of the Arbcomm action, I've no desire to attempt this without first confirming that it would not in any way violate the injunction (or even the spirit of the injunction). Input is welcome; thanks in advance. -- Ckatz ^chat _spy 05:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Speaking as someone who edits a large number of obscure pages, this is possibly the most obscure place to make such a request. WT:RFAR, WT:AC/N, or Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Workshop are much more likely to draw the attention of an arb to review and comment on your question. MBisanz ^talk 07:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oh god, talk about annoying syntax... -- NE2 07:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Ckatz, I am not sure I understand well your purpose but what about your sandbox? I believe you can create and simulate a scenario you are describing. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply

To improve the actionability of enforcement requests, which would allow admins to take part in enforcement more easily, I have drafted

• a template for submitting requests, {{ Arbitration enforcement request}}, and
• an instructional page, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Instructions

If the community approves of this approach, it would be necessary to

• replace the section Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Using this page with this link, which creates a new empty section, and
• moving the instructions page to MediaWiki:Editnotice-4-Administrators' noticeboard-Arbitration enforcement, which would cause it to be displayed as an edit notice every time the enforcement requests page is edited.

I'm sure much of this can be accomplished more elegantly with better wiki-magic than that which I know of. What do you think?  Sandstein  15:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC) reply

IMO, this is a nice initiative and possibly a serious improvement— but I think this needs to be approached as a best practice, not a requirement. I.e. encourage using the format because it simplifies handling and is more likely to lead to swift resolution, but don't reject requests out of hand simply because they do not fit the format. —  Coren  ^(talk) 18:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks! No objection to that, at least initially, as long as we make clear that reports not containing the essential information may not be acted upon.  Sandstein  20:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, support this, certainly after one of the template experts goes over it. It'd also be a good idea to use the template to separate acting admin comments from party comments ... something long overdue. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 13:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I would like a template, but am unsure about the instructions, as no one reads the manual.-- Tznkai ( talk) 22:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC) reply

OK, in view of the lack of opposition, I am implementing this to see whether it works. Tznkai, we're putting the instructions in an edit notice so that people will almost certainly at least see them.  Sandstein  13:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I want to make a request based on the behavior of three editors in the same article who have engaged in the same insults and edit warring, most recently on the same material, despite two of them already blocked, one for 3rr/editwarring and one for Wikipedia:ARBPIA (on another article), and warned repeatedly on this one. My question which might be clarified on front page for future reference: Should I do them all together or each as a separate request? Thanks CarolMooreDC ( talk) 15:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply

It will facilitate the management, discussion and evaluation of requests if you make one request per editor, because each person's conduct needs to be evaluated individually. But you should note in each requests that there are two other similar requests outstanding.  Sandstein  15:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Probably best to start with the (currently) worst and see if other's improve thereafter. In any case, some guidance in the article probably wouldn't hurt since under Wikipedia:ARBPIA) multiple editor problems may happen more often. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 21:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I would like to open a case to either enforce or extend the findings in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Occupation_of_Latvia to:

• Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II
• Baltic states and the Soviet Union

Both of which I split this morning from Occupation of the Baltic states. I attempted a Medcom earlier this week which was declined by one side of the debate, and which can be found here. This morning I split the article, an explanation of which can be found here. I think that all we need is an AE of the Latvian case to the articles I just mentioned here, but I'm uncertain if this should actually be opened as a request to extend the Latvian case to these pages. It involves largely the same group of editors arguing over the same general topic. Thanks. Hiberniantears ( talk) 19:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm guessing it would involve opening a request to extend the topic myself. I would like some input from one of the regulars of this page though. John Carter ( talk) 19:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Hibernian, if one looks at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Occupation_of_Latvia#Article_probation_2 it states "The article at the locus of this dispute is placed on probation. Any editor may be banned from it, or from other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, incivilty, and original research." The operative part here is "other reasonably related pages"; would a reasonable person think that Occupation of the Baltic states is related to Occupation of Latvia? I would say so, but will leave it with those clued into Arbcom decisions and the like. Russavia ^Dialogue 20:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• I edited this page for a few times. I believe that Hiberniantears unilaterally moved the article, without proper discussion, and then protected the redirect. He was involved in editing this article and submitted the failed mediation. It seems that more relevant ArbCom ruling is this. It tells: "Moved pages which have become irreversible by adding to the page history of the redirect page may be moved back without the necessity of a vote at Wikipedia:Requested moves." The ruling was not about administrative actions. However, the protection of a redirect without a preliminary discussion and consensus is basically the same thing. Such things are usually debated at AfD. The article should be moved back, protected for a while, and all problems debated. This is the best way to resolve the conflict, I believe. Biophys ( talk) 20:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• I believe the redirect in question is Occupation of the Baltic states, which was protected after the page was, admittedly brilliantly, turned into a redirect to itself here. I can see protecting pages from that sort of, well, vandalism, conscious or not, myself. John Carter ( talk) 20:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Vandalism?. I did not see any vandalism by any of the editors involved. Biophys ( talk) 12:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

A few facts not pointed out on this page:
(1) Hiberniantears unilaterally moved the article without consensus and then protected his own redirect, stating " I just used the mop somewhat against policy".
(2) One of the articles listed above that Hiberniantears created is titled " Baltic states and the Soviet Union" and purports to cover both countries after 1944 -- even though both existed since 1922, and the article on "Baltic States and the Soviet Union" would begin 4 years after the 1939-40 Soviet annexation of the Baltic States. A historical error of the title alone that is, frankly, embarrassing to Wikipedia just existing right now. Like having an article titled " World War II" that begins in 1943. If you think I'm kidding on the time frame, click on the article yourself.
(3) I don't think the above was done out of bad faith, as Hiberniantears stated" I'm in the same boat as you, as far as having detailed knowledge of the Baltic states is concerned. I jumped in without getting proper background...That they were considered occupied for the entire period of 1939-1991 is news to me"
(4) I was not involved in the Talk Page debate on the issue nor any arbitration on the matter, and just clicked on the page today to discover these rather odd moves.
(5) However, I was then shocked to see Hiberniantears make the following flatly false statement about me, falsely assuming bad faith: while Baltic states and the Soviet Union has been left relatively alone with the exception of receiving a bad faith AFD nomination." Obviously, as described above, that AfD was made in quite good faith -- the article purporting to start in 1944 titled "Baltic States and the Soviet Union" is about as historically inaccurate as one could get. Mosedschurte ( talk) 00:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

The above editor has repeatedly stated that he opposes the article because of its content. If I may be blunt, that may well be the lamest justification for any action here that I have encountered in a long time. Wikipedia policy indicating that, within reason, material can be added to an article has also been in place regarding this new article. However, rather than, well, actually doing anything positive about it, the above editor has been, and is still, complaining about the current composition of the article. The fact that the above editor has so quickly decided to not even consider trying to add to the content, but rather to delete it within hours of creation, and to repeatedly offer the same rather thin justifications for such deletion, is I believe quite possibly rather indicative that there may be other, unspoken, motivations involved. Also, as noted elsewhere, the article was already at 110kB, and any attempt to edit it produced the template that it might be beneficial to divide the article. Considering that the intention of the editor who divided was to add material to it, and he and I both still have that intention, and I believe that intention was implicit if not explicit in both his actions and my own, I am rather perplexed that the above editor has so frequently cited as his primary objection to the article something that, by definition, he would be in a position to change if he so desired. John Carter ( talk) 00:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

John, that's just inaccurate. The article itself purports to be from 1944 onward, though it's (humorously) titled "Baltic states and the Soviet Union" (I won't repeat the silliness there -- it's rather obvious). There is already an article titled Occupation of the Baltic States

Re: "The above editor has repeatedly stated that he opposes the article because of its content. If I may be blunt, that may well be the lamest justification for any action here that I have encountered in a long time."

Wow, there's a whopper. It's the scope, not the content (though that obviously has issues as well). This was explained at length above. Mosedschurte ( talk) 00:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

You, um, do know you could have proposed that the content you objected to be changed, right? And that it is reasonable to expect that there be flaws in an article within hours of creation? The fact that you have taken, so far as I can see, absolutely no action to even ask to have the minimal content you object to changed is, disturbing. I have already made similar statements before at the AfD, and except for some of the parties who have turned down the Mediation, I don't think anyone else considers the proposed deletion even rational. Evidently, you find it preferable to just delete whole articles rather than to make a small adjustment in them, or even ask someone to make that small adjustment? Um, just out of curiosity, you have added or changed content in existing articles before, right? John Carter ( talk) 00:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

(edit conflict) Editor John Carter is using words such as "lamest" with no understanding of the historical circumstances. The article was divided in a manner which enforces the view that occupation may have occurred during WWII but that arbitrarily after the end of WWII (although the SSRs were formed in 1940) opinion differs. (It does not at that point, according to the Soviet/Russian position, the Baltic states were never occupied.) A stable article has been devolved into a travesty where Dojraca (who has POV pushing for years) and more newly arrived to the fray Russavia can now finally edit to their heart's content that opinions take sway over facts and any POVs may be represented as equally valid regardless of facts. I regret editor John Carter's role in this as well as admin's Hiberniantears'. PetersV       TALK 00:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

And the above comment seems to ignore the possibility that any objections to content can be changed, if they are discussed. I am still curious why the article was proposed for deletion before the possibility of altering the article's scope was apparently even suggested. John Carter ( talk) 00:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Re: "I am still curious why the article was proposed for deletion before the possibility of altering the article's scope was apparently even suggested. "

--I will assume that this comment is serious. The article Baltic states and the Soviet Union was just a copy and paste of ONLY POST-1944 material from Occupation of the Baltic States. It was concurrent with a deletion of all material from Occupation of the Baltic States and a renaming of that article to Occupation of the Baltic States during World War II.

--As it stands now, Baltic states and the Soviet Union is entirely duplicative of the Occupation of the Baltic States during World War II. Even if the latter article is cut to the 1939-1944 scope, Baltic states and the Soviet Union would still be historically inaccurate beginning in 1944. It's that simple. Mosedschurte ( talk) 00:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, because the article is locked, after another editor decided that he couldn't stand the possibility of the article being split and copied all the content that had been separated out back in. That was not the case earlier, and, although I'm not sure, I don't think it was necessarily the case when you nominated it for deletion. And the question was a serious one. I regret to say that the answer seemingly may not have been, because it is repeating the same old, tired, claims. What do you expect in the first few hours? The above editor seems to think that a person doing any such article separation is, by dint of that, obliged to instantly add content. I have seen several articles split up and not have any new content added to the "separated" article for days or months. Yet, somehow, the above editor seems to think that content must be added instantly upon splitting. I still ask why you seem to not be able to grasp the idea that you could have made changes to it yourself, like maybe adding material or changing offending passages. You have, so far as I can tell, pointedly refused to answer why you did not propose to change the offending language, or even change it yourself, rather than nominate for deletion. I am curious why not. John Carter ( talk) 01:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

The objection is to the completely inaccurate split and arbitrary (and unsupported by both Soviet and non-Soviet "POVs") that "occupation" ended with WWII. Soviet POV = no occupation ever as the SSRs were founded in 1940. Historically supported so-called and derided as nationalist "POV" is occupation started in 1940 and ended when sovereignty was restored to Baltic territory. So, as mentioned above, unilateral action unsupported by consensus has resulted in a time boundary split and content duplication which are nonsensical. One cannot improve what does not make historical sense in the first place. PetersV       TALK 00:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

And did it ever occur to anyone to change the offending phrasing, as editors generally do, or perhaps discuss changing it? It is generally the case that newly split articles are repetitive of each other. In some cases, there are still whole sections of some religion articles which are word for word identical in two separate articles. That's generally where WP:SOFIXIT is invoked. I wonder why no one ever seems to have thought of that. John Carter ( talk) 01:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

In that case WP:FIXIT would be:

1. "Occupation of the Baltic states" = events, Soviet occupation 1940 through restoration of Baltic sovereignty (continuous) on Baltic soil (sans the World War II stuff in the title), and
2. "The Baltic States and the Soviet Union" reviews the relationship: treaties, etc. from inception through dissolution of the USSR (inception actually starting with Bolshevist Russia)

So, could I and other editors work on that in peace without misrepresentations and endless fact-free attacks from Dojarca, Russavia, and comments from the historically uninformed (sorry) Greek chorus? You helped make this mess and were glad to pass judgement on words in titles and articles based on your feelings, now you want the debased nationalists to assist getting "us" out of the mess. That's rich. My proposal stands. PetersV       TALK 01:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Hiberniantears, with assistance of John Carter, has in the matter of a couple of days undone the delicate consensus achieved over years and months of hard work, taking onboard the Russian nationalist polemic of one single user Dojarca, while disregarding the published sources on the matter or arguments of quite a number of users. After the mediation and ArbCom case of 2007, the article Occupation of Baltic states was extensively rewritten and restructured in late 2007 to include the Russian and Soviet viewpoints, in which Dojarca himself contributed extensively back then. Since 2007, the article has been stable through 2008 until just a couple of days ago when Hiberniantears, admitting " I'm in the same boat as you, as far as having detailed knowledge of the Baltic states is concerned. I jumped in without getting proper background...That they were considered occupied for the entire period of 1939-1991 is news to me", unilaterally decided to intervene in a content dispute that hadn't existed since 2007 and butcher a stable article into a number of articles without discussion let alone consensus, then abused his admin tools to entrench his POV on article structure and title by page protecting it. Hiberniantears involvement has been easily the singularly most disruptive event since 2007. Martintg ( talk) 01:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Re: "In that case WP:FIXIT would be: (1) "Occupation of the Baltic states" = events, Soviet occupation 1940 through restoration of Baltic sovereignty (continuous) on Baltic soil (sans the World War II stuff in the title), and (2) "The Baltic States and the Soviet Union" reviews the relationship: treaties, etc. from inception through dissolution of the USSR (inception actually starting with Bolshevist Russia)" (PetersV)

--Done on #2 for Baltic states and the Soviet Union.

--After the protection is lifted on Occupation of the Baltic states (and the unilateral title change reverted), we can summarize the pre-1939 material in Occupation of the Baltic states in a background section, include a see tag to Baltic states and the Soviet Union and delete any such non-summary material duping the pre-1939 Baltic states and the Soviet Union material. This will also substantially reduce the size of Occupation of the Baltic states, though its prose text of 7,214 words is already well under the 10,000 prose text guideline, and well under the length of many FAC articles anyway. Mosedschurte ( talk) 03:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Agreed...

• Pre-1939 (pre-"mutual assistance" pacts) should go to BS&SU.
• The recognition/non-recognition section should be in the SSRs articles, unfortunately there's not a "Baltic Soviet Socialist Republics" article at this point and replicating is not the best solution. Perhaps that can be made into a "List of" list article which can then be simply referenced. (It's also plopped right in the middle of narrative.)
• The occupation article drops the "during WWII" and returns to intended content. As I've mentioned elsewhere it's a nonsensical time boundary split both in terms of historical accuracy and even Soviet propaganda (which maintains never occupied except by Nazi Germany). PetersV       TALK 05:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

If there is to be a split, a reasonable splitpoint is around Stalin's death in 1953. End of WWII is unnecessary vague: it may refer to 1945 but several commentators have said that for Baltics, the WWII ended around 1990.

But we shouldn't be discussing article structure here; that's what the normal editorial procedures are for. Is it very disappointing that reckless actions by Hiberniantears have led to breakdown of the normal procedures, forcing content discussion in this, not very suitable, venue. Διγουρεν _{Εμπρος!} 06:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Continuing mine above but also responding to Digwuren, similar to current relations articles, if it continues to exist, Baltic states and the Soviet Union should likely be more focused and renamed to Baltic-Soviet relations. PetersV       TALK 14:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Thanks for the personal attack on myself Vecrumba. Now for my response. FACTS. FACTS. FACTS. FACTS. As I have said at Talk:Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states_during_World_War_II#Discrepancy_in_lead, if people want to argue historical facts, WP:PROVEIT and give me a list of all 200 countries and where they stood on this issue. Be sure to include countries such as Haiti, Nepal, Oman, Malawi, etc, etc. I came to this article to discuss a discrepancy in the lead, and to point out that the western world does not equal the world, and I have seen nothing but WP:GAME from numerous editors, including yourself, in order to keep info out of the article that you don't like to see. As I have an article under development in my userspace which devotes an entire sentence to this issue, I will be damned if I am going to have editors such as those on that article, coming to that article and edit warring over that point. What I included was attributed who said what, and it's actually very logical, but what I have seen in the ONE edit I have made on the article is absolutely disgusting, and I can see why that Arbcom should now extend to this article. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 14:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Dear Russavia. It is not a popularity contest. It is what are the historical facts. Show me the basis for the Russian Duma declaration that Latvia joined legally under international law, therefore no occupation. Were there no treaties, no documents, no declarations, no reputably verifiable historical facts, we would ONLY THEN by necessity be forced to consider this merely a popularity contest. However, all those treaties et al. and historical fact exist. Furthermore, as the Russian Duma HAS SPECIFICALLY DECLARED THE JOINING LEGAL and therefore not an occupation, that is the only fact that counts here--as the Russian Duma agrees that occupation or not is based on historical fact and is not a mere popularity contest.

   Your list is interesting but irrelevant. Your attempts to paint that list as the only relevant FACTS FACTS FACTS illustrates the complete absence of any support for the official Russian position. There is only one fact required to postulate no occupation, and, per the declaration of the Russian Duma, it is the PROOF that Latvia (et al.) joined the USSR legally according to international law. I'm sorry this simple truth disgusts you. There is no discrepancy, this article was never about a popularity contest. And stop protesting you merely came to address a discrepancy, quoting Whitlam as if he were fact. Not to mention messages you have left on user talk pages calling my editorial integrity into question. Put the personal attack gun away and stop playing the wounded innocent. It's me you're attacking, and behind my back. PetersV       TALK 14:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Mr Dear Vecrumba, you are missing the entire point. The article states "the majority of countries did not recognise"....given other sources, I said WP:PROVEIT. You refuse to prove it, instead choosing to go off on some irrelevant rant about this and that. This is exactly what is wrong, people refuse to read what is written, instead responding in a fashion which is indicative from their reactions at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_7#Template:Notpropaganda and other venues. You keep going on about historical facts. PROVE IT. Otherwise, your rants have to be taken for what they are....editorial rants...and nothing more than that. Russavia ^Dialogue 15:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

This is totally irrelevant to the issue being discussed here, take it to the article talk page. You have an apparent tactic of bringing in unrelated issues such as opinions expressed at TfD, etc, to muddies the water. Martintg ( talk) 21:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I regret Russavia's derisiveness calling requests to deal with facts as "rants." See article talk for source indicating "majority." PetersV       TALK 23:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

To the question at hand

I would like to open a case to either enforce or extend the findings in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Occupation_of_Latvia to:

• Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II
• Baltic states and the Soviet Union

This request has been necessitated as a direct result of the subsequently described unilateral non-consensus actions taken by the very editor requesting enforcement, those actions being uninformed and unwarranted and based on a complete absence of familiarity with the topic. Now said editor is seeking to punish editors who react to that provocation? Perhaps the editor will apply sanctions to themselves first. Better to withdraw this request. There are already past rulings which have been used and applied across the Baltic/Eastern European article arena regarding disruptive editing. This request is quite redundant. PetersV       TALK 23:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• My suggestion is to relist this as an arbitration enforcement of AndriyK case (see my comment above). In addition, the article has been unilaterally deleted. Some claim that it was not. Well, this is like to move Oranges to apples, protect redirect in "oranges" and claim that article has not been deleted. Biophys ( talk) 00:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Only the Arbitration Committee itself may extend remedy 2 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia#Remedies to another article. You may petition it to do so at WP:RFAR, not here at WP:AE. But the articles at issue seem to be also within the scope of the newer decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions. It is probably easier to make an enforcement request related to that case, if you think it is necessary. (I have no opinion about that.)  Sandstein  14:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply

It is essentially a case where an article is being goal tended by one group of editors who have some serious WP:OWN issues. However, there also doesn't seem to be any interested third party editors who can help strike a balance as the only other editors previously involved tend to display some equally serious Russian nationalist views. Personally, I gave up after it became clear that there aren't any middle ground editors, and that the entire discussion was little more than a shouting match aimed at running down the clock. Just another area of the Wiki poisoned by the plague. Since neither the Russians or the Baltic editors are willing to collaborate, or even mediate, and since there does not exist any group of middle ground editors willing to spend long term energies on this and related articles, I don't see any point in running this further through ArbCom. So long as the individuals involved can't view the issues in anything other than black & white, no progress will be made. Hiberniantears ( talk) 14:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply

There is one thing you have gotten wrong, there are middle ground editors available, just make it possible for them to exist in this quite narrow field. ^Talk/ ♥фĩłдωəß♥\ ^Work 18:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply

♥фĩłдωəß♥ makes a very good point. Few reasonable people enjoy editing between a rock and a hard place. Hiberniantears ( talk) 18:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Hiberniantears has mistaken a content dispute born of the contention that Baltic/Western/non-Russian "POV" regarding "occupation" must also be balanced by the Soviet/Russian "POV" regarding "non-occupation" for:

• a genuine lack of balance in portrayal of position, that is not so, the evolution of the Soviet/Russian positions is represented fairly and accurately
• a genuine lack of balance of content, that is not so, historical facts are represented fairly and accurately; that they support the Baltic so-called POV and do not support the Soviet/Russian so-called POV is not an issue for WP to resolve by disregarding that one position has facts behind it (occupation) and the other position only has empty contentions (non-occupation), again, fully represented in the article before Hiberniantears' arrival.

Splitting the article as Hiberniantears did, that is to the end of WWII and after, completely missed the point, as the Soviet/Russian position is that the Baltics were NEVER occupied from day one, and the Baltic/Western/everyone else position is that the Baltics WERE occupied from day one, by the Soviets, then Nazis, then re-occupied by the Soviets. That split was done under Hiberniantears' misconceptions and statements along the lines of no one really disputes that thee Baltics were occupied during WWII, but at some point of years, etc., once can't just keep saying some territory is occupied, etc., etc.

   I admire Hiberniantears' Quixotic quest for a "middle ground". As they have found out, there is no middle ground on this issue. "Occupation" is built on historical facts and scholarly sources including regarding international law having NOTHING to do with the so-called Baltic POV. The Soviet/Russian contention of "non-occupation" is built on fabrication and emptiness.

   Where Soviet actions are concerned, the NPOV manner to represent history is historical facts and reputable scholarly analysis. That the Baltic POV agrees with that analysis is a plus for that POV--that does not make the scholarly conclusion of "occupation" POV just because the Baltics believe it. That the Soviet/Russian POV does not agree with historical facts and reputable scholarly analysis is, frankly, no surprise--and so I continue to be perplexed at what "balance" it is that Hiberniantears was attempting to achieve that was not already present in the original article.

   So, just to review and close the loop:

• "goal tended by one group of editors who have some serious WP:OWN issues"
  • I have invited non-occupation proponents to provide the factual basis for the Russian Duma proclamation that Latvia joined the USSR legally according to international law (which obviously makes it not an occupation); that invitation is at least two years old now; when there is any scholarly evidence supporting non-occupation, I am more than glad to add more pro-Soviet material for balance; asking for ANY PROOF WHATSOEVER and not representing the pro-Soviet POV as equally valid IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROOF WHATSOEVER is not "goal-tending", it is simple editorial integrity; that such integrity or lack thereof is aligned according to certain national groups is, frankly, not my problem nor is it WP's problem to solve
• "doesn't seem to be any interested third party editors who can help strike a balance as the only other editors previously involved tend to display some equally serious Russian nationalist views"
  • At least the light bulb is half on; the ONLY EDITORS SEEKING TO STRIKE A BALANCE are those who seek to represent the pro-Soviet POV as having substance in fact--again, those facts never having been produced despite years of requests
• "the entire discussion was little more than a shouting match aimed at running down the clock"
  • Yes, this has been a war of attrition FOR YEARS, many good Baltic and Eastern European editors have left WP tiring of the constant withering attacks of pro-Soviet editors and the naive prejudices of editors such as Hiberniantears', that "nationalist" must by definition be "POV pushing"
• "Just another area of the Wiki poisoned by the plague"
  • No, an area being defended from the pro-Soviet "plague", having to do with facts, not "goal-tending"
• "Since neither the Russians or the Baltic editors are willing to collaborate, or even mediate"
  • As I explained, my personal unwillingness to mediate was based on the simply fact that everything that could be said has been said, and there was no point to repeating it.
• "since there does not exist any group of middle ground editors willing to spend long term energies on this and related articles"
  • I invite any informed editors to participate. My talk page is always open. My advice for anyone unfamiliar with the Baltics is to read a number of scholarly sources first prior to contributing. Just browsing the internet or listening to the reasonably-sounding contentions of editors pushing POVs will not result in informed contributions. For example, before involving myself in editing on Transnistria, I bought and completely read several books which were the "essential reading" for anyone interested in Moldova. And only then did I even comment on articles. Hiberniantears' frustration is the product of their being duped by Dojarca that there is a genuine lack of balance, that an article is being "goal-tended" (still contended) by anti-Russian ad nauseum editors, and so on--and running into the immovable wall not of stonewalling Baltic editors, but a wall of simple historical fact.

   My only hope for this sorry affair is that Hiberniantears reflects on this all and realizes at some point that I am not Wikilawyering and apologizes for impuning my integrity as he has elsewhere. PetersV       TALK 17:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Lastly to: "So long as the individuals involved can't view the issues in anything other than black & white, no progress will be made."

   This illustrates Hiberniantears' fatal buy-in into "no position is the truth" means the Baltic and Soviet POV portrayal requires more "balance". The proper solution is not to pretend there is factual basis for the pro-Soviet version (fabrication) of history, that there is any necessity for an artificial and unsupported construct creating the perceived missing "balance." Or that there is any genuine gray area. The editorially thoughtful and responsible article--the striven-for "middle ground"--is the examination of the role of Soviet propaganda in Russian collective memory and as reflected in the policies and proclamations of the current Russian administration. That extends far beyond portrayals of the occupation of the Baltic States. PetersV       TALK 18:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Updated 19:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply

See what I mean? Hiberniantears ( talk) 18:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Your response proves my point. Hopefully someday you will see what I mean. PetersV       TALK 18:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Peteris, I think it has escaped your attention, that Hiberniantears is a declared Rouge admin. ^Talk/ ♥фĩłдωəß♥\ ^Work 20:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply

P.S. In case someone misses my edit summary, I agree with Hiberniantears that there is no purpose in running this further through ArbCom, albeit we have arrived at that conclusion by radically different paths. PetersV       TALK 18:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply