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.
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue
Sustained edit warring, unilateral deletions of whole articles and materials this user does not like, no matter how well the materials are sourced. The materials are on Russian/EE subjects.
1: This article was created by Biophys by cutpasting material from an old version of Web brigades (a version he had reverted many times to; many people had edited and improved the article after that version.) I don't think such behaviour is acceptable and to me it was a clear POV fork.
2-3: Same story. Biophys created the articles by cutpasting material from an earlier version of Russian apartment bombings. Also clearly a POV fork.
That I said, I think doing edits 1-3 was clearly a mistake on my part. I should have been more patient and used speedy deletion or AfD instead. 1-3 are months-old now, and I won't be doing similar things in the future, now that I have more experience and more knowledge of the Wikipedia policies.
4: the first one is a deletion of a link farm per WP:EL, I don't see anything wrong about that. The second one is a content issue, as explained on the edit summary.
5: is again a content issue, discussed on the talk page and edit warred over by all sides. Both me and Biophys were blocked for this later.
6-7: are link farm cleanup. According to WP:EL, "long lists of links are not acceptable." If they are useful at all, the links should be used as sources instead. About the last one with the "offensive edit summary": as stated in the edit summary, I had already explained my argumentation on the talk page, yet Biophys kept insisting that I had not.
8-10: are again link farm cleanup. I really don't know what this has to do with WP:DIGWUREN sanctions. I know that there are many other users who agree with me that EL sections should be kept at minimum, links that are useful should be used as sources instead and not as ELs; the selection of links should be balanced and justification for every link should be given if requested (this was not done by Biophys.)
11: is a content issue, discussed thoroughly on the talk page.
13: this "warning" is cherry-picked. Please also read the follow-up by Connolley (he agreed with my report and blocked Martintg for edit warring after made it more clear why 3RR was broken.)[5]
I admit that 1-3 were impatient solutions and that they were wrong. 5 was also stupid (although many other users agreed with me that the section does not belong in the article) and I was already punished for it by User:Nakon. The others are simple content issues and link farm cleanups, and I don't see anything wrong with them. Offliner (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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 ДигвуровичАллё? 15:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Response. Here is the problem. Offliner does not want to follow WP policies.
It was explained to him that he should nominate an article for deletion or to mark it for merging discussion if he thinks the article is a content fork. But he countinued unilateral deletions of articles when his suggestions to move or rename the articles were not supported like here and here
He simply does not want to seriously discuss merging/deletion at article talk pages, for example here, here, and here and continue his unilateral deletions. On other issues, I asked if he needs direct citation; he did not reply [7] and simply continued his removal of links and reverts.
The instruction about WP links tells which links should be included and which links should be avoided [8]. However, he simply removed everything. That was explained to Offliner by Alex_Bakahrev and me many times but Offliner ignored explanations and continued doing the same, without replying at the talk pages: [9], [10], [11], [12].
Offliner is fully aware of Digwuren case sanctions, as he reported Digwuren to ANI [13]
Biophys (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: I find it strange that all the diffs in the evidence section are more than a month old, this for an editor who made 500 edits only between May 29 and June 18. The actions taken by the community shouldn't be punitive, but preventive... what's to prevent when all Offliner's supposed breaches of the arbitration decision date before May 10 (save one from May 28, which look likes a simple content dispute), considering that Offliner is a heavy contributor to Wikipedia. Also, some of the articles concerned are mind-blowing, and their editorial content seems strongly against Wikipedia policies ( Evidence of FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings ??? , what's next Evidence that the US didn't land on the Moon? ; in Russian influence operations in Estonia a comment from a secret service report was transformed in a full-fledged article, even with the utterlack of such topic in the scholar (and non-scholar) media; Internet operations by Russian secret police, while a reasonable topic, includes such ludicrous sections as details about a contact phone number placed on the website of a Russian intelligence agency). As for the supposed assumption of bad faith, it seems merely a statement about a state of fact. The ArbCom recently acknowledged that blocs of editors do exist, and the AfD of two of the concerned articles ( here and here) suggest that there are two blocs of editors in this topic (one which favors articles with allegations about supposed negative actions by Russia, and one which disfavours them), with minimal external involvement. Considering these, a topic ban at the current time could only show disapproval of Offliner's editorial opinions, without making Wikipedia better, just making it more prone to systemic bias. Anonimu (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment In accord with what Anonimu said earlier, in order to have an unbiased review of this case, you have to discard with prejudice all the endorse votes from the bloc of editors (Biophys, Digwuren, Colchicum, Elysander, to name a few) who have systemically harassed Offliner for quite a while. You can also safely discard all the votes from the opposite bloc (Russavia, HistoricWarrior to name a few). The case may have wide implications in the future (see also the AE report against Biophys below) and it is actually a part of the bigger picture, a battle on Wikipedia raged over the Eastern Europe's pre and post- Soviet history. (Igny (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Comment - I agree with Anonimu and Igny. Having closely observed Offliner's conduct over the past month, it's obvious that he has not engaged in any "unilateral deletions" (which were supported as removals POV forks by other users, anyway) since at least the date given by Anonimu. Hence, one has no ground to bring this here at all regarding remedying things through preventive sanctions. Otherwise, venues such as WP:AE descend into methods of blocking legitimate content opponents without due cause, as from all indications appears to be the rationale here. This is backwards justice. At the same time, User:Biophys seems to have recently arrived at a spurt of interest in blocking an opponent...Offliner...Beatle Fab Four...well, pick any one you like. What this smacks of is an instance of such blockshopping (every one of his opponents has even been accused of being a sockpuppet at some point) against an editor after a prolonged attempt to bait an opposing party with numerous content forks. PasswordUsername (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Between the fact that many of these diffs are aged (some even more than a month) and the case is greatly over stated (i.e. "unilaterally deleted" when the edit was actually turning a fork into a redirect) I don't see anything here in need of sanction. Offliner has already indicated that s/he recognizes that some decisions were made too quickly and served a block for the edit warring. As a side note, if I were to hand out sanctions here, I'd be very tempted to restrict the reporting party for combative behavior/edit warring as well. Shellbabelfish 03:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This request is clear WP:BATTLE behavior. I agree with Shell that the filing party, and I'd add Digwuren as co-agitator, should be sanctioned for bringing it here. . JehochmanTalk 14:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, but I had no idea that filing a legitimate request to an appropriate noticeboard (whatever it is: BLP, ANI, or AE) can be punished by editing restrictions. I can be wrong, but I made this request in a good faith (as also explained in my response to Offliner below). If Sandstein tells me: "please do not file AE reports any more without consulting with me", I would gladly follow such advice.Biophys (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this is not enough, you can ban me from AE pages. Sorry, but I thought my report was appropriate because Offliner systematically removed sourced content and good links from numerous WP articles, and he systematically refused to discuss the matter (I thought that was clear from the diffs I provided above in the evidence and discussion sections). Biophys (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oddly Jehochman sees WP:BATTLE behavior in Biophys, but not in Offliner, yet the evidence is quite clear that Offliner has been relentlessly shopping across multiple boards and admin talk pages since May. In regard to "unilaterally deletions", well of course it is not a real deletion, only admins can do that, but turning an article into a redirect effectively removes the content article from the view of the reader. Afterall, one of the outcomes of an AfD is to redirect. --Martintg (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Result concerning Offliner (only uninvolved admins should comment here)[edit]
No action. This is an unpersuasive request, and I am frankly put off by its many deficiencies:
At least one of the diffs cited as evidence, [14], is not by Offliner at all. The other diffs described as "personal attacks" are, in fact, not personal attacks (even should what they assert be wrong), because they address a user's on-wiki conduct in a mostly reasonably polite tone.
The diffs described as "unilateral deletions" , such as [15], are in fact redirections, not deletions. Only administrators can delete pages.
"Removal of sourced text" is not by itself sanctionable conduct; there can be many good reasons for removing sourced text. The request should explain what policy or generally accepted norm of conduct such a removal violates, and how. The same goes for "deletion of good links"; there are many reason per WP:EL to delete external links. The request should not only explain why the removal of links objected to violates that guideline (on such issues reasonable people can often disagree about), but also why this amounts to sanctionable conduct.
A request accusing an editor of "sustained edit warring" can reasonably be expected to include, as evidence, a chronological sequence of edits demonstrating the edit warring. No such evidence is submitted here.
Many diffs are months old, with no comment on what bearing they might have on the current need for sanctions.
The request is therefore not ripe for review. This is not meant to excuse or endorse any misconduct on the part of Offliner that may have occurred (there are, indeed, several indications in the evidence that it may have), but any such misconduct would have to be demonstrated much more persuasively.
I am more inclined than Shell and Jehochman to assume good faith on the part of Biophys, but I agree that he should in the future be more careful in raising any well-founded concerns he might have, or I would indeed not rule out sanctions for battleground mentality. Arbitration enforcement requests, like requests for arbitration, should not be made lightly. The same applies, incidentally, to most of the editors participating in these current Eastern Europe AE threads. Sandstein 16:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sandstein, I ask you to modify your close and topic ban Biophys from editing all EE pages and disputes, including WP:AE, for some reasonable period of time. I had previously warned him at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive37#Discretionary_sanctions_requested not to use WP:AE for playing games. The current thread consists of frivolous complaints. Assuming good faith is fine, but not when an editor has been directly warned and gone back and done the same thing again. JehochmanTalk 15:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jehochman, I assume you are an uninvolved administrator for WP:DIGWUREN purposes? In that case, I do not think that it is necessary for me to modify my closure: the remedy authorizes you to issue any discretionary sanctions that you deem necessary on your own authority, with no need for my approval. Or am I wrong? I'd appreciate it if you'd restore my archiving of this thread and open a new one if you think the issue of sanctions for frivolous complaints requires further discussion. But perhaps you should wait with any action until the request for arbitration that you recently initiated resolves. (Involved editors, please do not comment here, we've had enough drama, thank you.) Sandstein 15:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reason I am still a sysop is that I do not take actions that I know other administrators object to. It is better to keep the thread open and see if a consensus for action emerges. I am not keen to replace your opinion that no action is required with my opinion that some action is required. We need more administrators to comment before anything can be decided. JehochmanTalk 01:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am closing this request on the theory of unclean hands. The filing party has made a number of errors (or worse, been playing games with WP:AE). There is a thread open below about the filing party. We can decide what to do about their behavior at that thread. JehochmanTalk 20:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)Reply[reply]
P.S. The ultimite question here is not about "edit-warring", "disruptive editing" and all these sacral curses, but about CONTENT. My strong view is that this team (Colchicum, Biophis, Digwuren, etc.) often tries to push falsified information, not supported by solid sources. A perfect example here is the story with the Soviet War Memorial in Treptower Park (Berlin). (See, e.g. Alex Bakharev's note warning Biophys [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)Reply[reply]
A review of Beatle Fab Four's contributions shows that an overwhelming majority of their edits are reverts in Eastern European related articles. The few times the editor engaged in discussion they were frequently incivil and attacked other editors.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
2. More edit warring at Web brigades. Massive reverts to an old version. Observe the persistent restoring the section on poland ("Russian "Internet brigades" reportedly appeared..."), etc.
7. More edit warring at Alexander Litvinenko, including massive reverts to an old version. Observe, for example, removal of chapter "allegations" and material from it, e.g."zyberk".
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue
It should be easy to see from the diffs that Biophys has been persistently edit warring, and that this is a bad case of article ownership. Biophys is often reverting to a months-old version, undoing a large number of edits done by different editors in the process.
Some of the diffs (web brigades) are dated 2008. All others are two months old.
1. and 2. (web brigades). I inserted sourced text deleted by Russavia and Offliner. My edits are fully explained at article talk page.
3.(Internet operations). This is a different and a wider scope article. Please compare current versions of these articles. They are completely different.
4 and 5. (the Bombings) This is a content dispute (see talk page of the article). I can explain all details if asked. One of key points: Offliner inserts a conspiracy theory about non-existing "Liberation army of Dagestan". It is true that Offliner and me were blocked for editing this article. Since then I did not edit it.
6. I removed some consipracy theories about Litvinenko. That was a content fork to article Alexander Litvinenko assassination theories. I created latter article to remove dubious materials from main article. They were reinserted back by certain POV-pushers.
7. I created a compromise version of article Alexander Litvinenko as explained at this article talk page. Everything was reverted back by Russavia and Offliner. They reverted me right in the process of editing. I tried to use "Inuse" template, but I was told that they will always revert me right in the process of edit: [64]
As about my future plans, I am going to edit much less on controversial Russian subjects - this is simply impossible anyway with the group of Russian editors who enforce their POV by reverts and complaints (see below). I will also try to stick to 1RR.
Yes, I asked an advice from Colchicum being unsure about reporting this. Finally, I decided to report, mostly to let everyone know about the persisting problems in the "Russian sector". I am not sure if something can be done about this, but it is better to go public and perhaps receive an appropriate advice.Biophys (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
(In response to now deleted comments about coordination by Biophys) The coordination here seems to involve members of your party. Continuously recoursing to use of the victim card on this note is getting very old, I really think. PasswordUsername (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where did I play a victim? There is no any "Party". I do not like Parties after living under the Communist Party. I also do not work for Berezovsky as Offliner suggested (see last of my diffs in request about him).Biophys (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Party" is just another way of saying "group." That's where the political sense of the word comes from - OK? PasswordUsername (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow. That was fast. Weren't black books found problematic in an earlier ArbCom ? Дигвурен ДигвуровичАллё? 17:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aren't you assuming bad faith? If you have any evidence of such "black book" you should present it. As for the evidence presented, it has the some problem as Biophys' above: if the last occurrence of problematic behaviour is weeks old, why was the behaviour brought to administrator scrutiny only now? I understand bringing old evidence when problematic behaviour escalate. But why do it when there's no recent disruption of Wikipedia? Content disputed are not solved by trying to get rid of the other side.Anonimu (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The last diff is from 8 June. The behaviour described in the diffs has been going on for a long time; there is no indication that he stopped for good 10 days ago. There have been other breaks, but afterwards the edit warring has presumed. I only want the admins to examine the diffs and take whatever action they think is best. Offliner (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please also read the follow-up by Connolley: [66]. He accepted the report and blocked User:Martintg after I provided more evidence. Offliner (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Biophys has a strong POV and he relentlessly removes sourced material from articles that does not conform to it, as always, substitutitng frivolous edit summaries, hijacking Wikipedia to be used as a WP:SOAPBOX for his own views. The inanity of his edit summaries whenever Biophys removes sourced data is such that it can serve no purpose other than to exhaust the patience of Biophys' content opponents:
[67] - Biophys deletes sourced content by historian Arno Mayer.
[68] - Biophys deletes sourced content by Mayer without providing any reason again, asking to "discuss" on talk page. He does not justify this on Talk page himself.
[69][70] Biophys twice reinserts inaccurate information which is dismissed at talk as not connected to the content of the article – without even bothering to look at the Talk page. When Beatle Fab Four reverts asking him to see talk, Biophys tries to canvass for a block of Beatle Fab Four at User talk:Colchicum. Administrator Alex Bakharevtells Biophys to stop antics like that, as he did not even bother to consult the talk page.
[71] - Biophys removes sourced material about the politics of controversial Russian opposition leader Kasparov, claiming "undue weight for biography of a world chess champion."
[72] - Biophys reverts "per talk" without adding anything to the talk page after three others engage in a heated discussion.
[73] Biophys insists on retaining one sentence of nonsense removed in good faith by an IP.
I explained and debated these edits at article talk pages, and I can explain each specific situation if asked.Biophys (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment, WP:AE shouldn't be used as a means for getting the upper hand in content disputes, as appears to be the case here. Biophys attempts to provide a neutral viewpoint (via published sources) that contradicts the particular viewpoint (which could be described by some as pro-Kremlin) promoted by those calling for his sanction here, and thus he is a valuable and honest contributor who attempts to balance the efforts of Team Offliner in injecting their POV into Wikipedia. --Martintg (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment fixed: You are right, WP:AE shouldn't be used as a means for getting the upper hand in content disputes, as appears to be the case here. Offliner attempts to provide a neutral viewpoint (via published sources) that contradicts the particular viewpoint (which could be described by some as anti-Kremlin) promoted by those calling for his sanction here, and thus he is a valuable and honest contributor who attempts to balance the efforts of Team Biophys in injecting their POV into Wikipedia.
That is precisely why I am asking to strike out opinions of the anti-Offliner bloc here. (Igny (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
But not strike the opinions of the anti-Biophys bloc, evidently. --Martintg (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See my comment above, but I will repeat again just to make myself clear. Nothing of value, and certainly not impartiality, would be lost if opinions of both of the blocs are discarded in the review of these cases. (Igny (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Comment This constitutes continued accusations of bad faith by PasswordUsername using accusations they themselves lodged as some sort of "evidence." For example:
(In response to now deleted comments about coordination by Biophys) The coordination here seems to involve members of your party. Continuously recoursing to use of the victim card on this note is getting very old, I really think. PasswordUsername (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The entire section on And more of the same traveling circus of which the above is part, was a massive demonstration of bad faith by PasswordUsername attempting to enlist an unsuspecting admin in support of their attack against a number of editors they count as their editorial opposition. If you can't attack the content, attack the editor. This in fact succeeded, as at one point Hiberniantears even accused me outright of being a single purpose account, a contention they later retracted based on the facts. This behavior is little more than well-orchestrated back-stabbing. PetersVTALK 03:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PetersV, I'm not now accusing you of any coordinated editing, although as pointed out above, even ArbCom recognizes that blocs of editors exist. My response here was only to Biophys' original accusations (which he removed, as opposed to stricken out as customary). These were the very confused [75] (alleging that I filed Offliner's report for him - whereas I only added more diffs) and this next one [76] (also deleted - there, Biophys is alleging a "high degree of coordination" among a number of users, including myself). Now, I am not pressing any charges on this, but given the original context, it's only fair to respond noting that I am relatively new here as a registered user, whereas Biophys and a number of others (including yourself) have been "collaboratively editing" years before I first managed to even step here, which you all admit. (As for myself, in fact, my first encounter with the bunch occured on May 10, following which both Biophys and Digwuren came to accuse me of being a sockpuppet of Anonimu...) This isn't a bad faith edit – this is calling a spade a spade on hypocrisy-of-victimhood. Incidentally, Biophys should probably not pretend that he reverted his Talk page to "an older version of anyone who wants to review it" if he cherry-picks the incidents (he's ommitted a number of recent things he appears to find unhelpful.)PasswordUsername (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is a fact that Offliner has been involved in endless block shopping:
Can somebody put an end to this. --Martintg (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ugh. Clearly I should have looked down before commenting on the report above. Perhaps both Biophys and Offliner should be placed under a topic ban- this looks a lot like battleground mentality. Shellbabelfish 03:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps we should examine both edits one by one, and distinguish violations clearly? After all, there is a precedent in the extremely recent Shotlandiyacase, where this was done, leading to a topic ban against Shotlandiya despite opposition from multiple editors to the effect that the opposite warring party had been just as bad. Moreover, from the way I see it, preventive sanctions would help editors who have been warring days ago would help more than sanctions against Offliner - whose breaches are months old (Biophys' "unilateral deletions" actually all date back to April)? PasswordUsername (talk) 03:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The thing is, I'm seeing the same thing in this request - some of these diffs are from 2008 - there appears to be less than a handful that I'd consider remotely current. Your comments, among those of others that seem to be involved in this somehow, aren't really at helpful to sorting out the situation. I'm of the opinion that both reports are trumped up and being bolstered by opposing sides in a content dispute. Shellbabelfish 04:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are a number of particular edit diffs in my list (which I posted in the discussion section) that seem to be pretty current. (It took just two articles where policy had been breached recently to issue a block to Shotlandiya.) With Biophys' editing, this has been a recurring pattern with Biophys since he first arrived here years ago, as has been recorded in multiple cases like this:[77][78][79][80][81][82] Biophys seems to perennially wade into conflict over tendentious editing, back then years ago and in the most recent diffs provided now. I don't know if these are actionable, so if you don't think this is merits a sanction at WP:AE, I'll take your judgment. PasswordUsername (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All cases cited by PasswordUsername were either debated at ANI and other appropriate boards or voted by ArbCom. All required actions were taken. Yes, I was involved or commented in many cases. Yes, I have been a target of numerous unproved accusations during the process; some of them are made by a user banned by ArbCom.Biophys (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To Shell, both AE reports are mirror images of the other, concerning the same topics. This is clearly a content dispute and AE is not the venue to sort out such disputes. Biophys should be admonished and formally warned not to use AE in this way. This should be case for Offliner too, however he also submitted a second AE report below against Digwuren, recycling old issues that were earlier aired on other notice boards. Since Offliner was previously warned against vexatious litigation in another forum, he should now receive some kind of further sanction to get the message through. --Martintg (talk) 05:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With these constant accusations of block shopping thrown around, the following may be relevant. Biophys was block shopping several times at User:Tiptoety's talk page. For example here he raised the same non-issue of "unilateral deletion" of articles and citing the same Digwuren's case. (Igny (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
I agree with Piotrus. Seems like there is a group of editors, acting together, who badly want Biophys to leave the project. This should not be happening. Tymek (talk) 03:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update evidence:
For a more recent example of Biopyhs' POV-forking: please compare
The see why I think this is a POV fork, please see Russavia's comments on the AfD discussion: [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)Reply[reply]
Response.
I wanted to create sub-articles and then briefly summarize the corresponding content in the main articles. However, certain people did not allow this to happen by reverting me in the process of edits, regardles to "inuse" template, as expalined for example here. Editing restriction was placed by Nakon on article "Russian apartment bombings". Finally, I stopped editing these articles. Biophys (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Piotrus, are you involved or uninvolved in EE controversies? JehochmanTalk 18:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I consider myself uninvolved in the non-Lithuanian Baltic EE controversies. What about you? PS. Please try not to mispel my nickname - thanks. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like you're involved in the disputes involving the folks on these enforcement threads. Please stop commenting as if you are uninvolved, and in general, don't comment unless you have useful evidence to present. You appear to be shielding various wrong-doers from sanctions. JehochmanTalk 18:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find your comment to be quite bad faithed and improper for a professional admin at AE. I am as (un)involved in those disputes as you are, or Sandstein, Moreschi or any other admin that chose to comment here in the past. Let me repeat: other then for some general interested in all EE issues (which leads me to comment when I see those issues being discussed on various foras) I am quite uninvolved in the non-Lithuanian Baltic issues, having edited very few articles in this field and having taken no admin actions in it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But as you are aligned to one party of the dispute, your comments are tendentious and shouldn't carry weight per se. With this format you are entitled I suppose to comment in favour of Biophys Digwuren and your other friends, and if you provide evidence then they might even be helpful, but you shouldn't posture yourself as an uninvolved admin (no more of this and this). That's potentially very unfair to the process. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How am I aligned to any sides here? When editor A agrees with editor B, it doesn't mean that they are part of some evil cabal :) Please stop such accusations. The only clear alignment I see here is that you should not try to pass as neutral when it comes to me, considering how you launched at least one ArbCom case against me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How am I aligned to any sides here? You could answer this yourself if you wanted to, create some much needed good faith. Tendentiousness and smiling straw men :) don't do that. But I mean, if you wanna take the risk of involving yourself in that way, that's up to you; you got the right to try. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
comment - most of the above edits appear to be rather conventional edits preceding, or subsequent to, content disputes. We are not informed what actions were taken after these edits, whether Biophys ceased after a few edits, etc. Nor have we been informed whether Biophys was specifically warned about any edits in these articles and proceeded without heeding such a warning. I'm not sure that Arbitration enforcement is the proper venue for content disputes.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that this is exactly what your opponents want. They want you to be blocked or get fed up and leave and they are doing that quite good by digging out every single little "dirt" they can find which could be used against you. The more I learn about such practices, the more I am shaking my head with disbelieve...Sorry but I had to say what I think about all this.--Jacurek (talk) 06:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, but I've seen Biohys announce his "retirement" a dozen times already. Usually he returns back to editing within days at most. I also don't think it's a good idea to drop sanction only because the user has announced to retire (see Thatcher's comments.) Offliner (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't worry. He would surface with another account. I am just wondering how it could be that now all deletions of valid and sourced materials by Biophys, his edit warring, disruption of work, team editing, forcing only his own POV in the article, inability to reach a compromise, surfaced now, but he is "non-actionable"? Remembering my experience some admins (we know who they are) hopped into IRC channel, forum-shopped my blocking and later on organized witch hunt with remembering all the transgressions of the sinner.Vlad fedorov (talk) 04:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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. --RussaviaDialogue 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. --RussaviaDialogue 07:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Result concerning Biophys (comments by uninvolved admins only in this section)[edit]
No action. As in the request against Offliner above, most diffs are many months old and it is not made clear why they warrant sanctions now. While there are strong indications of edit-warring with respect to Alexander Litvinenko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in particular, I expect Biophys to adhere to his promise to "try to stick to 1RR" (although I am not at this time making this a formal sanction).
More generally, I agree with Shell that this report and the one against Offliner above may be attempts to "win" content disputes through the arbitration mechanism, which is frowned upon, and that many of the editors involved in these issues surrounding contemporary Russian politics, on either side, tend to exhibit a regrettable battleground mentality. I am not sure if there is an adequate AE response to long-term disputes like this one, but I am beginning to warm to Shell's suggestion that if we continue to see reports and discussions like this (including some recently at ANI, I think), topic bans all around may be the best way to prevent continued conflict. Sandstein 17:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree with closing this thread. The involved editors have been warned extensively. Let's try to make a decision here, or else we should go to arbitration. JehochmanTalk 16:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Er, I thought that you had already gone to arbitration? But do go ahead if you think this is an actionable situation. Sandstein 17:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, but a couple arbitrators scolded us and said we should deal with the matter. I am willing to pursue both paths in good faith in hopes that one or the other will be productive. Let's not close these threads until either we resolve what to do, or the committee accepts the case. Offliner has concerns and wants them addressed either here or at arbitration. My reason for filing arbitration was that I was pessimistic about resolving matters here, but who knows, maybe Kirill and FloNight are correct and some uninvolved administrators will appear to help us generate a consensus. JehochmanTalk 19:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No consensus is required for discretionary sanctions; like blocks, they are unilaterally imposed by administrators. Consensus must only be sought if sanctions are appealed, as per the "appeals" section of the remedy. I've already expressed my opinion that the request does not properly establish the need for sanctions. But if you disagree, after having examined the situation more closely, I would recommend that you just go ahead and impose whatever sanctions you deem necessary. Sandstein 19:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Shell Kinney has said that she is investigating these remaining EE threads. To avoid duplication of effort, I will defer to her opinion. I generally support some sort of restriction on Biophys, as I have warned them previously, and they appear to be continuing with battleground behavior. JehochmanTalk 23:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm prepared to close this request as no action for two reasons. First, the vast majority of diffs are quite stale. Evidence of past misbehavior is useful when it accompanies a current report; "Smith is doing the same thing this week that he did a few months ago" is actionable, "Smith did a bunch of bad stuff months ago" is not. I would not object to the complainant re-filing a new report that clearly marks out recent behavior problems, placing them in a long term pattern if appropriate, but clearly indicating which are the recent actions that require an admin response. Note, however, that admins do not rule on content, only behavior. "Editor always changes the article back to his preferred version, regardless of discussion or intervening edits" is a problem, "Editor keeps making changes that I don't like" is not necessarily a problem. Second, Biophys has indicated that he is retiring. In the event that Biophys does not retire, I would consider placing him on a 1RR per week limit as a first step, however, that does not seem like it would have stopped the edits cited by the complainant. Thatcher 03:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Before you do that, please review this evidence: User:Shell Kinney/EEreportsreview. I think some sort of restriction is needed. A majority of retirements seem to be temporary. If the editor does retire, there is little harm in placing a 1RR restriction, for example. JehochmanTalk 05:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see two or three problem articles within the last 30 days or so, many incidents in that report are older. Very useful for showing context for something like 1RR, but I would not want to impose a full topic or specific article ban for issues that were more than a month old. There is certainly support for a 1RR per week limit if he rescinds his retirement (and woe to the editor who "retires" only to reincarnate with a new name to avoid scrutiny) and I would also support an additional stipulation that all edits must have accurate edit summaries, if someone can show me a few additional instances of edits like this. Thatcher 10:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Final comment stricken due to misreading of diff. Thatcher 04:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
9. Edit warring at Mark Sirők. For example, persistent removal of the category "Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia", and then of the successor category "Human rights in Estonia", removal of the text "His arrest was condemned by the International Federation of Human Rights", etc.
11. Edit warring at We Don't Wanna Put In. Persistent reinsertion of same external link (it was deemed copyvio by others.) Last 4 reverts are in 24 hours.
12. Edit warring at the BLP article of Rene van der Linden, including reinsertion of blog materials (after these had been previously removed by myself yesterday) and subsequent tendentious Wikilawyering giving undue weight to unproven allegations of financial interest in the Russian Federation:
16. Continued abuse against other editors, despite WP:DIGWUREN's stress on adherence to policy and "behave reasonably and calmly" rather than "insulting and intimidating other users":
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue
Digwuren was blocked for a year following WP:DIGWUREN for edit warring (among other reasons). I think the above diffs clearly demonstrate that he hasn't changed his ways and is continuing to edit war. Also note that he was recently blocked for disruptive editing.
The AE is not for content disputes. I wish all you guys be banned from this noticeboard and others for disruption. Digwuren has not accused anybody of harboring Nazi sympathies. As I understand it, he said that the allegations Offliner and Russavia strived to include was produced by Risto Teinonen, who is a notorious neo-Nazi, as reported in numerous reliable sources, and not a reliable source. And I can certify that Russavia and Offliner edit-warred to keep neo-Nazi material in Kaitsepolitsei is an accurate factual statement, Digwuren was most probably right in his opposition to this. It wasn't Digwuren who created a battleground in that particular case. I invite everybody to examine the history of that article and the sudden attention that Russavia and Offliner started to pay to the Estonia-related topics entirely foreign to them (to provoke a confrontation in a known hotspot? Let's assume good faith for now, but it seems increasingly likely). Note: the material was neo-Nazi rather than the mentioned users, and I have little idea about their actual sympathies. As to the alleged edit-warring, you know, it takes (at least) two to tango. In most cases Digwuren merely restored the status quo version, aggressively provoked by contentious edits made by Offliner and his associates, which were bordering on policy violations and not supported on the talk page (e.g. insertion of the said neo-Nazi material, controversial categorization of Nashi (youth movement) as an "anti-fascist" organization, despite other sources claiming exactly the opposite, addition of the category Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia, which was in blatant violation of NPOV and not supported by sources in the article, and so on). All this should be dealt with in a separate ArbCom and not here. Colchicum (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The way I see this, Biophys, Digwuren, and you, Colchicum, as well as others have long been engaged in edit wars with Russavia, Offliner, me and others over a number of highly controversial topics, including a number of newly created POV titled articles. In the process we all tried to piss each other off, blamed each other for violation of WP policies (some justifiably so). In most cases that confrontation was qui pro quo, creation of one POV article followed by a creation of the opposite POV article. This case of Digwuren and Biophys is no more than a symmetric response by Offliner to his own case above. I think in all 3 cases, Offliner, Biophys and Digwuren the result of the arbitration should be the same or similar in harshness, otherwise the arbiter who makes the decision would be punishing one of the sides unfairly, possibly endorsing one of the sides in this conflict. (Igny (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Without any diffs that counts as a personal attack. I barely remember you and I have never edit-warred. You have. Certified. Russavia has. Certified. Offliner has. Certified. PasswordUsername has. Anyway, this is not what we are discussing here. Colchicum (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Also you have earned this dubious distinction: [145]. Wow. How could I miss that. Colchicum (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I just noticed that none of the users (excluding Igny and Russavia) was officially listed in the log of Digwuren case. This might be a problem as debated above. This supports your argument of addressing the matter to ArbCom (if warranted) rather than here.Biophys (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having no 3RR violations means nothing except for how well you know the WP rules. You, Colchicum, still engaged in a number of edit wars, as well as guilty of a number of personal attacks against me and others. You know that and I know that. I do not have to honor your diff request, but anyone interested can look the diffs up in your edit history. (Igny (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
On that note, it's true that Colchicum has not edit warred, although he has consistently done rather close "collaborative editing" on contentious topics with the group of editors exactly specified by Igny. I would say this certainly counts as a contribution as far as it is taking sides with one of the parties in an edit war, but I don't see how fruitful this sort of thing is at the moment. The diffs are here for the administrators to examine – perhaps we'd better stay back from back-and-forth at WP:AE, which only muddies the waters for those reading the comments and summaries and does not help anybody. Colchicum is very aggressively kidding here if he thinks this is some sort of specious personal attack against him – and playing the tendentious innocent victim card in this way is rapidly becoming old hat at the moment.PasswordUsername (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The most recent edit war, broadly defined, occurred over categorization of Nashi (youth movement). You can look up the participants of that edit war yourself. (Igny (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Wow, there's Colchicum - or somebody using his name. I guess it's not revert warring if you don't break 3RR... PasswordUsername (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. I have to agree with Colchicum's opinion. Note how Igny and PassportUsername attacked Colchicum after his comment. Seems to me Offliner, Igny and PassportUsername are attempting to mis-use AE to get the upper hand in content disputes over their contentious edits in articles mainly related to Estonia. Note that PasswordUsername was recently blocked for 72 hours for what was described by the blocking admin as his repeated insertion of nonsense into Estonia related articles and his anti-Estonian campaign, which I think somewhat vindicates Digwuren's attempts to maintain balance in these articles.
Most of the issues raised against Digwuren have previously been raised in other fora and thoroughly reviewed with no action required [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)Reply[reply]
Well, I fully expected your arrival here when I talked about the bloc endorsing above, but as I said neither your nor my opinion should matter here if an unbiased review of all these cases is an ultimate goal. (Igny (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Right, I got blocked. (Thank you for piling on.) Kindly let me know when that makes it OK for Digwuren to do what he's been doing since he got back from "vacationing." PasswordUsername (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Digwuren's edits related to the ones cited here were already discussed in a number of forums, including the ANI case that led to your 72 hour block. Recycling them here really is a continuation of the vexatious litigation Offliner was warned about. --Martintg (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, deliberately muddying the water like this won't help as you'd like. The edits that led to my 72-hour block were completely unrelated to the recent diffs which have been posted here. Good job, Martin. PasswordUsername (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC) For that matter, a great part of the diffs provided here are fresh-as-fresh and have not been recycled from anywhere, really. PasswordUsername (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, another article was briefly mentioned at the WP:ANI discussion as an instance of Sander Säde's revert-warring. Both Sander Säde and I reverted at Kaitsepolitsei, Sander made six reverts, and I did four. This is well-documented on both Talk pages. But I wasn't blocked for the same offense twice, so bringing in the 72-hour block as though it were relevant here is simply being dishonest. No diffs from that report were provided here. PasswordUsername (talk) 07:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Who is being dishonest here? The accusation made in your ANI report here, having gained no traction there or on AN, is raised again here in this AE report. This is classic WP:FORUMSHOPing. As for alleged edit warring, Colchicum is right, Digwuren was merely restoring the status quo version, aggressively provoked by contentious edits made by Offliner and his associates, for example in the case of Kaitsepolitsei inserting the view of a notorious neo-nazi and claiming it is a valid criticism. Note the carefulness not to technically breach 3RR in the following tag team sequence: Offliner [148],[149],[150] then Russavia [151],[152],[153] then Offliner again [154],[155],[156]. --Martintg (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, Martin. The one accused of edit warring on Kaitsepolitsei in your link to the ANI case isn't me, it's Sander Säde and company. By Russavia. What does it have to do with my 72-hour block? Was I blocked twice for the same offense - inadvertently doing four reverts against Sander's six at Kaitsepolitsei? Did you even see that it was mentioned as an example of abuse by Säde, who happened to be reverting me? What led to my 72-hour block was a report on my edits at Crime in Estonia. None of the diffs at that article by anyone, including Digwuren, have been included here as examples of abuse by Digwuren, which, as evident from the diffs here, both preceeded and came after the incident in question. Alas, Martintg: what you have written about me here is not relevant to the diffs provided. How much lower than this can you get?
Nice job. And you can always file a report here about my behavior if you think the blocks I got from AdjustShift wasn't enough. Water's muddied as hell, ain't it now? ;-)
Nice diffs. I think your buddy Colchicum just said above that it takes two to tango. File your own report. PasswordUsername (talk) 10:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Being Russian myself, I feel ashamed looking at this group of Russian editors who constantly attack editors from Baltic states. It was not enough to occupy their country and sent their best people to Gulag. There is now a directive to label their governments as fascist in all mass media controlled by the Kremlin. Now this plague came to WP.Biophys (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Putting collective responsibility on a national group and implying government control over fellow WP editors ? Not only does this look like a gross breach of civility, but may also have further implications, considering a remedy in Digwurens's Arbitration Case.Anonimu (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am telling about nationalist plague in wikipedia. This does not concern me and Offliner since we are both Russians, but it concerns the conflict between Russian and Baltic editors.Biophys (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not Russian, sorry. And Anonimu is Romanian, as far as I know. For the record, I'm American by citizenship and by location, as Biophys himself, having gotten hold of my IP number and regional location. And I'm Jewish, so I'm a bit sensitive to having material removed from articles about antisemitism with Martintg (and now Biophys) accusing me of being a Russian nationalist. I suggest you refrain from further implying things about my background. PasswordUsername (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is really getting annoying; Offliner's "evidence" is extremly poor and all I see is block shopping / harassment / battleground creation. I suggest Offliner (and perhaps PasswordUsername, who seems to be following closely in his steps) should be put on DIGWUREN's restriction list if he is not already, topic banned from EE content area, and restricted from commenting on EE editors unless they comment on him first. Perhaps a mentorship is needed, too? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Sorry.. I looked at some of your "evidence" and I have to say that they are not evidence at all or are really weak in my opinion. This is not my problem here therefore I will try not to comment on this anymore but you should carefully review your so-called "evidence" again and find something more solid against your opponent. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 04:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Offliner seems to be conducting a personal vendetta against Digwuren to drive him off the project. The latest set of diffs are in relationship to an event that was already dealt with but is again recycled here. Offliner has been running a long campaign against Digwuren since May across multiple admin talk pages as well as multiple boards such as AN, ANI and here, as mentioned above. --Martintg (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe that Digwuren was an object of personal attacks by certain users. Please look at the previous AE case which is relevant here.Biophys (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Piotrus (see below). If the result were banning or issuing long term blocks for a number of active contributors (most likely from both parties - let us not fool ourselves, neither party will crush the other here ;-)), Wikipedia will lose more than it benefits. Wikipedia survives despite casual IP vandalism and disruption caused by unregistered users, it'll survive with problematic yet constructive users listed in those threads here. So, I do suggest avoiding any blocks right now, as neither of those users (Biophys, Offliner, Digwuren) appear to be engaged in edit-warring at the moment. During the last Piotrus Arbcom case, a number of users were eagerly waiting for Piotr to be crucified, nothing of the kind happened, and both Piotr, Renata and Novickas survive with not much trouble recently, it seems. --Miacek(t) 18:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sadly, what I see here is long-time harassment of Digwuren, who is a very hard working editor. This has to stop, as such senseless arbitrations are a waste of time, and they put good editors off the project. Diffs like this [170] are a clear example of ridiculous cherry-picking. This arbitration should end, as this is just a waste of time of administrators. Tymek (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Request by Digwuren
Offliner has listed 39 distinct diffs. Each of them has quite a bit of context. Having taken a glance at them, I'm confident I can defend myself against all the accusations; however, it will take some time. As I already estimated to Sandstein, the expected time expenditure for this project is on the order of 20 hours of work, which I can't, quite simply, do in any single day. Accordingly, I request that any actions in this matter be delayed until evening of Tuesday, June 23th, so I can mount adequate defence.
-- Дигвурен ДигвуровичАллё? 14:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I must have miscounted. The diffs are numbered 85–138, which means there are 54 diffs. Дигвурен ДигвуровичАллё? 17:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Never mind. Even if I complete this work, this won't be the end of it; the same silly battling will rise up soon again, and again, and again.
Wikipedia's social structures are hopelessly misbegotten, full of all sorts of perverse incentives and destructive feedback loops. I have lost all faith that they can be repaired, and I don't care anymore. I will not be presenting anything here, as I will leave Wikipedia and head towards more rewarding projects. Дигвурен ДигвуровичАллё? 16:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Suggestion by Piotrus
I think we should not create more dramu than needed. Those requests should be reclosed, but if new ones are launched by said parties, we should most likely issue said topic bans/restrictions/paroles. But let's AGF and hope that our strict warnings above will have some moderating effect on the parties. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note to admins
I note that several admins have moved for closing this case without action, with Jehochman being the hold out. Perhaps Jehochman should disclose his personal interest in persuing Digwuren [171]. --User:Martintg 21:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...most interesting thing being, that Jehochmann's interest in and dislike of Digwuren seems to trace back several years. This shows that Jehochmann's assumption of being an uninvolved person here rests on rather dubious footing. --Miacek(t) 21:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no idea why Digwuren decided to dislike me for I've never had an editorial conflict with him. It is well established that disruptive editors cannot disqualify administrators by picking fights with them. My interest in Digwuren is that he appears to be among the leaders of a group of editors who are frequently involved in EE conflicts. Since my main areas of editing do not include EE, nor AA, nor IP, nor Sri Lanka, I make myself available for editorial disputes in these areas. JehochmanTalk 23:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jehochman, do you consider yourself an uninvolved admin here? Tymek (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sigh, mischievous innuendo! He is clearly uninvolved, and these attempts to swarm Jehochman by yourself, Radeksz and others, here and elsewhere, are quite deplorable. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The facts are pretty straightforward. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive514#Request for a review of Digwuren's block by William M. Connolley, where Jehochman alone advocated what was a block of Digwuren by mistake for a single edit fully compliant with the policies, citing his two-year-old grievances, and the follow-up, which clearly shows that Jehochman does take this personally. This is not criminal, of course, as long as he doesn't use his buttons pretending to be neutral. He is clearly not impartial here, however, and following his own proposals should refrain from commenting in the section below. Colchicum (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Taking it personally is involvment. Harrassing users, however problematic they seem, is by no means an admin's job. Wikidrama creation is not a good admin's job. Calls for a user to be crucified for what was entirely within the policies (as in the link above - a single discussed revert for which he was blocked by mistake) is a problem itself. References to pre-2008 behavior and stigmatization of users are incompatible with WP:AGF (1) because of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes#Amnesty and common sense (2) as Digwuren personally had already served his term by that time. Such a job only contributes to the aggravation of the situation. Either he is not impartial or he carried out his duties poorly. No good either way. Admins are not exempt from WP:AGF and WP:CIV, and this was a gross AGF violation. Colchicum (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought I asked Jehochman, not you Deacon. Have you been endorsed by him to answer all questions regarding him or what? Tymek (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tymek, stop trolling and baiting other users. JehochmanTalk 13:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jehochman, please. I have asked you a simple question, and to my surprise, Deacon answered it for you. I have serious doubts about you being uninvolved here, this is all. Tymek (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are right that I do not need a spokesman. I have never participated in EE disputes as an editor, nor do I have any feelings about the content of these articles. When I look at many of the things argued about, I have no feeling who is right or wrong with regard to content. I am only looking at the behavior of the parties with respect to Wikipedia policies. My advice to you and others on this thread is that you must avoid forming groups to battle with other groups. If there are content disagreements, use dispute resolution. Avoid calling for help via off wiki means. Keep everything in plain sight to avoid claims of canvassing and meat puppetry. JehochmanTalk 15:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding myself and Russavia
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)Reply[reply]
Result concerning Digwuren (comments by uninvolved admins only, please)[edit]
Tit for tat arbitration enforcement requests are not helpful. I am suspicious of requests filed by parties who engaged in disputes with each other. Since Sandstein decided to assume good faith above, in the Offliner thread where Digwuren requested sanctions, I think we shall do the same here. Please do not bring your battles to this board. If you have content disputes, mediation and the noticeboards are available. If there is a behavior problem, I suggest you ask an uninvolved, experienced editor to review the matter and give you feedback before posting here. (If they think your gripe is legitimate, they can file the request or provide a supporting comment.) It is too easy to see what you want to see in the midst of a heated dispute. This board is not a tactic for gaining the upper hand in a content dispute. JehochmanTalk 17:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am reopening this request. I'd like another administrator to review the evidence and I think some sort of topic bans should be employed [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. JehochmanTalk 15:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC) and 14:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ordinarily, I favour leniency in the course of sanctioning editors, but I do suspect that, thus far, cautions have done little in the way of neutralising disruptive conduct in this subject area. I think that this thread should probably be closed without action, but I would ask the other administrators who staff this noticeboard to, in future, ensure that they evaluate all complaints filed under the Digwuren case quite unsympathetically: my general impression is that assuming good faith has systematically been shown to be an unwise approach. AGK 19:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree. Unless there is a finding that Digwuren's editing has been acceptable (or that the complaint is defective), we should keep this thread open and decide upon an appropriate sanction. Digwuren is one of the most warned and sanctioned editors on Wikipedia. They do not need any more chances to reform. JehochmanTalk 20:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are adamant that the matter be exhaustively examined, then I'll be willing to review the situation at length, but I won't have the energy to do so until tomorrow; it's late, and I've already investigated one AE matter (below)! AGK 22:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Shelly Kinney has said that she is reviewing the editing histories of the EE cases currently open. Before you undertake major work, you may want to ask her for status to help avoid any unnecessary duplication of effort. JehochmanTalk 23:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for letting me know. I will defer to Shell. AGK 23:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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. JehochmanTalk 15:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
Digwuren blocked 5 days for personal attacks [172][173]. "I find it hard to believe that anybody but another neo-Nazi would seriously consider adding Teinonen's opinion about police onto Wikipedia would be a good idea" is not reasonably interpreted as merely pointing out problems with the original source. Given this user's history, a longish block seems most appropriate.
Digwuren placed on 1RR per week limit for edit warring as described. Digwuren is prohibited from making more than one reversion per week per article, not including obvious vandalism, to any article covered by the Arbitration case (Eastern Europe, broadly defined). A reversion is any edit that substantially restores the article to prior content, whether or not it is a reversion in the purely technical sense. All reversions must be discussed on the article talk page. Digwuren may request to have the 1RR limit reviewed or lifted after 6 months.
PasswordUsername placed on 1RR per week limit, same conditions as above [174].
Offliner placed on 1RR per week limit, same conditions as above [175]
Following editors placed on official notice. This is a technical notification only and does not preclude other action, as it is obvious the parties are all well aware of the case.
I'll have to tell you is difficult not to be a little upset right now. Since I've apparently wasted the more than 15 hours I put into this, use it if you will. Shellbabelfish 21:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With all due respect, I think what we have here is a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good. It may be that there is important information to be gained from a long-term in-depth analysis, but that is not how WP:AE was intended to work. Arbitration has always been a sledgehammer, not a scalpel. Editors who are reported for violations of sanctions are, for the most part, already on notice that their behavior has been found to be a persistent long-term problem. 1RR is in fact an extremely mild remedy, since no one ever needs to revert in order to edit productively. If I missed someone who deserves a 1RR I'm sure he or she will be reported here sooner or later. Likewise, calling other editors neo-Nazis is never acceptable, no matter the provocation, and the comment can not be interpreted any other way.
I called my results "preliminary" for a reason, and I specifically said that my actions do not preclude additional actions by other admins. If you feel your analysis supports further remedies, please feel free to apply them. If you feel that the 3 editors I placed on 1RR should not be, I am willing to discuss it; note, however, that I chose Offliner and PasswordUsername specifically because they already have blocks for edit warring in the topic area. Thatcher 21:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Shell, can you state what remedies you think are necessary based on your analysis? Any discrepancy between your suggestions and Thatcher's can be reconciled, I am sure. Thatcher, could you be a bit more respectful of Shell's work? JehochmanTalk 05:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Based on further review of Shell's analysis, Martintg has been placed on 1RR limit and Russavia and Ellol have been formally notified. My reason for not placing Russavia and Ellol on 1RR at this time are here; certainly that option remains open if disruption on these articles continues. Thatcher 16:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
[185] Deletion of sourced material from a Macedonia-related discussion in violation of a one-year topic ban passed two weeks ago.
[186] Commentary on Talk page and threat to delete material on Macedonia-related discussion in violation of a one-year topic ban passed two weeks ago.
[187], [188], [189], [190] Further Macedonia-related talk page edits in violation of the topic ban, after being warned and after the start of the discussion here at AE.
[191], [192] Yet more violations, dismisses Coren's clarification here.
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)Reply[reply]
From the Wikipedia help: "Articles belong to the main namespace of Wikipedia [...] which does not include [...] the Wikipedia namespace [...]". The centralized discussion belongs to the Wikipedia namespace, therefore it is not a Macedonia-related article, as defined in the arbitration decision. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's pretty clear that the Centralized discussion page is a de facto talk page for Macedonia-related articles. Heimstern Läufer(talk) 01:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's absolutely clear that it isn't, according to Wikipedia. Also see here. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 01:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The ArbCom clearly stated: "whenever the dispute over naming is concerned". Since the centralized discussion is specifically about the "dispute over naming", then this user is in crystal clear violation of the intent of the topic ban. Indeed, his wikilawyering above (and below) shows that this is not intended as a one-time violation nor was it an accident. He seems to intend to continue violating the topic ban in this instance. (Taivo (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
"Articles related to Macedonia (definition here) fall under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned". The definition of an article excludes the Wikipedia namespace. In addition, my edit was absolutely legitimate, as no reliable verifiable sources were given. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At the time this ruling was made, there was no certainty as to where this discussion would take place, i.e., what namespace. Putting it in the Wikipedia space could have the effect of creating a loophole allowing topic-banned users to participate in discussions which they would not be allowed to involve themselves in if they were in their normal places; i.e., article talk pages. I would hope both AC and our enforcers would realize this and enforce the ban such that this loophole is closed. Heimstern Läufer(talk) 02:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ArbCom was clearly including exactly this sort of situation, I can't believe a loophole was intended. However, the source itself may be self-serving; it should fail WP:RS. I don't doubt that it is true. I don't think he doubts it is true. I think Assuming GF here is very hard, almost impossible. There seems to be intent, and it seems to be repeated on this page. But I don't think he's technically in violation. Maybe it doesn't matter, and I do hate pointing it out, but I don't think so. Now convinced otherwise. He should not be there; but others have made the point, and I have nothing to add. Jd2718 (talk) 09:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Reply[reply]
An article is not a discussion. I don't doubt ArbCom's decision, as they are distinguished and experienced users. In the centralized discussion, one will find users who did much worse than what is claimed that I did. Regarding assumptions of bad faith, that's a personal matter. As a personal note, I would expect more care towards sourcing. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(ec) The intent of ArbCom was crystal clear: Here SQRT was found to be a single-purpose account. Here the single-purpose accounts were advised to diversify their editing. Here SQRT was topic-banned for one year. In looking at SQRT's contributions, it is clear that his/her editing has not been diversified. This loophole is not a real loophole, however. The "Centralized discussion" is here in lieu of multiple discussions on multiple Talk pages. It is a centralized Talk page, not something fundamentally different. This violation has nothing to do with whether or not SQRT's comment was accurate--it is still a violation. (Taivo (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Thanks for welcoming me back from holidays. Please, don't distort the truth and don't delete my edits, like this one. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.delanoygabsadds 02:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
JD, please see my comments in the request for clarification. You may take a different view after reading them! -- ChrisO (talk) 08:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I improved the presentation and I did not violate anything at all. On the other hand, others did, with their POV edits and their battleground mentality. Indeed, there is a different view to be taken, if one associates these users with their stance towards terminology in Macedonia-related articles. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 12:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You accuse others of a battleground mentality? Pot, meet kettle. Anyway, too early to call, I guess, but one arbitrator has opined that this is indeed a violation. Heimstern Läufer(talk) 12:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your irony is not needed. Aggressive POV edits and opposition only from a few users with unanimous opinion regarding terminology in Macedonia-related articles, constitutes a battleground mentality against one (1) user who did not violate any rules, but followed Wikipedia's policies. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
I agree - a block is now definitely required. I suggested above that he would continue to violate the Arbcom decision until he's blocked. Unfortunately it seems I was right about that. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur. This edit clearly shows that this user is unwilling to abide by the topic ban unless a "consensus", that is, 8 (or more) of the 14 arbitrators assigned to ARBMAC2 weigh in on the clarification. He is clearly in contempt of the ArbCom decision and the clarification offered. (Taivo (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
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. Brandt 20:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
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)Reply[reply]
Support block and topic ban. You simply cannot say "per talk" when no consensus has been reached and you cannot invoke IAR to validate an edit war. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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.JehochmanTalk 16:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Enforcement of what? Its not mass delinking, ergo, there has been no sanction precluding it. Has anyone discussed the delinks with the editor in question? Suggest we send these editors off to DR. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Upon re-reading the case, I see that this activity is not a problem. This request is closed. JehochmanTalk 00:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
[224] Stevertigo has proven to be extremely disruptive in the Talk:Life page, troll-like general hostility, keeps posting long-winded O.R. assays and has openly vowed to not use references to the material he introduces to the article, which he has not.[225] I posted the result by the Arbitration Committee against him to make the other editors aware of his status, however, he reverted the entry and added threats.
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
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.
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
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. JehochmanTalk 13:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stevertigo is subject to a 1RR per week limit on all articles (although the case was about Obama articles, the ban is not narrowly written). If he has not reverted the Life article more than once per week, then "disruptive use of the talk page" would be a separate matter for dispute resolution. Either ignore him or file a user conduct RFC or WQA request. You could eventually apply to Arbcom or the community for an additional sanction, but you need to work the problem through normal channels first to demonstrate that there is a consensus supporting your view of events. Thatcher 14:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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:
The dispute concerns the appropriate titles for the article or articles concerning the country of Ireland and the island of Ireland;
the ambiguity that exists because the designation "Ireland" is used in English to refer to both of these;
disagreements concerning recent page moves relating to these articles,
including whether consensus was properly obtained for the moves, and
the extent to which the current article titles conform to the requirement of maintaining a neutral point of view.
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 :
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.
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:
There was no attempt by editors to address the issues outlined by ArbCom.
While the Administrators did try to start a fact based discussion it could not or was prevented from getting off the ground.
There was no discussion to test the validity of arguments of editors, and there still has not been.
The statements were dominated with talk of polls by all the same editors.
The ArbCom had been ignored in a number of very important areas such as the section entitled Principles and on the very Locus and state of dispute
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:
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Okay, Domer48 disagrees with what the requesting editor says is the community's decision, and he says so repeatedly. How does this actually disrupt the enactment of such a decision? I.e., assuming arguendo that there is consensus for some procedure and Domer48 refuses to accept it, why is a topic ban needed? Can't you just ignore him and proceed regardless? Sandstein 14:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not seeing incivility or personal attacks. The proposal to have a poll does not have to be unanimous. Wikipedia does not have a filibuster, one vocal editor can not stall progress on discussion unless other editors allow him to. If there is strong consensus to hold a poll then it can be implemented even if one vocal opponent objects. Is there some neutral admin monitoring or mediating of facilitating this discussion/poll/whatever it is? I'd like to hear from that person. Thatcher 15:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to be clear, Domer48 has not been uncivil or made personal attacks. I never said he had. DrKiernan (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In answer to Thatcher's question, Masem is one of two admins appointed by the ArbCom to act moderator of this process, and the only one of the two who has taken any significant part in the proceedings there. His is probably the neutral opinion you are after. --ras52 (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both sides of the debate are making an input, why try to sanction just one side? I think DrKiernan's instigation here might be a bit unconsidered, and rash. Tfz 15:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And Dormer is in good company imo. from Wikipedia quote. - "Despite claiming death-defying loyalty to his city, Socrates' pursuit of virtue and his strict adherence to truth clashed with the current course of Athenian politics and society.[1] He praises Sparta, archrival to Athens, directly and indirectly in various dialogues. But perhaps the most historically accurate of Socrates' offenses to the city was his position as a social and moral critic. Rather than upholding a status quo and accepting the development of immorality within his region, Socrates worked to undermine the collective notion of "might makes right" so common to Greece during this period. Plato refers to Socrates as the "gadfly" of the state (as the gadfly stings the horse into action, so Socrates stung Athens), insofar as he irritated the establishment with considerations of justice and the pursuit of goodness. His attempts to improve the Athenians' sense of justice may have been the source of his execution."
Although, I haven't commented on the WP:IECOLL page for a while, it has been on my watchlist. I don't think Domer48, or anyone else for that matter, needs to be sanctioned. PhilKnight (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I ask uninvolved admins not to jump the gun on this in favor of anything. This is a tough area, and incivility is a problem across the board. I think a few members of IECOLL are climbing the 'stag out of frustration at this point; the discussion is like molasses. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMHO, if editors are having trouble with an editor, they should ignore that editor-in-question (rather then argue with him/her). GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Domer claims, inter alia, "The ArbCom had been ignored in a number of very important areas such as the section entitled Principles and on the very Locus and state of dispute" and seems to be claiming the role of soles defender of those principles. Yet, the Arbcom findings in that link state: "1) The dispute concerns the appropriate titles for the article or articles concerning the country of Ireland and the island of Ireland; the ambiguity that exists because the designation "Ireland" is used in English to refer to both of these;..." Why, then, has Domer spent a good portion of this process demanding that we furnish him with proof that the name Ireland is ambiguous? That there is ambiguity between Ireland and Ireland is obvious to Arbcom, and all of the participants bar him and User:Tfz. If it were not, there would be no dispute. Arbcom stated that a solution could be arrived at by consensus or majority decision. We have been debating this since December 08, and the view of 75% of the participants is that we should move to a Single transferable vote poll. Domer then proceeded to produce two new proposals on subpages of WP:IECOLL, here and here. Please examine those pages' (and their talk pages') histories. Despite not being a Moderator of this project, Domer proceeded to remove comments he disagreed with (or, as he would put it, did not meet his criteria for inclusion). This delayed things further on WP:IECOLL, resulting in a lot of needless drama. Whether any of that warrants a block or not, I don't know. The advice given thus far (just ignore him) certainly seems worth taking, though, if we are to reach a conclusion before next December. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since my actions are yet again purposefully misrepresented in Domer's statement (I say "purposefully" because I have explained certain inaccuracies to him a number of times, yet he continues to repeat them), I'll point out that this is a classic example of shotgun argumentation. Throw enough mud, in enough directions and hope some might stick. I have read the same accusations made by Domer, in a clear cut-and-paste format, about 5 times in the last few days. I have requested [303] that he should draw attention to it at ANI, since he is making serious allegations. He declined, preferring instead to repeat the allegations as often as possible presumably in the hope if he says it often enough it may begin to be believed. Cut and pasting the same comments over and over, when you have already been told how to resolve things constructively, is clearly disruptive. I ask the reviewing admin to please advise Domer that he should either take his litany of allegations to the appropriate forum where it can be independently reviewed and discussed, or kindly desist from repeating them ad nauseam. Rockpocket 23:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As one of the second batch of appointed moderators (this after the first three left after being exhausted by the project), the first thing I saw when I reviewed what was going on was that while there would never likely be a consensus-driven solution to what the Ireland topic names, given the fact this has been a 6+ month process (before the ArbCom case started) and that discussions continued to go in circles, there was clearly general agreement that a poll was an acceptable way to resolve the issue - as per the ArbCom Remedy #1, the goal was to develop a mechanism to resolution, and in lieu of consensus, a poll seems perfectly acceptable as long as general majority agrees to let that resolve the case. Given the strong goahead by the rest of the project to use an STV poll, it made sense to guide the project in that direction. I will note that several solutions are being considered to be part of this poll (including Domer's) and I don't feel that any substantial object has been rejected for inclusion. Part of the problem that Domer is insisting on is that a solution must be built on WP:V, WP:NOR, and all other policies, which yes, it should be, but as I've tried to point out, all proposed solutions seem to follow these - the reason they conflict (and why we're at this dispute) is that the sources used to support these are conflicting; add in a bit of nationalism, and you get this dispute. I've tried to point out that there's no point in retreading the work done before, during, and since the ArbCom case, particularly trying to argue that "Ireland" is ambiguous (this was a Finding of Fact, so it should be taken as fact for all further discussion). That type of insistence, based on my past reading of the project document files, is one of the reasons this has been so drawn out.
This is no attempt to prevent Domer from providing options with his own back-up of support, but his desire to arrive at a consensus driven solution (and demanding proof that the project has ditched that) has threatened to bog down the project further. Yes, there are a lot of harsh words and arguments that start the road down to personal attacks, but it's impossible to point figure, but when someone proposes something to move the process forward, most of the participants step back into line, and thus has not threatened any project derailment. Unfortunately, this recent issue with Domer has forced a lot of people to use energy to counter his claims and has become a problem. --MASEM (t) 23:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Masem, as moderator of the proceedings, do you support enforcement action against Domer48? Sandstein 06:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I feel that a topic ban on Domer (or any other measure) would be very counter-productive at this stage. We need to continue the process currently underway and stop reporting each other. Let's just get on with it. Sarah777 (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Domers actions on the main Collaboration page have been annoying but i wouldnt go as far as to say hes been disruptive. However his previous attempts to bypass the process by changing the article titles himself (which resulted him being issued a ban which was revoked) was clearly disruptive and should probably of excluded him from taking part in the process in the first place, but we all seem to of moved on from that now.
My concern about Domers actions which i do consider disruptive is the way he is encouraging people to take part in his polls at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Domer48's proposal for Ireland Article and Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/proposal for Ireland Article in an attempt to bypass the planned STV poll which has the backing of the community. He continues to prevent debate and discussion at those locations, deleting anything he is unhappy with and acting as though he is a moderator or editing in his own area. His extreme "moderation" of those two polls have caused huge disruption to the process, and he should be told to stop removing other editors reasonable comments from those locations. Thats all i have to say on Domer. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the same reasons as Sandstein (below), I have not read Domer48's statement. There are plenty of examples of Domer48 being disruptive (e.g. his/her copy-and-paste move of Republic of Ireland→Ireland was a blatant and deliberate violoation of the ArbCom ruling and should have resulted in a harsh block). His/her conduct on the WP:IECOLL page is, at times, deliberately obstructionist (e.g. placing ((cn)) tags in other editors comments for plainly obvious statements and then refusing to accept citations for them). His/her behavior is essentially troll-like (regardless of whether he/she means to be a troll or not). But I can't agree with DrKeiran's request. His/her dissatisfaction with the way things are proceeding perfectly valid - although we do need to acknowledge that his/her methods are very vexatious. The "problem" with Domer48 can be easily resolved - everyone knows what Domer48 is like, others do not have to feed to his/her toll-like behavior, but a "ban" from IE:COLL would not be to the best interests of the process or of WP. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
A note to Domer48: Your statement is way too long and appears to address issues that seem to be irrelevant here, such as the supposed misconduct of others. I won't read it. Sandstein 06:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unless other uninvolved administrators disagree, I will close this request as not actionable with a recommendation that other editors simply ignore Domer48 if and to the extent that he indeed disagrees with any relevant consensus. Sandstein 05:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unless the moderators of the discussion process have specific complaints about Domer, agree with closure. Thatcher 12:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
[304][305][306][307][308][309][310][311] Repeatedly using a series of IP addresses and his own account to replace an article with a potted unsourced curriculum vitae of the subject.
[312][313][314] Repeatedly adding personal commentaries to article space, editing from IPs and his own account.
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 (edit | 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)Reply[reply]
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.
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
User indefinitely blocked for persistent disruption. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
(→Human rights violations: replaced cited section) At Turkish invasion of Cyprus, battleground both in tone and content, inflammatory, with a thicket of references for a single complex, accusatory sentence. The content is clearly non-encyclopedic. The content is clearly not NPOV. This form of "citation" is clearly obfuscatory.
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]
Some of the material presented is concerning, and I think a topic ban of Xenovatis from all articles relating to the Macedonia arbitration cases could be warranted. (Any such topic ban would, I think, be only from the article space; I have seen no evidence of Xenovatis disrupting discussions in the talk space.) However, the main caution - warning #1, above - was issued on 17 June; most of the diffs illustrating disruption predate that warning. Although one would hope that an editor such as Xenovatis - who, as observed by the filing editor, is experienced and has been editing for good while - would be able to conduct himself without being cautioned, I am tempted to dismiss this complaint until we are presented with a more substantial folio of evidence of disruption committed after the 17 June warning. Thoughts on this note from other uninvolved administrators and from involved editors would be welcome. AGK 22:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first two diffs are post-warning. He made three edits upon his return today: those two, and a talk page edit at Souliotes, which is fully protected. Not a promising return. Which is why I came here. The bulk of this report is based on two weeks of editing, with two blocks, after a four month break. On the other hand, while the unfortunate necessary outcome is clear to me, there is not urgency, and I would certainly understand slow, deliberate consideration. I don't favor dismissal (I wouldn't have filed if I did), but I would understand dismissal for now as well. What is clear to me may not yet be clear in the diffs. Jd2718 (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just a note: the complaints about Xenovatis are not really directly related to the Macedonia case, at least not in the narrow sense of the naming dispute treated in WP:ARBMAC2 (although they do of course fall under the scope of the general sanctions of ARBMAC1). As far as I can see, these are partly Greek-Albanian and partly Greek-Turkish issues, not Macedonian ones. Fut.Perf.☼ 22:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was concerned about that, but ARBMAC was drawn very broadly:
1) The disputes presented in this case, while focusing specifically on issues related to Macedonia, are part of a broader set of conflicts prevalent over the entire range of articles concerning the Balkans; see, for example, the Dalmatia case and the Kosovo case. Many of these conflicts are grounded in matters external to Wikipedia, including long-standing historical, national, and ethnic disputes in the region. The area of conflict in this case shall therefore be considered to be the entire set of Balkan-related articles, broadly interpreted.
To Future Perfect: By "[topic banned] from all articles relating to the Macedonia arbitration cases," I did not mean "from articles relating to Macedonia" - but rather from all subject areas involved in the arbitration case named "Macedonia." In other words, my comment referred to Macedonia (arbitration case) and not to Macedonia (subject area). AGK 23:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User Jd2849 has edit warred against me and has also spent about 10x the time in writting this report and another one as he has in the article's talk page. It is obvious he is gaming the system to get me banned instead of discussing his removal of cited material in the article's talk page, something which I am not sure is encouraged by WP guidelines. This is clearly an example of WP:GAME and bad faith editing on his part. --Xenovatis (talk) 04:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for net negative effect I find that offensive as it is completely unfounded and comes from a user who also has a clear ethnic bias in his edits but has a much smaller contribution to WP than myself. I contributed greatly to bringing the Greeks article to GA status and added tens of citations to that article while I have also prepared 4 full talk pages of material for others to draw from, again on that article. I have created dozens of article on Renaisance Greek grammarians and fully cited them. My latest article created is Robert_Browning_(Byzantinist). If anyone should have to face sanctions it is Jd3459 whose behavior has been disruptive and consists of edit warring and gaming the system instead of discussing.--Xenovatis (talk) 04:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Xenovatis is a prolific editor in Greece-related articles, and a valuable contributor to the project. At the same time, he has repeatedly edit-warred and demonstrated an attitude not to the expected level. For instance, this response to a warning is completely inappropriate, and indicates that he does not understand his wrong-doing. There are, however, two conflicting behaviors here. I would never supported a topic-ban, because I would not like to lose a valuable editor from the field, but I wouldn't oppose other measures, such as a revert-parole or a civility restriction or mentoring under the "or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project" provision.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I broadly agree with Yannismarou insofar as that Xenovatis is one of the most productive and articulate editors on Greece related articles. In particular, he has done excellent work on the Greeks article, which was in fairly poor condition prior to receiving his attention. Editors such as Xenovatis are quite rare on Greece-related topics, and a topic ban would be harmful to these articles. On the other hand, I would argue that the single-mindedness (bordering on obsession) with which Jd is wikihounding Xenovatis is disruptive to the encyclopedia. Following a disagreement on July 14th over Population exchange between Greece and Turkey, Jd has used every possible opportunity to pursue a vendetta over Xenovatis, such as this on 17 July [333]. This latest report, which must have taken hours to compile, is a further case in point. I would recommend that Jd be advised to edit wikipedia in a productive manner and stop pursuing meaningless vendettas against productive editors. --Athenean (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Meaningless vendetta? The fact that this user was blocked twice in as many weeks is a clear indicator that he is having difficulty keeping himself in check with policy. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact that it was twice in as many years seems to have escaped you. As well as the fact that one of those times was at the instigation of Jd298.--Xenovatis (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What article(s) were involved in the 14 June 2009 block for edit warring?
What is the evidence of disruptive editing after Xenovatis returned from the 17 June block?
"Battleground editing" is a subjective term. It could be used simply to describe adding content that another editor does not like, and NPOV is often in the eye of the beholder. To deserve a topic ban, the problem must go beyond simply editing from a different perspective. Some examples include (but not limited to) continually adding disputed content over a period of weeks or months when consensus is against it; adding disputed content when there is an agreement to keep the article in a neutral pre-dispute state during discussion, that one "side" honors but he does not; attempting to "win" discussions by personal attacks and other negative behavior rather than by force of argument alone, and so forth. Can you present (or re-present) your case, focusing on this issue. (Be concise, please.) Thatcher 13:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Xenovatis' second block expired June 19. He performed 3 edits on the 21st: a revert on Population exchange between Greece and Turkey, a revert on Turkish invasion of Cyprus, and a talk page edit on Souliotes (the article was locked). It was that immediate return to form which motivated me to file this report. On the 22nd he responded to this report and again reverted on Turkish invasion of Cyprus. He has performed two innocuous edits since.
Thatcher, the criteria for a topic ban you mention seem to exceed those set by arbitration: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision." The conditions and sanctionable behaviors you offer (continually adding disputed content over a period of weeks or months when consensus is against it; adding disputed content when there is an agreement to keep the article in a neutral pre-dispute state during discussion, that one "side" honors but he does not; attempting to "win" discussions by personal attacks and other negative behavior rather than by force of argument alone) while you indicate that they are not inclusive, seem narrower and at a far higher threshold than ArbCom's intent.
Battleground editing is a subjective term. In addition to the categories you mention, there is editing that serves no purpose other than to advance a battle - not a battle between editors, but a battle between countries.
addition of severed heads which is removed and he reverts several times. Is this an honest editorial difference, or an example of battleground editing?
restore <-- This is the edit that led to the conflict that led to the June 14 block. I don't know why he is reverting to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Population_exchange_between_Greece_and_Turkey&oldid=263535510 the version he saved on January 29, 2009), but he is. I am fairly confused about which facts each of the seven footnotes in the lead is supposed to document, however, I know that at least one of them (Clark) has been cherry-picked; the book blames the governments of both Greece and Turkey for the plight of the refugees, but the cite chooses a page on which Clark assigns blame to Ataturk. I assume that all other 6 references are problematic. In general, clustered citations from print sources should make those working in areas of conflict nervous.
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)Reply[reply]
While I will not dignify the rest of Jd2546's rant with an answer I will respond to the point made about the citations, seven of them, which he removed from the article instead of discussing their content. This is clearly unacceptable behaviour, WP guidelines from JW himself, insist on removal of uncited material on sight which is in fact the opposite of removing citations. Especially when they support exactly what is mentioned on text. Jd2871 did exactly that, not on one but several occasions. These citations were the result of several hours worth of painstaking research through the bibliography, work which so far Jd has only put in wikihounding me away from editing the article as opposed to finding any more sources. The citation from Clark for instance clearly mentions that the exchange took place at the insistance of Attaturk and was later agreed by Greece which is exactly what the article states. The other citations eg Sofos and Ozdemir validate the point made in text that the majority of the Greek exchangees had allready been expelled by the time the Treaty was signed. Again all this is information unknow to Jd who never took the trouble, in his own admission, to actually look the citations before removing them and edit warring to secure their removal. It is contrary to WP's purpose that this amount of wikilawyering should even be taking place when the instigator has hardly devoted a hundredth of the time he has wikihounding me on the article itself. This behaviour borders on wikitrolling.--Xenovatis (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Xenovatis is subject to a 1 revert per week editing restriction on all articles within the area of conflict defined by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia. He is prohibited from making more than one reversion per week per article, not including obvious vandalism. A reversion is any edit that substantially restores the article to prior content, whether or not it is a reversion in the purely technical sense. All reversions must be discussed on the article talk page. Violations will result in escalating blocks. He may request to have the 1RR limit reviewed or lifted after 3 months. (It is simply too soon after the expiration of the previous blocks to know whether they will have any effect on his behavior. The 1RR limit should, in theory, encourage him to discuss issues collaboratively on the affected article talk pages. Further sanctions can be considered if he violates the 1RR limit or continues to act disruptively. Thatcher 15:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some sort of justification would have been nice at about this point. You can start by explaining the use of ArbMac on an unrelated issue.--Xenovatis (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This case is within the area of conflict, i.e., "the entire set of Balkan-related articles, broadly interpreted." Thatcher has provided an adequate explanation of his sanction, which I endorse. Sandstein 16:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, he most certainly has not. While Arbmac could be cited he does not explain how exactly it was violated. This kind of sanction after several thousand edits in WP will need at least some sort of justification. Which is not provided in the above statement by Thatcher.--Xenovatis (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since no objections by other admins are forthcomings, I am archiving this section. Sandstein 06:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Xenovatis, while you have a long history of productive contributions, you also have a recent history of editing problems. You've made about 110 edits since you came back from your last break and gotten involved in several disputes and been blocked twice for 3RR violations. A 1RR sanction is very mild, no editor needs to revert in order to edit cooperatively. If there are other editors with behavioral problems that interfere with cooperative editing you can report them here. Thatcher 00:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)Reply[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [338]
Please amend the request to specify the specific sanction or remedy that you think this user violated. Sandstein 10:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article Armenian Genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has a notice on the talk page that the article (all editors) has been placed on 1RR per day limit, and all reverts must be discussed on the talk page, subject to blocking. This is a clear violation. However, since there are so many other notices on the talk page I would like to see evidence of a politely worded caution issued to the user on their first offense, and if no such warning had been issued, I would issue one here. Because the account is a sockpuppet, I'm going to block it straightaway, so consider this comment as advice on presenting the next similar report. And you can make it easier on us by showing us the diff of a prior notification, so we don't have to hunt for it, much appreciated. Thatcher 11:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
^Here it is telling to refer to Thucydides (3.82.8): "Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question inaptness to act on any. Frantic violence, became the attribute of manliness; cautious plotting, a justifiable means of self-defense. The advocate of extreme measures was always trustworthy; his opponent a man to be suspected."