Revision as of 19:09, 18 June 2009

• WP:AE

Requests for enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important informationShortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Gragg

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

Request concerning Gragg

User requesting enforcement

Grandmaster 05:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Gragg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2

Sanction or remedy that has been violated

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy

Just one example of edit warring on one article:

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue

The contribs of Gragg (talk · contribs) almost exclusively consist of page move wars on AA articles. Please check his contribs:

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

revert restriction, page move ban.

Additional comments

Gragg was repeatedly warned of edit warring (check his talk page), including a warning with a link to arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 a year ago: No signs of stopping.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Gragg

• Yes, Gragg has been move warring. I'm inclined to grant this request unless persuaded otherwise by Gragg's reply.  Sandstein  06:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Gragg

This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.

Shotlandiya

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

Request concerning Shotlandiya

User requesting enforcement

-- Sander Säde 06:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Shotlandiya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

Sanction or remedy that has been violated

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy

1. Edit summary "I expect this to be reverted by the Russophobic Baltic nationalists who stalk Misplaced Pages"
2. more than just some Estonian gibberish
3. (same diff as last, two separate discussion posts at once) "ethnic Russians who face discrimination and persecution from the pro-Nazi regime in Estonia.", "anything from the Estonian media should come with a caution that it comes from a country with a record of discrimination, persecution and human rights abuses against ethnic minorities."
4. Re-creation of Neo-nazism in estonia, a previously deleted attack page.
5. Edit warring on Jaak Aaviksoo (high profile BLP, member of the government) to exclude highly relevant and well-sourced comments about the alleged incident from Jaak Aaviksoo himself. Refuses to discuss on the talk page. Reverts: , , , ,
6. Edit warring on Mark Sirõk (BLP) to include highly personal information (health issues) sourced in a personal (third-party) website (WP:SELFPUB). Refused to discuss on the talk page until this morning, but that edit is already linked above. Reverts/inserts: , , , , , , , , , ,
7. Edit warring on Edward Lucas (BLP) to include allegations of Russophobia, based on a link in the subject's personal blog. Reverted by numerous editors as coat-track. Inserts/reverts: , ,
8. Is it true your father was an MI6 recruiter (on the Misplaced Pages user talk page of Edward Lucas)
9. BLP of Russian politician Mikhail_Kasyanov:
10. Edit warring to insert defamatory statements in BLP of world chess champion Kasparov

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue

Constant edit warring, disregarding basic Misplaced Pages rules about biographies of the living persons, disregarding Misplaced Pages rules about sources, not adhering to a neutral position in edits, failing to assume a good faith, racist comments in talk pages and edit summaries, personal attacks directed at individuals and whole groups.

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

Block, followed by a topic ban from Baltic and BLP articles.

Additional comments

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Shotlandiya

(Note: diffs above converted to numbered list for better reference.  Sandstein  20:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

• Endorse. --Martintg (talk) 07:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think the evidence of edit-warring is particularly bad in the context (the area has little 1RR restriction), and don't think a 1rr restriction would be helpful. His references to Estonians are not very pleasant, and so I do think that a 3 to 6 month topic-ban from Estonian and Latvian articles and talk pages would be justified; if he comes back after that and can't restrain himself, it can be changed to indefinite. His use of sources isn't very inspiring in relation to BLPs. His veiled attacks on journalists like Edward Lucas, who would be outside the Estonian-Latvian topic ban, are clearly motivated by political sentiment, and I think it will be in wikipedia's and his interest to keep him away from them ... indefinitely. Does he do any significant good BLP work on people who are more politically neutral? An immediate block on top of these sanctions would be superfluous unless this behavior resumes during this process. These are my initial thoughts at least. His response should of course be awaited, and I would be interested to know how common this kind of thing is. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think an Estonian-Latvian topic ban is a good place to start and I would suggest 3 months, but the BLP problems are also a serious concern. There seems to be a crusade for "truth" here and I'm very concerned that it led to harassing an editor who's the subject of an article. Even the BLP issues seem to be centered around certain nationalist feelings, so perhaps if the ban was widened to include any edits loosely related to the topic? This should be a short leash though since unfortunately, I don't see any good-faith contributions that would off-set the ongoing problems. Shell 08:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Deacon of Pndapetzim has several good points. Edit-warring is a minor problem in this case, certainly dwarfed by mishandling of sources and especially the BLP violations. Another Estonian minister has already had to raise the issue of BLP violations (injected by the now-banned User:RJ CG) in article about him; let's not make a habit of it. All in all, endorse. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 09:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Sander Säde, please provide diffs indicating that Shotlandiya was previously warned against the objectionable conduct, as required by Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  10:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

, . Also, I should point out that many users who have faced discretionary sanctions according to WP:DIGWUREN never received formal notice before the block - does it mean these blocks are invalid? -- Sander Säde 10:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• He was warned previously about BLP issues here in regard to Edward Lucas, so he cannot have been unaware of the problem of BLP when it was raised on Talk:Jaak Aaviksoo and Talk:Mark Sirők --Martintg (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• This seems be part of a larger dispute between two groups of users. For context, one should study the evidence presented here and here. No action against Digwuren or anyone else was taken, although the evidence was (imho) even stronger than what is presented here against Shotlandiya. Taking action against Shotlandiya would thus seem unfair. It is perhaps telling that when similar evidence of personal attacks and uncivil comments by Digwuren was presented, Martintg (who here supports the blocking of Shotlandiya for similar crimes) made the following comment: it is clear that Digwuren's comment was a light hearted expression of his frustration that more isn't done to protect Russian articles from blatant vandalism rather than squabbling over the article Internet operations by Russian secret police. The fact that Offliner should choose to affect offense over this comment says more about his WP:BATTLEGROUND and vexatious approach rather than anything about Digwuren's behavior. --Martintg (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC) . Perhaps all these allegations of misconduct should be judged in a single ArbCom case, instead of launcing individual threads, so that we won't lose the context? Offliner (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• No, we've already had the ArbCom case - the Digwuren case - and now we're enforcing it. It is preferable to examine and if need be sanction each user's alleged misconduct individually based on clear reports. I'll review the evidence this evening, unless another administrator has already closed the case by then.  Sandstein  11:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I am the user being discussed here, and I would like to say a few words in my defence. I entirely accept that my editing of Misplaced Pages has been somewhat aggressive, and I should not have used the language I did about Estonia. It was wrong and I will accept any sanction as a result as it was a clear error of judgement on my part.

However, I agree with Offliner that this argument is part of a wider dispute between two sides of a political debate on Misplaced Pages - those who are generally favourable to letting the Russian side have a fair hearing on articles about Russian history and politics, and those who are more hostile towards Russia and the former Soviet Union. This thread is just personalising that disagreement even further and taking it to another level.

If I have been excessive in my editing it is only in response to Digwuren who is very aggressive in his editing and seems to do little else on Misplaced Pages but edit articles and delete referenced material to make Russia look bad and Estonia look good. Digwuren constantly deletes information on spurious grounds and engages in edit-warring. We can look at his contributions toHistorical Truth Commission and Timeline of anti-Semitism to see some examples of this. If a user like Digwuren deletes referenced material, or makes biased or POV additions to articles, then it is only fair to change it back. However, if he keeps reverting, and I keep reverting back, then we get into a situation where we are pulled up for edit-warring. How do you solve an impasse like that? My aggressive attitude was borne out of frustration at Digwuren consistently reverting sensible edits by myself.

In response to the specific charges against me:

1) I accept that I should not have used the language I did about Estonia and I confirm I will refrain from doing so again. It was a clear violation of the rules and if that deserves punishment so be it.

2) I do not think my comments about there being a record of discrimination in Estonia are relevant to the debate as such claims can indeed be made (although they are debatable), as shown in Human rights in Estonia. This should not be part of the argument here.

3) I think allegations of failing to assume good faith could also be made against other users in this debate.

4) I have no idea what you mean by BLP violations but I have always tried to be careful in the sources I use. I was not aware there was any problem with Mikhail Kasyanov. I made a sourced contribution a year and a half ago that was removed without comment on the talk page, but I was never inclined to do anything about it. I do not know why it is being brought up now. The same is true for Garry Kasparov. I edit warred - almost two years ago? - and was warned about it. I ceased when asked to do. I don't think what I wrote was "defamatory" as it was referenced and the end consensus was to keep my contributions. The fact these are being brought up now shows this complaint is more about the material I am putting in and my obvious stance on these subjects, rather than my behaviour.

5) Again, I have not edited Edward Lucas for over 7 months and indeed when I was involved in a dispute on that article it was dealt with on the talk page. Some of my contributions to the Lucas article were favourable to him after receiving his feedback on the talk page. My comment about MI6 was deleted immediately upon reflection and the subject in question thanked me for removing this. I believe there has been a consensus on that article for some time now.

6) Yes, I re-created "Neo-nazism in Estonia". But I did not know the page had previously been created and then deleted. It was not an "attack" page. Several other editors dived right in and added more information and citations. But when it was deleted I did not attempt to re-create it again. Hardly the sign of someone deliberately being disruptive.

So I propose a compromise. I am perfectly happy to step back from the debate, take a deep breath and stop editing Estonia related articles for a while until we have all calmed down. I suggest Digwuren do the same. Any contentious topics can then be re-examined with a clearer head. I do think, however, that if I am to have sanctions placed against me then we also need to look at the behaviour of Digwuren, as I do not think I have behaved any worse than he has. In fact, I understand that since this notice was placed on me he has again removed my sourced material about the International Federation of Human Rights from Mark Siryk. Presumably if I were to reinstate the information this would be another black mark against me?

Regardless of what action, if any, is taken against me, I accept that these edit wars are disruptive, and I regret getting carried away in the way I have done, but I am not the only one who has been involved in these disputes and I think it is unfair to single me out on the basis of Sander Säde's complaint.Shotlandiya (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

In terms of making edits in good faith and being constructive I would also point administrators to my work on BLP articles like Oleg Malyshkin, Grigory Yavlinsky, Aleksander Babakov, Rodina, Sergey Glazyev, Party of Russia's Rebirth, Dmitry Rogozin, Andrei Saveliyev, Great Russia (political party), Nick Griffin, Aleksey Mitrofanov, Just Russia, etc, as articles where I have made what I believe to be helpful and uncontroversial contributions. Shotlandiya (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please note that Shotlandiya made only ~300 edits during four years. He is obviously not a newcomer. This account should be checked for potential SPI problems. No, he did do any good to articles of Russian politicians (I provided a couple of BLP diffs above). He should be topic banned from all EE subjects rather than only the Estonian ones. Biophys (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Why? All the articles I listed on Russian BLPs that I contributed to were quite thorough and generally didn't warrant any debate or controversy? Shotlandiya (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding Shotlandiya's "However, I agree with Offliner that this argument is part of a wider dispute between two sides of a political debate on Misplaced Pages - those who are generally favourable to letting the Russian side have a fair hearing on articles about Russian history and politics, and those who are more hostile towards Russia and the former Soviet Union. This thread is just personalising that disagreement even further and taking it to another level." Offliner is also of the former class of editors. It is disingenuous to agree with Offliner as if they were an uninvolved party.
     The counter to this POV charaterization would be "However, I agree with XYZ that this argument is part of a wider dispute between two sides of a political debate on Misplaced Pages - those who promote the (official government position) Russian side regardless of factual support (regarding versions of Baltic occupation, insisting the Waffen SS were convicted at Nuremberg, the resurrection of Nazism, et al.), and those who take issue with the Soviet representation of history (from a regime which stated "history serves politics") and what is now widely interpreted as Soviet gloridfication, witness the restoration of the bust of Dzerzhinsky, founder of the Cheka, to its place of honor in the courtyard of the Moscow police. The former category of editors seek to make this appear to be a personal vendetta on the part of the latter community of (Russophobic) Baltic and Eastern European editors against Russia, and trample on the memory of those that died in the Great Patriotic War helping save the world from Nazism."
     There is nothing "personal" here. If we all stuck to reputable secondary sources fairly and accurately represented, there would be no issues. PetersV       TALK 15:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"If we all stuck to reputable secondary sources fairly and accurately represented, there would be no issues." Indeed. For example, this removal of an almost exact quote (fair and accurate representation) of Amnesty International (a reputable secondary source) by Digwuren was quite disruptive. Offliner (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Amnesty International's contentions regarding Estonia have been disputed in other reputable sources. As inserted, AI's contentions were represented as statements of fact with no counterpoint. AI's contentions have been represented fairly and accurately as opinion—and counterbalanced appropriately—elsewhere. From my perspective, the edit and your contention demonstrate (a) attempts to represent anti-Baltic allegations as statements of fact and (b) characterization of deletion of such attempts as "removing reputable sources" (as the ubiquitous WP:IDONTLIKEIT) when the reason for removal is (a). If you have other diffs you would like to discuss, my talk page is open to all so we don't take space here. Thanks. PetersV       TALK 16:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You see, this is part of the problem. Whenever any reputable source is given that is criticial about Estonia, there is always some reason to delete it! The Mark Siryk article is a fine example. The International Federation of Human Rights is a reputable source. I added their cited opinion on the subject, but it was deleted by Digwuren on the basis that they are allied to radical Russian naionalists in Latvia and so their views do not count - no referneces given. When he did this, I just reverted it. This ends up as an edit war, with the consequence that I'm hauled up on this disciplinary panel despite being far from the worst offender. Shotlandiya (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I've been unclear. The immediate appropriate action (Offliner's example) was to remove AI's characterization as a statement of fact. You or Offliner, for example, could come back with an edit representing that as AI's opinion and add balancing positions—which anyone who follows the Baltic-Russian political relationship would be aware of. The editor deleting is not under an obligation to do that work for you. I've personally interceded in several of such edit wars (where I personally had leanings to one side) to completely rewrite article sections to present a balanced perspective. There's nothing to prevent you or another editor from doing the same. PetersV       TALK 16:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I have not been following Mark Siryk and I see a lot of back and forth in article content among multiple editors. If you'd like to discuss a specific diff here or on my talk page, you're welcome. PetersV       TALK 16:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Offliners' views I hope will be considered as he was party to many of the disputes in question. Your way of characterising the disagreement between a group of editors is rather drawn out. I don't think that's the issue being discussed here. We're not here to talk about the SS, Nazism, etc. The issue is my "alleged" bad behaviour. Shotlandiya (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Offliner's views of course should and will be considered, as will yours. I am only pointing out that your comment suggests there are personal conflicts here based on hostile editors against you et al. who are only seeking a "fair hearing" for the Russian side--that is your POV, which I acknowledge and recognize--but at the same time I must point out that "fair" and "hostile" are tainted terms in terms of description of the opposing "sides." You agreed with the characerization of "personalization" of the conflict and "hostility" of editors. I responded that I don't agree with Offliner's position, nor your stated agreement with his position. PetersV       TALK 15:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough... Why don't we just say one side is generally "pro-Russian" and the other side generally "pro-Estonian", with all the caveats necessary. Shotlandiya (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't dispute resolution have been a better idea rather than using this method? Shotlandiya (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Pro-Russian, pro-Estonian, anti-Russian, anti-Estonian do not apply here. Those terms all characterize the conflict as based on personal opinion on both sides. What is at issue is editorial behavior, tactics, and editorial treatment of sources. These have nothing to do with personal background or biases. PetersV       TALK 16:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Shotlandiya

I assess the diffs provided as evidence as follows:

1. Y Clear violation of WP:BATTLE, but Shotlandiya has apologized for it above.
2. N Not a valid diff.
3. N Not a valid diff.
4. N Not an attack page.
5. Y Diffs about Jaak Aaviksoo: Edit warring, no excuse.
6. Y Diffs about Mark Sirõk: Intensive edit warring over BLP to include content of questionable verifiability, also mischaracterizing content dispute as vandalism at .
7. Y Diffs about Edward Lucas (journalist): Edit warring to include content that violates WP:BLP.
8. N/Y Impolite and silly, but not a grave violation of our norms of conduct.
9. N/Y Well-referenced from , but a copyvio thereof, and the position in the lead gives the issue undue weight.
10. Y Multiple violations of WP:BLP with respect to Kasparov and others who are called "neo-fascists" in this edit without any reference.

Much like Deacon of Pndapetzim and Shell above, this leads me to identify two areas of concern: edit-warring and WP:BLP, issues about which Shotlandiya was previously properly warned. His reply is unpersuasive - any misconduct by others does not excuse or mitigate Shotlandiya's conduct in any way (but is possibly grounds for later sanctions against those others). Constructive edits are also not a mitigating factor, because all editors are expected to make constructive edits only.

For these reasons, acting under Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions, I sanction Shotlandiya as follows:

• For six months, he is restricted from making more than one revert per page per seven-day period with respect to any page related to Russia or Estonia, or nationals of these countries, broadly defined. Reverts of obvious vandalism are exempt.
• For three months, to run concurrently with the preceding sanction, he is topic-banned from editing biographical material about living persons with respect to any page (including but not limited to biographical articles) related to Russia or Estonia, or nationals of these countries, broadly defined. Reverts of obvious vandalism are exempt.

Any wikilawyering about or violation of these restrictions may result in lengthy blocks. These sanctions are not to be construed as endorsing or excusing misconduct (if any) by other editors mentioned in the discussion, but it is not their conduct which is under review here. Shotlandiya or others are free to make well-founded enforcement requests with respect to them.  Sandstein  21:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits

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

Request concerning Vintagekits

User requesting enforcement

Bastun 11:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced

Baronets naming dispute

Sanction or remedy that has been violated

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy

, ,

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue

Part of the Arbcom resolution reads in part " ...are both restricted from nominating articles created by the other for deletion and more generally warned from unnecessarily interacting with each other, especially where it is likely to be perceived as baiting, trolling, or another form of harassment."

User:Kittybrewster has recently been asking about his topic ban from baronets and knights on his talk page.

I posit that Vk posting on this issue on Kb's talk page is a clear and direct violation of the Arbcom restriction quoted above. There were two posts in three days, the second after Kb had (correctly) pointed out that Vk was banned from the page.

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

Block or ban.

Additional comments

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff of notification.

Discussion concerning Vintagekits

It states "unnecessarily interacting with each other, especially where it is likely to be perceived as baiting, trolling, or another form of harassment". I did none of these.

• A. I did not interact directly with Kb and specifically replied to others and avoided direct interaction with Kb.
• B. I deemed it necessary as he had been discussing me. What did you want me to do?
• C. There was no attempt to bait, troll or harass. It was a perfectly civil post.
• D. No where there does it state that I am banned from being on the same page as him. Now if it was a case that he was on a page discussing for instance the Battle of the Somme and I showed up after him and was having a go at him there then you would have a point, but the discussion involved me and my name was mentioned before I even turned up.
• E. Here is the full discussion. Mangojuice and Rockpocket have been heavily involved in the whole process and have been backing Kb strongly. If they thought that it was something I shouldnt have been doing then I am sure they would have let me know.

Just another case of Bastun trying to have a go at me - its getting pretty boring.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

A. How is posting on someone's talk page not directly interacting with them?

B. You could have i) ignored him, or ii) posted directly to User:Mangojuice's talk page. Or User:Rockpocket's.

C. You wrote "If you are sidelining the restrictions that have been put on Kitty then I will assume that all restrictions are null and void...", presumably referring to your own restrictions. That certainly strikes me as baiting. Posting a second time on the page, after Kb had posted "Why is Vintagekits posting on this page? He is banned from it." is certainly baiting.

D. The restriction on both of you states you are to avoid unnecessary interaction. Posting on the other's talk page is a clear violation of that.

And no, not having "another go at you". When you've behaved, I've said so, on more than one occasion. Bastun 13:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have said my piece so I will let others have their say. I am sure they can tell you to "shut up and get on with editing" instead of trying to causing childish drama.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

VK, that sounds wise. I don't think enforcement is necessary here. I don't believe VK is banned from KB's talk page. KB and I and some others were discussing how the ArbCom motion is to be interpreted, which applies to VK as much as it applies to KB. In other words, the conversation did pertain to him, and I did not feel that he was there to harass or bait KB. Because the two of you are mentioned jointly in the ArbCom motion, it is natural that the conversation would deal with you. That said, there are some instances where you made your own comments on KB's past behavior, which I think maybe you should avoid in the future. But as long as it doesn't escalate from here I don't think a block is necessary. Mangojuice 13:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Vintagekits

No action taken. The relevant part of the motion reads "warned from unnecessarily interacting with each other". This is a mere warning and not a binding restriction not to do something, otherwise it would have been phrased as "instructed not to unnecessarily interact with each other" or similar. (But I assume that disregard for ArbCom warnings may make the Committee more inclined to consider actual sanctions in the future.)

Accordingly, whether or not the edits at issue are "unnecessary", they do not appear to violate any binding part of the arbitral decision referred to, which means that the arbitration enforcement noticeboard is not the place to discuss them.  Sandstein  05:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Dilip rajeev

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

Request concerning Dilip rajeev

User requesting enforcement

Radiantenergy (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Dilip rajeev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba

Sanction or remedy that has been violated

]

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy

• Repeatedly readded material banned by second arbitration from banned attack website back into the sub-article under Sathya Sai Baba here ,,.
• Inspite of his warning during the earlier arbitration enforcement case in February 2009 warning him against adding unreliable sources Dilip added back bcskeptics another unreliable source into the article several times. ,

, .

The edits you point out above are a month old - dated 12th May, 2009. Many editors were then of the opinion ( am sure they are still) that Professor Dale Bayerstein's is one of the best studies available on the topic. How is that edit relevant here/now? After it was removed by apparent consensus, I never attempted to add them back in. In Feb 2009, I dont think there wsa nything said about not using BC Skeptics as a source.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that The Arbcom had not mentioned anything on, let alone ban, Dale Bayerstein. There were mixed comments on WP:RS noticeboard . Kindly See: . Anyway, I did not attempt to restore the info after details of the second WP:RS discussion was pointed out to me around May 12th. At the same time, there was no consensus among other editors as well on whether the source were reliable or not: - with at least two other users opining in May 2009 that the source is reliable. In discussions as late as 27th May 2009, it may be seen users arguing that Bayerstein is reliable. For instance, please see where a user comments: "if you are really aware of the content of the Beyerstein study and still see it as irrelevant to a description of Sathya Sai Baba (unlike the POV works of his hagiographers and devotees), your grasp of the topic and your independence are bound to be doubted by anyone with a minimal familiarity with the vast literature on SSB. "

Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The user's claim that I added material; from "attack websites" to the sub-page "1993 Murders in Prashanthi Nilayam" is factually wrong as may be evidenced from my entire history of recent my edits on the page:. I merely restored information that had been blanked out and after restoration, immediately pared out the poorly sourced stuff that was present. What he presents as "evidence" are intermedediary states of the article while I was editing it. My entire set of recent changes to the namespace is summarized in this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=1993_Murders_in_Prashanthi_Nilayam&diff=295947306&oldid=291539909

Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• He also added gruesom picture and material from Basava Preamanada source declared as unreliable in the earlier BostonMA mediation discussion - .

The set of images, can be sourced to The Week, Premananda's book,etc. Many of them appear in the BBC documentary "Secret Swami" as well. Basava Preamanad is not the original source of these images. I make this clear in the image description:. It is not from any "attack website." Many of these images are shown in the BBC documentary "Secret Swami":

Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue

User:Dilip Rajeev who had used another account earlier User_White_Adept was warned in the earlier arbitration enforcement case not to add material banned by second arbitration and other unrelible sources and that if he repeats sanctions will be imposed on him on February 26th 2009. Here - . He has violated this warning repeatedly several times after that case.

Where have I violated this "repeatedly" in my recent edits? Every single source I used to add to the Sathya Sai Baba page has been of the highest quality. The Times, anthropologist Lawrence Babb, etc.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Inspite of this warning he created the sub-article under the main Sathya Sai baba adding exactly the same banned material from attack website such as this and several other unreliable sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=1993_Murders_in_Prashanthi_Nilayam&diff=295947306&oldid=282645973. You will see that it says it was added by Inactive_user_account_001. That's because he removed that account after his socket puppet case.

Yes it is true that I created the namespace/"sub-article". It was found that the topic clearly statisfies WP:N ( it had captured Headlines in Indian media). The "sockpuppuet" you talk about was found a legitimate user account and was renamed( deletion could not be done due to GDFL concerns) under an admin's recommendation to protect my identity. I clarify this further below. Please see the SPI case as well. In the case it was pointed out that my use of the account was legitimate and that I " was unblocked because there was no abusive socking going on. ". Please see the SPI case. The case was made up by a newly registered user who wanted to ascertain my real-life identity. Here in Kerala, India even 70 year old critics have had attempts at life made against them and through using an alternate account I was attempting to protect my identity. But my clumsy handling of the alternate account, left clues to which my original account was. And people related to the ssb organization levered it to raise an SPI and find out my true identity. Upon doing so, they had a large scale propaganda and slander unleashed against me on their websites and blogs.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

See the entire history of recent my edits on the sub-page:. I had restored information that had been blanked and after restoration I pared out poorly sourced stuff that was present.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Then it did not stop there he edit warred several times to add another source declared clearly as unreliable by WP:RS in the Sathya Sai Baba article. ,

,

The edits you point out above are a month old - dated to 12th May, 2009. Many editors were then of the opinion ( am sure they are still) that Professor Dale Bayerstein's is one of the best studies available on the topic. How is that edit relevant here/now?

Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Then even recently he undid the improvement efforts by other editors to add positive material to the article reliably sourced to well published sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=295960924&oldid=295960521.

My recent changes are summarized by this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=295961496&oldid=295927061 . I expand further on the set of edits( which involved addition of very well sourced info and moving of a section( recently added - after June 4th if am not mistaken) written like an ad to the "sathya sai movement" article) below .

Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Its come to point where the other editors are unable to keep up with his POV pushing and undoing the damage he is causing to the article. Please see all his edits I mentioned above where he edit-warred to add several sources declared as unreliable in and even banned material in the sub-article several times. He has clearly violated second arbitration rulings as well his earlier arbitration enforcement case.

Again, I request my contributions be reviewed and me be judged on the basis of my contributions and not these baseless allegations and intentional distortions.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

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

I request you to please ban User:Dilip Rajeev from causing more damage to this article and the related sub-article.

Additional comments

This is the second arbitration enforcement case on User:Dilip Rajeev after his first arbitration enforcement case on February 2009 on his other account here . He seemed to continue the same edit-warring and POV pushing inserting repeatedly unreliable and banned sources. I request that for the good of the article he should be banned from further editing this article.

First "case", If I remember right was raised by the same user, trying to get me out of the namespace - probably because he has a conflict of interest with my contributions. 99% of my contribution to the namespace has been through reputable sources such as The BBC, The Times, The DTV, The Guardian, The Vancouver Sun, Lawrence Babb. etc. When I used a document ( that first created the international controversy - by the name 'The Findings') as a primary source for identification of its perspective, the user had set of concocted and distorted allegations made against me.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I again emphasize that all my recent additions to the article has been highly sourced, and any removal of content was accompanied by pointing out why it fails WP:RS and why it is unencyclopaedic.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, I emphasize the claims made here are baseless distortions cherry picking on edits - some several months old. I have always attempted to ensure the quality of content being added and had been repeatedly calling upon other editor to do the same. And I request that I may please be judged on the basis of my contributions and not on baseless and random allegations made against me - with the purpose of getting me removed from the namespace.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

I have notified User:Dilip Rajeev in his talk page here. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Dilip_rajeev&diff=295995534&oldid=295956258

Discussion concerning Dilip rajeev

I have made the details of all my changes clear. And I have only attempted to the article encyclopaedic, maintain quality of sources and and keep objective info from being repeatedly blanked out. I request my edits be reviewed edit by edit and that me please be judged based on the merits (/ de-merits) of my contributions and not on the baseless allegations made above. Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I had attempted to contact Admins regarding the issue:. Some users ended up raising a set of Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Then, several baseless allegations of sockpupptery etc were raised against me by these users attempting to get rid of me from the namespace. The sockputtery case can be read here and it was dismissed as completely baseless: Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The sources I have used are mainly The BBC, The Times, The DTV, The Guardian etc. I have not repeatedly used "banned sources" as claimed by the above editor. And I am willing to have my edit history scrutinized and if there be any misconception, I'll be glad to clarify Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

All my recent changes to the article is summarized in this diff:. In edit summaries I explain each change I have made. A major change involved moving a section, (on the highly controversial topic of charity by Sathya Sai orgnization), to the page Sathya Sai Movement( with an 'advert' tag added). The entire section had been written like an advertisement for the organization. The charity work is highly controversial - and cases including of organ theft has been filed against these organizations. Australian National Television had an hour long documentary in which many disturbing finds were revealed. Other, reiable 3rd party sources tell us the same. None of this was ever touched upon and the entire section had been written up like an advertisement. Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I am also pasting here, after minor editing, the concerns I raised on Admin noticeboard recently to clarify my concerns:

Sathya Sai Baba is a very controversial topic in India. All coverage of the individual in reputable western media has been strongly critical. In Sai Baba related pages on wikipedia we are facing some major issues, which I attempt to outline below.

• Continual blanking of critical and well sourced information by IPs, newly registered editors and people who apparently consider sai baba their god ( which can be evidenced by several comments to the effect on the article's talk). This blanking happens completely in violation of wikipedia policies. Some of the recent edit comments include: "I know that the changes I made where right", "I add \ed thta because I know what to do", "I changed it because this is offensive to a lot of people, and it isn't even true", "My dad was in Puttaparthi his whole life and this never happened"- just to point out a few. It is quite difficult, if not completely impossible, to engage in rational arguments with people making changes with "rationale" like these. These edits were reverted but there are many more - which involve blanking of information, addition of advertisement like content etc. which are hard to handle.

• Section blanking, deletion of clips revealing cheating in purported miracles( which can be seen in this version: )- the article is continually subject to such attacks. And the way the people who want the info out work make it impossible to fix these without getting quickly reverted and attacked.

• "Info", self-advertisement by any standard, sourced directly to the controversial sai baba organization and newspapers cover entire sections now. All this material is completely in violation of WP:RS.

• Slander and attack against neutral editors. Almost 100% of info from respectable sources on this person is critical in nature - be it The BBC, The Guardian, The Times or The DTV. Editors adding well sourced material are targeted by and slandered by the Sai Baba group on their websites and blogs. Which makes many editors scared to contribute to the article and just stay away from it.. Even people like Robert Priddy have had their character assassinated by the group's lies and propaganda. I had personally used an alternate account, of which I had informed the arbcom, to edit the article. Mainly because it is an extremely controversial topic in India and there have been attempts at life on many critics including elderly people. People related to the sai baba organization had an SPI slyly raised against me to ascertain my identity. The admin, initially confused my alternate account for a sock and ended up revealing my details. Later investigations revealed that my alternate account was just a legitimate alternate account and was never used in an abusive manner - and thus my account was unblocked. I was further attacked by editors who wanted me not contributing to the namespace - which led to me deciding to stop contributing to the article. Recently I was taken aback by how all well sourced information was being removed and replaced with self-sourced praise and attempted to point out the issue on talk and fix it - with little effect. Even if I try to re-add the well sourced info - it would just be quickly blanked again.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that well sourced information is deleted often with sneaky/dishonest edit comments: Here is a change made claiming "took out videos, no consensus." The video teh person refers to has been in the article for over six months and were taken out with specious reasoning and no consensus on June 4th.

A couple of other very recent instances of major changes to my edits being made with sneaky/misleading edit summaries, I point out below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=296012746&oldid=296011786 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=296010822&oldid=296009522 Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

:Dilip removed information that shed SSB in a good light, while re-adding videos that were added initially without discussion. There was an ongoing discussion about having the videos, but Dilip chose to ignore WP protocol and add the videos without reaching a consensus. He initiated an edit war, where he made at least 8 reverts on the page, while refusing to take his concerns to the talk page. There has already been a discussion about cutting down the criticism in the article to a size fitting a BLP, but he does not like that. He would rather have the article stand as a BLP nightmare, with more criticism than is fitting of any article on Misplaced Pages. It is my personal believe that he has a conflict of interest with this page. Thanks, Onopearls 18:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC) I withdraw my reply. Dilip rajeev has just as much of a right to edit the SSB page as anyone else, and his edits were, if nothing else, well sourced. Best regards, Onopearls 03:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ono, The above, you may call edits that were part of an edit war, at best. These are not reverts to any particular version.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The version after my edits is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&oldid=296014411. All info on the person, from reputable 3rd party publicationis critical. We cannot shove it all under the carpet. See the Michael Jackson article - the allegations are touched upon objectively, including in the lead. What I removed was self sourced stuff and a recently created section on purported charity ( the reason for moving it to another, more appropriate article, I point out in my comments above as well as in the talk of the article).

I fail to see how addition of Scholarly analysis as from The Times or anthropologist Lawrence Babb could make the article a "BLP nightmare." Please compare my version with the one before my edits.

The videos were there for 6 months and many users have said they contribute a lot to the article. A person removed it a few days back saying "moderator" Onopearls agreed to it being removed. Now, apparently, according to the above editor, it is completely my fault that I added the material "without consensus" back in January.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that the videos belong in the article. They were very well sourced - BBC documentary for one of them. They were removed without discussion. They are extremely informative, in my opinion. The editors who are unhappy with negative information in this article seem to be of the belief that a BLP policy compliant article must not be too negative, *regardless* of how well sourced the negative information is. I have not looked at every single diff; I can't say that everything Dilip Rajeev put in the article belonged. However, what I can say is that numerous editors of this article have very, very strange and inaccurate ideas of Misplaced Pages policy. Bhimaji (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bhimaji about the videos and the confusion between neutrality and NPOV. I agree with Radiantenergy that Dilip Rajeev has repeatedly used unreliable sources. I was a wiki-saint compared with Dilip but I was topic-banned by the arbcom anyway (mainly because of allegations of COI). Andries (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you kindly point out specifically where I "repeatedly" added "unreliable sources"? And which ones these unreliable sources were? In my early edits I was new to the topic and was not aware of some sources being considered unreliable - but once they were pointed out, I believe I had refrained from using them. And the very majority of my contributions, you may verify, can be sourced to The BBC, The Times, The Guardian, The Vancouver Sun, anthropologist Lawrence Babb, etc. Not to cast any personal accusations - but the sources I have used, considered in their entirety, are manifolds more reliable than those Radiantenergy ( the user who cherry picked diffs, some months old, to make these allegations ) has been sourcing things to. In my recent edits, every single source I used has been of the highest quality.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• I am inclined to decline this request on formal grounds because it is not made in proper form: the section "Sanction or remedy that has been violated" contains malformed links that do not appear to point to any specific sanction or remedy, and the section "Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue" does not seem to address any specific sanction or remedy either. This means I can't properly evaluate this as a request for arbitration enforcement. – Dilip rajeev, please comment only in this section, not in the "request" section.  Sandstein  05:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sir, I just now read your comment asking me to restrict my response to this section. I apologize for making use of the "request section" for responding. Comments, I make in response, from here on, I will make sure, are restricted to this section. Sincerely,Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with Sandstein. I don't think it fair to expect an administrator to review such a poorly presented complaint. AGK 16:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see anything specifically actionable here - the cases in question don't appear to have any remedies that would apply. While the cases state that poorly sourced negative information can be removed repeatedly without penalty, there is no provision given for repeatedly inserting such information. If there is edit warring or BLP problems, then those issues need to be dealt with through regular channels. Shell 05:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Dilip rajeev

Not actionable. Malformed request; there seems to be nothing enforceable here.  Sandstein  22:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Brandmeister

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

Request concerning Brandmeister

User requesting enforcement

Fedayee (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Brandmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2

Sanction or remedy that has been violated

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy

In all of the following reverts, he replaces "Persian ruled khanate" with "an independent khanate" and removes 3-4 sources.

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue

Six reverts in three days is clearly abusive.

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

Brandmeister placed on 1RR, khanate-related articles placed on 1RR and all other revert warriors warned.

Additional comments

It is not the first time Brandmeister is caught with this behaviour and there has yet to be any action taken against this. He has been involved in several complaints on this board and is well aware of the AA sanctions.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Brandmeister

Actually I am surprised at this. Fedayee, as shown in his contribs, has not made a single edit in khanates but suddenly pops out with report. It is a bit suspicious to me, but I am not sure whether there is a coordinated Armenian-Iranian activity over there. The account of St. Hubert, which I specifically reverted, is currently under sock investigation. I can't figure out "other revert warriors" apart from famous Babakexorramdin. The issue of Baku Khanate in particular is pretty well clarified at talk, where I opened the relevant section. brandt 22:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Brandmeister, should you in fact have edit-warred, accusing others of covert coordination or whatever will not help you here. Fedayee, your request does not contain the diffs of the conduct that you ask us to review; it is thus not yet actionable as far as I am concerned.  Sandstein  05:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware of this: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/St. Hubert. This gives an idea whom Brand was reverting. Note the number of rvs St. Hubert made, apparently in violation of his editing restriction. Grandmaster 06:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, the requested diffs have been added. Brandmeister, please, quit this battleground mentality and assume good faith. This is what I wrote: Brandmeister placed on 1RR, khanate-related articles placed on 1RR and all other revert warriors warned. Which includes anyone who is edit warring. Since no one seems to do anything about the recent disruptions, I will be trying to report anyone who is edit warring or engaged in other types of disruptive editing. Grandmaster already reported two users but failed to report you for which I finished the job for him. I personally think that the level of disruption would require certain articles to also be placed on 1RR, Moreschi did it on the article on the Armenian Genocide and that's what he would probably do witnessing the recent edit warrings. And it's also time to require prior discussion justifying the reverts, this was ignored blatantly by the administrators even though it was part of the initial restrictions. - Fedayee (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Brandmeister

The diffs provided are evidence of edit warring, against which there are warnings on Brandmeister's talk page. Accordingly, pursuant to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement, I sanction Brandmeister as follows: For six months, he is restricted to one revert per page per seven-day period with respect to any article related to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran, and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area. Reverts of obvious vandalism are exempt.

This sanction is not to be construed as excusing or endorsing the conduct of any other editor, notably St. Hubert (talk · contribs). Should the ongoing sockpuppet investigation with respect to him not result in a block, any user is free to make a well-founded arbitration enforcement request against him or other involved editors.

The requests for other enforcement actions are declined: The remedy does not provide for restrictions aimed at articles or groups of articles, only for restrictions aimed at individual editors. Warnings can be issued by anybody and do not require administrator action.  Sandstein  07:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Appeal

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There are no grounds for this appeal. Sandstein's actions stand. AGK 12:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a mistake here. According to the remedy:

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

There's no evidence that Brandmeister had previous warnings, which he ignored. Therefore he cannot be placed on editing restriction. He must be officially warned first, and if he repeatedly fails to adhere to the remedy requirements, only then he can be placed on parole. Note that a similar report on User:Shahin Giray resulted only in a warning: Grandmaster 12:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(Section header "Appeal" added.) I did verify that Brandmeister received edit-warring warnings at . As to reverting banned users, it is not currently established that either of the two users Brandmeister edit-warred with is or was banned. Even if that were so, there is no indication (such as in the edit summaries) that he meant to make the reverts in order to undo a banned user's edits. Instead, it appears that he made them to force through his opinion in a content dispute, which means that the sanction remains needed whether or not the other account(s) eventually turn out to be socks of banned users.

For these reasons, I am not at this time willing to undo or modify the sanctions. They accordingly remain in force unless overturned by consensus among administrators on this board or by the Arbitration Committee (as specified in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement, subsection "Appeal of discretionary sanctions").  Sandstein  13:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

But please note that the warnings by other users do not count. The editor must be warned by an admin about the possibility of application of the remedy, with a link to the arbitration case, and an advise how to improve his editing. This has not been done, therefore the remedy cannot be applied at this time. He must be officially warned first. You can see that in a similar situation Shahin Giray received an official warning yesterday. The remedy says: Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision. I do not see that this has been done. Grandmaster 13:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the remedy specifies that " if, despite being warned, that editor ...". It does not say that the warning must be made by an administrator. That requirement would also make little sense, because the point of a warning is just to make sure that the user is aware of the relevant policies.

With respect to the Shahin Giray matter, that case was processed by another administrator. Because I am unfamiliar with it, I cannot comment on whether and how it compares to this case. In any event, because the sanctions provided for by the remedy are discretionary, they are bound to vary substantially depending on the judgment of the enforcing administrator.  Sandstein  13:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, though, that the warning did not include a link to the arbitration case. I consider this to be a irrelevant technicality, however, because the point of such a link is to make the user aware of the possibility of sanctions. Brandmeister's prior contributions to this board, such as the enforcement request at , show that he was perfectly aware of the case and its ramifications. I am open to suggestions by other admins, though, if they believe that the sanction should be reconsidered on account of this technicality.  Sandstein  13:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the established procedure must be followed. First the editor receives an official warning that his behavior is problematic, and if he fails to correct his behavior, he is placed on a restriction. This is how it is usually done. Also, I think the outcome of sockpuppetry investigation must be also taken into account. Note that every time St. Hubert reverted the article in dispute, he removed a number of reliable sources, replacing them with others. This can hardly be called a constructive approach to editing of the article. Since this user most probably evaded arbcom sanctions by reverting, the rvs of this user's edits should not be counted as reverts. Another revert warrior, Kurdo777 (talk · contribs) was also caught with using multiple accounts to edit war, , and I find the behavior of Babakexorramdin (talk · contribs) in the same article to be problematic too: I think all editors who made more than 1 rv there must be warned. Grandmaster 14:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have already expressed my opinion with respect to procedure above. As to the other editors you mention, their conduct is not relevant to this case, but you are of course free to issue any appropriate warnings.  Sandstein  14:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I refrained from reverting on Jun 11, editing elsewhere. I believe it is just a content dispute, but Fedayee's report gives the impression of blind edit-warring. Brandt 15:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment from an uninvolved sysop: Brandmeister was issued a quite detailed warning against edit warring on 21 March 2009. That warning satisfies the caution provision of the discretionary sanctions remedy. On that basis, I do not think this appeal to have merit. AGK 16:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That warning came from a person, who himself was involved in edit warring across multiple articles and placed on editing restrictions as result. I don't think a warning from this user should count. Plus, it said nothing of editing restrictions, and did not link to the arbitration case, as the remedy requires. Grandmaster 18:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Your argument does not make sense in any way, the warning was meant to inform users of that restriction, assuming that they were not aware of it. Brandmeister was very well aware of that restriction, he himself has reported users several times to place them on restriction or reported them for the violation of that restriction. Requiring such a warning now (particularly for a user who made 6 reverts in 3 days) would amount to gaming the system since it does not consider the purpose of the warning itself. And I wonder what's the problem here, don't you want revert warring to stop? - Fedayee (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course I do, but the main reason for edit warring was the suspected sock account St. Hubert. Reverting socks does not count as rv. Back when AA restrictions were imposed, I inquired with arbitration clerks about this, and this is what they told me: Let's wait for WP:SPI request to proceed, then we will be better informed to form an opinion on this issue. --Grandmaster 05:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you reading what you are writing? A suspected sock is a suspected sock... not a proven sock. What is Brandmeister losing? His right to revert more than once? Assuming Hubert is a sock, from what you say someone who is placed on restriction can have it reversed if it is discovered weeks after that one of the editors he has reverted was a sock. It's not as if Brandmeister is reverting vandalism and it is not as if Hubert was the only one opposing. Brandmeister should have been officially restricted when Meowy was blocked for having added the reverted tag or even prior to that when Vartan was blocked because of Brandmeister warring for the renaming the article. That's all I'm going to add. - Fedayee (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thankfully for Misplaced Pages, it is not a court of law. Therefore, minor defects in procedure do not result in a case, sanction, or decision being void. While Brandmeister did not receive a specific warning with a specific link to the case, he has reported users for the violation of the sanction in the past. The requirement for a specific link to the case is, presumably, to avoid users facing sanctions for violating an edict they do not know exists. This peril is not in question here. The suggestion that the wrong user gave a warning, or that certain warnings should not count, borders on Wikilawyering. I also endorse Sandstein's actions. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Offliner

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

Request concerning Offliner

User requesting enforcement

Biophys (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Offliner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

Sanction or remedy that has been violated

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy

*unilateral deletion of an article

• 1.unilateral deletion of an article and again, and again, and again, and again
• 2.unilateral deletion of an article
• 3.unilateral deletion of an article
• 4.deletion of sources and sourced text in the same article
• 5.removal of sourced text, and again, and again
• 6.indiscriminate deletion of links
• 7.deletion of links to publications by the person described in BLP, and again, and again, with offensive edit summary
• 8.removal of links to commentaries by the person described in BLP, deletion of other sourced information in the same article
• 9.deletion of good links
• 10.removal of good links
• 11.removal of soured and relevant information

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue

Sustained edit warring, unilateral deletions of whole articles and materials this user does not like, no matter how well the materials are sourced. The materials are on Russian/EE subjects.

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

topic ban, RR restriction

Additional comments

He was warned many times by users with different political views and by an uninvolved administrator:

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

here

Discussion concerning Offliner

• 1: This article was created by Biophys by cutpasting material from an old version of Web brigades (a version he had reverted many times to; many people had edited and improved the article after that version.) I don't think such behaviour is acceptable and to me it was a clear POV fork.
• 2-3: Same story. Biophys created the articles by cutpasting material from an earlier version of Russian apartment bombings. Also clearly a POV fork.
• That I said, I think doing edits 1-3 was clearly a mistake on my part. I should have been more patient and used speedy deletion or AfD instead. 1-3 are months-old now, and I won't be doing similar things in the future, now that I have more experience and more knowledge of the Misplaced Pages 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.)

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

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

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

1. 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
2. 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 and simply continued his removal of links and reverts.
3. The instruction about WP links tells which links should be included and which links should be avoided . 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: , , , .

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

• 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 Misplaced Pages. Also, some of the articles concerned are mind-blowing, and their editorial content seems strongly against Misplaced Pages policies ( Evidence of FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings ??? , what's next Evidence that the US didn't land on the Moon? ; in Russian influence operations in Estonia a comment from a secret service report was transformed in a full-fledged article, even with the utter lack of such topic in the scholar (and non-scholar) media; Internet operations by Russian secret police, while a reasonable topic, includes such ludicrous sections as details about a contact phone number placed on the website of a Russian intelligence agency). As for the supposed assumption of bad faith, it seems merely a statement about a state of fact. The ArbCom recently acknowledged that blocs of editors do exist, and the AfD of two of the concerned articles ( here and here) suggest that there are two blocs of editors in this topic (one which favors articles with allegations about supposed negative actions by Russia, and one which disfavours them), with minimal external involvement. Considering these, a topic ban at the current time could only show disapproval of Offliner's editorial opinions, without making Misplaced Pages better, just making it more prone to systemic bias. Anonimu (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• 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 Misplaced Pages raged over the Eastern Europe's pre and post- Soviet history. (Igny (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

• Comment - I agree with Anonimu and Igny. Having closely observed Offliner's conduct over the past month, it's obvioust hat 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. This has no purpose at all regarding preventive sanctions–Biophys seems to have had an interest in blocking an opponent, pick any one you like, this only being an instance of blockshopping against an after a prolonged attempt to bait an opposing party with numerous content forks. PasswordUsername (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Offliner

This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.

Biophys

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

Request concerning Biophys

User requesting enforcement

Offliner (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

Sanction or remedy that has been violated

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy

*1. Edit warring and article ownership at Web brigades. Observe the repeated reinserting the section "poland", etc.

• 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.

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

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

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

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

Block for edit warring and a topic ban on Russia-related subjects.

Additional comments

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Biophys

• Response. It is noteworthy that I was notified about this request by Offliner , but the report iself was made by PasswordUsername. Also note this message by Offliner: . There is a high degree of coordination between these three users. Should I file AE reports on two others? All content and articles created by me are well sourced. When I remove something (like groundless accusations of anti-semitism), I justify this at talk pages. Since the number of diffs is so huge, may I please ask a reviewing administrator about the following? Please tell which my actions violate WP policies, and I would be glad to respond specifically about those.Biophys (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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 Misplaced Pages? Content disputed are not solved by trying to get rid of the other side.Anonimu (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

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

• 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 Misplaced Pages 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:
• - Biophys deletes sourced content by historian Arno Mayer.
• - 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.
• Biophys twice reinserts inaccurate information which is dismissed at talk as not connected to the content of the article–without even bothering to look at the Talk page. When Beatle Fab Four reverts asking him to see talk, Biophys tries to canvass for a block of Beatle Fab Four at User talk:Colchicum. Administrator Alex Bakharev tells Biophys to stop antics like that, as he did not even bother to consult the talk page.
• - Biophys removes sourced material about the politics of controversial Russian opposition leader Kasparov, claiming "undue weight for biography of a world chess champion."
• - Biophys reverts "per talk" without adding anything to the talk page after three others engage in a heated discussion.
• Biophys insists on retaining one sentence of nonsense removed in good faith by an IP.
• - Biophys is warned by Viriditas to stop inserting nonsense into the Human rights in the United States article while ignoring the changes that take place on the Talk page.

PasswordUsername (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Biophys

This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.

Ohconfucius automation violation

Ohconfucius

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

Request concerning Ohconfucius

User requesting enforcement

AKAF (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking

Sanction or remedy that has been violated

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#Ohconfucius_automation

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue

Ohconfucius is prohibited from using automation in article space indefinitely.

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

Delete and salt User:Ohconfucius/monobook.js

Additional comments

I have no additional reason to think that this is anything on top of his normal behaviour. The Arbcom finding just needs to be enforced, and this is a user who is unreliable about self-policing. While you're at it though, it might be a good idea to delete and salt User:Lightmouse/monobook.js and User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/test_script.js, which were the cause of this arbitration. This script is still being used by a number of users.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Ohconfucius

Result concerning Ohconfucius

This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.