Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive41

Smith2006

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

Request concerning Smith2006

 * User requesting enforcement: Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * User against whom enforcement is requested:
 * Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Requests for arbitration/Digwuren
 * Sanction or remedy that has been violated:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren
 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy:
 * 1) Stalinist Polonization and Polish imperialism and chauvinism are over
 * 2) Polish Nationalist POV: This article is increasingly manipulated by Polish Nationalist editors. I do not have time to correct all their false claims
 * 3) edit summary: This seems anti_German Stalinist Polish annexationist propaganda.
 * 4) edit summary: Stop pushing Polish POV
 * 5) edit summary: modern Polish spelling in fact=Polish POV chauvinism
 * 6) edit summary: Polish prejudice and annexationism POV at wikipedia
 * Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: Personal attacks against a group of editors (Poles), creating an unpleasant atmosphere at affected article(s) - in other grounds, a battleground between Polish and (presumably) German editors
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): The user should be added to the DIGWUREN.
 * Additional comments: Request submitted by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Notification diff
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Discussion concerning Smith2006

 * That is a persuasive request. The diffs provided show that Smith2006 is treating Wikipedia as a battleground by making references to "Stalinist propaganda" and the like. Unless convinced otherwise, I intend to impose a six month topic ban on Poland-related subjects, especially including issues related to the Polish or German identity of somebody or something. I have also warned for edit-warring on the same article, Jan Dzierżon.   Sandstein   09:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The user doesn't appear to have been previously notified of the discretionary sanctions, so I've left a templated notification on his user talk page. However, I agree with Sandstein about treating Wikipedia as a battleground, so an immediate block or ban could be appropriate. PhilKnight (talk) 10:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Sandstein and Phil that Smith's editing is alarmingly incendiary in the diffs cited, but would be inclined to say that a notification of the discretionary sanctions should be the full extent to which we take action on this complaint. Should an actionable complaint be brought against Smith to AE in the near future, I would be inclined to pursue Sanstein's suggestion and install a six month topic ban. AGK 13:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out the lack of prior notification. We can close this thread now, I believe. Should the disruption continue, I (or possibly also PhilKnight and AGK) will expeditiously impose sanctions on request.  Sandstein   16:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be willing to impose sanctions, yes. Closing thread as of this edit. AGK 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Deja vu, seen many times in the last years: an editor discovers the POV pushing conducted by Polish editors on English Wikipedia, and after some edit warring in which the editor is provoked into incivilities or 3RR, Piotrus tries to get the editor topic banned, edit restricted or blocked. In many cases he had been successful with this strategy, just like with me recently. I had barely taken part in that case, as I am tired of these shenanigans. Now, yet another inexperienced editor is targeted. Even if nothing is done, he might get driven away, like others before.

How about for a change, topic banning those users who for years are treating Wikipedia as a battleground, misusing it as a platform for their national (and personal) vanity? Like Piotrus, Radeksz, Molobo, Space Cadet, Poeticbent and others? Why not banning them from "Poland"-related subjects, especially including issues related to the Polish or German identity of somebody or something? How often have they been in the center of troubles, and how often have they gotten away, just liked Radek recently, with promising to behave nicely?

I say "Poland", as large areas annexed to modern day Poland have no Polish history prior to 1945, and some more areas have a mixed German/Polish history. The former, not the latter does apply to Johann Dzierzon who had nothing to do with Poland, save for his Silesian home, which for centuries prior to his birth had been part of Bohemia, Austria and Prussia, having been made part of modern day Poland decades after he died. Johann Dzierzon (not "Jan") was a Prussian/German citizen during all his life, as there was no Polish state during his lifetime. He studied at the German university in Breslau (not at the Austrian Polish-language one in Cracow), and he published in German, not in Polish. The Polish language works listed in the article had not been written by Dzierzon in Polish, they are mere translations by others into Polish, just like the translations into English and other languages. I had pointed that out by quoting the authorship in Polish, so all Polish editors should know this by now. Yet, Radek simply deleted this from the article as (rv OR, POV). Some dubious Polish sources claim that Dzierzon self-described himself as a Pole, and Smith2006 is actually wrong in calling them "Stalinist propaganda", as these claims had been made before the era of Stalin, and what is worse, are still repeated in modern days. Simply shameful. -- Matthead Discuß   15:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Matthead, this forum is absolutely not the place to discuss content disagreements. It is also entirely unacceptable to misuse it to make sweeping accusations against other editors without proof in the form of diffs. If you can prove that other editors violated accepted Wikipedia norms of conduct in the Eastern Europe subject area, please file proper arbitration enforcement reports against them individually. If you continue to disrupt this or any other administrative forum with edits in the vein of the above, you may be sanctioned without further warning.  Sandstein   16:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Smith2006
''This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use /  to mark it as closed.''
 * Smith2006 has been placed on notice by PhilKnight. I would hope that Smith's editing as of that notice would give no cause for complaint; in the event that it does, a thread should be opened on this noticeboard. AGK 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Wowest

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

Request concerning Wowest

 * User requesting enforcement: Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * User against whom enforcement is requested:
 * Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories
 * Sanction or remedy that has been violated:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories
 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy:
 * Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: Wowest is canvassing new editors to a discussion where he believes the new editors will be sympathetic to his cause.
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Indefinite topic ban
 * Additional comments: Wowest has been a tendentious editor in 9/11-related articles for some time. Indeed, he has been banned before and appeared on this page earlier this month, the result of which was a "formal, final warning" to Wowest by the closing administrator. I will be notifying the closing administrator,, of this thread per his request. Update: done.
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

Discussion concerning Wowest
I would firstly express my concern that yet another complaint over Wowest's conduct is being presented to this noticeboard. I am unsure at this point whether the complaint has any substance (a point that I will explore in a little more detail below), but I would invite input from Wowest as to how he feels about being the subject of another complaint (even after my quite clear final warning a few weeks ago).

I would observe that the crux of this complaint seems, to my mind, to be that Wowest's conduct has constituted inappropriate canvassing of other editors. I copy for reference the summary table from Canvassing, the project's behavioural guideline on this aspect of editor conduct:

If sanctions are to be placed on Wowest's account as a result of this complaint, I would expect them to be because an administrator thinks his comments to other editors to be "inappropriate canvassing" (in one of its four shades—scale, message, audience, or transparency) rather than a "friendly notice." By extension, the question we ask ought to be whether Wowest's comments are negatively influencing editing in this subject area. I tentatively suggest that I think that may unfortunately be the case.

I would invite the input of other administrators (and, as above, Wowest) on this. AGK 15:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * After further review of Wowest's presence in this subject area, I am growing increasingly concerned about his editing there. I note my intention to pass sanctions on Wowest's account at the conclusion of this thread (although, as always, further input may give me cause to reconsider that intention). AGK 16:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Given that the user has not been following policy guidelines before, a limited sanction might have the effect that the user will look for the relevant guidelines before doing something that might be in violation of policy. I don't know whether such a form of "punitive-preventative" form of sanction exists or would be legitimate, however. Cs32en  16:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

By posting two messages to a partisan audience, has not followed WP:CANVASS. The user's messages were limited, neutral, and open. has apparently not been warned to stop the canvassing before this A/E request has been filed. There is damage to the editing process, but the damage is limited, as the canvassing can be taken into account when evaluating consensus. As sanctions are preventative, they should only be applied if editors continue a form of disruptive behavior after having been warned, or if they resume a form of behaviour about which they have already been warned previously. We certainly would be able to better judge about this case if the user had been warned before this request has been filed. A warning should generally be accompanied by advice on how to proceed without violating policy, i.e., in this case, the possibility of informing all editors who have contributed to related articles irrespective of their views on the issue. Cs32en 16:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wowest has been consistently unhelpful in editing 9/11 topics. They were previously topic banned for 45 days.  The inappropriate canvassing is just frosting on the cake.  As an editor with first hand experience trying to improve these articles, I have suffered through a parade of single purpose, pro-Truther accounts with all their wikilawyering, endless pestering, and circular argumentation.  This is a highly disturbed area where sanctions should be applied swiftly to prevent disruptive editors from driving off productive editors. Jehochman Talk 17:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The unpleasant editing environment to which productive editors to the 9/11 area are subjected is something that I'm quite concerned about, so I'm sympathetic to your comment. In an attempt to strike a balance between "swiftly" removing editors and being recklessly hasty, I'd anticipate this thread being closed by tomorrow afternoon (after input from any editors who wish to offer it). AGK 17:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Check the date when Wowest was originally topic banned. Nothing has changed since then.  Why rush now? By all means, take your time and take care of the matter properly. Jehochman Talk 21:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like it if Wowest at least has a few days to respond, as he has not done so yet. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear AGK:
 * Thank you for your invitation to participate in this discussion.
 * I am a physically disabled Wikipedian. As such, editing is one of many things which I am unable to do consistently, for extended periods of time or on a daily basis, and this includes defending myself here.
 * I fully agree with Jehochman's last comment, beginning with "Check the date." I will attempt to reply competently to this matter at my earliest opportunity, and, to balance this, I agree not to edit any articles at all until this matter is resolved. Do you find that suitable?
 * Wowest (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you would agree to refrain from editing the subject area in question until this thread has been closed, it would be appreciated, yes. However, I do feel that this matter is somewhat straight-forward: your editing, Wowest, has been a cause for concern for some time, and I think it inevitable that sanctions are going to be passed on your account.… Naturally, I'm open to be convinced otherwise, by your comments or those of other editors. AGK 13:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I very recently became involved in the 9/11 related articles and I must say that the general atmosphere is not really constructive. To the extent that wowest made people aware that there was such a !vote he probably was the only one that made such efforts. It seems to me that WP:IDHT and policy shopping is par for the course. Even Ice Cold Beer seemed to ignore the sources that I and other editors had provided, you can see that at the time of his !vote I had listed 9 sources which I believed established notability, they have yet to be acknowledged or commented on. We also have the almost absurd situation where an editor, seemingly in all seriousness, is arguing for the deletion of 9/11 Truth Movement because it is a neologism. The bid for deletion was, I believe, in part sparked by the hitherto unsuccessful attempt to merge Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth into 9/11 Truth Movement and later renaming 9/11 Truth Movement to 9/11 Deniers. Despite repeated efforts to engage the editor he continued and made sweeping changes without prior discussion based on his misapprehension of WP:NEO. The worst thing is that none of the other editors who otherwise seem to have agreed with him on other changes challenged him on any of this, obviously they seem to know better than to vocally support it though. These tactics of attrition and wasting other editors' time are, in my opinion, inexcusable and should not be be something that we tolerate. Unomi (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (I moved the above comment to here from the "request" section.) Unomi, this request is about Wowest. To facilitate its processing, please limit your comments to matters related to his conduct. If you think other editors violated Wikipedia norms, please open a separate enforcement request related to them.  Sandstein   05:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Wowest
''This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use /  to mark it as closed.''
 * My final warning last month has clearly had little impact on Wowest's editing in the 9/11 attacks subject area; I continue to find his conduct therein to, at times, be quite unhelpful. By way of neutralising his disruption, I am installing a 3-month ban on Wowest from all articles relating to the 9/11 subject area (and their talk pages).


 * I find it regretful that an article topic ban has became necessary, but I am of the opinion that it is not fair to continue to expect the other contributors to this subject area to endure his unhelpful editing habits. For now, the ban will include the talk pages of articles in the 9/11 subject area, but I would be willing after two months to consider amending the restriction to allow Wowest to contribute to talk page discussions.


 * AGK 14:26, 3 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.

Request concerning Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

 * User requesting enforcement: Pfagerburg (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * User against whom enforcement is requested:
 * Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey
 * Sanction or remedy that has been violated:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey
 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy:, , , , , , , ,
 * Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: With his named account blocked, Jeff Merkey uses two IP addresses to edit, and both are trivial to prove as being him, by examining the last hostname that shows up in a tracert: tracert 166.70.238.44 and tracert 166.70.238.45; both stop at "jmerkey.fttp.xmission.com."
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): IP address block, as these are static IP's assigned to Jeff Merkey.
 * Additional comments: Some of these edits were brought up on AN/I and addressed only by semi-protecting the page which he was vandalizing. I had already reverted an edit per Enforcement by reverting edits which he then quickly put back and changed a signature on the talk page . Even without Werdna's indefinite block, the previous extension to Aug 2009 hasn't even expired, and Merkey is back again editing from that IP address, trying to put material in the Eric Schmidt BLP which was rejected by everyone else on the talk page discussion.
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: and . Pfagerburg (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Jeffrey Vernon Merkey
Holy NLT, Batman!

Also, vandalism now.

It might be time to block those IP's from editing the talk pages, either. Pfagerburg (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Jeffrey Vernon Merkey
The 166.70.238.44 IP has effectively admitted to being Jeff, and there is this page which explains about the indefinite block. Given the traceroute link gives jmerkey.fttp.xmission.com, I'm assuming the chances of collateral damage are limited, so I've blocked the IP addresses for a year. PhilKnight (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

After further legal threats and disruption I protected User talk:166.70.238.45 to prevent further abuse. I also mistakenly reduced the block length after misreading the expiry from PhilKnights's block above, but have reinstated at one year. --Stephen 05:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Request concerning Domer48

 * User requesting enforcement: SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * User against whom enforcement is requested:
 * Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names
 * Sanction or remedy that has been violated:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names
 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ireland&diff=293728520&oldid=291895789
 * Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: Changed the "Ireland" article from an article about the island to an article about the Irish state, in violation of "no moves" -- which he clearly knew about, having supplied a statement at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyDomer48
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Temporary block at minimum
 * Additional comments:
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Domer48&diff=293744985&oldid=292273667

Discussion concerning Domer48

 * I dont consider that a breach of the ruling. Play on!--Vintagekits (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to user:roux; Says the Anglophile monarchist! Mabye a just tab overeactionary and hypocritical imo.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have never to my knowledge edited a single article dealing with the whole Ireland mess (I believe I have made some minor edits to Chief Herald of Ireland--that would be Republic Of, not Northern), I left all monarchy-related articles due to a particularly tenacious tendentious editor driving me away, and I would support a topicban for anyone pushing a nationalistic POV on either side--were he pushing a RULE BRITANNIA! position, I would be saying the exact same thing. In addition, thank you for proving my point, because if I were an admin you would have received a timeout for that 'Anglophile monarchist' comment, as it is using an ethnicity or ethnic affiliation in a pejorative manner. // roux   17:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nominate yerself fer adminje an I'll be shur ta support ya laddie!--Vintagekits (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Your comment here is enough for me!-- Domer48  'fenian'  17:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh good, so you'll stop wikilawyering then. Excellent! This is good for everyone. // roux   17:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I move for immediate topicban of Domer from any Ireland-related editing for one year, based on my thoughts outlined here. It is past time to eradicate nationalistic bullshit from Wikipedia. // roux   16:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Domer48 knows full well that there is an ongoing debate about the Ireland naming dispute supported by Arbcom at - WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration. It is amazing that he and others made such radical changes without even informing people there or the moderators appointed by ARBCOM to resolve this dispute. Domer48, doesnt seem to think hes done anything wrong if he is unpunished it hardly sets a good example for others who will think they can simply rename articles over and over again without consensus and dispite very clear ARBCOM rulings on the matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * First off, I was not informed of this discussion! Second, I've not broken any ArbCom ruling. Third, I did not move any Article. So show me were I have done any thing to go against our policies. -- Domer48  'fenian'  16:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, claiming that you weren't informed of the discussion doesn't work very well when the diff above shows you were notified 20 minutes before you made that claim.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Check out the link you gave, saying you gave one doesn't work very well when the diff you did give did not come here. -- Domer48  'fenian'  17:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if he didnt think he was doing anything wrong he is clearly lying to people here. "Third, I did not move any Article" How can he say that when the evidence clearly shows hes been up to no good. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Then how did I just click on it and wind up at this section?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"lying" ohh now that's a bit strong. I didnt do anything wrong! The "evidence clearly shows hes been up to no good" what evidence? Now who is telling pork pies. -- Domer48  'fenian'  17:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are a liar, that fact is very clear. Perhaps you should check ur contributions page to refresh your memory. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

References talk BS walks! -- Domer48  'fenian'  17:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Although the edits by Domer48 weren't using the move function, they were against the spirit of Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names. In this context, a short topic ban, of perhaps a week, could be appropriate. PhilKnight (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * He seems to be threatening to move the articles again on the Republic of Ireland talk . Can nobody stop him?? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Can nobody stop him??" - that genuinely made laugh, I expected to hear a "dun, dun, duuuuun!" after that. Talk about trying to create a bit of drama. Relax, chill out and stop trying to make a mountain out of a molehill!--Vintagekits (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well this started a couple of hours ago and yet less than 10 minutes ago he again threatened to move the article again despite being advised not to and knowing there is this on going discussion. Im not creating a drama, i popped on to wiki a couple of hours ago and found the world had gone mad, several editors along with him kept moving the articles all around, even though they all knew about the on going dispute.. Yet still Domer thinks hes done nothing wrong and nobody has punished him for his sins. This sets a very bad example, we will end up with nationalists and separatists running wild all across wikipedia.. they need rules. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

My edits were not against the spirit of Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names. Just saying something does not make it so. I've not violated any policy or gone against any ArbCom ruling. Please provide diff's. In addition comment on the RoI article, and explain how I was incorrect with the edit. -- Domer48  'fenian'  18:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh you admit youve been making some edits then? Awhile ago you claimed you had not moved any articles, is that still the case or were you lying? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * PhilKnight the text currently on RoI is a POV Fork. It is POV inspired, so do you support this violation of our policies. How are our readers to know that RoI is not the name of the Irish State, if the text which explains it keeps getting removed? The current text is against the spirit and violates a whole host of our policies. Misinforming our readers is a major no no. So comment on that before you start to talk about blocks in such a casual manner. -- Domer48  'fenian'  18:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The introduction on Republic of Ireland says ". The name of the state is Ireland, while the description the Republic of Ireland is sometimes used when there is a need to differentiate the state from the island" How are people being misled and how the hell is it a POV fork??? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll support any solution the Ireland Collaboration produces. PhilKnight (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You agree that no solution which involves misleading our readers would be agreed by anyone? Now, please explain how I went against the spirit of Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names, since your the one suggesting blocks. Do you agree that the current text on the RoI article is misleading, and removing the text I added prevents informing our readers on RoI? -- Domer48  'fenian'  18:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Domer48
With his edit, Domer48 performed what amounted to a cut-and-paste move of Republic of Ireland to Ireland, in violation of Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names which forbids such moves. Since he appears intent on repeating this violation of an arbitral decision, I have blocked him for a week. I will lift the block, and I consent to another administrator lifting it, as soon as Domer48 gives credible assurances that he will not repeat such moves, whether by means of the "move" function or by cut and paste.

Whether a topic ban or other sanction is also required is for the community to decide. I suggest that any further discussion takes place at WP:ANI.  Sandstein  20:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Shutterbug

 * User requesting enforcement: Antaeus Feldspar (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * User against whom enforcement is requested:
 * Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Requests for arbitration/Scientology
 * Sanction or remedy that has been violated:Requests for arbitration/Scientology, Requests for arbitration/Scientology
 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Miscavige&diff=next&oldid=292796506
 * Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: The remedy "Scope of Scientology topic ban" clearly states that "Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages" (emphasis added.) The remedy "Shutterbug topic-banned and restricted" clearly states that "User:Shutterbug is topic-banned from Scientology" (emphasis added.)  This edit to Talk:David Miscavige, made on May 30, 2009, is thus a violation of Shutterbug's topic-ban.  It was made after Shutterbug indicated awareness that he was among the topic-banned.
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): block, as called for in Requests for arbitration/Scientology
 * Additional comments: Shutterbug may claim that he was not aware that he was prohibited to edit the talk pages of Scientology articles, despite this being stated in plain language in the section "Scope of Scientology topic ban". Even if this claim of ignorance were accepted as truthful, it would not mean that the penalty for violating the topic ban should be withheld.  In the arbitration that led to Shutterbug's topic ban, many editors were punished for behaviors that were not specifically prohibited anywhere (such as "over half ... of [one's] most edited articles [being] Scientology topics") but which arbitrators chose to constitute as offenses against Wikipedia and to apply penalties for.  If the Arbitration Committee, after examining this instance of Shutterbug violating a prohibition that was very clearly spelled-out, does not apply the penalty of a block, it will invite questions of why Shutterbug is getting more lenient treatment than other editors.
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shutterbug&diff=293835727&oldid=293637490

Discussion concerning Shutterbug
Comment to Feldspar: tl;dr.. I am not interested. Shutterbug (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Shutterbug
''This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use /  to mark it as closed.''
 * Shutterbug was properly notified, it is incumbent on him to ask the clerk or Arbitrators for clarification (assuming he was confused) before editing. Blocked 24 hours. Thatcher 03:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Request concerning Shotlandiya

 * User requesting enforcement: -- Sander Säde  06:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * User against whom enforcement is requested:
 * Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Requests for arbitration/Digwuren
 * Sanction or remedy that has been violated:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren
 * 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 Wikipedia"
 * 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia rules about biographies of the living persons, disregarding Wikipedia 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   babelfish 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. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 09:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sander Säde, please provide diffs indicating that Shotlandiya was previously warned against the objectionable conduct, as required by Requests for arbitration/Digwuren.  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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia - 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia - 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 Wikipedia - 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</SMALL> 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 <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 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 <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 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 <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 16:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Shotlandiya
I assess the diffs provided as evidence as follows:
 * 1) ✅  Clear violation of WP:BATTLE, but Shotlandiya has apologized for it above.
 * 2)   Not a valid diff.
 * 3)   Not a valid diff.
 * 4)   Not an attack page.
 * 5) ✅ Diffs about Jaak Aaviksoo: Edit warring, no excuse.
 * 6) ✅ Diffs about Mark Sirõk: Intensive edit warring over BLP to include content of questionable verifiability, also mischaracterizing content dispute as vandalism at.
 * 7) ✅ Diffs about Edward Lucas (journalist): Edit warring to include content that violates WP:BLP.
 * 8) /✅  Impolite and silly, but not a grave violation of our norms of conduct.
 * 9) /✅  Well-referenced from, but a copyvio thereof, and the position in the lead gives the issue undue weight.
 * 10) ✅  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 Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, 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)

Request concerning Vintagekits

 * User requesting enforcement: <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun nutsaB 11:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * User against whom enforcement is requested:
 * 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 "[Vintagekits and Kittybrewster] ...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. 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. 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.


 * 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. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun nutsaB 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. Mango juice talk 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)

Request concerning Dilip rajeev
, .
 * User requesting enforcement: Radiantenergy (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * User against whom enforcement is requested:
 * Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2, Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba
 * Sanction or remedy that has been violated:Requests for arbitration/<Sathya_Sai_Baba>
 * 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/w/index.php?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/w/index.php?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/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=295960924&oldid=295960521.


 * My recent changes are summarized by this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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 [WP:RS] 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 [User:White_Adept] 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/w/index.php?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.

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

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

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 Wikipedia. It is my personal believe that he has a conflict of interest with this page. Thanks,  Ono pearls  (t/c) 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,  Ono pearls  (t/c) 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/w/index.php?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 Wikipedia 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   babelfish 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)

Request concerning Brandmeister

 * User requesting enforcement: Fedayee (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * User against whom enforcement is requested:
 * Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2
 * Sanction or remedy that has been violated:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2
 * 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.
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 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: 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. Grand master  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 Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, 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. 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
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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 Wikipedia, 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:  Grand  master  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 Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, 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. Grand  master  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,  was also caught with using multiple accounts to edit war,, and I find the behavior of  in the same article to be problematic too:    I think all editors who made more than 1 rv there must be warned.  Grand  master  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.  Grand  master  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. -- Grand  master  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 Wikipedia, 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.

Request concerning Gragg

 * User requesting enforcement: Grand  master  05:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * User against whom enforcement is requested:
 * Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2
 * Sanction or remedy that has been violated:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2
 * 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 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)
 * Agree, that's move warring;a ban against page move and revert restriction seems completely appropriate. Shell  babelfish 03:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

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

Gragg is sanctioned as follows for six months each with respect to pages relating to Armenia or Azerbaijan, broadly defined:
 * He is banned from moving such pages, but may propose or discuss moves on discussion pages.
 * He is banned from making more than one revert per page per seven-day period.  Sandstein   05:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Request concerning Ohconfucius

 * User requesting enforcement: AKAF (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * User against whom enforcement is requested:
 * Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking
 * Sanction or remedy that has been violated:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking
 * 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
cThis is very odd: I see 13 minutes between his previous edit and this one. No wonder, since presumably the chronological items were unlinked manually as he performed the other article improvements during that edit. I note that previous and subsequent edits made yet more improvements to the article, a wider gnoming context. This complaint appears to show no evidence of the use of automation (one or two minutes for this amount of article improvement and the chronological unlinkings, yes; but not 13.) And as an aside, it's great to have the date formats fixed so they're Australian, as MOSNUM has requied for some time, quite separately from the ArbCom "Dates" Case. I suggest that this complaint be dismissed as soon as possible. Tony  (talk)  02:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Erm - one diff? I'm not clear how that's to be evidence of using automated tools? Shell   babelfish 02:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see this thread on what constitutes "mass date delinking". Also, deleting Lightmouse's script would also remove helpful functions such as making already-delinked dates consistently formatted. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not only is this a poor example, but the edit was wrongly taken out of context to try to prove the editor's guilt. See this series of edits, clearly more than just date delinking. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, so would it be correct to say that your concern here is not whether or not his edit was automated but rather that this was an instance of mass date delinking? Shell  babelfish 04:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Clearly User:AKAF wants the script to disappear from WP, and I say that isn't going to happen. I am the only one not allowed to use automation, per Arbcom, so the request to delete and salt Lightmouse's monobook script is actually quite out of order. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad this has come up, because it was bound to sooner or later. Anyone examining my edits would clearly see that the main thrust of my actions is to align dates to a single format, in accordance with WP:MOSNUM. I have done this on articles which have date links as well as on articles which have been previously delinked by other parties. If they are linked, I delink them by hand. As has been pointed out above, I do try incorporating other improvements in the same series of edits. For example, this edit was followed by a number of edits over a period of 5 days, which brought about the transformation of the article you see here. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


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

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

Request concerning Brandmeister

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

Discussion concerning Brandmeister
The diffs provided are not reverts, but compromissed edits elaborated in talk with another user. I suggest Fedayee assuming good faith and making any token in the discussion before reporting. This is close to WP:POINT. Brandt 09:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What means compromissed edit, if you reverted twice and that "another user" seems is not agree it is a "compromisse" . Gazifikator (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The edit summary for Brandmeister's first edit seems misleading, since there was no consensus for his change on the talk page. The second edit seems entirely in line with the first. Although discussion was place, neither user made any effort to reach some sort of compromise before editing the article. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The consensus over disputed article is now reached, so I think it is worthless of further discussion. All two diffs are manual edits to establish consensused version, not reverts as per Sandstein's decision. Brandt 14:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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