User requesting enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

Sanction or remedy that has been violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy

*unilateral deletion of an article

• 1.unilateral deletion of an article and again, and again, and again, and again
• 2.unilateral deletion of an article
• 3.unilateral deletion of an article
• 4.deletion of sources and sourced text in the same article
• 5.removal of sourced text, and again, and again
• 6.indiscriminate deletion of links
• 7.deletion of links to publications by the person described in BLP, and again, and again, with offensive edit summary
• 8.removal of links to commentaries by the person described in BLP, deletion of other sourced information in the same article
• 9.deletion of good links
• 10.removal of good links
• 11.removal of soured and relevant information
• an offensive suggestion by Offliner at my talk page
• Endless block shopping and personal attacks by Offliner [1]. [2], [3], [4],but he still believes he never started baseless threads

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue

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

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

topic ban, RR restriction

Additional comments

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

here

• 1: This article was created by Biophys by cutpasting material from an old version of Web brigades (a version he had reverted many times to; many people had edited and improved the article after that version.) I don't think such behaviour is acceptable and to me it was a clear POV fork.
• 2-3: Same story. Biophys created the articles by cutpasting material from an earlier version of Russian apartment bombings. Also clearly a POV fork.
• That I said, I think doing edits 1-3 was clearly a mistake on my part. I should have been more patient and used speedy deletion or AfD instead. 1-3 are months-old now, and I won't be doing similar things in the future, now that I have more experience and more knowledge of the Wikipedia policies.
• 4: the first one is a deletion of a link farm per WP:EL, I don't see anything wrong about that. The second one is a content issue, as explained on the edit summary.
• 5: is again a content issue, discussed on the talk page and edit warred over by all sides. Both me and Biophys were blocked for this later.
• 6-7: are link farm cleanup. According to WP:EL, "long lists of links are not acceptable." If they are useful at all, the links should be used as sources instead. About the last one with the "offensive edit summary": as stated in the edit summary, I had already explained my argumentation on the talk page, yet Biophys kept insisting that I had not.
• 8-10: are again link farm cleanup. I really don't know what this has to do with WP:DIGWUREN sanctions. I know that there are many other users who agree with me that EL sections should be kept at minimum, links that are useful should be used as sources instead and not as ELs; the selection of links should be balanced and justification for every link should be given if requested (this was not done by Biophys.)
• 11: is a content issue, discussed thoroughly on the talk page.
• 13: this "warning" is cherry-picked. Please also read the follow-up by Connolley (he agreed with my report and blocked Martintg for edit warring after made it more clear why 3RR was broken.)[5]

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

With heavy heart, I must endorse this arbitration request, and add another incident. In [6], Offliner is clearly assuming bad faith. Polling is a normal part of Wikipedia's editorial process; disrupting polls based on who initiates them can't be constructive. Дигвурен Дигвурович_Аллё? 15:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. It was explained to him that he should nominate an article for deletion or to mark it for merging discussion if he thinks the article is a content fork. But he countinued unilateral deletions of articles when his suggestions to move or rename the articles were not supported like here and here
2. He simply does not want to seriously discuss merging/deletion at article talk pages, for example here, here, and here and continue his unilateral deletions. On other issues, I asked if he needs direct citation; he did not reply [7] and simply continued his removal of links and reverts.
3. The instruction about WP links tells which links should be included and which links should be avoided [8]. However, he simply removed everything. That was explained to Offliner by Alex_Bakahrev and me many times but Offliner ignored explanations and continued doing the same, without replying at the talk pages: [9], [10], [11], [12].

Offliner is fully aware of Digwuren case sanctions, as he reported Digwuren to ANI [13] Biophys (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I find it strange that all the diffs in the evidence section are more than a month old, this for an editor who made 500 edits only between May 29 and June 18. The actions taken by the community shouldn't be punitive, but preventive... what's to prevent when all Offliner's supposed breaches of the arbitration decision date before May 10 (save one from May 28, which look likes a simple content dispute), considering that Offliner is a heavy contributor to Wikipedia. Also, some of the articles concerned are mind-blowing, and their editorial content seems strongly against Wikipedia policies ( Evidence of FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings ??? , what's next Evidence that the US didn't land on the Moon? ; in Russian influence operations in Estonia a comment from a secret service report was transformed in a full-fledged article, even with the utter lack of such topic in the scholar (and non-scholar) media; Internet operations by Russian secret police, while a reasonable topic, includes such ludicrous sections as details about a contact phone number placed on the website of a Russian intelligence agency). As for the supposed assumption of bad faith, it seems merely a statement about a state of fact. The ArbCom recently acknowledged that blocs of editors do exist, and the AfD of two of the concerned articles ( here and here) suggest that there are two blocs of editors in this topic (one which favors articles with allegations about supposed negative actions by Russia, and one which disfavours them), with minimal external involvement. Considering these, a topic ban at the current time could only show disapproval of Offliner's editorial opinions, without making Wikipedia better, just making it more prone to systemic bias. Anonimu (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In accord with what Anonimu said earlier, in order to have an unbiased review of this case, you have to discard with prejudice all the endorse votes from the bloc of editors (Biophys, Digwuren, Colchicum, Elysander, to name a few) who have systemically harassed Offliner for quite a while. You can also safely discard all the votes from the opposite bloc (Russavia, HistoricWarrior to name a few). The case may have wide implications in the future (see also the AE report against Biophys below) and it is actually a part of the bigger picture, a battle on Wikipedia raged over the Eastern Europe's pre and post- Soviet history. (Igny (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Comment - I agree with Anonimu and Igny. Having closely observed Offliner's conduct over the past month, it's obvious that he has not engaged in any "unilateral deletions" (which were supported as removals POV forks by other users, anyway) since at least the date given by Anonimu. Hence, one has no ground to bring this here at all regarding remedying things through preventive sanctions. Otherwise, venues such as WP:AE descend into methods of blocking legitimate content opponents without due cause, as from all indications appears to be the rationale here. This is backwards justice. At the same time, User:Biophys seems to have recently arrived at a spurt of interest in blocking an opponent...Offliner...Beatle Fab Four...well, pick any one you like. What this smacks of is an instance of such blockshopping (every one of his opponents has even been accused of being a sockpuppet at some point) against an editor after a prolonged attempt to bait an opposing party with numerous content forks. PasswordUsername (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Between the fact that many of these diffs are aged (some even more than a month) and the case is greatly over stated (i.e. "unilaterally deleted" when the edit was actually turning a fork into a redirect) I don't see anything here in need of sanction. Offliner has already indicated that s/he recognizes that some decisions were made too quickly and served a block for the edit warring. As a side note, if I were to hand out sanctions here, I'd be very tempted to restrict the reporting party for combative behavior/edit warring as well. Shell ^babelfish 03:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This request is clear WP:BATTLE behavior. I agree with Shell that the filing party, and I'd add Digwuren as co-agitator, should be sanctioned for bringing it here. . Jehochman ^Talk 14:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I had no idea that filing a legitimate request to an appropriate noticeboard (whatever it is: BLP, ANI, or AE) can be punished by editing restrictions. I can be wrong, but I made this request in a good faith (as also explained in my response to Offliner below). If Sandstein tells me: "please do not file AE reports any more without consulting with me", I would gladly follow such advice.Biophys (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is not enough, you can ban me from AE pages. Sorry, but I thought my report was appropriate because Offliner systematically removed sourced content and good links from numerous WP articles, and he systematically refused to discuss the matter (I thought that was clear from the diffs I provided above in the evidence and discussion sections). Biophys (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oddly Jehochman sees WP:BATTLE behavior in Biophys, but not in Offliner, yet the evidence is quite clear that Offliner has been relentlessly shopping across multiple boards and admin talk pages since May. In regard to "unilaterally deletions", well of course it is not a real deletion, only admins can do that, but turning an article into a redirect effectively removes the content article from the view of the reader. Afterall, one of the outcomes of an AfD is to redirect. --Martintg (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need to reopen this case, per my comment below. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No action. This is an unpersuasive request, and I am frankly put off by its many deficiencies:

• At least one of the diffs cited as evidence, [14], is not by Offliner at all. The other diffs described as "personal attacks" are, in fact, not personal attacks (even should what they assert be wrong), because they address a user's on-wiki conduct in a mostly reasonably polite tone.
• The diffs described as "unilateral deletions" , such as [15], are in fact redirections, not deletions. Only administrators can delete pages.
• "Removal of sourced text" is not by itself sanctionable conduct; there can be many good reasons for removing sourced text. The request should explain what policy or generally accepted norm of conduct such a removal violates, and how. The same goes for "deletion of good links"; there are many reason per WP:EL to delete external links. The request should not only explain why the removal of links objected to violates that guideline (on such issues reasonable people can often disagree about), but also why this amounts to sanctionable conduct.
• A request accusing an editor of "sustained edit warring" can reasonably be expected to include, as evidence, a chronological sequence of edits demonstrating the edit warring. No such evidence is submitted here.
• Many diffs are months old, with no comment on what bearing they might have on the current need for sanctions.

The request is therefore not ripe for review. This is not meant to excuse or endorse any misconduct on the part of Offliner that may have occurred (there are, indeed, several indications in the evidence that it may have), but any such misconduct would have to be demonstrated much more persuasively.

I am more inclined than Shell and Jehochman to assume good faith on the part of Biophys, but I agree that he should in the future be more careful in raising any well-founded concerns he might have, or I would indeed not rule out sanctions for battleground mentality. Arbitration enforcement requests, like requests for arbitration, should not be made lightly. The same applies, incidentally, to most of the editors participating in these current Eastern Europe AE threads.  Sandstein  16:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, I ask you to modify your close and topic ban Biophys from editing all EE pages and disputes, including WP:AE, for some reasonable period of time. I had previously warned him at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive37#Discretionary_sanctions_requested not to use WP:AE for playing games. The current thread consists of frivolous complaints. Assuming good faith is fine, but not when an editor has been directly warned and gone back and done the same thing again. Jehochman ^Talk 15:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, I assume you are an uninvolved administrator for WP:DIGWUREN purposes? In that case, I do not think that it is necessary for me to modify my closure: the remedy authorizes you to issue any discretionary sanctions that you deem necessary on your own authority, with no need for my approval. Or am I wrong? I'd appreciate it if you'd restore my archiving of this thread and open a new one if you think the issue of sanctions for frivolous complaints requires further discussion. But perhaps you should wait with any action until the request for arbitration that you recently initiated resolves. (Involved editors, please do not comment here, we've had enough drama, thank you.)  Sandstein  15:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I am still a sysop is that I do not take actions that I know other administrators object to. It is better to keep the thread open and see if a consensus for action emerges. I am not keen to replace your opinion that no action is required with my opinion that some action is required. We need more administrators to comment before anything can be decided. Jehochman ^Talk 01:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am closing this request on the theory of unclean hands. The filing party has made a number of errors (or worse, been playing games with WP:AE). There is a thread open below about the filing party. We can decide what to do about their behavior at that thread. Jehochman ^Talk 20:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

Sanction or remedy that has been violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy

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

[26][27][28][29]

• 2. More edit warring at Web brigades. Massive reverts to an old version. Observe the persistent restoring the section on poland ("Russian "Internet brigades" reportedly appeared..."), etc.

[30][31][32][33]

• 3. Creation of POV-fork Internet operations by Russian secret police
  • comparison: old version of Web brigades: [34]. Internet operations by Russian secret police:[35].
• 4. Edit warring and article ownership at Russian apartment bombings

[36] [37][38][39][40][41][42][43]

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

[44][45][46][47]

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

[48][49]

• 7. More edit warring at Alexander Litvinenko, including massive reverts to an old version. Observe, for example, removal of chapter "allegations" and material from it, e.g."zyberk".

[50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62]

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue

It should be easy to see from the diffs that Biophys has been persistently edit warring, and that this is a bad case of article ownership. Biophys is often reverting to a months-old version, undoing a large number of edits done by different editors in the process.

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

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

Additional comments

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[63]

• Response.

Some of the diffs (web brigades) are dated 2008. All others are two months old.

• 1. and 2. (web brigades). I inserted sourced text deleted by Russavia and Offliner. My edits are fully explained at article talk page.
• 3.(Internet operations). This is a different and a wider scope article. Please compare current versions of these articles. They are completely different.
• 4 and 5. (the Bombings) This is a content dispute (see talk page of the article). I can explain all details if asked. One of key points: Offliner inserts a conspiracy theory about non-existing "Liberation army of Dagestan". It is true that Offliner and me were blocked for editing this article. Since then I did not edit it.
• 6. I removed some consipracy theories about Litvinenko. That was a content fork to article Alexander Litvinenko assassination theories. I created latter article to remove dubious materials from main article. They were reinserted back by certain POV-pushers.
• 7. I created a compromise version of article Alexander Litvinenko as explained at this article talk page. Everything was reverted back by Russavia and Offliner. They reverted me right in the process of editing. I tried to use "Inuse" template, but I was told that they will always revert me right in the process of edit: [64]

As about my future plans, I am going to edit much less on controversial Russian subjects - this is simply impossible anyway with the group of Russian editors who enforce their POV by reverts and complaints (see below). I will also try to stick to 1RR.

Yes, I asked an advice from Colchicum being unsure about reporting this. Finally, I decided to report, mostly to let everyone know about the persisting problems in the "Russian sector". I am not sure if something can be done about this, but it is better to go public and perhaps receive an appropriate advice.Biophys (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Jehochman. I have no idea why you blamed me of "unclean hands" [65]. I did not make any false statements, and everyone can make errors. I had no idea that filing a legitimate request to an appropriate noticeboard can be punished by editing restrictions. OK. I am not going to submit any other requests in the future without asking a permission from an uninvolved administrator. If this is not enough, please officially ban me from AE pages. Sorry, but I thought my report was appropriate because Offliner systematically removed sourced content and good links from numerous WP articles, and he systematically refused to discuss the matter (I thought that was clear from the diffs I provided above in the evidence and discussion sections).Biophys (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • (In response to now deleted comments about coordination by Biophys) The coordination here seems to involve members of your party. Continuously recoursing to use of the victim card on this note is getting very old, I really think. PasswordUsername (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where did I play a victim? There is no any "Party". I do not like Parties after living under the Communist Party. I also do not work for Berezovsky as Offliner suggested (see last of my diffs in request about him).Biophys (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Party" is just another way of saying "group." That's where the political sense of the word comes from - OK? PasswordUsername (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Aren't you assuming bad faith? If you have any evidence of such "black book" you should present it. As for the evidence presented, it has the some problem as Biophys' above: if the last occurrence of problematic behaviour is weeks old, why was the behaviour brought to administrator scrutiny only now? I understand bringing old evidence when problematic behaviour escalate. But why do it when there's no recent disruption of Wikipedia? Content disputed are not solved by trying to get rid of the other side.Anonimu (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last diff is from 8 June. The behaviour described in the diffs has been going on for a long time; there is no indication that he stopped for good 10 days ago. There have been other breaks, but afterwards the edit warring has presumed. I only want the admins to examine the diffs and take whatever action they think is best. Offliner (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please also read the follow-up by Connolley: [66]. He accepted the report and blocked User:Martintg after I provided more evidence. Offliner (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Biophys has a strong POV and he relentlessly removes sourced material from articles that does not conform to it, as always, substitutitng frivolous edit summaries, hijacking Wikipedia to be used as a WP:SOAPBOX for his own views. The inanity of his edit summaries whenever Biophys removes sourced data is such that it can serve no purpose other than to exhaust the patience of Biophys' content opponents:
• [67] - Biophys deletes sourced content by historian Arno Mayer.
• [68] - Biophys deletes sourced content by Mayer without providing any reason again, asking to "discuss" on talk page. He does not justify this on Talk page himself.
• [69] [70] Biophys twice reinserts inaccurate information which is dismissed at talk as not connected to the content of the article – without even bothering to look at the Talk page. When Beatle Fab Four reverts asking him to see talk, Biophys tries to canvass for a block of Beatle Fab Four at User talk:Colchicum. Administrator Alex Bakharev tells Biophys to stop antics like that, as he did not even bother to consult the talk page.
• [71] - Biophys removes sourced material about the politics of controversial Russian opposition leader Kasparov, claiming "undue weight for biography of a world chess champion."
• [72] - Biophys reverts "per talk" without adding anything to the talk page after three others engage in a heated discussion.
• [73] Biophys insists on retaining one sentence of nonsense removed in good faith by an IP.
• [74] - Biophys is warned by Viriditas to stop inserting nonsense into the Human rights in the United States article while ignoring the changes that take place on the Talk page.

PasswordUsername (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I explained and debated these edits at article talk pages, and I can explain each specific situation if asked.Biophys (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, WP:AE shouldn't be used as a means for getting the upper hand in content disputes, as appears to be the case here. Biophys attempts to provide a neutral viewpoint (via published sources) that contradicts the particular viewpoint (which could be described by some as pro-Kremlin) promoted by those calling for his sanction here, and thus he is a valuable and honest contributor who attempts to balance the efforts of Team Offliner in injecting their POV into Wikipedia. --Martintg (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment fixed: You are right, WP:AE shouldn't be used as a means for getting the upper hand in content disputes, as appears to be the case here. Offliner attempts to provide a neutral viewpoint (via published sources) that contradicts the particular viewpoint (which could be described by some as anti-Kremlin) promoted by those calling for his sanction here, and thus he is a valuable and honest contributor who attempts to balance the efforts of Team Biophys in injecting their POV into Wikipedia.

That is precisely why I am asking to strike out opinions of the anti-Offliner bloc here. (Igny (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

But not strike the opinions of the anti-Biophys bloc, evidently. --Martintg (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above, but I will repeat again just to make myself clear. Nothing of value, and certainly not impartiality, would be lost if opinions of both of the blocs are discarded in the review of these cases. (Igny (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comment This constitutes continued accusations of bad faith by PasswordUsername using accusations they themselves lodged as some sort of "evidence." For example:

• (In response to now deleted comments about coordination by Biophys) The coordination here seems to involve members of your party. Continuously recoursing to use of the victim card on this note is getting very old, I really think. PasswordUsername (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section on And more of the same traveling circus of which the above is part, was a massive demonstration of bad faith by PasswordUsername attempting to enlist an unsuspecting admin in support of their attack against a number of editors they count as their editorial opposition. If you can't attack the content, attack the editor. This in fact succeeded, as at one point Hiberniantears even accused me outright of being a single purpose account, a contention they later retracted based on the facts. This behavior is little more than well-orchestrated back-stabbing. PetersV       TALK 03:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PetersV, I'm not now accusing you of any coordinated editing, although as pointed out above, even ArbCom recognizes that blocs of editors exist. My response here was only to Biophys' original accusations (which he removed, as opposed to stricken out as customary). These were the very confused [75] (alleging that I filed Offliner's report for him - whereas I only added more diffs) and this next one [76] (also deleted - there, Biophys is alleging a "high degree of coordination" among a number of users, including myself). Now, I am not pressing any charges on this, but given the original context, it's only fair to respond noting that I am relatively new here as a registered user, whereas Biophys and a number of others (including yourself) have been "collaboratively editing" years before I first managed to even step here, which you all admit. (As for myself, in fact, my first encounter with the bunch occured on May 10, following which both Biophys and Digwuren came to accuse me of being a sockpuppet of Anonimu...) This isn't a bad faith edit – this is calling a spade a spade on hypocrisy-of-victimhood. Incidentally, Biophys should probably not pretend that he reverted his Talk page to "an older version of anyone who wants to review it" if he cherry-picks the incidents (he's ommitted a number of recent things he appears to find unhelpful.)PasswordUsername (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a fact that Offliner has been involved in endless block shopping:

1. Offliner filed three false 3RR reports (one of them was about Russian editor Colchicum) - see this warning by William M. Connolley.
2. He made this comment to Tiptoety
3. He asked for a block from Nishkid64, and yes, he received it from Nakon.
4. He asked for a block at the ANI
5. He made a similar ANI comment at another occasion.
6. And he still believes that he never started baseless threads and complains here.

Can somebody put an end to this. --Martintg (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ugh. Clearly I should have looked down before commenting on the report above. Perhaps both Biophys and Offliner should be placed under a topic ban- this looks a lot like battleground mentality. Shell ^babelfish 03:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps we should examine both edits one by one, and distinguish violations clearly? After all, there is a precedent in the extremely recent Shotlandiya case, where this was done, leading to a topic ban against Shotlandiya despite opposition from multiple editors to the effect that the opposite warring party had been just as bad. Moreover, from the way I see it, preventive sanctions would help editors who have been warring days ago would help more than sanctions against Offliner - whose breaches are months old (Biophys' "unilateral deletions" actually all date back to April)? PasswordUsername (talk) 03:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The thing is, I'm seeing the same thing in this request - some of these diffs are from 2008 - there appears to be less than a handful that I'd consider remotely current. Your comments, among those of others that seem to be involved in this somehow, aren't really at helpful to sorting out the situation. I'm of the opinion that both reports are trumped up and being bolstered by opposing sides in a content dispute. Shell ^babelfish 04:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are a number of particular edit diffs in my list (which I posted in the discussion section) that seem to be pretty current. (It took just two articles where policy had been breached recently to issue a block to Shotlandiya.) With Biophys' editing, this has been a recurring pattern with Biophys since he first arrived here years ago, as has been recorded in multiple cases like this:[77][78][79][80][81][82] Biophys seems to perennially wade into conflict over tendentious editing, back then years ago and in the most recent diffs provided now. I don't know if these are actionable, so if you don't think this is merits a sanction at WP:AE, I'll take your judgment. PasswordUsername (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All cases cited by PasswordUsername were either debated at ANI and other appropriate boards or voted by ArbCom. All required actions were taken. Yes, I was involved or commented in many cases. Yes, I have been a target of numerous unproved accusations during the process; some of them are made by a user banned by ArbCom.Biophys (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not the recent diffs. PasswordUsername (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Shell, both AE reports are mirror images of the other, concerning the same topics. This is clearly a content dispute and AE is not the venue to sort out such disputes. Biophys should be admonished and formally warned not to use AE in this way. This should be case for Offliner too, however he also submitted a second AE report below against Digwuren, recycling old issues that were earlier aired on other notice boards. Since Offliner was previously warned against vexatious litigation in another forum, he should now receive some kind of further sanction to get the message through. --Martintg (talk) 05:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With these constant accusations of block shopping thrown around, the following may be relevant. Biophys was block shopping several times at User:Tiptoety's talk page. For example here he raised the same non-issue of "unilateral deletion" of articles and citing the same Digwuren's case. (Igny (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

What I see here, is harassment of Biophys by several editors, in particular, by Offliner. This really needs to stop. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Piotrus. Seems like there is a group of editors, acting together, who badly want Biophys to leave the project. This should not be happening. Tymek (talk) 03:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update evidence: For a more recent example of Biopyhs' POV-forking: please compare

• Version of Russian apartment bombings from 17 April (main article) and
• Evidence of FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings from 19 April (created by Biophys on 17 April) (fork)

The see why I think this is a POV fork, please see Russavia's comments on the AfD discussion: [83]. Most of the material in the fork was cutpasted from the main article. All criticism of the theory of FSB involvement was dropped in the process. Much of the material was also available in yet another article [84] at the time.

Also, to make it clear why the last revert on Litvinenko mentioned above [85] (from June) is not "a compromise version" as Biophys claims, but actually a wholesale revert to an older version, observe how Biophys removes the interwiki link be-x-old:Аляксандар Літвіненка. The link had been added in May. Notice also the restoration of the wrong spelling "Persecuition" - this had been fixed many times before, yet Biophys keeps restoring it. Offliner (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response. I wanted to create sub-articles and then briefly summarize the corresponding content in the main articles. However, certain people did not allow this to happen by reverting me in the process of edits, regardles to "inuse" template, as expalined for example here. Editing restriction was placed by Nakon on article "Russian apartment bombings". Finally, I stopped editing these articles. Biophys (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need to reopen this case, per my comment below. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, are you involved or uninvolved in EE controversies? Jehochman ^Talk 18:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I consider myself uninvolved in the non-Lithuanian Baltic EE controversies. What about you? PS. Please try not to mispel my nickname - thanks. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you're involved in the disputes involving the folks on these enforcement threads. Please stop commenting as if you are uninvolved, and in general, don't comment unless you have useful evidence to present. You appear to be shielding various wrong-doers from sanctions. Jehochman ^Talk 18:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find your comment to be quite bad faithed and improper for a professional admin at AE. I am as (un)involved in those disputes as you are, or Sandstein, Moreschi or any other admin that chose to comment here in the past. Let me repeat: other then for some general interested in all EE issues (which leads me to comment when I see those issues being discussed on various foras) I am quite uninvolved in the non-Lithuanian Baltic issues, having edited very few articles in this field and having taken no admin actions in it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But as you are aligned to one party of the dispute, your comments are tendentious and shouldn't carry weight per se. With this format you are entitled I suppose to comment in favour of Biophys Digwuren and your other friends, and if you provide evidence then they might even be helpful, but you shouldn't posture yourself as an uninvolved admin (no more of this and this). That's potentially very unfair to the process. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How am I aligned to any sides here? When editor A agrees with editor B, it doesn't mean that they are part of some evil cabal :) Please stop such accusations. The only clear alignment I see here is that you should not try to pass as neutral when it comes to me, considering how you launched at least one ArbCom case against me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How am I aligned to any sides here? You could answer this yourself if you wanted to, create some much needed good faith. Tendentiousness and smiling straw men :) don't do that. But I mean, if you wanna take the risk of involving yourself in that way, that's up to you; you got the right to try. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• comment - most of the above edits appear to be rather conventional edits preceding, or subsequent to, content disputes. We are not informed what actions were taken after these edits, whether Biophys ceased after a few edits, etc. Nor have we been informed whether Biophys was specifically warned about any edits in these articles and proceeded without heeding such a warning. I'm not sure that Arbitration enforcement is the proper venue for content disputes.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to retire to make your life easier. It was a pleasure to interact with many dedicated editors here including ClockworkSoul, Opabinia regalis, Jorgenumata, TimVickers, Piotrus, Colchicum, HanzoHattori, Turgidson and many others. I am sorry for the trouble. Good bye!Biophys (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is exactly what your opponents want. They want you to be blocked or get fed up and leave and they are doing that quite good by digging out every single little "dirt" they can find which could be used against you. The more I learn about such practices, the more I am shaking my head with disbelieve...Sorry but I had to say what I think about all this.--Jacurek (talk) 06:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I've seen Biohys announce his "retirement" a dozen times already. Usually he returns back to editing within days at most. I also don't think it's a good idea to drop sanction only because the user has announced to retire (see Thatcher's comments.) Offliner (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. He would surface with another account. I am just wondering how it could be that now all deletions of valid and sourced materials by Biophys, his edit warring, disruption of work, team editing, forcing only his own POV in the article, inability to reach a compromise, surfaced now, but he is "non-actionable"? Remembering my experience some admins (we know who they are) hopped into IRC channel, forum-shopped my blocking and later on organized witch hunt with remembering all the transgressions of the sinner.Vlad fedorov (talk) 04:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only thing that I would ask for at this stage is some sort of sanctions for Biophys on the Alexander Litvinenko article, because I believe that his behaviour on that article is egregious and in violation of policy, and it is actionable. The lead for this article was determined after Biophys himself demanded that myself and Offliner discuss every change to this article on the talk page (negating our ability to be WP:BOLD whilst asserting ownership over the article). This was done, and myself, Offliner and Grey-Fox discussed and tweaked the lead so that there was some consensus. Disregarding his own demands of us, Biophys went and changed the article quite considerably, changes which included reverting the article to a months old state. This reverting has been done on several occasions, and I have pointed out in minute detail why his changes have been reverted by myself. One can read this here. If one looks at Points 11 an 12, one will see that I have removed WP:LINKVIO (this is policy) from the article, only to have them blindly reverted everytime by Biophys. The reverts reinserting the linkvios after it was made crystal clear that we don't link to copyright violations are [86] and [87]. Given the actions over a long period of time on this particular article, I do believe that some type of restriction on Biophys on this article is warranted, particularly after I was blocked for a week for 3RR for keeping BLP out of the article (Talk:Alexander_Litvinenko#Paedophile_claims_removed_as_WP:BLP. And this is regardless of whether retirement has occurred, because as per Offliner, one has seen this many times in the past, so a sanction is warranted. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Further comment I have also noticed edits made to Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park). Back in April it was ascertained that Martintg had engaged in what I can only describe as a gross violation (given the material being added) of WP:V and WP:OR, and once it was ascertained that material was inserted into the article in violation of those two core policies, it was removed. Last week Biophys reinserted the same information which is not in compliance with WP:V or WP:OR. If one looks at the article history, Beatle Fab Four has removed it with an edit summary as per talk, but Biophys has reinserted, only to be undone by Biophys, then undone again by BFF, only to be reverted by Digwuren. The kicker is that BFF's revert pushed Biophys to ask Colchicum whether BFF should be reported; sokmething that was done and has resulted in BFF being topic-banned for 6 months from EE topics. Given that it was BFF that did the digging into the Soviet War Memorial sources, and it was BFF that ascertained that V and OR were blatantly breached, I think that a wider sanction on Biophys is needed here, as the talk page was completely ignored by Biophys and Digwuren, even after it was pointed out no less than 3 times in the edit summaries. Given the nature of what was being inserted into the article, this is egregious editing in my mind. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No action. As in the request against Offliner above, most diffs are many months old and it is not made clear why they warrant sanctions now. While there are strong indications of edit-warring with respect to Alexander Litvinenko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in particular, I expect Biophys to adhere to his promise to "try to stick to 1RR" (although I am not at this time making this a formal sanction).

More generally, I agree with Shell that this report and the one against Offliner above may be attempts to "win" content disputes through the arbitration mechanism, which is frowned upon, and that many of the editors involved in these issues surrounding contemporary Russian politics, on either side, tend to exhibit a regrettable battleground mentality. I am not sure if there is an adequate AE response to long-term disputes like this one, but I am beginning to warm to Shell's suggestion that if we continue to see reports and discussions like this (including some recently at ANI, I think), topic bans all around may be the best way to prevent continued conflict.  Sandstein  17:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with closing this thread. The involved editors have been warned extensively. Let's try to make a decision here, or else we should go to arbitration. Jehochman ^Talk 16:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I thought that you had already gone to arbitration? But do go ahead if you think this is an actionable situation.  Sandstein  17:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but a couple arbitrators scolded us and said we should deal with the matter. I am willing to pursue both paths in good faith in hopes that one or the other will be productive. Let's not close these threads until either we resolve what to do, or the committee accepts the case. Offliner has concerns and wants them addressed either here or at arbitration. My reason for filing arbitration was that I was pessimistic about resolving matters here, but who knows, maybe Kirill and FloNight are correct and some uninvolved administrators will appear to help us generate a consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 19:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus is required for discretionary sanctions; like blocks, they are unilaterally imposed by administrators. Consensus must only be sought if sanctions are appealed, as per the "appeals" section of the remedy. I've already expressed my opinion that the request does not properly establish the need for sanctions. But if you disagree, after having examined the situation more closely, I would recommend that you just go ahead and impose whatever sanctions you deem necessary.  Sandstein  19:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shell Kinney has said that she is investigating these remaining EE threads. To avoid duplication of effort, I will defer to her opinion. I generally support some sort of restriction on Biophys, as I have warned them previously, and they appear to be continuing with battleground behavior. Jehochman ^Talk 23:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm prepared to close this request as no action for two reasons. First, the vast majority of diffs are quite stale. Evidence of past misbehavior is useful when it accompanies a current report; "Smith is doing the same thing this week that he did a few months ago" is actionable, "Smith did a bunch of bad stuff months ago" is not. I would not object to the complainant re-filing a new report that clearly marks out recent behavior problems, placing them in a long term pattern if appropriate, but clearly indicating which are the recent actions that require an admin response. Note, however, that admins do not rule on content, only behavior. "Editor always changes the article back to his preferred version, regardless of discussion or intervening edits" is a problem, "Editor keeps making changes that I don't like" is not necessarily a problem. Second, Biophys has indicated that he is retiring. In the event that Biophys does not retire, I would consider placing him on a 1RR per week limit as a first step, however, that does not seem like it would have stopped the edits cited by the complainant. Thatcher 03:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before you do that, please review this evidence: User:Shell Kinney/EEreportsreview. I think some sort of restriction is needed. A majority of retirements seem to be temporary. If the editor does retire, there is little harm in placing a 1RR restriction, for example. Jehochman ^Talk 05:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see two or three problem articles within the last 30 days or so, many incidents in that report are older. Very useful for showing context for something like 1RR, but I would not want to impose a full topic or specific article ban for issues that were more than a month old. There is certainly support for a 1RR per week limit if he rescinds his retirement (and woe to the editor who "retires" only to reincarnate with a new name to avoid scrutiny) and I would also support an additional stipulation that all edits must have accurate edit summaries, if someone can show me a few additional instances of edits like this. Thatcher 10:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Final comment stricken due to misreading of diff. Thatcher 04:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

Offliner (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

Sanction or remedy that has been violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy

*1. Implying that other editors are neo-nazis:

[88][89]

• 2. Implying that other editors are working for the Russian state to censor articles:

[90]

• 3. Abusing article talk pages for ranting and to express personal political opinions:

[91][92]

• 4. Edit warring at International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. 3 reverts in 24 hours. (Changing "partially recognized" to something else.)

[93][94][95]

• 4. Edit warring at Timeline of antisemitism. Persistent removal of same material.

[96][97][98][99][100]

• 5. Edit warring at Kaitsepolitsei. Persistent removal of same material.

[101][102][103][104][105]

• 6. Edit warring at Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee. Persistently changing "Estonian media reception" to something else.

[106][107][108][109]

• 7. Edit warring at Nashi (youth movement). Reinserting "Putinjugend", reinserting "The movement has evoked comparisons..." to the lead, etc.

[110][111][112][113]

• 8. More edit warring at Nashi (youth movement). Removal of category "anti-fascist organizations", etc.

[114][115][116]

• 9. Edit warring at Mark Sirők. For example, persistent removal of the category "Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia", and then of the successor category "Human rights in Estonia", removal of the text "His arrest was condemned by the International Federation of Human Rights", etc.

[117][118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126]

• 11. Edit warring at We Don't Wanna Put In. Persistent reinsertion of same external link (it was deemed copyvio by others.) Last 4 reverts are in 24 hours.

[127][128][129][130][131]

Additional diffs provided by PasswordUsername:

• 12. Edit warring at the BLP article of Rene van der Linden, including reinsertion of blog materials (after these had been previously removed by myself yesterday) and subsequent tendentious Wikilawyering giving undue weight to unproven allegations of financial interest in the Russian Federation:

[132] [133]

• 13. Deliberate POV-pushing at the article Eesti Ekspress - summarized as "NPOV" editing:

[134]

• 14. Further edit warring at the same article (doing 4 reverts in 24 hours as other editors reject the obvious bias of this "NPOV"):

[135] [136][137][138]

• 15. Deliberate insertion of nonsense into edit summaries of deletionist edits (comments in Estonian on English Wikipedia, etc.):

[139][140][141]

• 16. Continued abuse against other editors, despite WP:DIGWUREN's stress on adherence to policy and "behave reasonably and calmly" rather than "insulting and intimidating other users":

[142]

• 17. Content opponents are "drunks" hired to "show up on Wikipedia and support United Russia":

[143] (edit summary)

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue

Digwuren was blocked for a year following WP:DIGWUREN for edit warring (among other reasons). I think the above diffs clearly demonstrate that he hasn't changed his ways and is continuing to edit war. Also note that he was recently blocked for disruptive editing.

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

Block of a suitable length for continuing disruptive behaviour after expiration of last block.

Additional comments

The first 5 diffs were discussed at a recent WP:AN thread, but I decided to repost them after this discussion with an admin.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[144]

The AE is not for content disputes. I wish all you guys be banned from this noticeboard and others for disruption. Digwuren has not accused anybody of harboring Nazi sympathies. As I understand it, he said that the allegations Offliner and Russavia strived to include was produced by Risto Teinonen, who is a notorious neo-Nazi, as reported in numerous reliable sources, and not a reliable source. And I can certify that Russavia and Offliner edit-warred to keep neo-Nazi material in Kaitsepolitsei is an accurate factual statement, Digwuren was most probably right in his opposition to this. It wasn't Digwuren who created a battleground in that particular case. I invite everybody to examine the history of that article and the sudden attention that Russavia and Offliner started to pay to the Estonia-related topics entirely foreign to them (to provoke a confrontation in a known hotspot? Let's assume good faith for now, but it seems increasingly likely). Note: the material was neo-Nazi rather than the mentioned users, and I have little idea about their actual sympathies. As to the alleged edit-warring, you know, it takes (at least) two to tango. In most cases Digwuren merely restored the status quo version, aggressively provoked by contentious edits made by Offliner and his associates, which were bordering on policy violations and not supported on the talk page (e.g. insertion of the said neo-Nazi material, controversial categorization of Nashi (youth movement) as an "anti-fascist" organization, despite other sources claiming exactly the opposite, addition of the category Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia, which was in blatant violation of NPOV and not supported by sources in the article, and so on). All this should be dealt with in a separate ArbCom and not here. Colchicum (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The way I see this, Biophys, Digwuren, and you, Colchicum, as well as others have long been engaged in edit wars with Russavia, Offliner, me and others over a number of highly controversial topics, including a number of newly created POV titled articles. In the process we all tried to piss each other off, blamed each other for violation of WP policies (some justifiably so). In most cases that confrontation was qui pro quo, creation of one POV article followed by a creation of the opposite POV article. This case of Digwuren and Biophys is no more than a symmetric response by Offliner to his own case above. I think in all 3 cases, Offliner, Biophys and Digwuren the result of the arbitration should be the same or similar in harshness, otherwise the arbiter who makes the decision would be punishing one of the sides unfairly, possibly endorsing one of the sides in this conflict. (Igny (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Without any diffs that counts as a personal attack. I barely remember you and I have never edit-warred. You have. Certified. Russavia has. Certified. Offliner has. Certified. PasswordUsername has. Anyway, this is not what we are discussing here. Colchicum (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Also you have earned this dubious distinction: [145]. Wow. How could I miss that. Colchicum (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I just noticed that none of the users (excluding Igny and Russavia) was officially listed in the log of Digwuren case. This might be a problem as debated above. This supports your argument of addressing the matter to ArbCom (if warranted) rather than here.Biophys (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having no 3RR violations means nothing except for how well you know the WP rules. You, Colchicum, still engaged in a number of edit wars, as well as guilty of a number of personal attacks against me and others. You know that and I know that. I do not have to honor your diff request, but anyone interested can look the diffs up in your edit history. (Igny (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    • On that note, it's true that Colchicum has not edit warred, although he has consistently done rather close "collaborative editing" on contentious topics with the group of editors exactly specified by Igny. I would say this certainly counts as a contribution as far as it is taking sides with one of the parties in an edit war, but I don't see how fruitful this sort of thing is at the moment. The diffs are here for the administrators to examine – perhaps we'd better stay back from back-and-forth at WP:AE, which only muddies the waters for those reading the comments and summaries and does not help anybody. Colchicum is very aggressively kidding here if he thinks this is some sort of specious personal attack against him – and playing the tendentious innocent victim card in this way is rapidly becoming old hat at the moment.PasswordUsername (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The most recent edit war, broadly defined, occurred over categorization of Nashi (youth movement). You can look up the participants of that edit war yourself. (Igny (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
        • Wow, there's Colchicum - or somebody using his name. I guess it's not revert warring if you don't break 3RR... PasswordUsername (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Igny, we all know that you think that Wikipedia is a game. I don't agree, however. Colchicum (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have to agree with Colchicum's opinion. Note how Igny and PassportUsername attacked Colchicum after his comment. Seems to me Offliner, Igny and PassportUsername are attempting to mis-use AE to get the upper hand in content disputes over their contentious edits in articles mainly related to Estonia. Note that PasswordUsername was recently blocked for 72 hours for what was described by the blocking admin as his repeated insertion of nonsense into Estonia related articles and his anti-Estonian campaign, which I think somewhat vindicates Digwuren's attempts to maintain balance in these articles. Most of the issues raised against Digwuren have previously been raised in other fora and thoroughly reviewed with no action required [146], [147], thus this latest attempt represents forum shopping, and is bordering on harassment in my view. It is telling that rather than seek a topic ban in the AE request, Offliner is after an outright ban. I fully expect to be attacked by Offliner, Igny and PassportUsername after this comment. --Martintg (talk) 01:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I fully expected your arrival here when I talked about the bloc endorsing above, but as I said neither your nor my opinion should matter here if an unbiased review of all these cases is an ultimate goal. (Igny (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Right, I got blocked. (Thank you for piling on.) Kindly let me know when that makes it OK for Digwuren to do what he's been doing since he got back from "vacationing." PasswordUsername (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digwuren's edits related to the ones cited here were already discussed in a number of forums, including the ANI case that led to your 72 hour block. Recycling them here really is a continuation of the vexatious litigation Offliner was warned about. --Martintg (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, deliberately muddying the water like this won't help as you'd like. The edits that led to my 72-hour block were completely unrelated to the recent diffs which have been posted here. Good job, Martin. PasswordUsername (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC) For that matter, a great part of the diffs provided here are fresh-as-fresh and have not been recycled from anywhere, really. PasswordUsername (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, examination of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive545#User_PasswordUsername_and_Crime_in_Estonia will reveal your allies bringing in other articles such as Kaitsepolitsei, which is mentioned in this AE report. --Martintg (talk) 06:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, another article was briefly mentioned at the WP:ANI discussion as an instance of Sander Säde's revert-warring. Both Sander Säde and I reverted at Kaitsepolitsei, Sander made six reverts, and I did four. This is well-documented on both Talk pages. But I wasn't blocked for the same offense twice, so bringing in the 72-hour block as though it were relevant here is simply being dishonest. No diffs from that report were provided here. PasswordUsername (talk) 07:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is being dishonest here? The accusation made in your ANI report here, having gained no traction there or on AN, is raised again here in this AE report. This is classic WP:FORUMSHOPing. As for alleged edit warring, Colchicum is right, Digwuren was merely restoring the status quo version, aggressively provoked by contentious edits made by Offliner and his associates, for example in the case of Kaitsepolitsei inserting the view of a notorious neo-nazi and claiming it is a valid criticism. Note the carefulness not to technically breach 3RR in the following tag team sequence: Offliner [148],[149],[150] then Russavia [151],[152],[153] then Offliner again [154],[155],[156]. --Martintg (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Martin. The one accused of edit warring on Kaitsepolitsei in your link to the ANI case isn't me, it's Sander Säde and company. By Russavia. What does it have to do with my 72-hour block? Was I blocked twice for the same offense - inadvertently doing four reverts against Sander's six at Kaitsepolitsei? Did you even see that it was mentioned as an example of abuse by Säde, who happened to be reverting me? What led to my 72-hour block was a report on my edits at Crime in Estonia. None of the diffs at that article by anyone, including Digwuren, have been included here as examples of abuse by Digwuren, which, as evident from the diffs here, both preceeded and came after the incident in question. Alas, Martintg: what you have written about me here is not relevant to the diffs provided. How much lower than this can you get?

Nice job. And you can always file a report here about my behavior if you think the blocks I got from AdjustShift wasn't enough. Water's muddied as hell, ain't it now? ;-)

Nice diffs. I think your buddy Colchicum just said above that it takes two to tango. File your own report. PasswordUsername (talk) 10:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being Russian myself, I feel ashamed looking at this group of Russian editors who constantly attack editors from Baltic states. It was not enough to occupy their country and sent their best people to Gulag. There is now a directive to label their governments as fascist in all mass media controlled by the Kremlin. Now this plague came to WP.Biophys (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putting collective responsibility on a national group and implying government control over fellow WP editors ? Not only does this look like a gross breach of civility, but may also have further implications, considering a remedy in Digwurens's Arbitration Case.Anonimu (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am telling about nationalist plague in wikipedia. This does not concern me and Offliner since we are both Russians, but it concerns the conflict between Russian and Baltic editors.Biophys (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Russian, sorry. And Anonimu is Romanian, as far as I know. For the record, I'm American by citizenship and by location, as Biophys himself, having gotten hold of my IP number and regional location. And I'm Jewish, so I'm a bit sensitive to having material removed from articles about antisemitism with Martintg (and now Biophys) accusing me of being a Russian nationalist. I suggest you refrain from further implying things about my background. PasswordUsername (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is really getting annoying; Offliner's "evidence" is extremly poor and all I see is block shopping / harassment / battleground creation. I suggest Offliner (and perhaps PasswordUsername, who seems to be following closely in his steps) should be put on DIGWUREN's restriction list if he is not already, topic banned from EE content area, and restricted from commenting on EE editors unless they comment on him first. Perhaps a mentorship is needed, too? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence of Digwuren's disruptive behaviour is the following edit warring [157][158][159][160][161]. This is similar to the behaviour he was blocked for recently, when he removed a speedy deletion tag from an article he created 7 times inside 30 minutes: [162] [163][164][165][166][167][168]. In WP:DIGWUREN he was given a 1 year block for edit warring (among other reasons), yet he is still doing the same. The following description of him by admin User:Tanthalas39 might also be useful: [169]. How long will he be allowed to continue? Evidence of his tendentious editing should also be evident from the diffs posted in the original report above.

Admins are also invited to take a look at other issues such as tag teaming to circumvent 3RR, etc. in the articles in question, in case the ArbCom refuses to do this. Offliner (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry.. I looked at some of your "evidence" and I have to say that they are not evidence at all or are really weak in my opinion. This is not my problem here therefore I will try not to comment on this anymore but you should carefully review your so-called "evidence" again and find something more solid against your opponent. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 04:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Offliner seems to be conducting a personal vendetta against Digwuren to drive him off the project. The latest set of diffs are in relationship to an event that was already dealt with but is again recycled here. Offliner has been running a long campaign against Digwuren since May across multiple admin talk pages as well as multiple boards such as AN, ANI and here, as mentioned above. --Martintg (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that Digwuren was an object of personal attacks by certain users. Please look at the previous AE case which is relevant here.Biophys (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Piotrus (see below). If the result were banning or issuing long term blocks for a number of active contributors (most likely from both parties - let us not fool ourselves, neither party will crush the other here ;-)), Wikipedia will lose more than it benefits. Wikipedia survives despite casual IP vandalism and disruption caused by unregistered users, it'll survive with problematic yet constructive users listed in those threads here. So, I do suggest avoiding any blocks right now, as neither of those users (Biophys, Offliner, Digwuren) appear to be engaged in edit-warring at the moment. During the last Piotrus Arbcom case, a number of users were eagerly waiting for Piotr to be crucified, nothing of the kind happened, and both Piotr, Renata and Novickas survive with not much trouble recently, it seems. --Miacek (t) 18:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, what I see here is long-time harassment of Digwuren, who is a very hard working editor. This has to stop, as such senseless arbitrations are a waste of time, and they put good editors off the project. Diffs like this [170] are a clear example of ridiculous cherry-picking. This arbitration should end, as this is just a waste of time of administrators. Tymek (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request by Digwuren

Offliner has listed 39 distinct diffs. Each of them has quite a bit of context. Having taken a glance at them, I'm confident I can defend myself against all the accusations; however, it will take some time. As I already estimated to Sandstein, the expected time expenditure for this project is on the order of 20 hours of work, which I can't, quite simply, do in any single day. Accordingly, I request that any actions in this matter be delayed until evening of Tuesday, June 23th, so I can mount adequate defence.

-- Дигвурен Дигвурович_Аллё? 14:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must have miscounted. The diffs are numbered 85–138, which means there are 54 diffs. Дигвурен Дигвурович_Аллё? 17:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Even if I complete this work, this won't be the end of it; the same silly battling will rise up soon again, and again, and again.

Wikipedia's social structures are hopelessly misbegotten, full of all sorts of perverse incentives and destructive feedback loops. I have lost all faith that they can be repaired, and I don't care anymore. I will not be presenting anything here, as I will leave Wikipedia and head towards more rewarding projects. Дигвурен Дигвурович_Аллё? 16:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion by Piotrus

I think we should not create more dramu than needed. Those requests should be reclosed, but if new ones are launched by said parties, we should most likely issue said topic bans/restrictions/paroles. But let's AGF and hope that our strict warnings above will have some moderating effect on the parties. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins

I note that several admins have moved for closing this case without action, with Jehochman being the hold out. Perhaps Jehochman should disclose his personal interest in persuing Digwuren [171]. --User:Martintg 21:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...most interesting thing being, that Jehochmann's interest in and dislike of Digwuren seems to trace back several years. This shows that Jehochmann's assumption of being an uninvolved person here rests on rather dubious footing. --Miacek (t) 21:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why Digwuren decided to dislike me for I've never had an editorial conflict with him. It is well established that disruptive editors cannot disqualify administrators by picking fights with them. My interest in Digwuren is that he appears to be among the leaders of a group of editors who are frequently involved in EE conflicts. Since my main areas of editing do not include EE, nor AA, nor IP, nor Sri Lanka, I make myself available for editorial disputes in these areas. Jehochman ^Talk 23:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, do you consider yourself an uninvolved admin here? Tymek (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, mischievous innuendo! He is clearly uninvolved, and these attempts to swarm Jehochman by yourself, Radeksz and others, here and elsewhere, are quite deplorable. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The facts are pretty straightforward. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive514#Request for a review of Digwuren's block by William M. Connolley, where Jehochman alone advocated what was a block of Digwuren by mistake for a single edit fully compliant with the policies, citing his two-year-old grievances, and the follow-up, which clearly shows that Jehochman does take this personally. This is not criminal, of course, as long as he doesn't use his buttons pretending to be neutral. He is clearly not impartial here, however, and following his own proposals should refrain from commenting in the section below. Colchicum (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chasing problematic users is an admin's job. That's not involvement. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking it personally is involvment. Harrassing users, however problematic they seem, is by no means an admin's job. Wikidrama creation is not a good admin's job. Calls for a user to be crucified for what was entirely within the policies (as in the link above - a single discussed revert for which he was blocked by mistake) is a problem itself. References to pre-2008 behavior and stigmatization of users are incompatible with WP:AGF (1) because of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes#Amnesty and common sense (2) as Digwuren personally had already served his term by that time. Such a job only contributes to the aggravation of the situation. Either he is not impartial or he carried out his duties poorly. No good either way. Admins are not exempt from WP:AGF and WP:CIV, and this was a gross AGF violation. Colchicum (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I asked Jehochman, not you Deacon. Have you been endorsed by him to answer all questions regarding him or what? Tymek (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tymek, stop trolling and baiting other users. Jehochman ^Talk 13:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, please. I have asked you a simple question, and to my surprise, Deacon answered it for you. I have serious doubts about you being uninvolved here, this is all. Tymek (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that I do not need a spokesman. I have never participated in EE disputes as an editor, nor do I have any feelings about the content of these articles. When I look at many of the things argued about, I have no feeling who is right or wrong with regard to content. I am only looking at the behavior of the parties with respect to Wikipedia policies. My advice to you and others on this thread is that you must avoid forming groups to battle with other groups. If there are content disagreements, use dispute resolution. Avoid calling for help via off wiki means. Keep everything in plain sight to avoid claims of canvassing and meat puppetry. Jehochman ^Talk 15:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding myself and Russavia

I don't see why Russavia has escaped with a formal notice while I should be upgraded to a 1RR. Looking at Shell's analysis I have compared myself with Russavia here. Could somebody explain to me how my behaviour warrants a 1RR parole while Russavia doesn't. Otherwise could someone place Russavia on 1RR, as he fits the same criteria given when the 1RR was applied to me, i.e. a block log showing a history of recent 3RRs in the same topic area. --Martintg (talk) 02:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Tit for tat arbitration enforcement requests are not helpful. I am suspicious of requests filed by parties who engaged in disputes with each other. Since Sandstein decided to assume good faith above, in the Offliner thread where Digwuren requested sanctions, I think we shall do the same here. Please do not bring your battles to this board. If you have content disputes, mediation and the noticeboards are available. If there is a behavior problem, I suggest you ask an uninvolved, experienced editor to review the matter and give you feedback before posting here. (If they think your gripe is legitimate, they can file the request or provide a supporting comment.) It is too easy to see what you want to see in the midst of a heated dispute. This board is not a tactic for gaining the upper hand in a content dispute. Jehochman ^Talk 17:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am reopening this request. I'd like another administrator to review the evidence and I think some sort of topic bans should be employed [if the evidence checks out]. There are editors here who have been fully warned and notified, yet [there are allegations] they continue to play games with Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 15:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC) and 14:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily, I favour leniency in the course of sanctioning editors, but I do suspect that, thus far, cautions have done little in the way of neutralising disruptive conduct in this subject area. I think that this thread should probably be closed without action, but I would ask the other administrators who staff this noticeboard to, in future, ensure that they evaluate all complaints filed under the Digwuren case quite unsympathetically: my general impression is that assuming good faith has systematically been shown to be an unwise approach. AGK 19:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Unless there is a finding that Digwuren's editing has been acceptable (or that the complaint is defective), we should keep this thread open and decide upon an appropriate sanction. Digwuren is one of the most warned and sanctioned editors on Wikipedia. They do not need any more chances to reform. Jehochman ^Talk 20:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are adamant that the matter be exhaustively examined, then I'll be willing to review the situation at length, but I won't have the energy to do so until tomorrow; it's late, and I've already investigated one AE matter (below)! AGK 22:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shelly Kinney has said that she is reviewing the editing histories of the EE cases currently open. Before you undertake major work, you may want to ask her for status to help avoid any unnecessary duplication of effort. Jehochman ^Talk 23:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. I will defer to Shell. AGK 23:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed some of the diffs. While there are possibly problematic diffs, I also found some that appear to be over-stated. It looks like an inconclusive situation that calls for deeper scrutiny than I have time to provide today. The fundamental problem is that the thread is filed by a party adverse to Digwuren, which could lead to cherry picking of diffs. A proper investigation may require looking at Digwuren's recent contribution history to see if these diffs are representative or not. I am not going to close this thread yet as Shell Kinney is examining the matter. If she is willing to check things more carefully than I did, she may be able to make a determination. Jehochman ^Talk 15:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my review of the diffs and arguments presented, the following remedies are enacted. I reserve the right to reconsider this case within the next 24 hours, so please do not close it. Other admins may add additional remedies at their discretion. Discussion to the talk page please.

• Digwuren blocked 5 days for personal attacks [172] [173]. "I find it hard to believe that anybody but another neo-Nazi would seriously consider adding Teinonen's opinion about police onto Wikipedia would be a good idea" is not reasonably interpreted as merely pointing out problems with the original source. Given this user's history, a longish block seems most appropriate.
• Digwuren placed on 1RR per week limit for edit warring as described. Digwuren is prohibited from making more than one reversion per week per article, not including obvious vandalism, to any article covered by the Arbitration case (Eastern Europe, broadly defined). A reversion is any edit that substantially restores the article to prior content, whether or not it is a reversion in the purely technical sense. All reversions must be discussed on the article talk page. Digwuren may request to have the 1RR limit reviewed or lifted after 6 months.
• PasswordUsername placed on 1RR per week limit, same conditions as above [174].
• Offliner placed on 1RR per week limit, same conditions as above [175]
• Following editors placed on official notice. This is a technical notification only and does not preclude other action, as it is obvious the parties are all well aware of the case.
  • Colchicum (talk · contribs)
  • Biophys (talk · contribs)
  • Offliner (talk · contribs)
  • PasswordUsername (talk · contribs)
  • Martintg (talk · contribs)

-Thatcher 21:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to tell you is difficult not to be a little upset right now. Since I've apparently wasted the more than 15 hours I put into this, use it if you will. Shell ^babelfish 21:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I think what we have here is a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good. It may be that there is important information to be gained from a long-term in-depth analysis, but that is not how WP:AE was intended to work. Arbitration has always been a sledgehammer, not a scalpel. Editors who are reported for violations of sanctions are, for the most part, already on notice that their behavior has been found to be a persistent long-term problem. 1RR is in fact an extremely mild remedy, since no one ever needs to revert in order to edit productively. If I missed someone who deserves a 1RR I'm sure he or she will be reported here sooner or later. Likewise, calling other editors neo-Nazis is never acceptable, no matter the provocation, and the comment can not be interpreted any other way.

I called my results "preliminary" for a reason, and I specifically said that my actions do not preclude additional actions by other admins. If you feel your analysis supports further remedies, please feel free to apply them. If you feel that the 3 editors I placed on 1RR should not be, I am willing to discuss it; note, however, that I chose Offliner and PasswordUsername specifically because they already have blocks for edit warring in the topic area. Thatcher 21:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shell, can you state what remedies you think are necessary based on your analysis? Any discrepancy between your suggestions and Thatcher's can be reconciled, I am sure. Thatcher, could you be a bit more respectful of Shell's work? Jehochman ^Talk 05:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on further review of Shell's analysis, Martintg has been placed on 1RR limit and Russavia and Ellol have been formally notified. My reason for not placing Russavia and Ellol on 1RR at this time are here; certainly that option remains open if disruption on these articles continues. Thatcher 16:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Everyone involved in the recent edit war at Nashi (youth movement) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the inclusion of Category:Anti-fascist organizations who I did not already place on 1RR is hereby placed on 1RR limit as described above. That episode is absolutely disgraceful, and not one single editor posted to the article talk page. Editors are:
  • Digwuren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)Vacated [176] Thatcher 10:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • PasswordUsername (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Vacated [177] Thatcher 20:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Radeksz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Vacated [178] Thatcher 20:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Offliner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Vacated [179] Thatcher 20:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)Vacated [180] Thatcher 10:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colchicum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Vacated [181] Thatcher 20:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Vacated [182] Thatcher 20:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Igny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)Vacated [183] Thatcher 10:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Martintg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Vacated [184] Thatcher 20:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This can be closed now. Thatcher 03:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]