Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
→Request concerning Rich Farmbrough: Minor corrections |
Nemambrata (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 607: | Line 607: | ||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' |
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' |
||
*To me these edits look like copy-paste and tabbed editing rather than automated. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 15:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC) |
*To me these edits look like copy-paste and tabbed editing rather than automated. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 15:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC) |
||
==DIREKTOR== |
|||
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' |
|||
===Request concerning DIREKTOR=== |
|||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : [[User:Nemambrata|Nemambrata]] ([[User talk:Nemambrata|talk]]) 13:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC) |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|DIREKTOR}} |
|||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Final_decision]] |
|||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> |
|||
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
|||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. --> |
|||
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASlovene_Partisans&diff=521530603&oldid=521520613] 5/11/12 „'''You are clearly not here to have a constructive, objective discussion'''. To be perfectly frank, '''experience teaches that trying to reason with nationalist POV-pushing is a futile endeavor'''“ |
|||
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASlovene_Partisans&diff=521624250&oldid=521599595] 6/11/12 „'''I may be outnumbered here by Slovene Wikipedians, but I have no intention of giving up until unsourced POV is rectified'''“ |
|||
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADancingPhilosopher&diff=521530957&oldid=519914722] 5/11/12 „'''DancingPhilosopher, I am allergic to nationalist POV-pushing. Please do not start something here.'''“ |
|||
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJulian_March&diff=521529311&oldid=521522327] 5/11/12 „'''Its painfully obvious you're here as a POV crusader.''' Your additions to the lede do not have consensus. '''Further nationalist POV-pushing and revert-warring will be brought up on the appropriate noticeboard''' (please take heed of WP:ARBMAC). Please insert the list into the main body of the article, it is not for the lede. '''Nor is it acceptable for you to add unwarranted emphasis on your country's losses''', while removing mention of other nationalities altogether. Your personal perceptions of "importance" and "relevance" concern noone but yourself.“ |
|||
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHouse_of_Gunduli%C4%87&diff=520459795&oldid=520400816] 29/10/12 „'''There is nothing more to discuss here, there is only never-ending nationalist bickering'''.“ |
|||
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHouse_of_Gunduli%C4%87&diff=520491133&oldid=520491090] 29/10/12 „'''This just looks like nationalist POV-pushing to me. ''' Silvio just really really likes the name Gondola, and isn't content with it being displayed as a prominent alternative name in the lead (Gondola). '''Most likely no amount of sources and argumentation will be sufficient to shift his position, and this will probably end in annoyed admins handing-out sanctions.'''“ |
|||
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHouse_of_Gunduli%C4%87&diff=520579412&oldid=520579188] 30/10/12 „I'm sorry to say it will probably be very difficult for us to cooperate in future, Silvio. '''Your extremely aggressive nationalist edit-warring and POV-pushing on this article, where you have repeatedly entered controversial changes without talkpage consensus and against opposition is highly inappropriate behavior. Had this been a less-obscure article, I estimate you would already have been blocked'''“ |
|||
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHouse_of_Gunduli%C4%87&diff=520279251&oldid=520250780] 28/10/12 „This is the English-language Wikipedia, '''please refrain from abusive italianizing of Croatian noble families'''“ |
|||
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHouse_of_Gunduli%C4%87&diff=359628473&oldid=359582435] 2/5/10 „'''User:Theirrulez, regardless of whether you are a sock or not''', you need to understand what it is you are doing. This is not itWiki. '''Here we look at English language, not Italian language usage''' or some source you happen to choose, and Gundulić is the English name for this family. That's one thing. The second thing you must understand is that '''what you suggesting is highly offensive nationalist/irredentist POV which had already gotten a large number of users banned from enWiki.''' The same users you are likely now in contact with, I might add, judging from some of your posts.“ „The third point I must make is that, '''even if you are not an actual WP:SOCK, you are currently acting as a WP:MEATPUPPET for a clique of banned users. That is an actual real breach of Wiki policy, not an honest good-faith mistake.'''“ |
|||
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATerritory_of_the_Military_Commander_in_Serbia&diff=516297211&oldid=516287419] 6/10/12 „'''I'm reasonably certain most users, that aren't pushing the Serbian puppet state POV''', would agree.“ „This is a very obscure neck of the woods and its easy to manipulate the informal terminology used by some sources '''to push Serbian nationalist POV. ''' I am constantly concerned about '''where this article will go under constant nationalist POV-pushing pressure. '''“ |
|||
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) : |
|||
<!-- Many arbitration remedies require a prior warning before sanctions may be imposed. Link to the warning here. --> |
|||
#Warned on [http://Difflink1 Date] by {{user|Name of user who made warning 1}} |
|||
#Warned on [http://Difflink2 Date] by {{user|Name of user who made warning 2. If there is no warning 2, delete this entire line}} |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> |
|||
DIREKTOR have constant personal attacks against other users that do not agree with him and often point to their ethnic background, accuse them for nationalism and socking and threat to report them if they do not accept his position. From this diff list is clear that DIREKTOR who is user from Croatia have disputes with other users from countries around Croatia (Italy, Slovenia, Serbia) and accuse all of them for nationalism and POV push, insult them and threat them. Administrators should stop this behavior. [[User:Nemambrata|Nemambrata]] ([[User talk:Nemambrata|talk]]) 13:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC) |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADIREKTOR&diff=521667179&oldid=521368748] - notification |
|||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
===Discussion concerning DIREKTOR=== |
|||
====Statement by DIREKTOR==== |
|||
====Comments by others about the request concerning DIREKTOR==== |
|||
===Result concerning DIREKTOR=== |
|||
<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.--> |
|||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' |
Revision as of 13:34, 6 November 2012
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
Important information Please use this page only to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
Iadrian yu
No action taken. See comments in the closure. EdJohnston (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Iadrian yu
Shortly after his frivilous request for arbitration against me had been rejected, Iadrian yu arrived at several articles he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before. It is clear that Iadrian yu follows my edits around and tries to provoke confrontations and edit wars.
After having exhibited a strong opinion on Hungarians [3] , which is compatible with what various right wing organizations claim in Romania like Noua Dreaptă, I felt the need to report Iadrian yu to WP AE in 2010. It did not result in him being sanctioned, because it requires a preliminary notice of Digwuren upon which the sanction is based. Instead, the administrators decided to deliver him an AE warning on his talk page.
To Iadrian yu it is a plain nonsense. What does it mean "Nmate resumed our dispute"? It was Iadrian yu who filled a frivilous RFA against me; most of the diffs he presented in the report did not even concern him any way. Shortly after his frivilous RFA had been closed, Iadrian yu followed me to 28 articles he had never edited before to partially revert me. It is hardly possible to take as a content dispute. In his frivilous RFA, Iadrian yu accused me of various things without any evidence that falls under WP:NPA and WP:HARASSMENT.
There is no point in continuing this discussion because ,as usual, Iadrian yu fiddles with the diffs in a deceptive way; no resason to respond to his further diffs because the discussion could become mazy that is difficult to look over. I would advise Omen1229 to learn some more English, because his sentences are borderline unreadable. As for "when the Kingdom of Hungary was established", there was a short intermittent period; in fact, it belonged to Hungary at that time, which is true. Interesting enough that Omen1229 can't write in correct English grammar, yet he keeps accusing all the Hungarian users of battleground behaviour. Because I am not the only person who is accused of battleground behaviour by Omen1229. He appears to think that this type of tactic may pay off.
I feel it may be a time that a restriction from following me around on Wikipedia be imposed upon Iadrian yu. Because saying that he acts toward me in good faith is not credible i.e. making corrections regarding my edits shortly after his RFA against me was rejected. And even on the same day, Iadrian yu came to the decision to stay away from me to obviate the possibility of the occurance of any problems in the future after following me to yet another 28 articles he had never edited before.
Discussion concerning Iadrian yuStatement by Iadrian yuI believe this report is regarding with my previous[8], but anyway...
As per WP:LETGO I did`t edited any articles by Nmate and stand clear of any future problems (as per my recent contributions) but Nmate has written this comment [10]] considering me as an "anti-Hungarian" editor and more, while I don`t any problems with other Hungarian editors (I have a good cooperation with several Hungarian editors actually) - while he accuses me of belonging to the some organization "Noua Dreaptă"?? By his reasoning does he(Nmate) belongs to the Sixty-Four Counties Youth Movement? Even after this, I did`t engaged in any contact with Nmate. Now this report based on his introduction of original research (Kingdom of Hungary, 9th century[11], but it existed only after 1000 year) by him and my edits reverting that data. Also reverting one edit is hardly an edit war or anything similar. Other editors expressed their opinion too that this is OR ([12], [13], [14],[15]) and in my previous report where I was warned for misusing this board [16]. My "strong" opinions are represented by Nmate is introduction of the [[17]] as a violation. I don`t see any problem introduction historical events [18], but Nmate does. I admit that my edit summary was not the best.. but after all that was from 2 years ago! Reverting original research I don`t see as harassment, and he yet reintroduced a bunch of original research introduced by him??? Based on what [19]? Reading the main and only accusation Iadrian yu reverted me to an article he had never edited or had expressed an interest in before. - does this mean that I am not allowed to edit articles I never did before? I hardly can imagine that Nmate's accusation for removing the words "In the 9th century, the territory of [settlement x] became part of the Kingdom of Hungary." was done in good faith. Nmate is a Hungarian editor whose preoccupation is the history of his country and I don't think he is not aware of the fact that the Kingdom of Hungary was founded in year 1000 (sources: [20] [21]}).
NPAMy edit summary was from 2 years ago, and as such I don`t see it relevance to present-day discussions. Introducing a 2 year ago diff is not block-shopping? Talking about old diffs, I don`t want to "dig", but you had a lot of problematic statements (ex:[26], [27], [28]) - looks like you accuse every user of wikistalking? Just because some editor did`t edited that article before?. Saying what I said then is wrong but surely not xenophobic. And that statement was not introduced against a specific user, from my comment it is clear I refer to one specific group (Hungarian ultra-nationalists) and not personally you, or this user. Again I know now that this kind of comments are disruptive and as you noticed also, I did`t used that kind of tone with anyone in recent time(1 year+). I see that after calling me an anti-Hungarian editor you went a step further and labeled me as a xenophobic user. At this point, you talking about block-shopping is really strange. I don`t wish to comment further on this kind of WP:NPA on me. If you wish to talk about the problem you represented on this report, I will respond on that only. Adrian (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC) I expected a response to my previous answer, number 3 actually and number 6? Adrian (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC) Response to "To Iadrian yu and Omen1229" and "In conclude"
Adrian (talk) 11:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC) ConclusionI am really interested why User:Nmate avoids to give an answer why is he continuing with the introduction of WP:OR and yet did`t said the reason of his reverts? This is the base for this report after all. As he said, 28 of them.
Response to User:Tijfo098I actually try to stay away from this user because of his attitude, he actually labeled me. When I stumbled on 3 articles with the same problematic data introduced by Nmate, after a couple of minutes I noticed that this is introduced on a lot more articles. I don`t believe this is wikihounding since I did`t interfere to create problems nor to disrupt this user in any way. Per WP:HOUND - Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. - I did exactly this. As far as I can see, everybody agrees that data "In the 9th century, the territory of [settlement x] became part of the Kingdom of Hungary." is false (OR). Adrian (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Response to User:FakirbakirI agree. Nmate inserted Kingdom of Hungary. As such you can see why I see this statement problematic. Even the Principality of Hungary was not active in the 9th century. If the data were valid, with sources, I have nothing against the inclusion of it. Since the earliest data about the Principality of Hungary is circa year 900, I have nothing against of adding something like "Around the year 900 (since it is circa, we can`t know for sure if it is 9 or 10 century) the territory of [settlement x] became part of the Principality of Hungary. - sounds more realistic, but is still requires a source per wiki policies. Because at least we have some indications that this is very possible. I discussed this also with another editor and it seems this would be fine by him too[33]. What Nmate did is clearly WP:OR. Adrian (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Response to the proposed sanctionI think this would be a bad idea, for both of us. The warning I received in 2010 for AE is not a usual one [34] I misbehaved but I at least I had valid reasons [35]. The admin could`t retract the warning but had more understanding after seeing this diffs. After all, this is what User:Nmate wanted from the start of all this [36]. All editors who expressed their opinion here agreed that I was right in removing the statement about Hungary in 9th century, so I don't understand why I am blamed for it with an indefinite ban for some topics. I don`t see why I have to have any restriction because of the unconventional behavior of this user? All this could be avoided if he would just talk and not used blind reverts.
I don`t have any problems with any other user(in particular with Hungarian users on Hungary-related articles). He have written this report based on content dispute, not me, as such I don`t see fair for introducing any restriction to me. I was warned for misusing this board a couple of days ago, but after comments he used, and the type of language he showed here, I thought that was unacceptable. As I stayed away from Nmate all this time, I will in the future too, but when I see a clear violation like it is presented in this case I would correct it.Adrian (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC) User:Future Perfect at Sunrise - I don`t understand how my behavior is more tendentious. Please check this: [37] and [38]. Adrian (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Response to User:CoolKoonI can understand your logic but I don`t agree with it. Just because I did`t edited an article before that doesn`t mean I am not allowed to do that in the future. Your examples have sense if you wish to show me like I am following Nmate, but how about this articles : [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44] (just a few examples) did Nmate edited them too? You make it look like I edit some articles just because Nmate does(what about the 90% of my contributions that have no contact with Nmate?) but I haven`t had any contact with this user for a while until now. I fail to see why do you think I deserve any kind of sanction? You presented a case like a problem for excluding info,... I am deleting unreferenced info while Nmate is "constructive" introducing unreferenced info and entering in conflicts while he insist it`s inclusion? Because I removed OR introduced by Nmate? Since my last report "boomerang" against me, by the same conditions, I except something similar to happen here without any block on either side since this is a content dispute. I notice that some of the worst comments on wiki by Nmate are ignored([45] and [46] - while for much less I got warned in 2010) but on my account removing a OR is a problem. Adrian (talk) 11:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Iadrian yuI can confirm that Adrian is right in removing the sentence about "Kingdom of Hungary in 9th century". Instead of edit warring and reinserting unsourced stataments, he could have done a little research and learn that the Kingdom of Hungary was established by Stephen I in 1000 AD. He could simply have read the infobox of Kingdom of Hungary article, but he preferred to revert Adrian, what looks like battleground mentality for me. In the future, Nmate please use reliable source for exact [settlement x], because the form of government was at times changed or ambiguous, causing interruptions, for example [47]. --Omen1229 (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC) --Omen1229 (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I feel like I have to comment on this, especially since I thought that the issue would go away after Adrian's failed attempt at having ArbCom impose a topic ban on Nmate as per the DIGWUREN case, but obviously it didn't. Don't get me wrong, Nmate can become really agitated at times (e.g. removing content from another user's talk page is a no-no) and needs to polish his English skills as well (an "issue" which has earned him a sanction when he called another editor a "pest" simply because he probably wasn't aware of the fact that the term sounds much harsher than he meant it to be), but I still have to say that he's a "constructive" editor because he's usually adding contents. This is in contrary to editors who oppose him (Adrian and Omen1229 being among them) and who are much keener on removing content instead of adding it (e.g. removal of Hungarian place names from articles being the most notorious example). I'd say that this alone's proof of the fact that this is much more than a simple "content dispute" (it's more of a "generalized" content dispute). And to make it worse while Nmate definitely shows a slight pro-Hungarian bias in his edits (basically he only edits articles which have any kind of connection to Hungary's present or past), his opposition is showing not only the exact opposite (i.e. an almost obsessive desire to remove Hungarian-related content from ANY article, even one that's as innocuous-looking as the one about Franz Liszt) but also a tendency to follow Nmate around (e.g. why'd Adrian go about editing articles about Hungarian villages of Slovakia if it's obvious that he's either a Serbian editor living in Romania or a Romanian editor living in Serbia -most probably Vojvodina-? Or Omen1229: why'd he post a notice on the Cluj-Napoca article's talk page if he's never edited Romanian-related articles before? Or why'd he suddenly edit articles about some small Transcarpathian villages that lie near the border if he has never engaged in such topics before? Isn't the only connection between those edits the fact that Nmate has edited them?) and express opinions about Hungarians in general that border paranoia (e.g. Adrian's edit summary from 2 years ago quoted above or this "friendly" ANI report by Omen1229 after I noted on his talk page that he might want to make the tone of his edits more neutral to avoid accusations of bias and one-sided POV). Therefore I think that imposing the very same restrictions for both Nmate and Adrian would create an impression that anti-Hungarian editors can do much more disruption than the people who are trying to stop them before they get any sanctions. As for the admins' comments I have to side with Fut. Perf I'm afraid as per my reasons above. He was also right in pointing out the problem with imposing country-wise restrictions. Basically Slovakia (i.e. a state or a de facto recognized region of the land where the Slovaks live) did not exist before 1918 at all, so a topic ban of Slovakia would be pretty pointless for Nmate (who rarely seems to edit articles that concern present-day Slovakia and Slovak historical figures anyway), and in historical context he'd just say that he's dealing with content that deals with Hungarian history (and would be absolutely right even if the article's about villages lying in Slovakia; the same applies to Transylvania, Vojvodina and Transcarpathia all of which lie outside of Hungary's border but were part of Hungary prior to 1918). Also to turn this around a Hungarians-related ban for Adrian would also mean that he'd be banned from editing articles pertaining the Hungarian history as well (at least that's how it'd be interpreted by Hungarian editors I think). Therefore maybe a combination of interaction ban and an ethnic topics related ban would be a tad bit more effective. -- CoolKoon (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello everybody. I am a Slovak contributor also editing articles about Slovak settlements and I arrived on this board by chance, when visiting the edit history of some users whose interests are alike. My view is that a complete interaction ban would be counterproductive, since exchange of opinions can contribute to better written articles (maybe without Adrian's involvement, the inexact sentence about Hungary in 9th century would have remained unnoticed). The number of editors concerned with this area of interest (Slovak settlements) is even now insufficient. I appreciate that the interaction between Adrian and Nmate should not be stopped, but only better regulated. This kind of measures could be useful: 1. Zero reverts before a prior discussion on the article talk page. If the disagreement cannot be solved, they should ask for help from other users. Also after 1 week without a reply on the talk page from the other side, the revert can be done. 2. A restriction regarding reports (something similar to the Hawk-Eye system from Tennis). After one of them reports the other and the judges feel that no punitive measure is needed, the reporter should be forbidden to make another report against the other in the next 6 months. Whether the report is considered legitimate ("correct challenge"), he can still file a report in the next 6 months.
Result concerning Iadrian yu
|
Antidiskriminator
Antidiskriminator is banned indefinitely from the topic of Pavle Đurišić on all pages of Wikipedia. A one-year freeze is imposed on all move proposals regarding Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||
Request concerning Antidiskriminator
I consider User:Antidiskriminator has been highly disruptive across several articles which fall under the ARBMAC sanctions for a period of six weeks or more, including a complete failure to accept that there has been a lack of consensus for a title change. I should probably have reported their behaviour before this, but am a relatively new user and have not had much experience with filing reports, especially not at this level. I want to say up-front that I have found User:Antidiskriminator's behaviour very frustrating, and I may have strayed off the civility path on a couple of occasions due to that frustration and numerous provocations. I am aware that is no excuse and accept that I may be sanctioned myself for that, and will take any such sanction with good grace. However, I feel that since DIREKTOR's warning, the WP:WIKIHOUNDING has taken this beyond the bounds of what could possibly be acceptable and that, combined with User:Antidiskriminator's behaviour on a number of ARBMAC articles, makes it appropriate to file this report now. I just want User:Antidiskriminator to accept when there is no consensus for a move (or edit), stop disrupting articles with long lists of demands on the talkpage and expecting other editors to comply with their demands, and stop WP:WIKIHOUNDING me (which is in my view directly related to the failure to accept lack of consensus and continued disruption). I believe some form of coercion is necessary to get them to stop their disruption and related behaviour. In response to Antidiskriminator's claims about only starting one RM at Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, I would like to point out that his version of events leaves out some important details. He started a thread saying the title should be changed on 6 August, claimed there was already consensus for a title change on 8 August (despite the fact that there was an open RM), two days after the previous RM closed (on 10 August) he opened a new one himself which closed on 21 August. This was followed with a tranche of WP:WIKILAWYERING about what dispute resolution processes should be used to resolve this "issue", then another attempt to revert to an earlier title by claiming that the consensus move overseen by Buckshot06 was not really consensus. This was then followed by an attempt to get up a multi-choice RFC, then a new thread called "Help needed to resolve the problem - II" which was essentially about Antidiskriminator's unhappiness that the title of the article hadn't been changed. In the meantime he popped over to Talk:Chetniks on 10 September [69] to restart discussions about a source used on Pavle Djurisic, then started an RFC on 23 September [70] because he wouldn't accept the consensus on RSN about the same source. Antidiskriminator allegedly gave up on changing the title of Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia on 25 September, after about six weeks of non-stop failure to accept consensus. A few days later he appears at Operation Southeast Croatia and opposes a move that was the last of a series of related moves Director and I had discussed over several months (despite the fact that Antidiskriminator had never previously edited that article or any of the related articles), and claims that this was another example of Director and I moving an article without consensus (allegedly just like the Buckshot06 overseen move at Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia). It's pretty transparent really. That is the full story. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC) I certainly think that the move freeze suggested by the admins would be an appropriate measure to help editors to focus on article content, but it doesn't address several aspects of Antidiskriminator's editing behaviour mentioned in this report. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC) In regards to Antidiskriminator's mention of the "27 consensuses" he states he has respected, I'd like to point out a couple of things. He is the final arbiter of what these "consensuses" he is respecting are. Note the fact that he lists them on a table with a "Yes" when he has achieved what he wants. That doesn't mean that he is respecting a "consensus". Conversely all the ones which he lists as "Partial" or "No" (currently 15 in number) he continues to pursue even when there is a clear consensus that the point he wants to be included in the article should not be included, that the sources are not reliable etc etc ad nauseum. The Iron Cross ones are classic examples of this. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Discussion concerning User:AntidiskriminatorStatement by User:Antidiskriminator
Comments by others about the request concerning User:AntidiskriminatorComment by AtheneanI don't see anything remotely actionable in the limited evidence provided by Peacemaker, especially with respect to WP:HOUND. I think part of the problem is that Peacemaker is misunderstanding WP:HOUND. Extended talkpage discussions are not Wikihounding, if someone tires of a discussion the simplest and best thing to do is to leave. Providing links to talkpage threads is completely unhelpful and meaningless. I have interacted with Antidiskriminator in the past and have always found him to be model of civility and courteous behavior, even when he is the victim of incivil behavior, as is often the case. He has a clean block log and is always careful to provide sources for his edits. He is also highly skilled at finding sources difficult to access, and as such is a valuable contributor to this topic area. Athenean (talk) 07:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC) The only wikihounding I see here is by Gaius Claudius Nero (bringing up year-old diffs, now that's wikihounding), not to mention accusations of bad faith and conspiracy theories. Athenean (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC) Comment by WhiteWriterI also dont find anything sanctionable here. Based on my previous experiences with User:Antidiskriminator, he may be regarded as great, highly relevant and good faithed editor, with great knowledge of wiki guidelines and usage of sources and references. Also, i never saw that he lost his temper, even for a bit, which is priceless. Diffs presented are unrelated to the WPHOUND. I also highly doubt that user is capable to do any guidelines breach, as it was presented. In the end, editor for example. Also, as i already stated on ANI, this AE is nothing more then try to eliminate opposing side in a dispute, in a previously successful traveling circus attack way, usually unrelated to the problem. Antid's numerous constructive propositions to solve the obvious problem with page Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia are obviously problematic for some. Therefore, i can expect several editors included in this problem to recall any problematic situation from the past and present, in order to fulfill this request. This is a example where content dispute can end, in a traveling circus caravan. --WhiteWriterspeaks 13:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC) Comment by PRODUCERI found Anti's behavior at the Pavle Đurišić article to constitute tendentious editing and to be belligerent. After the article had been promoted to FA status for some time (28 August), Anti took his first personal A-class review [72] and then he cut up his points into sections on the article's talk page where he tried whatever tactic he could to remove information he personally disliked and push in information he does like, in essence throwing whatever can stick. After that he rehashed them twice [73][74] and posted them as reasons as to why the article should not be A class article! Reaching whatever reason he can no matter how baseless, unfounded, the long length discussion, or the numerous sections in which they were discussed:
These are by no means the only diffs available, in many cases Anti takes one topic and interjects it while discussing another. To further his control of the talk page (in what I can only interpret as an attempt to WP:OWN it) he makes use of a "unresolved" template for every discussion in which he does not have a favorable outcome (no matter how long the matter was discussed or how weak his arguments) and reverts anyone who dares modify them. [90][91] To Anti users on the talk page are a blockade of sorts and continues to refuse to get the point and simply reiterates the same views and points he held previously through duplicate sections and discussions. The same editorial behavior can be found on the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia article where with WhiteWriter he has attempted to push their POV (including that of PANONIAN who was banned on AE for his disruptive behavior [92]) continuously and over many redundant sections. His support of him is no surprise. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment by ZjarriRrethues
--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 16:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment by Gaius Claudius NeroI have been Wikihounded by Antidiskriminator for more than a year (I considered retiring because of it) and never brought myself to reporting the constant offenses he had made against me. Below are some of what I perceived as violations which he had made against me since 2010 (out of what could be much more):
Like I said, these are only a few of what could be more and they are the cases that I remember most because they are some of the earliest cases. There are many instances where he came into a talk page soon after I edited there for the FIRST time (eg. compare [103] to [104] and compare [105] to [106]), I assume from constantly checking my contributions log (although there could of course be other ways, but I could find more examples if requested). This is what WP:HOUND says: Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is definitely the impression that I got from his constant confrontation on most of the pages I work on (mostly ones with the medieval history). WP:HOUND also says this: The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. Although I hate to admit, the main reason I considered retiring from Wikipedia (even though I enjoyed it very much) was because I was constantly being Wikihounded by Antidiskriminator. Now that I see that I'm not the only one being Wikihounded, it is clear to me that a topic ban (maybe for three months which he might later be reconsidered) is the best means to rectify this situation, that is, of course, if the administrator is willing to consider it as such.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment by NouniquenamesTo the best of my knowledge, I've had no prior interaction with the individuals involved here. Anti could use some polishing, certainly, but (to pick a [107] complaint] above at random) unsourced information is not to stay, and without a deadline, it might stay indefinitely. I can understand the logic, at least, and it certainly wasn't common sense. I didn't see the accused battleground either. Producer seems to show that Anti disagreed about an article's assessment, which is, at best, a content dispute. It seems odd that a RM is considered disruptive, especially given the article's title at the time. I won't take the space here to go through every point, (in part because I haven't the time,) but if those are a representative sample, I see nothing warranting the requested action, nor necessarily meeting the threshold of hounding. --Nouniquenames 04:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I am patently against the proposal of a topic ban for this individual unless it affects others involved as well. --Nouniquenames 15:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment by DIREKTORI was largely on the margins of Antidiskriminator's more recent disruptive activities, however in my experience, the user displays a very obvious pattern of POV-pushing and WP:TE. As PRODUCER pointed out above, Antidiskriminator has a daily hobby of creating WP:BATTLEGROUNDS in the form of sixteen sections or so, posted one after the other, where he conducts simultaneous POV-pushing on several topic and several talkpages at once. All singularly according to the Serbian-nationalist point of view. He has WP:WIKIHOUNDED his perceived "anti-Serbian opponents" to several articles, where he continues to simply "oppose" without regard to sources and user consensus. The user does not edit articles, but merely argues to no end. Consequently, he also never presents specific suggestions, which could allow for a more focused debate that might actually conceivably end at some point. Its just vague, pointless quibbling day after day. He usually has no sources, or has cherry-picked sources, or his sources are obviously biased to the point of comedy, etc.. Typically, he will post one of his myriad "complaint sections" on a talkpage, demanding some undefined change or other. Even when people arrive and basically say "go ahead, lets see what you have in mind (why aren't you editing?)" - he will actually continue to "debate" even though his edits essentially aren't opposed (cf the eight sections he started just on Talk:Chetniks, particularly this thread). Having no real support in sources, the user will typically attempt to abuse WP:DR, posting a succession of RfCs and 3Os and what not - basically trying to convince others so that he might still push unsourced nonsense into the text. Generally speaking, the user's conduct is annoying to no end. Productive users who do actual research (like Peacemaker) are forced to deal with his brand of Balkans-nationalist WP:TE and endless disruption day in day out, farcical RfC after farcical RfC - instead of contributing to the project. He never gives up, regardless of how unsupported his position is. When policy is pointed to him, he calls it a "personal attack", basically ignores it, and just continues on - e.g. his ignoring this report as well. For months now the user has been posting one section after another on Talk:Pavle Đurišić, again and again and again, "complaint" after "complaint" in endless succession, one more biased and baseless than the next. Frankly, if the user is not sanctioned now for this wide-scale disruption - I can easily see this sort of nonsense continuing on indefinitely. -- Director (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment by Nick-DOn 19 September Antidiskriminator reposted sections of some of my comments at WP:RSN at Talk:Pavle Đurišić in such a way that they appeared to suggest that I supported their position, when in fact I did not. This was shortly before they were warned of the Eastern European editing restrictions, and when I confronted him or her about on 24 September they apologised. As far as I was concerned the matter was concluded, with no harm done other than further hardening my aversion to offering an opinion on this kind of dispute. However, I'm surprised to see that this fraudulent post attributed to me is still on the article's talk page (I actually thought it had been removed). Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Comment by Fut.Perf.From my own experience with Antidiskriminator on some Kosovo-related pages, and from observing him from a distance on a number of other "ethnic" troublespots (mostly Serbian-Albanian), I share the view that A. is a textbook case of a tendentious editor and needs to be restricted. It's maybe not so much any one particular set of offensive edits I'd point to, but just the overall picture of the "travelling circus": an endless succcession of tedious, unproductive squabbling, always related to the same predictable agenda issues. For concrete examples, I find Direktor's links to the Pavle Ðurišić talkpage instructive. Talk:Pavle Đurišić#Iron cross controversy is a particular illustrative section, showing an infuriating obtuseness in repeatedly failing to substantiate an alleged NPOV concern when asked to do so. After making an unsourced claim, Antidiskriminator spent three posts over ten days squabbling over the term "original research", until finally beginning to address the obvious issue that he hadn't provided sources to back up his claim; he never proceeded to explaining what point those (foreign-language) sources were actually making. The section a bit further down, related to the same issue (Talk:Pavle Đurišić#Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War) is equally illustrative. Can't act as an uninvolved admin on this one, but would certainly recommend sanctions of some sort. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment by Tijfo098Looking at the threads indicated by FPaS I think Peacemaker67 deserves and equal restriction. He repeatedly brushed off several RS/N discussions that brought in question (w/academic reviews) the source Peacemaker67 was relying upon (Cohen). That such a source is used in a FA only shows how pathetic Wikipedia really is. If one side can use yellow journalism in articles then so can the other. And don't say it was published by an academic publisher. It's an obscure university press publishing someone with no degree in history (and who found real success in Croatia). See the recently closed thread we had on User:JCAla, who was heavily relying on a similar book for a comparison. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Here's a less academic point. Read Talk:Ante_Pavelić#Unbeliveable_and_Laughable. There Peacemaker67 supports the inclusion of a source which says that "There was not even the slightest indication of antisemitism in the Ustaša ". I fully support a topic ban on him at this point. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC) And speaking of the regulars in this area: the bio that DIREKTOR + PRODUCER produced for Jozo Tomasevich was laughable, by the way. Stanford University in San Francisco, eh? [110] Nobody caught that for 6 months. Gives you pause about Wikipedia's readers. Oh, and he didn't actually teach at Stanford. But according to Peacemaker67 he called Ante Pavelic with the appellation "Dr." Hmm.... Tijfo098 (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Admins should note the WP:BATTLE conduct of the DIREKTOR - PRODUCER - Peacemaker troika, who repeatedly bring issues unrelated to article improvement to Talk:Jozo Tomasevich. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment by AlexikouaI really don't see anything remotely actionable according to this limited ammount of evidence provided against Antidiskriminator. In fact Antidiskriminator is one of the few editors that strictly follows the guidelines, especially about Balkan related topics. Although in the past I had some minor content disputes with him, I was surprised with the way he approaches the various issues and welcomes any third part opinion. If one Balkan editor should receive some kind of restriction that's off course not him.Alexikoua (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment by PANONIAN
Comment by Lothar von RichthofenPANONIAN has crossed a bright line in reviving his unsubstantiated WP:BATTLEGROUND hysteria that Peacemaker is Croatian—a significant part of what earned him his sanctions in the first place. The declining admin in the SPI based his decision on the glaringly obvious editing-time analysis, while PANONIAN based (and continues to base) his suspicions on nationalist paranoia. "100% behave like Croat"—really? Members of one specific nationality exhibit a consistent behaviour pattern that you have all figured out? He's asking to be given the boot now. That admins consistently "side" with one side is indicative not of pro-Croat sympathies, as he alleges, but rather of the disruption patently obvious from the other side. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC) Result concerning User:Antidiskriminator
|
Kennvido
Kennvido has been warned, as required by Arbitration Committee policy. Further disruption may result in a topic ban or other sanction, but requests for such action should be filed in a new section. NW (Talk) 05:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Kennvido
I have no involvement in this issue myself, but it is especially problematic because of what has come out through media coverage here and in various other outlets. To summarise, it is clear that Kennvido is systematically attempting to keep any mention of climate change out of Hurricane Sandy, no matter how reliably sourced, because of his personal views: "I don't believe that climate change bullcrap". This has caused and is causing ongoing bad publicity for Wikipedia. It's a textbook example of disruptive editing resulting from the pushing of a personal POV. I strongly recommend an indefinite topic ban for Kennvido on any matter concerning climate change, as he is clearly unwilling or unable to follow WP:NPOV in that topic area. The editor is currently under a 24 hour block for the edit-warring and will not be able to respond until 14:00 GMT, 5 November 2012. Prioryman (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Discussion concerning KennvidoStatement by KennvidoComments by others about the request concerning Kennvido(Never done this before... box above does not seem to give relevant instructions to 3rd party commenters like myself) Comment by NewsAndEventsGuy (talk · contribs) Support; However if I am correct that Kennvido (talk · contribs) has only been with us in a real way for three weeks or so then in light of all the good work he did on apolitical subjects I believe it would suffice to make it a three-month topic ban on anything related to global warming / climate change. The three month clock is intended to get us past a potential congressional hearing in the lame duck session of congress which was the subject of some of his recent edits. Additonal evidence of Battleground and uncivil attitude;
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Result concerning Kennvido
Prioryman, do you have a diff of his quoted statement? "I don't believe..." thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 00:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
|
Rich Farmbrough
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Rich Farmbrough
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough#Rich Farmbrough prohibited from using automation
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 4 November Rich Farmbrough created over 500 identical pages on one day (only category talk page creation shown, but this run also included templates and some lists), reaching over 10 page creations a minute. The remedy clarifies that "any edits that reasonably appear to be automated shall be assumed to be so.", so it doesn't really matter if they are automated or not, just that they reasonably appear to be automated.
- 4 November This is an example of an incorrect tag application in this run, adding a bug to the wrong project because it is part of the wrong category.
- 29 October It is also debatable whether this plant belongs to the butterfly project, it is a butterfly food plant which results in it appearing in the butterfly category tree. (29 October was the relatively slow start of these creations, which was considerably speeded up on 4 November)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
The edits not only appear to be a violation of the ArbCom restriction, they are also typical of the kind of edits that done through a bot or with some discussion could have been better, e.g. all templates should have been added to the Category:Template-Class Lepidoptera articles instead of Category:NA-Class Lepidoptera articles.
The edits are furthermore an undeniable violation of Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community, which while not under AE enforcement indicates that Rich farmbrough should have refrained from making these mass page creations anyway; "Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from mass creating pages in any namespace, unless prior community approval for the specific mass creation task is documented. "
- @Rich Farmbrough: How come you always make the same typo, adding an 'S'? Both with categories[118][119][120] and with templates[121][122]. And how do you reconcile these hundreds of creations with your editing restriction on mass creating pages in any namespace? Fram (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Note that, as requested below, I have raised the question of the violations of the community imposed editing restriction at WP:AN instead, resulting in a two week block. Fram (talk) 10:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Rich Farmbrough
Statement by Rich Farmbrough
While it is touching that Fram continues to follow my every move after all these years, these are manifestly not automated. Automation would have made it a much more productive and accurate job. See these edits
- typos (there are a few more)
- error fixed
- non-standard banners
Move that this be summarily dismissed to save everyone time and effort. Rich Farmbrough, 14:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC).
Comments by others about the request concerning Rich Farmbrough
- Sigh. Can someone please explain to me how this improves the encyclopedia? Jenks24 (talk) 10:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- (assuming that with "this", you mean this enforcement request:) From my point of view, countless hours have been used checking his (and his bots edits), and correcting runs with many errors. This run has a lower error rate than the ones that lead to the editing restrictions and the arbcom restriction, but it is a return to behaviour. Better to stop it now than to wait for the problems to get worse again. Nothing stops him from e.g. requesting a bot to make these edits if he feels that they need to be done. It is not as if these edits are so necessary that they can't wait or that many readers or editors will note the difference (this is of course true of many edits, but it raises the question of why someone with editing restrictions feels the need to ignore these restrictions for this set of edits). Fram (talk) 11:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Re T. Canens: I agree they look like tabbed editing. Such edits violate Rich's edit restriction, but perhaps not his arbitration restriction. However, an uninvolved admin is needed to enforce either of these restrictions. So even if there is no AE block, the creation of 500 pages in one day still warrants a block based solely on the edit restriction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
In a few cases, 12 edits are timed as being within one minute (at 18:17 on 4 Nov) and another 8 at 18:16. The restriction is on edits which would reasonably appear to be automated, and they rather seem to breach that standard. Collect (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- If you know nothing about automated editing - in which case anything could appear to be automated. Rich Farmbrough, 16:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC).
- I agree with T. Canens that the pattern of editing does not appear to be automated. As Rich Farmbrough points out, there are errors in the edits that suggest it is not automation, further the cadence of the edits suggests to me they are being done manually. As such there is nothing further to be done here. If someone wants to request a block for violating non-arbitration restrictions, the place to do it would be AN/I. Monty845 17:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Result concerning Rich Farmbrough
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- To me these edits look like copy-paste and tabbed editing rather than automated. T. Canens (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
DIREKTOR
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning DIREKTOR
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Nemambrata (talk) 13:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- DIREKTOR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Final_decision
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- [129] 5/11/12 „You are clearly not here to have a constructive, objective discussion. To be perfectly frank, experience teaches that trying to reason with nationalist POV-pushing is a futile endeavor“
- [130] 6/11/12 „I may be outnumbered here by Slovene Wikipedians, but I have no intention of giving up until unsourced POV is rectified“
- [131] 5/11/12 „DancingPhilosopher, I am allergic to nationalist POV-pushing. Please do not start something here.“
- [132] 5/11/12 „Its painfully obvious you're here as a POV crusader. Your additions to the lede do not have consensus. Further nationalist POV-pushing and revert-warring will be brought up on the appropriate noticeboard (please take heed of WP:ARBMAC). Please insert the list into the main body of the article, it is not for the lede. Nor is it acceptable for you to add unwarranted emphasis on your country's losses, while removing mention of other nationalities altogether. Your personal perceptions of "importance" and "relevance" concern noone but yourself.“
- [133] 29/10/12 „There is nothing more to discuss here, there is only never-ending nationalist bickering.“
- [134] 29/10/12 „This just looks like nationalist POV-pushing to me. Silvio just really really likes the name Gondola, and isn't content with it being displayed as a prominent alternative name in the lead (Gondola). Most likely no amount of sources and argumentation will be sufficient to shift his position, and this will probably end in annoyed admins handing-out sanctions.“
- [135] 30/10/12 „I'm sorry to say it will probably be very difficult for us to cooperate in future, Silvio. Your extremely aggressive nationalist edit-warring and POV-pushing on this article, where you have repeatedly entered controversial changes without talkpage consensus and against opposition is highly inappropriate behavior. Had this been a less-obscure article, I estimate you would already have been blocked“
- [136] 28/10/12 „This is the English-language Wikipedia, please refrain from abusive italianizing of Croatian noble families“
- [137] 2/5/10 „User:Theirrulez, regardless of whether you are a sock or not, you need to understand what it is you are doing. This is not itWiki. Here we look at English language, not Italian language usage or some source you happen to choose, and Gundulić is the English name for this family. That's one thing. The second thing you must understand is that what you suggesting is highly offensive nationalist/irredentist POV which had already gotten a large number of users banned from enWiki. The same users you are likely now in contact with, I might add, judging from some of your posts.“ „The third point I must make is that, even if you are not an actual WP:SOCK, you are currently acting as a WP:MEATPUPPET for a clique of banned users. That is an actual real breach of Wiki policy, not an honest good-faith mistake.“
- [138] 6/10/12 „I'm reasonably certain most users, that aren't pushing the Serbian puppet state POV, would agree.“ „This is a very obscure neck of the woods and its easy to manipulate the informal terminology used by some sources to push Serbian nationalist POV. I am constantly concerned about where this article will go under constant nationalist POV-pushing pressure. “
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- Warned on Date by Name of user who made warning 1 (talk · contribs)
- Warned on Date by Name of user who made warning 2. If there is no warning 2, delete this entire line (talk · contribs)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
DIREKTOR have constant personal attacks against other users that do not agree with him and often point to their ethnic background, accuse them for nationalism and socking and threat to report them if they do not accept his position. From this diff list is clear that DIREKTOR who is user from Croatia have disputes with other users from countries around Croatia (Italy, Slovenia, Serbia) and accuse all of them for nationalism and POV push, insult them and threat them. Administrators should stop this behavior. Nemambrata (talk) 13:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[139] - notification
Discussion concerning DIREKTOR
Statement by DIREKTOR
Comments by others about the request concerning DIREKTOR
Result concerning DIREKTOR
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.