Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive110

Nagorno-Karabakh

See below.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm not going to file a request against one particular person, because we have a situation where disruption is caused by more than one user. I would like to draw the attention of the community to what is going on in the article Nagorno-Karabakh. This is a very troubled article that was a subject to a number of arbitration cases. For quite a while now it is an arena of endless edit wars, which are waged by a number of recently created or brand new user accounts, which try to push a version, originally created by the banned user Xebulon, who has been disrupting Wikepedia for years. What is going on there was described in much detail by the admin Golbez, who has been watching this article for many years: [1] I will not repeat here what Golbez has already said, please check his account of the events. The CU showed no connection between the accounts engaged there, yet it is quite obvious that something is going there, and that actions of all those accounts are coordinated. The most recent example, the account of User:23x2, who never edited Nagorno-Karabakh, pops up out of nowhere to rv: [2] And it is nothing unusual, this happens in this article all the time. The edits of the banned user are restored by users who have been inactive for a long time, or who have never edited this article before. I listed a number of edit warring accounts at my own SPI request that I by coincidence filed at the same time as Golbez did: [3] All those accounts look pretty much the same, act the same, and edit the same. I have a strong impression that they are all operated by the same person, who somehow manages to evade the CU. But even if we assume that it is not one person, but different ones, it is still quite obvious that their actions are well coordinated, and they keep on bringing in new accounts to edit war. I think this article should be placed under some sort of community control, and no edits that have no consensus should be allowed. Also, the activity of accounts that previously never edited this article should be restricted. I would even recommend that only well established accounts with at least 1 year of active contributions to Wikipedia, including outside of AA conflict, should be allowed to edit such contentious articles as Nagorno-Karabakh. I was advised to raise this issue here, which is what I do now. Grandmaster 23:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC) I endorse this because these articles need help and I'm tired of trying to hold them together alone. I would love for some form of enforced edit restriction on these articles. --Golbez (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC) One possibility is some form of sanctions similar to that employed by Sandstein on Mass killings under communist regimes, but I'm not sure how practical it is. T. Canens (talk) 08:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC) That is actually quite a good solution for the problem. I would support something similar to what was done at Mass killings under communist regimes. Grandmaster 10:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Opening a structured thread below, with the standard AE format adapted to this situation. Further discussions should be had there. T. Canens (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

76.102.173.102

Blocked.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning 76.102.173.102 User who is submitting this request for enforcement  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested 76.102.173.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European articles (TBA)#TBA Kiefer.Wolfowitz has trouble finding the Eastern European discussion in Signpost, and needs to sleep. Below, another editor suggested that this editor may be a banned editor, who has had his own ArbCom case, DigWuren (sic.). 00:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 25 February 2012 Editing warring, re-inserting nationalistic claims without references 25 February 2012 First personal attack from this account, alleging that User:David Eppstein is a pro-Russian, pro-Putin, anti-Ukrainian, and anti-Western, etc. 25 February 2012 Edit warring in Stefan Banach article: Changing name of then Polish University to the name of a present Ukrainian University, without reference, again. 25 February 2012 Edit warring at Lviv University (also a conflict in the Banach article), reinserting anti-Polish, anti-semitic, and ultra-nationalistic bullshit. All of this IP's edits seem to be disruptive editing with the same agenda. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) Warned on 25 February 2012 by Tgeairn (talk · contribs) Warned on 25 February 2012 by Tgeairn (talk · contribs) Warned on 25 February 2012 by Sodin (talk · contribs) (Sasha) Warned on 25 February 2012 by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) There are other warnings on the related talk pages of articles and David Eppstein, of course. Additional comments by editor filing complaint I suspect that this is just a bored teenager-troll posing as an ultra-nationalist. This sounds like the fellow who called David a "commisar-stein" last year. I read about the EE case in the SignPost. Another precise reference for enforcement is suggested below (DigWuren). Thanks,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested The user has been notified. Discussion concerning 76.102.173.102 Statement by 76.102.173.102 Comments by others about the request concerning 76.102.173.102 Just use WP:DIGWUREN -- this would clearly fit this area. Also this edit is enough to show that this is nothing more than a wannabe-troll. Oleh Antoniv -- really? Block IP, and be done with it. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 00:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC) FYI, I wasn't suggesting that this is User:Digwuren, but rather that it could be handled under the Digwuren case, as is the standard for EE topics...in particular Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Standard_discretionary_sanctions. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 00:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Result concerning 76.102.173.102 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Obvious troll is obvious. I'm blocking the IP for 5 days for the obvious NPA violations and will issue a WP:DIGWUREN notification. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Dalai lama ding dong

Dalai lama ding dong blocked 24 hours, and AndresHerutJaim blocked 2 weeks; both also banned from Palestine-Israeli conflict topic area for 90 days
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 Dalai lama ding dong User who is submitting this request for enforcement Shrike (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Dalai lama ding dong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:ARBPIA Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [4] [5] [6] Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) Warned on 16 September 2011 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs) Warned on 18 February 2012‎ by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) Additional comments by editor filing complaint Clear 1RR violation and edit warring the same goes with user:AndresHerutJaim.Both users probably should be blocked and article protected.I am not sure about topic bans.--Shrike (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [7] [8] Discussion concerning Dalai lama ding dong Statement by Dalai lama ding dong Comments by others about the request concerning Dalai lama ding dong Result concerning Dalai lama ding dong This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Seems to me like a pretty clear 1RR violation on both Dalai lama ding dong and AndresHerutJaim, as you say. Dalai lama ding dong has been warned about this already, so a 90-day topic ban on either the article or the general subject would be fine. AndresHerutJaim has been blocked more than once for ARBPIA issues, so something stiffer would probably be in order; I'm open to suggestions, as I'm not sure what I think is right just yet. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC) I've blocked both for the 1RR violation (Dalai lama ding dong for 24 hours, since it's his first block; AndresHerutJaim for two weeks because he has several previous blocks for the same). I think a 90-day topic ban each is reasonable—AndresHerutJaim has a longer block log but doesn't appear to have been sanctioned recently, whereas Dalai lama ding dong was very recently the subject of an AE thread. I'll leave this open for long enough for others to comment, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)