Requests for enforcement
Nefer Tweety
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Request concerning Nefer Tweety
- User requesting enforcement
- Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Nefer Tweety (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy that this user violated
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan#Consensus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan#Neutral_point_of_view_and_undue_weight http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan#Decorum
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- # Several editors mediated between me and Arab Cowboy at the Asmahan article, after the last mediation ended with admin al ameer son you can see here the sections of the article was, "career" section and in that section a subsection of "Egypt's influence", and "immigration to Egypt" was a subsection of "early life", I made an edit and explained this at the talkpage yet it has been reverted by Nefer Tweety against the the mediations/collaborations/consensus [1] and also undue weight, texts about her career are put in "Egypt's influence on Asmahan’s career". Nefer Tweety is an account which is almost exclusively used to do the same edits as Arab Cowboy, Nefer Tweety reverted the entire article back 4 months to Arab Cowboys edit, not caring about edits made by several people [2] I had also made a copyright violation request and a copyright admin removed the copyrighted material here, the exact copy righted text has been re added by Nefer tweety , personal life, section: [3]
- Update: Assumption of bad faith is a violation against a principle: "to promote his POV and Syrian agenda" [4] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy)
- Not applicable.
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- block or bann.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- <Your text>
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [5]
Discussion concerning Nefer Tweety
Statement by Nefer Tweety
User: Supreme Deliciousness is presently under disciplinary probation for one year for edit warring and other violations specifically related to Asmahan and other articles. On 20 December, Supreme Deliciousness returned to his old ways of making biased and inflammatory edits into Asmahan to promote his POV and Syrian agenda while claiming copyright violation about any text does not suit his agenda. There's no more copyright violation, the article had been rebuilt by Arab Cowboy without any copyright violations while Cactus Writer was closely watching. Supreme Deliciousness's probation must be enforced as well as the probation on Asmahan and he had better leave this article alone. I am dedicating my time on Wikipedia to protecting Egypt related articles from Supreme Deliciousness's vandalism. Nefer Tweety (talk) 11:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Nefer Tweety
(This threaded discussion moved from admin section below. Sandstein 18:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC))
- NuclearWarfare, at the talkpage there has been comments which are in direct violation against the cases principles Decorum, incivility and assumptions of bad faith in principle: [6] comment: "to promote his POV and Syrian agenda" "Supreme Deliciousness's vandalism" [7] The scope of the case shows that Nefer Tweety has been involved in this: [8] Is no action gonna be taken against this violation against a principle? What are the principles for if that is the case? So people can violate them and get away with it? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- I looked over the recent edits to the talk page. As there have been no edits to even the talk page since December 25, I am still inclined to not give any sanctions here. I shall watchlist the page and keep an eye on any discussions. If any administrator disagrees with my (lack of) action, they are of course free to use their judgment to take what they feel is the appropriate course. NW (Talk) 21:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Nefer Tweety has continued to violate the proposed principles and has been canvassing: [9] (To Arab Cowboys sockpuppet) which I believe is inappropriate behavior: [10] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- I looked over the recent edits to the talk page. As there have been no edits to even the talk page since December 25, I am still inclined to not give any sanctions here. I shall watchlist the page and keep an eye on any discussions. If any administrator disagrees with my (lack of) action, they are of course free to use their judgment to take what they feel is the appropriate course. NW (Talk) 21:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- NuclearWarfare, at the talkpage there has been comments which are in direct violation against the cases principles Decorum, incivility and assumptions of bad faith in principle: [6] comment: "to promote his POV and Syrian agenda" "Supreme Deliciousness's vandalism" [7] The scope of the case shows that Nefer Tweety has been involved in this: [8] Is no action gonna be taken against this violation against a principle? What are the principles for if that is the case? So people can violate them and get away with it? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Result concerning Nefer Tweety
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- I am inclined to dismiss this report as Stale. There have only been 4 edits to the article in the past week, and the edit warring seems to have died down. I would be interested in hearing any other outside opinions though. NW (Talk) 17:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- The request is not formatted in the recommended style (see {{Arbitration enforcement request}}), making it difficult to evaluate. In particular, it is not clear which specific edits are believed to violate which specific remedy for which reason. If the request is not improved soon, I am inclined to close it with no action. Sandstein 18:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Closed as no action per the above. Sandstein 11:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Climate change
A discussion from WP:AN relates to at least one and probably more cases plus one case requested right now, which is likely too unfocused right now. Experienced editors and dispute resolvers are invited to contribute at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
ChildOfMidnight
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning ChildOfMidnight
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- ChildOfMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy that this user violated
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#ChildofMidnight and Scjessey restricted
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- [11] As COM was not mentioned in the amendment request (and Scjessey was) apart from a non-controversial statement explaining why I'm not adding him to the request, I believe that this is not exempt like the arbitration pages normally are from topic bans, and is, in spirit, similar to COM posting in an AN(I) thread about Scjessey and contravenes his restriction set down in the case.
- Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- COM has been blocked three times for contravening his topic bans.
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- Block
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [12]
Discussion concerning ChildOfMidnight
Statement by ChildOfMidnight
Statement by Bigtimepeace
Just a quick comment here as I'm out the door. I don't think this should be acted on, though it was not improper to file the request for enforcement. ChildofMidnight was named (I think unnecessarily) in the Request for Amendment mentioned above. It was reasonable for him to respond at that point, though it is true he should not have mentioned Scjessey. In so doing the he was largely pointing to what ChildofMidnight perceived to be violations of the interaction restriction between Scjessey and C of M (which largely took place on my talk page). I don't think those comments were violations (see my statement here, especially paragraph three), but it's not unreasonable to for C of M to mention them if he saw a problem. The rub here is that there has been some recent discussion (going back to early December) about how to construe an interaction ban between two parties, and some of that discussion has led to accusations of violating the ban, etc. etc. In that context (which is a bit confusing, and admittedly somewhat ridiculous) I don't think sanctioning anyone is a good idea, though everyone involved should definitely drop the whole matter. A block of C of M really will not accomplish anything, particularly as the amendment request which led to this issue is now being withdrawn by the editor who proposed it. I can provide more detail about the situation later if needed but will be offline for the rest of the night. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Scjessey
In the interests of trying to foster good relations and avoid further drama, I would prefer that no action be taken against ChildofMidnight for this. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning ChildOfMidnight
Result concerning ChildOfMidnight
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- At the request of the two editors above, (especially Scjessey, whose statement I commend), I will close this request as "no action taken." NW (Talk) 18:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Request to modify topic ban (User:Thomas Basboll)
On December 8, a topic-ban against me that had been implemented under the 9/11 ArbCom ruling was suspended for a trial period of one-month. (See discussion archived here.) My original request had been to modify the ban: instead of being an indefinite ban it would become a two-year ban, to run out on April 21, 2010. I hadn't expected to return to editing so quickly, but I've tried to do some work that might indicate what sorts of thing I'd like to do if I returned. I'll leave it up to you to evaluate my editing and decide on the future status of the ban. Thanks for your time.--Thomas B (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- As this is an ArbCom sanction and ArbCom retain jurisdiction, you should raise this at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment for a formal decision. Thanks, Roger Davies talk 23:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Offliner
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Procedurally closing this thread; the action continues in the appeal below. Sandstein 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Request concerning Offliner
- User requesting enforcement
- Sander Säde 10:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Offliner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy that this user violated
- WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- All following edits violate WP:BLP, specifically adding highly dubious category not supported by neither article content nor sources.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johan_B%C3%A4ckman&diff=335038821&oldid=331351983
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johan_B%C3%A4ckman&diff=335457935&oldid=335456861
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johan_B%C3%A4ckman&diff=335490105&oldid=335464734
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Sir%C5%91k&diff=335038928&oldid=333460945
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Sir%C5%91k&diff=335457989&oldid=335456821
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Sir%C5%91k&diff=335490048&oldid=335464735
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dmitri_Linter&diff=335038582&oldid=334558763
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dmitri_Linter&diff=335457957&oldid=335456837
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dmitri_Linter&diff=335489992&oldid=335464744
- Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- [13] Arbitration enforcement by Thatcher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), later vacated as Offliner had not officially been warned under WP:DIGWUREN previously ([14])
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- Extended topic ban from all BLP and Estonia-related articles
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Attempts by myself and others to resolve the issue without involving AE:
- Talk:Mark_Sirõk#Category:Victims_of_Estonian_political_repression
- Talk:Dmitri_Linter#Category:Victims_of_Estonian_political_repression
- Talk:Johan_Bäckman#Category:Victims_of_Estonian_political_repression
- [15]
- Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_31#Category:Victims_of_Estonian_political_repression
Offliner created category Category:Victims of Estonian political repression and added the category to three BLP articles - Mark Sirõk, Dmitri Linter and Johan Bäckman. There is no content whatsoever in any of those articles supporting the category as required by WP:BLP#Categories nor are there any sources whatsoever supporting it. Offliner has been repeatedly asked to provide sources ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]); so far he has not been able to do so and has only claimed that the inclusion of category is "clearly demonstrated" ([23], [24]).
As a background information - Mark Sirõk and Dmitri Linter organized a demonstration which became a looting and rioting (see Bronze Night). They were arrested under suspicion of organizing mass riots, but the court acquitted them of the charge and monetarily compensated the time they were arrested, as they were not responsible for the demonstration's becoming a riot - and peaceful demonstrations are obviously not forbidden. There have been no claims by them nor any other source that they were arrested for their political views.
Johan Bäckman has repeatedly calling to violently overthrow Estonian government. He attempted to come to Estonia without travel documents required to cross borders between Schengen countries, was detained (not arrested, like Offliner has repeatedly claimed) for a few hours and denied entry to the country under a brief entry prohibition (two weeks, if I remember correctly). No source has claimed he was "victimized" nor that he is a victim of "Estonian political repression".
Offliner has a history of BLP violations and tendentious editing of Estonia-related topics:
- Mark Sirõk. Edit-warring to include BLP-violating material (health information sourced in a web forum!) and to remove well-sourced material: [25], [26], [27]
- Kaitsepolitsei: Including and edit-warring to include criticism from non-valid sources (Johan Bäckman's blog and self-published book): [28], [29],
- Creation of one-sided WP:POVFORK Discrimination against ethnic minorities in Estonia, merged quickly to Human rights in Estonia after AfD.
- Creation of draft in his userspace, which started "According to organization X, there is considerable glorification of the country's nazi past in Estonia, with parades of former SS-officers taking place in the capital Tallinn annually", an utter fabrication to a degree where it was seen as an attack page by an Estonian editor [33].
- Response to Offliner
Please do not misrepresent BrownHairedGirl. She did not claim that removal of category from BLP articles during CfD discussion was inappropriate - in fact, she did the opposite, supporting removal of categories from articles that violate BLP principles, providing the articles are listed in CfD discussion and removal of category is clearly spelled out. And as I left a very clear notification to the CfD discussion prior to removing categories ([34]) and the articles are linked in the discussion...
You still haven't provided a single source supporting inclusion of those articles in the category, a policy which is very clearly spelled out in WP:BLP#Categories - and that despite close to ten requests to provide sources for your claims. Like you wrote below, you believe the inclusion of category to the articles is justified. Wikipedia does not work with beliefs, Wikipedia works with sources. Hence inclusion of this category to articles without single supporting source is a violation of core Wikipedia principles.
I fail to understand what has EEML has got to do with your policy violations? Also, you are (again) misrepresenting Arbitration Committee, as there are no FoF's related to "organizing campaigns aimed at getting rid of editors who had content disagreements with the group". Would you please stick to the truth at least on this page? --Sander Säde 12:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [35]
Discussion concerning Offliner
Statement by Offliner
User:Sander Säde emptied the category by removing it from all articles while the category was discussed at CfD.[36] This is inapproriate and forbidden under CfD policy: Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision.Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Therefore I reverted his removal.
As I have explained on the CfD, I believe the inclusion of the category in the three articles is justified. I definitely do not see a WP:BLP violation and neither did any of the other participants in the CfD. I have no objections to the category being deleted or removed from all articles if this is the consensus; I only reverted Sander Säde's removal because it is inapproriate during a CfD.as confirmed by admin User:BrownHairedGirl: [37].
I'd reluctantly also like to point out that User:Sander Säde was a member of the WP:EEML cabal, which according to ArbCom was responsible for organizing campaigns aimed at getting rid of editors who had content disagreements with the group. Offliner (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Statement by BrownHairedGirl
I was alerted to this discussion by a note on my talk page.[38]
I have no knowledge of the dispute between these two editors other than what I have seen at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 31#Category:Victims_of_Estonian_political_repression, and no comment on the dispute other than in relation to my note on removing articles from a category while it is being discussed at CFD.[39].
Offliner is incorrect to claim that I said that "it is inappropriate during a CfD". What I actually said was "Per WP:BLPCAT, I will always support the removal of BLP articles from categories which are not supported by references."[40]
In the same comment I also noted that "However, doing so whilst a CFD discussion is underway has a major impact on the discussion, so any such removal should be clearly notified at the CFD, listing the articles removed and explaining the reason. Editors discussing the fate of a category need to know why it has suddenly been emptied, because without that information they cannot reach a meaningful decision. Unless the decategorised articles are listed at the discussion, the removal appears sneaky, even when the removal has been done in good faith."
However, User:Sander Säde's comment at CFD noting the removal of articles did not actually list the articles removed.[41] They had been listed elsewhere in the discussion, but it would have been clearer for all concerned if the note on their removal had explicitly listed them, which User:Sander Säde has now done in response to my comment.[42] None of the three edits removing the category from articles[43][44][45] has an edit summary explaining the reason for their removal, which would also have been helpful.
At this point, rather than a further argument about process, it seems to me that since Offliner supports the categorisation of these three articles as "Victims of Estonian political repression", Offliner should explain which references to reliable sources explicitly support this view, without WP:OR or WP:SYN. My understanding of the relevant guidelines and of the general principle that wikipedia relies on secondary sources is that it is insufficient for a reference to simply report events; what is needed is references to reliable sources which explicitly make the value judgement that the actions against each of these people did amount to political repression.
As a wider point, I would like to note my only other comment in that CFD debate, in which I expressed a concern that the whole series of categories under Category:Victims of political repression are too subjective to be viable.[46] It seems to me this particular dispute is an inevitable consequence of wikipedia's use of this group of subjective categories, and I am surprised that these categories do not appear to have generated many more similar disputes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Offliner
Result concerning Offliner
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- User:Offliner is placed on a 1RR restriction for 6 months, with the additional condition that the user is also required to discuss all reverts. henrik•talk 13:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Appeal by Offliner
- Appealing user
- Offliner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Offliner (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sanction being appealed
- 1R restriction
- Editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction
- Henrik (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) / Henrik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Notification of that editor
- [47]
Statement by Offliner
I was given a 1R restriction by User:Henrik for making only 2 reverts in 24h in 3 different articles. I have done very little reverting since July 2009 (after I changed my habits), and practically none during the last two months. My recent contributions have been positive and a result of hard work. I believe these reverts are my only actions in recent months that could be regarded as controversial.
After I had created Category:Victims of Estonian political repression, User:Sander Säde (with whom I've had content disputes in the past) immediately nominated it at CfD[48] and, at the same time, removed it from all articles.[49][50][51][52][53][54]
Why I think the sanction is unjustified
I reverted Sander Säde's 2 removals because my interpretation of the WP:CFD policy was that removing the category from articles is forbidden while the category under CfD. (...please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision...)[55]
Sander Säde then submitted an WP:AE report about me, souping it up with some old (pre-July 2009) diffs which I think are irrelevant to this case and also misrepresentations. I do not believe that this report was made in good faith, taking into account that Sander Säde was a member of the WP:EEML, which is known to have organized noticeboard campaigns aimed at getting rid of the group's content opponents.
There are indications that admin Henrik made his decision in haste (only 3 hours after the request was filed), without checking all the facts. For example, he claims that User:Sander Säde discussed his reverts on the article talk pages[56], which is simply not true. The only post regarding the category on the talk pages is from User:Termer.[57][58][59] (Neither did Sander Säde give any edit summaries in his reverts, marking them as minor edits.)[60][61][62][63][64][65] Henrik also says that he doesn't "see any attempts to engage in discussion" from me, and that I made the reverts without discussion.[66] But this is again, simply not true. I commented on the category at the CfD, which I thought was the correct place for such discussion: [67].
Admission of mistake
I thought that the inclusion of the category in the three articles (Johan Bäckman, Mark Sirõk and Dmitri Linter) was justified based on the article content (all three were arrested in Estonia for political reasons.)
However, after thinking this over and seeing the comments at the CfD, I now believe that adding this category to these articles was a mistake, because many sources do not explicitly say that they were victims of political repression (which I now think should be a requirement for the categorization.)
I now support removing this category from these articles and I also support deleting the category since the removal would make it underpopulated. I have changed my vote at the CfD accordingly.[68]
I feel that getting a 1R restriction for making two errors (mistakenly believing that adding the category to the 3 articles was justified, and misinterpreting the CfD policy), especially with no recent background of edit warring, is extremely harsh.
Promises
I will promise not to create categories on politically controversial subjects in the future and be very careful when adding categories to such articles. I will also promise to avoid edit warring and to follow a voluntary 1RR from now on.
I'm not asking for the 1R sanction to be lifted because I want to edit war, but because I think the sanction is unjustified and because I'm concerned about the effect it will have on my reputation.
Statement by Henrik
This user was very nearly restricted (1 revert per week, indefinitely) half a year ago[69] for the exact same thing: edit warring over contentious categories, a restriction only vacated on a technicality and apparent exhaustion[70]. And in October [71] and again now ([72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80] - as linked above) this user does the exact same thing again, which unfortunately, combined with a general tendency towards battlefield behavior and tendentious editing meant that I considered restrictions necessary (though granted; there are others, on both sides, which are likely worse in this aspect). As 1RR and discussing reverts is only standard good practice for contentious areas, I consider it a fairly lightweight and limited restriction.
I'm glad that User:Offliner admits his mistake and promises to have learnt from it, but as this is one continuously troublesome topic area, I think a formal restriction will have a better chance of not being forgotten in the heat of the moment. henrik•talk 20:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the appeal by Offliner
I don't really have an opinion about Offliner's 1R, however not so long ago I was slapped with a 1R by admin Future Perfect after I didn't even reverted more than once, I made 2 single reverts one of each I self-reverted after i was notified it was a wrong revert. Unlike Offliner I also I don't have a history of edit warring. If Offliner's restriction is lifted it goes without saying that I expect mine to be lifted too, almost by default. Dr. Loosmark 20:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Response to Loosmark
- Your restriction has already been discussed and confirmed [81]. I fail to see how you yet again bringing it up helps the project. Varsovian (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Sander Säde (ec)
Just... sigh. A lot of - shall we put it mildly - misrepresentations by Offliner.
Offliner brings up EEML once again, without explaining what it has to do with his breaking a core Wikipedia policy (WP:BLP). And "WP:EEML, which is known to have organized noticeboard campaigns aimed at getting rid of the group's content opponents" - strangely, Arbitration Committee did not find such thing in their very thorough investigation. No one but myself, Offliner and BrownHairedGirl posted to the AE request.
I did not "at the same time, removed it from all articles", I removed the category three days after I had requested Offliner to provide sources ([82]), and Offliner was unable to come up with a single source supporting the addition of category to BLP articles, as it is very clearly spelled out in WP:BLP#Categories. And I notified that I am removing the categories in CfD discussion, before removing them ([83]). After his first reverts I posted a very clear request for sources to his talk page ([84]), which went completely unanswered, same as Termer's posts to article talk pages.
As for not giving edit summaries - indeed, I used HotCat (default settings) to remove categories. I did not know until Offliner brought it up here (linking them twice for some reason in his appeal) that HotCat marks the edits as minor. I had no intentions of sneakily removing the categories; if I would have wanted to do that, then it would have been rather silly to announce it in CfD beforehand, which is monitored by far more people than those articles.
"irrelevant to this case and also misrepresentations" - no, they're definitely not misrepresentations. Or are you claiming that you didn't edit war to include health information sourced to web forum (!) to BLP while at the same time removing well-sourced "uncomfortable" material - and that you also included and edit-warred to add criticism from non-valid sources (Johan Bäckman's personal blog and self-published book) to Kaitsepolitsei? They were relevant to the case in hand to show your prior BLP violations and highly tendentious editing of Estonia-related topics.
And for the third time Offliner claims that Johan Bäckman was arrested, which also isn't true. He was briefly detained (he didn't have travel documents) and denied entry to the country. He was never arrested. Other two were not arrested for "political reasons", as Offliner believes, despite being unable to come up with a single source supporting that view - they were arrested under suspicion of organizing mass riots, but the court acquitted them of the charge.
And finally, I believe Henrik's decision came with consideration of Offliner's prior blocks - he has been blocked twice for edit warring. I have no comments on merit of this restriction but I think it is fairly mild and would not be an issue unless an editor plans to continue revert-warring. In fact, I think I will adopt it myself - only one revert in a day unless I am dealing with obvious vandalism - and requirement to discuss reverts is something that should be more pronounced in Wikipedia policies.
--Sander Säde 20:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Sandstein
Henrik's reasoning is persuasive, and I do recall Offliner's username from numerous previous AE cases dealing with Eastern Europe. But his admissions of mistakes and promises to observe a voluntary 1R restriction are also very encouraging. My recommendation to Offliner is to withdraw this appeal at this time, but to re-approach Henrik after a month or two of trouble-free editing. Henrik might be inclined to lift the formal restriction at this time, and if he does not, a new appeal might fall on more receptive ears. Sandstein 21:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Result of the appeal by Offliner
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.