WP:AE

Requests for enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

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}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334

Teachings of Prem Rawat

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Both editors blocked for 24h by Sandstein. AGK 15:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[]

All Rawat articles have been placed under an editing restriction:

3.1) The Prem Rawat article and all related articles are subject to an editing restriction for one year. No user may revert any given changes to a subject article more than once within a seven day period, except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations. Furthermore, if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period.

Please check if the following edits by Will_Beback (talk · contribs) and Pergamino (talk · contribs) violate the restriction:

Will_Beback (talk · contribs)

Second diff restores identical wording to that established by the first diff, 5 days after the first diff.

Pergamino (talk · contribs)

First diff moves two paragraphs and adds material to them, and adds a new unrelated paragraph. Second diff moves the identical two paragraphs as the first edit, but summarises them to just a single, shorter paragraph. Edits are on successive days.

Thanks. JN466 13:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[]

I agree that both users are in violation of the restriction with respect to the removal or addition of the "Former followers" section. Pergamino even briefly undid his offending revert in reference to the restriction at [1] but then re-did it again at [2]. I have blocked both users for 24 hours in accordance with the enforcement provision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2#Enforcement. Sandstein 16:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[]

I have also preemptively requested community review of the matter at WP:ANI#Prem Rawat enforcement action. Sandstein 16:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[]

I dispute this interpetation of the remedy and the edits, and have requested a clarification from the ArbCom. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Prem Rawat 2. Will Beback talk 00:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Gazifikator

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

Request concerning Gazifikator

User requesting enforcement

Discussion concerning Gazifikator

I don't see any violations in my actions. I created the Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan article, which is completely sourced and seems to not have any problems with Wikipedia rules. Then user Brandmeister suggested to merge it with "Islam in Azerbaijan" article [9]. During the discussion I explained that these two terms are not the same and that it is not correct to merge an article about peaceful Islam believers with the one about radical Islamists and wahhabist terrorists [10]. As a result, user Brandmeister merged these two articles without waiting for a decision by an admin [11]. I returned it back, as user Brandmeister obviously violated Wikipedia rules on merging and the only third-party user is also opposing the merger [12]. Then without waiting for a decision on merging, user Grandmaster started to add irrelevant info (again about Islam believers) to the article which will support their position to merge these two articles. Another user, who is now indef. blocked and never discussed his actions, supported their actions [13] [14] [15]. And lately, user Baku87 reverted the article to indef. blocked user's version without any explanations at talk page [16], while I explained all my edits there. And the only notification ([17], not a warning) I received, was for my edits in a different article on genocides and no any relations with this case. Gazifikator (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[]

It appears to me that repeatedly reverted Radical islamism is a part of Gazifikator's politically-coloured articles with possible coatrack. In this recent edit for example Gazifikator deleted sourced info, which was labelled as 'unsourced POV-pushing'. Regarding Goldorack, as per WP:BAN, good-faith edits must not be reverted just because they were made by a banned user. brand спойт 20:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[]

To Gazifikator: I'm quite confused as to why a pagemerge should not have went ahead because a "decision by an admin" had not been passed. Administrators take no role in article content matters (but rather monitor user conduct).
Separately: I'd note that Sandstein placed Gazifikator on notice earlier this month, and so discretionary sanctions could (per AA2) be placed on Gazifikator's account (although I make no comment as to whether that would be warranted at this time).
AGK 15:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[]

These edits seem to reflect content disagreements and do not violate "Disruptive editing" and "Wikipedia is not a battleground". They are, however, part of an edit war between Gazifikator and Goldorack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Since Goldorack is already indef-blocked, the edit war will likely not continue. I see no compelling need to issue sanctions against Gazifikator at this time, but I am ready to do so should his name appear on this board again associated with A/A disruption of any sort. Sandstein 06:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Gazifikator made 11 reverts just on Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan, trying to suppress the information about the number of ardent believers in Azerbaijan, supported by reliable sources. This information has direct relevance to the article, yet it is being deleted for no reason. How can one assess the relative weight of radical religious trends without knowing the number of religious people in general? Some examples of edit warring by Gazifikator on that article: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

Note that every time Gazifikator reverted, the following information was removed:

A survey estimated the proportion of ardent believers in Azerbaijan at close to 7 percent, slightly more than the number of declared atheists — almost 4 percent — with the largest numbers falling into the category of those who consider Islam above all as a way of life, without strict observance of prohibitions and requirements, or as a fundamental part of national identity.^[1]

^ Tadeusz Swietochowski. Azerbaijan: The Hidden Faces of Islam. World Policy Journal, Volume XIX, No 3, Fall 2002

In my opinion, this is a deliberate attempt to suppress useful and sourced information, and the paragraph above was originally included by me and other users, not Goldorack. I think that Gazifikator's activity on this article is a violation of arbitration ruling, discouraging edit warring. --Grandmaster 08:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Yes, indef. blocked Goldorack just reverted every time to your POV lead, that is going to assure voters that these two articles need to be merged. It is your policy: to add big volume of irrelevant (and sourced) info to an article you dislike, and then show how the merge is justified. The text by Swietochowski is obviously about religion, and Islam in Azerbaijan, it never uses the term of radical Islamism, and this irrelevant info have only one use, to show that these two articles are about the same topic, the "ardent belivers of Islam". I think, such edit's can be considered as disruptive! And when you say I removed this info every time, you're in a big mistake: the last versions (reverted by me) include this quote. I'm not agree with it but I 'm acting civil, so it is there, just look [25][26] to not push disinformation about my edit's. Gazifikator (talk) 08:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]

First, Goldorack made his edits before he was banned, therefore you cannot rv his edits just because he was banned. You are allowed to rv his edits only if he made them evading his block, which he never did. Second, the information from the top international expert on Azerbaijan about the number of ardent believers has a direct relevance to the article. The purpose in creating this article seems to demonstrate that Azerbaijan is some sort of a Taliban ruled place, a stronghold of radical Islamism, which it is not. The statistics on practicing Muslims demonstrate the role of religion in the society, and thus is quite appropriate. If you disagree with the inclusion of this info, you could have asked third opinion, or follow other WP:DR procedures. Instead you chose to edit war, made 11 rvs and continue edit warring. And the info from professor Swietochowski is not the only material that you keep on removing from the article. In my opinion, this is disruptive editing, and application of revert limitation should be considered. Grandmaster 09:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Goldorack was blocked as "WP:SPA and likely sockpuppet for POV-pushing, edit warring and adding original research, mainly on biographies of living persons)": see the reason [27]. He helped you to push some POV right before he was blocked, and reverted to your version without any explanations at talk, while I always discussed my edt's there. So my revert was justified. We also have a separate section in the article dedicated to the situation in Azerbaijan [28] and I'm sure this article is goodly sourced and too much neutral, isn't it? You never can prove that something is dubious there or I used only negative info, in contrary, the first section is starting with the words "Azerbaijan is a secular country, etc.". If you read the article, you will see that Azerbaijan is not a "some sort of a Taliban ruled place", but a state, where the authorities trying to solve the problem of radical Islamism, and they have some success. Gazifikator (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Result concerning Gazifikator

This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.

Wowest

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

Request concerning Wowest

User requesting enforcement

Discussion concerning Wowest

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

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

	Scale		Message		Audience		Transparency
Friendly notice	Limited posting	AND	Neutral	AND	Nonpartisan	AND	Open
	↕		↕		↕		↕
Inappropriate canvassing	Mass posting	OR	Biased	OR	Partisan	OR	Secret
Term	Excessive cross-posting		Campaigning		Votestacking		Stealth canvassing

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

I would invite the input of other administrators (and, as above, Wowest) on this. AGK 15:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[]

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

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

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

Wowest has been consistently unhelpful in editing 9/11 topics. They were previously topic banned for 45 days. The inappropriate canvassing is just frosting on the cake. As an editor with first hand experience trying to improve these articles, I have suffered through a parade of single purpose, pro-Truther accounts with all their wikilawyering, endless pestering, and circular argumentation. This is a highly disturbed area where sanctions should be applied swiftly to prevent disruptive editors from driving off productive editors. Jehochman ^Talk 17:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[]

The unpleasant editing environment to which productive editors to the 9/11 area are subjected is something that I'm quite concerned about, so I'm sympathetic to your comment. In an attempt to strike a balance between "swiftly" removing editors and being recklessly hasty, I'd anticipate this thread being closed by tomorrow afternoon (after input from any editors who wish to offer it). AGK 17:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Check the date when Wowest was originally topic banned. Nothing has changed since then. Why rush now? By all means, take your time and take care of the matter properly. Jehochman ^Talk 21:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[]

I'd like it if Wowest at least has a few days to respond, as he has not done so yet. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Dear AGK:

Thank you for your invitation to participate in this discussion.

I am a physically disabled Wikipedian. As such, editing is one of many things which I am unable to do consistently, for extended periods of time or on a daily basis, and this includes defending myself here.

I fully agree with Jehochman's last comment, beginning with "Check the date." I will attempt to reply competently to this matter at my earliest opportunity, and, to balance this, I agree not to edit any articles at all until this matter is resolved. Do you find that suitable?

Wowest (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[]

If you would agree to refrain from editing the subject area in question until this thread has been closed, it would be appreciated, yes. However, I do feel that this matter is somewhat straight-forward: your editing, Wowest, has been a cause for concern for some time, and I think it inevitable that sanctions are going to be passed on your account.… Naturally, I'm open to be convinced otherwise, by your comments or those of other editors. AGK 13:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[]

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

(I moved the above comment to here from the "request" section.) Unomi, this request is about Wowest. To facilitate its processing, please limit your comments to matters related to his conduct. If you think other editors violated Wikipedia norms, please open a separate enforcement request related to them. Sandstein 05:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Result concerning Wowest

This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.

User:Shutterbug

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

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

Request concerning Shutterbug

User requesting enforcement: The Legendary Shadow! (talk)13:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[]
User against whom enforcement is requested: Shutterbug (talk)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Scope_of_Scientology_topic_ban
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Statement_by_Shutterbug
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: Section 3A of 'Scope of Scientology topic ban' states:

3A) Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles, including as examples but not limited to, articles for deletion, reliable sources noticeboard, administrators' noticeboard and so forth.

User has posted to the talk page of the arbitration case on Scientology, this is clearly a violation of the above terms of their topic ban.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): as per terms laid out in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Enforcement, user should be blocked for 1 month
Additional comments
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Discussion concerning User:Shutterbug

The user has self reverted so I'm not sure whether any action is required. PhilKnight (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[]

It was his comment on the talk page of the arbitration case that I was referring to, I wasn't aware of any action on the Scientology article. The Legendary Shadow! (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Unless repeated or disruptive, I don't think that banning a named party to a RFAR from comment is a good idea, even after the close. Meanwhile, isn't launching AE complaints broadly concerning Scientology articles also topic-blocked under the "and so forth"? (To prevent continuing conflict by other means.) It's best to let all drop, and I'm sure that many admins are keeping an eye out for serious violations. (With that, out of here before I get smacked—but clarification of if the block also extends to AE actions as well would be nice.) AndroidCat (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Mind you, the requesting user above, The Legendary Shadow!, has been topic-banned by the same ArbCom (Diff). So I consider her enforcement request as another attempt to stir up trouble and unrest. As I noted on the ArbCom page (that is not an "article" per 3b) of the ArbCom "decision"): there are lies left in this case and that is why it will never get to rest until the discrimination issue is sorted out. Shutterbug (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Result concerning User:Shutterbug

Closed without action. This request is not actionable because the "request" section does not contain an actual diff of the conduct alleged to have violated an arbitration decision. Sandstein 06:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[]

The discussion above 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.

Smith2006

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Smith2006 has been placed on notice by PhilKnight. AGK 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Request concerning Smith2006

User requesting enforcement

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: Personal attacks against a group of editors (Poles), creating an unpleasant atmosphere at affected article(s) - in other grounds, a battleground between Polish and (presumably) German editors
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): The user should be added to the Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#List_of_editors_placed_under_editing_restriction.
Additional comments: Request submitted by _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Notification diff[]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Discussion concerning Smith2006

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

Thanks for pointing out the lack of prior notification. We can close this thread now, I believe. Should the disruption continue, I (or possibly also PhilKnight and AGK) will expeditiously impose sanctions on request. Sandstein 16:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[]

I would be willing to impose sanctions, yes. Closing thread as of this edit. AGK 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[]

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

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

I say "Poland", as large areas annexed to modern day Poland have no Polish history prior to 1945, and some more areas have a mixed German/Polish history. The former, not the latter does apply to Johann Dzierzon who had nothing to do with Poland, save for his Silesian home, which for centuries prior to his birth had been part of Bohemia, Austria and Prussia, having been made part of modern day Poland decades after he died. Johann Dzierzon (not "Jan") was a Prussian/German citizen during all his life, as there was no Polish state during his lifetime. He studied at the German university in Breslau (not at the Austrian Polish-language one in Cracow), and he published in German, not in Polish. The Polish language works listed in the article had not been written by Dzierzon in Polish, they are mere translations by others into Polish, just like the translations into English and other languages. I had pointed [35] that out by quoting the authorship in Polish, so all Polish editors should know this by now. Yet, Radek simply deleted this from the article as (rv OR, POV). Some dubious Polish sources claim that Dzierzon self-described himself as a Pole, and Smith2006 is actually wrong in calling them "Stalinist propaganda", as these claims had been made before the era of Stalin, and what is worse, are still repeated in modern days. Simply shameful. -- Matthead Discuß 15:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[]

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

Result concerning Smith2006

This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.

Smith2006 has been placed on notice by PhilKnight. I would hope that Smith's editing as of that notice would give no cause for complaint; in the event that it does, a thread should be opened on this noticeboard. AGK 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

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

Request concerning Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

User requesting enforcement

Discussion concerning Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

Holy NLT, Batman!

Also, vandalism now.

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

Result concerning Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

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

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

The discussion above 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.

Domer48

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

Request concerning Domer48

User requesting enforcement

Discussion concerning Domer48

I dont consider that a breach of the ruling. Play on!--Vintagekits (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Reply to user:roux; Says the Anglophile monarchist! Mabye a just tab overeactionary and hypocritical imo.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]

I have never to my knowledge edited a single article dealing with the whole Ireland mess (I believe I have made some minor edits to Chief Herald of Ireland--that would be Republic Of, not Northern), I left all monarchy-related articles due to a particularly tenacious tendentious editor driving me away, and I would support a topicban for anyone pushing a nationalistic POV on either side--were he pushing a RULE BRITANNIA! position, I would be saying the exact same thing. In addition, thank you for proving my point, because if I were an admin you would have received a timeout for that 'Anglophile monarchist' comment, as it is using an ethnicity or ethnic affiliation in a pejorative manner. //roux 17:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Nominate yerself fer adminje an I'll be shur ta support ya laddie!--Vintagekits (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]

- Your comment here is enough for me!--Domer48_'fenian' 17:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]
  - Oh good, so you'll stop wikilawyering then. Excellent! This is good for everyone. //roux 17:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]

I move for immediate topicban of Domer from any Ireland-related editing for one year, based on my thoughts outlined here. It is past time to eradicate nationalistic bullshit from Wikipedia. //roux 16:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Domer48 knows full well that there is an ongoing debate about the Ireland naming dispute supported by Arbcom at - Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration. It is amazing that he and others made such radical changes without even informing people there or the moderators appointed by ARBCOM to resolve this dispute. Domer48, doesnt seem to think hes done anything wrong if he is unpunished it hardly sets a good example for others who will think they can simply rename articles over and over again without consensus and dispite very clear ARBCOM rulings on the matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]

First off, I was not informed of this discussion! Second, I've not broken any ArbCom ruling. Third, I did not move any Article. So show me were I have done any thing to go against our policies. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]
- You know, claiming that you weren't informed of the discussion doesn't work very well when the diff above shows you were notified 20 minutes before you made that claim.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]
  - Check out the link you gave, saying you gave one doesn't work very well when the diff you did give did not come here. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Even if he didnt think he was doing anything wrong he is clearly lying to people here. "Third, I did not move any Article" How can he say that when the evidence clearly shows hes been up to no good. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Really? Then how did I just click on it and wind up at this section?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]

"lying" ohh now that's a bit strong. I didnt do anything wrong! The "evidence clearly shows hes been up to no good" what evidence? Now who is telling pork pies. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]

You are a liar, that fact is very clear. Perhaps you should check ur contributions page to refresh your memory. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]

References talk BS walks! --Domer48_'fenian' 17:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Although the edits by Domer48 weren't using the move function, they were against the spirit of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names. In this context, a short topic ban, of perhaps a week, could be appropriate. PhilKnight (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]

He seems to be threatening to move the articles again on the Republic of Ireland talk [48]. Can nobody stop him?? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]

"Can nobody stop him??" - that genuinely made laugh, I expected to hear a "dun, dun, duuuuun!" after that. Talk about trying to create a bit of drama. Relax, chill out and stop trying to make a mountain out of a molehill!--Vintagekits (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Well this started a couple of hours ago and yet less than 10 minutes ago he again threatened to move the article again despite being advised not to and knowing there is this on going discussion. Im not creating a drama, i popped on to wiki a couple of hours ago and found the world had gone mad, several editors along with him kept moving the articles all around, even though they all knew about the on going dispute.. Yet still Domer thinks hes done nothing wrong and nobody has punished him for his sins. This sets a very bad example, we will end up with nationalists and separatists running wild all across wikipedia.. they need rules. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]

My edits were not against the spirit of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names. Just saying something does not make it so. I've not violated any policy or gone against any ArbCom ruling. Please provide diff's. In addition comment on the RoI article, and explain how I was incorrect with the edit. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Oh you admit youve been making some edits then? Awhile ago you claimed you had not moved any articles, is that still the case or were you lying? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]

PhilKnight the text currently on RoI is a POV Fork. It is POV inspired, so do you support this violation of our policies. How are our readers to know that RoI is not the name of the Irish State, if the text which explains it keeps getting removed? The current text is against the spirit and violates a whole host of our policies. Misinforming our readers is a major no no. So comment on that before you start to talk about blocks in such a casual manner. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]

The introduction on Republic of Ireland says ". The name of the state is Ireland, while the description the Republic of Ireland is sometimes used when there is a need to differentiate the state from the island" How are people being misled and how the hell is it a POV fork??? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]

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

You agree that no solution which involves misleading our readers would be agreed by anyone? Now, please explain how I went against the spirit of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names, since your the one suggesting blocks. Do you agree that the current text on the RoI article is misleading, and removing the text I added prevents informing our readers on RoI? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Result concerning Domer48

With his edit [49], Domer48 performed what amounted to a cut-and-paste move of Republic of Ireland to Ireland, in violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion which forbids such moves. Since he appears intent on repeating this violation of an arbitral decision, I have blocked him for a week. I will lift the block, and I consent to another administrator lifting it, as soon as Domer48 gives credible assurances that he will not repeat such moves, whether by means of the "move" function or by cut and paste.

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

The discussion above 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.

Shutterbug

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

Request concerning Shutterbug

User requesting enforcement

Discussion concerning Shutterbug

Comment to Feldspar: tl;dr.[51]. I am not interested. Shutterbug (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Result concerning Shutterbug

This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.

Shutterbug was properly notified, it is incumbent on him to ask the clerk or Arbitrators for clarification (assuming he was confused) before editing. Blocked 24 hours. Thatcher 03:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[3] Tadeusz Swietochowski. Azerbaijan: The Hidden Faces of Islam. World Policy Journal, Volume XIX, No 3, Fall 2002

[a]

[b]

[1]