Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:25, 25 September 2010

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	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342

Varsovian

Varsovian is admonished for violating his ban and must seek admin approval on this notice board before participating in any Arbcom or dispute resolution action not directly related to him. Varsovian and Jacurek are subject to an interaction ban until December 1. --WGFinley (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Varsovian

User requesting enforcement: Jacurek^(Talk)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Varsovian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy

With this bold allegation of sock puppetry [1] user Varsovian violated his restrictions [2] as discribed below:

"..whenever he alleges misconduct by another editor, he must with the same edit provide all diffs that are required to substantiate his allegations, or link to the place where he has already provided these diffs, if he has not already provided them in the same section of the discussion at issue." Failure to comply with these restrictions may be sanctioned with escalating blocks or additional sanctions [3]

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to: [4]

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

Block and extension of his topic ban [5] from the topic of Eastern Europe, broadly construed.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [6]

Discussion concerning Varsovian

Notice from WGFinley

As an uninvolved admin trying to sort out this mess I am instructing all parties here to only post if they have something directly related to this complaint. Further, I don't want to hear about any previous complaints, filings, findings, hurt feelings, etc unless there is a claim a user is in violation of a standing sanction against him/her. If that's not the case I don't want to hear about it. Finally, I will remind all here that you had best not post here if you come with unclean hands as you risk being sanctioned yourself. Given that almost all the parties here have been involved in one sanction or another I would warn you that patience among admins is wearing thin with these constant disturbances and further squabbling could result in bans from the Eastern Europe topic altogether. Wikipedia is not a battleground and the constant attempts to turn it into one with partisan editing needs to stop. --WGFinley (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Varsovian

I do not make any allegation or insinuation of socking.
My comment regarded apparent possible off-wiki communication. Off-wiki communication is not misconduct. Therefore I am not required by my sanction to supply diffs and casting aspersions does not apply either.
I made no comment on any matter related to EE and specifically stated "I can/will not comment on Raseksz's article edits or this request"[7].
This amendment request involved me and the actions that another editor had taken towards me and thus comes under the classification 'necessary dispute resolution'.
I am banned from taking part in EE-related AE not from Amendment requests.
I do try very hard to AGF but it is near impossible to do so with posters who have repeatedly harassed and attacked me ([8], [9], [10], [11]).

It is a well known fact that Jacurek and Radeksz are not the same person. The allegation made by Jacurek is little more than using AE as harassment, precisely the kind of disruptive request that can be meet with a block for the filing party (see here for an example, although not an example that involves Jacurek). Jacurek has in the past been blocked for harassment, harassment of me (see this log). Jacurek has also been blocked for socking as User:Cvc42 and other accounts have been blocked as suspected socks of Jacurek (User:Ambor and User:Mamalala and User:Tommy_on_Theems). If I wanted to accuse Jacurek of having used socks, there wouldn't be any shortage of evidence to support it. However, I did not accuse him of it: my comment was actually a reference to apparent possible off-wiki communication. As far as I am aware, off-wiki communication is not considered misconduct (unless one is socking for a blocked user) and as such, I am not required to provide diffs.
As for the claim made by Chumchum7 (how fascinating that a semi-retired user should stumble upon this request within 8 hours of it being made) that I have violated my topic ban, I clearly state that "I can/will not comment on Raseksz's article edits or this request": I make no comment on any post or article related to the area of my topic ban; my comment is regarding Radeksz's failure to offer any defence with regard to his actions regarding me after Skäpperöd pointed them out. With regard to Sandstein's comment about "necessary dispute resolution", it is not necessary that Radeksz ceases to engage in the attacks and behaviour pointed out by Skäpperöd? It's also interesting how two posters Radeksz has worked with in the past (see for example how Radeksz and Chumchum7 worked together on the London Victory parade article) now wish to make sure that I am not able to even comment on an Amendment case which involves me (or at least somebody's behaviour towards me). Varsovian (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

~~Reply to WGFinley~~

My understanding is that off-wiki communication is not considered to be misconduct: am I wrong in thinking that? As for AGF, I do try very hard to do that: however, given that Chumchum7 in his last post about me called me a troll four times ([12]) and has in the past filed a 2,000 word report described by an admin as "too long and argumentative and contains too few relevant diffs", despite being told "We are not interested in opinions, we are interested in evidence." Chumchum7 then posted the whole text again here and Jacurek has a history of bans for attacking me (this log), sometimes no amount of effort will work.

Comments by others about the request concerning Varsovian

I read the "diff" [13] concerning the "Bold allegations of sock puppetry made by Varsovian", offered here by Jacurek. That's a little scary, because either I'm losing it, or my wayward youth is giving me flashbacks. Does any one else see such an assertion made in that "diff" brought forth as evidence? Dr. Dan (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "bold allegation" in that diff, but there is a clear insinuation of sockpuppetry. "What are the chances" carries the unstated (but obvious) implication "unless they are sockpuppets". What this means in terms of arbitration enforcement against this editor I have no opinion about, since it would seem to turn on whether an insinuation is an example of the user "alleging" something or not, and I stopped counting angels on the heads of pins some years ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wgfinley has asked me to comment here as the admin imposing the original sanction. That sanction is based on the principle recognized by the Arbitration Committee that routinely casting aspersions on others is prohibited (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight#Casting aspersions). In the instant case, Varsovian's comment at issue, [14], violates his instruction not to allege misconduct on the part of others without at the same time providing relevant diffs, although I do not think that this particular violation is grave. Since I'm currently taking a break from AE, I'll leave it to others to decide what sanction, if any, is appropriate. Sandstein 05:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But at any rate, Varsovian's contribution to a Eastern Europe-related request for amendment violates his recent topic ban from Eastern Europe, as imposed here, unless the comment was made in the course of necessary dispute resolution, about which I have no opinion. Sandstein 05:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Sandstein says, Varsovian is banned from the Eastern Europe topic area here. This strict restriction was applied after many months of time consuming disputes and personal conflicts involving Varsovian, and after many milder warnings, sanctions and restrictions had failed. Varsovian has now posted on the subject of the Eastern European Mailing List [15]. As Sandstein says, by doing this Varsovian has ignored the strict sanction imposed on him. This supersedes any concerns about (i) his possible allegations of sockpuppetry or (ii) his involvement in AE in a possibly disallowed manner. As it happens, his post at EEML Amendment engages in personal conflict again. For the WP community to remain confident in the the WP enforcement process, and to send a clear message to restricted editors not test authority, further sanctions must be applied on Varsovian now. One option is that his sixth-month ban from Eastern Europe topic areas is restarted from today. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to repeat that I read the "diff" [16], and do not see a bold accusation of "sockpuppeteering" (sic). And Ken, there is also not a clear insinuation of sockpuppetry there either. Specifically, I saw it as suggesting that the two had collaborated on the issue in question. Varsovian's statement here seems to substantiate my impression. Actually it's Jacurek who has made wild accusations about myself and sock puppetry that have never been retracted or apologized for. In this post [17], Jacurek claims, in the most offensive and obscene manner, that Varsovian and I are one and the same person. Talk about throwing stones within glass houses. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~1 - Reminder of Dr.Dan's recent sanctions [18].~~ Please focus on the misconduct of user Varsovian and cease attacks of your own.--Jacurek (talk) 00:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~2 - Link to one of many copmlaints filed against user Varsovian for those who are not familiar with the history of his editing [19].~~

(OD) Jacurek, I don't have to "cease any attacks" here, because none have been made. Just like there haven't been any "bold" (or not bold) accusations of sockpuppetry made here by Varsovian either. If you consider commenting on your "evidence" to be an attack on you, that's unfortunate. As for the other matter, your obscene and vicious attack on Varsovian and myself [20] was simply putting your M.O. into perspective. Actually, I would have been surprised if you took this opportunity to retract your statement and apologize for it. Would you like me to translate it here for those who do not read Polish? I'd be happy to do so. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed all of us here, myself included, could take another look at WP:BOOMERANG and WP:KETTLE. To date I've never been sanctioned and I think it might be thanks to hearing about a very cool idea called WP:DENY. There is a limit, of course, to how much dickery can be ignored; but when faced with someone itching for a fight (for whatever reason), sometimes non-engagement really works. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing other editors here of acting like dicks may well be precisely what WGFinley was cautioning against in his notice. Might I politely suggest that you follow my example and strike out the content which he correctly points out as having no place here? Varsovian (talk) 09:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that no sanctions are needed against Varsovian right now. Nowhere in this diff did he hint that Jacurek might be applying sock puppets at the moment. Let's copy the sentence concerned: Also interesting that Radeksz repeatedly uses a precise legal term (slander) and Jacurek then uses the precise same term in his 13 word note. What are the chances of that happening?!
Well, a dormant account suddenly became active, and it's really fair to assume, that he was simply notified off-wiki (though there weren't apparent insinuations regarding this matter either). In addition, Jacurek has previously been using sock puppets (cf his block log). Varsovian simply noted that Jacurek came up with the same legal term that Radek had been using. Nothing more. It seems the whole request is just an essay in WP:POINT. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 18:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"What are the chances" carries the unstated (but obvious) implication "unless they are sockpuppets".

No, there needn't be implications of sock puppetry. If there were any implications - obvious or not - it might just as well been that the two users are (still) collaborating off-wiki. For example, Radeksz is known for having proxyed for Molobo.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 18:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I read this my first impression was that it was an unwarranted personal attack, not so much insinuating sock puppetry but improper co-ordination between Jacurek and Radeksz. IMHO some kind of interaction ban would be appropriate here. --Martin (talk) 07:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Proposed Remedy

Is a 'no interaction ban' really needed for Dr. Dan? I don't see any misconduct by his part. We should be careful with handing out interaction bans like this for experienced users. Recent enforcement requests have shown that such bans, if imposed liberally, often stir drama rather than curb it. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 11:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear to me me from the above that these four do not get along and there is little hope in them getting along productively. --WGFinley (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I’m happy with your decision. I have no interests in interacting with these two, EVER. If you have time, please carefully review Varsovian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)’s edits from the time of his sudden appearance last year to understand why. Unfortunately, to understand the problem you have to dig deep into it and analyze everything, even decisions of certain administrators. The only problem I see is that user Chumchum7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was sanctioned unfairly here. He was never sanctioned or banned before in any way and if you review his history of interaction with user Varsovian you may come to the same conclusion that in his case ban is absolutely excessive. If anybody needs to get the interaction ban here it is User-multi error: "Miacek and his crime-fighting dog" is not a valid project or language code (help). who does not come here with "clean hands” ( check his history ) and according to the note of yours [21] may and should be sanctioned for aggressive lobbing for his ally Dr. Dan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).--Jacurek (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's odd that my name was mentioned by Jacurek in such a context. I think Jacurek's comments above are really self-revealing. I didn't come here to lobby anything, I do not edit war with any of the users mentioned here, avoid users with petty national disputes whenever possible and am most definitely not Dr. Dan's ally. The sentence aggressive lobbing for his ally with the consequtive demand for an 'ineraction ban' for me rather looks close to an unwarranted WP:NPA violation. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 12:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remedies should be focussed on (A) the user requesting enforcement and (B) the user against whom enforcement is requested. Other users may be dealt with in cases of their own, according to the DR process including ANI and/or AE filings if necessary. This would entail objective hearings and the use of evidence in the form of diffs. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PETARD states "A common statement on noticeboards is "this isn't about me, this is about them"." and "Anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny." Attacks like this one and this one (during discussion of this request!) show that an interaction ban would be helpful. As for Jacurek, this block and this block show that an interaction ban would definitely be a good idea. As for my own actions, I would like to apologise for making an accusation of wrongdoing: I did not think that off-wiki communication is misconduct (but will take care to remember in the future). I think that the revised ban from boards is an improvement on the previous wording of my topic ban. Varsovian (talk) 10:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Varsovian, focus on your own misconduct ([22]) and cease attacks. I could present endless examples of your unacceptable behavior including name calling and blocks. I'm not doing that because we were asked not to by this note [23]. I expect you to respect that also.--Jacurek (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An endless list of my blocks? I think that you must be getting me confused with a user who has been blocked for nine months since 28 April 2008. Thank you for not making any attacks, would you now like to strike out the attacks you made in your posting of 18:47, 19 September? Varsovian (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Varsovian

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

I've asked Sandstein, the admin who made the ban, to take a look and chime in. It's not clear to me if this skirts the AE ban he placed on Varsovian or not. The "diff" provided is spotty, yes he infers that someone is socking but it's not a blatant accusation. --WGFinley (talk) 04:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Varsovian is right, actions directed at him were referenced multiple times in the filing of the Request for Amendment, therefore I believe he is involved in that case and has not violated his ban concerning commenting on AE matters.
Varsovian is not doing himself any favors overcoming a ban on casting aspersions by responding to this AE request by, yes, casting aspersions. Saying you weren't accusing him of using socks but you were referencing "apparent possible off-wiki communication"? Pretty disingenuous. He then continues "how fascinating that a semi-retired user should stumble upon this request". Varsovian seems to have a general disregard for WP:AGF and wants to disregard that portion of his ban. It appears some action is needed there, what type, I will ponder and welcome input.
It seems some type of interaction ban needs to be looked at. --WGFinley (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Remedy

I've had a chance to wade through some of this now and would suggest the following actions:

Varsovian is admonished for making accusations without proof of wrongdoing and participating in an Eastern Europe related discussion in violation of his ban.
Varsovian must get approval from an uninvolved administrator before participating on any dispute resolution or Arbitration board or process, requests can be made on this board.
Varsovian ~~and Dr. Dan on one side~~ and Jacurek ~~and Chumchum7 on the other~~ are now subject to an interaction ban until December 1.

--WGFinley (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I need to look through some diffs still my proposal on the interaction ban is the less than productive interaction above, I welcome other uninvolved admin takes on it. --WGFinley (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guess no one else is wading in, I am not including Dr. Dan and Chumchum in the interaction ban, just Varsovian and Jacurek. --WGFinley (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexikoua

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

Request concerning Alexikoua

User requesting enforcement: — ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Alexikoua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Purpose of Wikipedia
Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Decorum
Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Editorial process

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

[24][25][26] Long-term edit-warring on Himarë
[27][28][29][30][31][32][33]Long-term edit-warring on Qeparo(Alexikoua was edit-warring over whether the name of the village is of Albanian or Greek origin)
[34][35][36][37] Long-term edit-warring on Laskarina Bouboulina and whenever I tried to write a new version using Alexikoua's version and someone else's version as a compromise Alexikoua made comments like [38][39]
[40][41][42][43] Long-term edit-warring on Ksamil
When I sent him an email reminding him some grammar rules because he was making mistakes I received this message [44]. When he was asked to provide a reference about the alleged Greek ethnicity of a writer born in Albania he replied [45][46][47][48]
[49][50] deleting sources after taking part in an RSN that ended in favor of the reliability of the source[51]. The user doesn't accept community consensus but follows a wp:own strategy against the consensus.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

[52] Warning by ZjarriRrethues (talk · contribs)

Latest sanction:[53]

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Indefinite topic ban on all topics and discussions related to Albania and Albanians

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Alexikoua has been involved in many edit-wars the vast majority of which are on Albanians-related topics(as you can see all the long-term edit-warring diffs are from Albanians-related topics), he has been sanctioned for 1 month to 1RR and has also been blocked. I don't want to make lengthy comments about Alexikoua's actions on these articles so I'll just copy/paste comments of other users like one made by a very experienced in Balkans topics administrator Future Perfect At Sunrise (talk · contribs), who has said about Alexikoua's actions on those topics that he is an editor who has hardly ever in all his career on Wikipedia made a single edit to any article that was not directly motivated by a single POV agenda (namely, making Albanians look bad and Greeks look good in the struggle over Epirus). Alexikoua has also made some edits that more or less show a pattern of editing like adding on Expulsion of Cham Albanians that the expulsion of this Albanian minority of Greece is related to the Albanian mafia [54] or labeling Albanian troops as tribesmen in an article related to Epirus because to have troops you need a state. Some users who have received similar sanctions and also blocks like Alexikoua may make comments against other users to defend him. A decision should be taken quickly to avoid any kind of disruptive behavior during this AE.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [55]

Discussion concerning Alexikoua

Statement by Alexikoua

Comments by others about the request concerning Alexikoua

Statement by user Beserks: Alexikoua insists on using falsified sources, see: [56] and [57] (The Official Guide of Himara). Someone had the good idea to superpose GREEK TOPONYMS TO AN ALREADY PUBLISHED ALBANIAN MAP. You can see for yourself by right-clicking with your mouse to "View image" then zoom on page 3 of the PDF Guide of Himara. He also falsified the same source, that on page 5 reads only "Old Kiparo" and not Άνω Κηπαρό/Κάτω Κηπαρό - or at least I didn't find it there (see: [58]). This is not the first time that some Greek editors falsify the information they submit. See for example [59] The Greeks: the land and people since the war. James Pettifer. Penguin, 2000. This book that shows nothing [[60]] about 200,000 Greeks in Albania is used in different Wikipedia pages to document the Greek presence in Albania [61]. Alexikoua also puts into question Halil Inalcik, a great Turkish historian specialized in Ottoman studies (here: [62]).

More disruption: Alexikoua uses double standards (he is in favor of Greek names in Albanian towns, but objects to Albanian town-names in Greece); he then invites me to discuss matters [63], when I already did [64].Beserks (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More falsification: Alexikoua [65] writes:

"I moved the name to Constantine Tzechanis, since english bibliography gives only 1 hit to Xhehani, but if we take a look [66] (Peyfuss) just mentions the title of an Albanian work: so we have virtually 0 hits on Xhehani.Alexikoua (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)"

By using google.gr/ [67] Alexikoua gives the false impression that there is only 1 english-language book, hiding the fact that there are 28 [68] books on the matter, opposing his view. Beserks (talk) 07:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Alexikoua

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Athenean

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

Request concerning Athenean

User requesting enforcement: — ZjarriRrethues — ^talk19:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Athenean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Purpose of Wikipedia
Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Decorum
Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Editorial process

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

[69] Labeling all comments made by Albanian editors as arguments of low quality.
[70] Accusing admin as not impartial because he made a suggestion about the previous dif
[71][72] Personal attacks against me(although I supported the decision to reduce his sanctions when he was topic banned)
[73] Deleting sourced content from the lead with summary Only an Albanian nationalist would place this in the second sentence of the article.
[74] Deleting sourced content with idontlikeit arguments about the reliability of the source(on RSN it was approved as rs)
[75] Further comments on the author herself that as I have read in some other reports might be considered BLP violations.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

[76] Warning byThe Wordsmith (talk · contribs)
Latest sanctions:User talk:Athenean#Sanction notice extended to User talk:Athenean#Banned

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Indefinite topic ban from all topics and discussions related to Albania, Albanians. He had already received a two-week topic ban on Balkans a couple of months ago.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Athenean has received already two times sanctions for his editing behavior in Balkans related articles. The latest that expired was a four-month 1RR and expired about two-weeks ago. I have seen him many times while taking part in discussions with other users who edit the same articles making aggressive comments about the users themselves likeSuch behavior disgusts me, it's called backstabbing in English. I am done with you, and I am withdrawing from your stupid "collaboration" board. Since the sanctions ended he returned to his previous behavior and even when he was warned by The Wordsmith to ease up on the accusations against other users he didn't stop. Some users who have received the same sanctions as Athenean and also blocks may make comments against other users to defend him. A decision should be taken quickly to avoid any kind of disruptive behavior during this AE.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk19:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[77]

Discussion concerning Athenean

Statement by Athenean

Comments by others about the request concerning Athenean

Result concerning Athenean

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Brews ohare

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

Request concerning Brews ohare

User requesting enforcement: JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Brews ohare restricted

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

[78] Created new article while deletion discussion in progress
[79] Created new article while deletion discussion in progress
[80] Created redirect over article deleted after discussion

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

[81] Warning by JohnBlackburne (talk · contribs)
[82] Warning by JohnBlackburne (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): I don't know what is needed except something that can convince Brews ohare that he cannot just ignore consensus and policies that he finds inconvenient. In a sense this is the same problem that got him banned from physics – no-one objects to occasional posting of fringe ideas on talk pages, it was the repeated posting against consensus that got him banned – suggesting the existing ban is not having the desired effect.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: A week ago I initiated a deletion discussion on Vector quadruple product as seen here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vector_quadruple_product. This was largely uncontentious except for Brews ohare's participation, where he made most of the contributions, repeatedly rewriting his proposals, claiming (one of his) proposals was the "sensible course", and so on. In particular during the discussion he created two articles, proposing first one, then another as replacements, the first a miscellaneous list of vector maths with no clear criteria for inclusion, the second the same as the deleted article with some trivial working, effectively preempting the result of the deletion discussion. In particular now the discussion is over, and the page has been deleted, he has recreated it as a redirect to one his new pages (one of his suggestions that was not supported by anyone else in the discussion), circumventing both the deletion discussion and the consensus of the participants. I tried proposing the new page for deletion, for the reasons given above, but that was removed with the suggestion of another timeconsuming AfD, at the same time accusing my of "sniping" for following process.; To Wgfinley: I would say this is not physics, except in that all maths is theoretical physics; but this has been clarified in previous discussions, Brews ohare's and David Tombe's topic bans do not extend to mathematics topics like this one.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 07:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Brews ohare notified: [83]

Discussion concerning Brews ohare

Statement by Brews ohare

Comments by others about the request concerning Brews ohare

Comment by Count Iblis (Brews' advocate :) )

Brews has let me know that he won't have time for Wikipedia for the coming few weeks and asked me to take a look at the article about the quadruple product, particularly his comments here, because he thought the article would be put on AFD by John Blackburne after he left. He presumably doesn't know that the matter has ended up here.

I didn't have enough time to read through all the disputes, but what I did note was lack of participation from other math experts in the AFD. I.m.o., the matter should have been raised at WikiProject math, because the issue isn't that straightforward. It is now hard to see what is consensus and what is the opinion of JohnBlackburne and User:DVdm.

I have asked User:Hans Adler, an experienced math editor, if he has the time to give his comments here. My preliminary look leads me to conclude that this is one of those issues where I say: "what is all the fuss about", but I know that others sometime have a competely different opinion in such cases. So that's why I asked him to take a look. Count Iblis (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC) |}[reply]

Comment by jheiv

The article seems useless (IMO), however, what looks to be more of a concern is the user's actions during the AfD discussion. And while the article looks fine on its face (some sourcing, pretty equations), it worries me that the user is so committed to his edits that he refuses to seek consensus, or actively opposes it. To be honest, its a little disappointing because it looks as if the editor has the skills and ability to contribute productively, if they had any interest in it at all -- but at least from the actions outlined here -- it's not clear to me that they do. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 08:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Hans Adler

I am only commenting here because Count Iblis asked me to.

About the question of mathematics or physics: This article is about mathematics, although it is the kind of mathematics that interests physicists much more than mathematicians.

About the article itself: It seems useless to me. Basically it just defines a term that is not very important. If it is in common use among some people, then it should be defined in a related article and the article should be redirected there.

About Brews Ohare's editing of mathematics articles: He has contributed a large number of beautiful graphics to Pythagorean theorem. He has also participated in one of the most bizarre debates about a mathematical topic that I have ever seen (now filling most of talk page archives 3 and 4), started by David Tombe, who claimed that the theorem is really a three-dimensional theorem and in particular that it doesn't hold in higher dimensions. Brews Ohare's role in this discussion was not clear to me (in fact I confused him with David Tombe and in a previous version of this comment falsely claimed that he had started the discussion), but in any case I think he didn't help to stop the circus.

It is generally not a good idea to ignore consensus or ongoing discussions. On the other hand this is not a clear case of doing so. It appears that Brews Ohare misjudged other editors' positions and attitudes, especially w.r.t. himself, and was acting in a spirit of good faith and collaborative editing. (I am not very familiar with him, though, and may be missing a general pattern here.) [Comment revised after an email by Davide Tombe refreshed my mind.]Hans Adler 16:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Brews ohare

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Creating articles, redirects, etc when the article is being discussed in an AfD is very bad form and seems to be in violation of his restriction. The topic of this article is in the field of theoretical physics is it not? Looking at the soruces for the secondary source article from MathWorld, three of the four are books on physics. --WGFinley (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say we can call it math. T. Canens (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find the conduct of this user to continue to be disruptive and subject to repeated cases. This year alone March, July and twice in August he's been a subject here for his disruption either by editors or by Arbcom. Creating forks of an article under AfD or recreating an article under AfD is WP:GAME and a user under his restrictions should know better. Now banned from physics it appears he may be turning to mathematics. I would propose the following remedy:

One week block, he's already had a one week block earlier but it's been some time, I think it's an appropriate duration.
Admonishment not to extend disruptive behavior he is banned for in physics over to mathematics, if it continues further sanctions or requests to Arbcom may be necessary.

--WGFinley (talk) 04:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. This was not catastrophically bad, but was a user tiptoeing around the edges of prior sanctions with more questionable behavior, and should be discouraged. The proposal by Wgfinley seems balanced from that point of view. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above. T. Canens (talk) 08:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lontech

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

Request concerning Lontech

User requesting enforcement: Enric Naval (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Lontech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: "In addition, you will be required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk paged" based in WP:ARBMAC

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

[84] 14 September. removes "cradle of Serbian culture", no edit summary and doesn't discuss in talk page
[85] 23 September. removes ~~same text~~ a more neutral version of the same text, edit summary is only "rv, pov", doesn't post in the talk page discussion of that text

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Lontech is aware of the restriction, since he has filed two reports based on it[86][87]

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Block of adequate length (optionally, place another temporal topic ban on Kosovo topics)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Lontech has removed twice the same sentence in 9 days, making no discussion in the talk page. The restriction requires that all content reversions are discussed. The talk page had an active discussion about this very same sentence.

Lontech, check your removals again:

1st "Kosovo became the cradle of Serbian culture"
2nd "Serbs came to consider Kosovo the cradle of Serbian culture"

The first text was POV and dab's comment applies. The second one was an improved version that was not POV. Maybe you didn't realize that the text had changed? --Enric Naval (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [88]

Discussion concerning Lontech

Statement by Lontech

I dont see a violation of rules

Thanks for clarifying that Revere was after 1 week ( 9 days later ) so there is no 1RR violation

Regarding Discussion: It was and still it is clear pov . Dab has explained very well

afaik it is undisputed that Kosovo was populated with a Serbian majority prior to 1800 just as it is undisputed that there is an Albanian majority now. As for "cradle", the Serbs as an ethnicity began to articulate from a generic South Slavic population in the 6th to 9th century. There was no territory coterminous with Kosovo prior to the 19th century so it can hardly be the cradle of Serbian culture. According to our Serbs article, " The first Serb states were Rascia, Doclea, Travunia, Pagania and Zachlumia." It is undisputed that what is now Kosovo is a part of these territories, but I see no evidence that it was in any sense more of a "cradle" than any other part. "Kosovo" got its relevance only in the wake of 1389, long after Serbian culture had emerged. So yes, what is now Kosovo used to be part of medieval Serbia, but no, I see no evidence it was a "cradle" (or ?"crux") in any particular sense. --dab (𒁳) 16:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

or It has been required to copy and paste again dabs coment.-- LONTECH Talk 17:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Dab's remark lies within a cluster of other statements on the talk page; this paragraph did not conclude the discussion as it has continued. Several editors have left notes. Evlekis (Евлекис) 19:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Lontech

Per multiple disputed actions, and per some previous and contemporary personal attacks (diff, Lontech - ethnic attacks at ANI, reported by SarekOfVulcan) and pov pushing by this user, some urgent reaction is required regarding this request. User was blocked indef by J.delanoy, but unblocked also by him after agreement to follow the rules. It looks like that agreement is forgotten by Lontech. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 12:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Lontech

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

The point of a discussion restriction is to get people to discuss. It's not a "each side can make a post on talk page and then revert with impunity" restriction. The violations are unambiguous, and given that there has already been a topic ban on this matter, I'm opting for a indefinite ban on this violation. Under the authority of WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions, Lontech (talk · contribs) is hereby banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to Kosovo, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed as provided in WP:ARBMAC#Appeal of discretionary sanctions. T. Canens (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[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.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 308: / Line 308: @@
 ===Result concerning Lontech===
 :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
+The point of a discussion restriction is to get people to ''discuss''. It's not a "each side can make a post on talk page and then revert with impunity" restriction. The violations are unambiguous, and given that there has already been a topic ban on this matter, I'm opting for a indefinite ban on this violation. Under the authority of [[WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions]], {{user|Lontech}} is hereby banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to Kosovo, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed as provided in [[WP:ARBMAC#Appeal of discretionary sanctions]]. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 17:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 <!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.-->
 <!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.-->

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards