Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:54, 4 February 2012

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	343	344

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by SonofSetanta

Appeal declined. T. Canens (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: SonofSetanta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – SonofSetanta (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: this AE Report

Administrator imposing the sanction: Wgfinley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by SonofSetanta

There has been no attempt at frivolity by me. Mo Aimh made an edit at Ulster Defence Regiment which clearly reverted in one edit four different edits I had made the previous day here - none of which removed anything from the article. [1]. This is a clear breach of the 1RR policy on the article. There is nothing frivolous about that. One Night in Hackney stalked me to the Harry Baxter article to revert text about the Ulster Defence Regiment there without explanation or discussion which I felt was absolutely necessary given the current high feelings about the Ulster Defence Regiment article: that in addition to reverting an edit I made at the UDR article. The banning editor made it clear he was unhappy about the sourced text being removed but seemed to be under the impression that it was I who had reverted it - not true. I made the complaint in good faith, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_Mo_ainm.

I fully realise that the situation is confused. By walking into two editing traps I have found myself blocked twice for nothing more than trying to edit an article. There is nothing contentious about my edits and all are sourced but the same couple of editors always step in to remove them and preserve the article as it stands. I am not a very experienced user but do my best on this noticeboard to comply with what is required of me. The truth is I'm very confused about it all. I'm left feeling that I have been successfully gamed again and that fair play hasn't been shown.>

I would like the sanction lifted and the genuine, good faith complaints against Mo Aimh and One Night in Hackey to be looked at afresh. I sincerely feel the wrong editor has received a topic ban.

@HJ Mitchell. In my defence I would ask you to look at my editing history. How many blocks I have received, where and why? My contention would be that I am not a troublemaker. I have an interest in military history and make good edits on Wikipedia in good faith. As far as the Ulster Defence Regiment is concerned though I am not permitted to make any changes it appears. I've not been involved in trouble anywhere else which is why I don't know how to make complaints properly or even fight my own corner. On this board I am lost but no-one seems to be in a mood to assist or even extend good faith to me.

@WG Finlay. I have not posted a complaint in response to any complaint against me. No complaints about me where on the board when I clicked the link to make my own complaint. I am not very good at filling out the complaints forms however and it seems that on two occasions mine have come in second as a result. Had I been faster then it would be the others who would be in this position. Look at the times, that should confirm what I'm saying. I ask you: whatever happened to "extend good faith" and "don't bite new editors"?

@T. Canens. I have already stated that I made no frivolous or vindictive complaints. Please try to extend good faith to me. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@All admins. See post below by Domer48 to illustrate how I have been treated on the several occasions I have tried to edit the UDR article. Always the same people and always preventing me from doing anything - sourced or not.SonofSetanta (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification requested. I am still able to edit and post on the UDR discussion page. Is this ban I've been given some kind of voluntry thing on my part?

Statement by Wgfinley

For the record I wasn't notified but the filing party from the previous AE did so.

This case is a result of three different recent closures here at AE, they are listed above but for simplicity here are the three closures:

There was support from multiple admins in all three of these cases for a TBAN of SonofSetanta that the report concerning him/her had evidence of revert violations on Troubles related articles. There was also support from multiple admins (I didn't close the first case) that the cases SonofSetanta filed were frivolous and without merit. Given his/her revert and battleground behavior also evidenced by previous blocks in this topic area, invoking the cabal and filing multiple AE reports in response to an AE report filed against him/her that started this whole spat he/she is entirely deserving of the 90 day ban from Troubles and AE. --WGFinley (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further Administrative Action

SonofSetanta has continued participating in an article subject to his ban[2], I've been forced to block him for two weeks as he just came of a one week block, I notified him he can still participate in this appeal by posting to his talk page.[3] --WGFinley (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update Based on an email SonofSetanta sent me and some of his comments it seems he thought the system would prevent him from editing articles subject to his ban. I am going to AGF and assume he is being honest and give him a second chance. I've unblocked him and instructed him he has to govern himself in observing his ban. --WGFinley (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mo ainm

SonofSetanta says "The banning editor made it clear he was unhappy about the sourced text being removed". This refers to a comment he made in his bizarre AE report on me here, which read "and removed an insert by me, properly sourced, about how women were more suitable as radio operators. There is no explanation for this other than to suggest the editor is gaming". Before that AE report by SonofSetanta, I had posted to the article's talk page here regarding this, giving my explanation for the removal of that content as "already covered in the same section". I repeated the same point on the AE report here. RepublicanJacobite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) went even further than me when replying to the AE report here and pointed out the text of both the original text and the duplicate addition, and pointed out which paragraph they could be found in with a link to the version being talked about. So I don't know why this "he removed sourced content" card is still being played despite it being pointed out not once but three times the information was removed because it was duplicate information. SonofSetanta made a series of new changes to the article. I disagreed with some of them, and I reverted the article once here while keeping the changes I had no problem with, and explained my reasons for doing so on the article's talk page here. SonofSetanta reverted my revert, breaching 1RR in the process. SonofSetanta's post to the article's talk page regarding this is here, and reads "I happen to disagree so the information will be put back the way it was. Anyone who wants it removed should seek concensus here". As I've already said in the original AE report this is turning consensus upside down, Some of SonofSetanta's changes were reverted by me, I explained why, it was up to SonofSetanta to seek consensus for those changes. Instead he didn't take part in the discussion in any meaningful way, he reverted me and filed a bad faith AE report because I had made one revert which I explained on the article's talk page. Mo ainm~Talk 15:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happened to good faith? "There is no explanation for this other than to suggest the editor is gaming", despite the fact I had posted on the article's talk page here before he said that. Does good faith only work in SonofSetanta's direction? Mo ainm~Talk 17:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Domer48

SonofSetanta from their first talk page edit way back on the 13 October 2010 requested a mentor. They made the same request on their very first post on an editors talk page, asking that the mentor should have a "neutral point of view." There first edit to the UDR article was to remove a citation tag, and their fourth edit was to add an Attribution needed tag. In their very first talk page post we get the claim that Potter "is the official historian" and the very next day we had the whole " UDR historian" nonsense repeated again, again and then we get what appears to be an exact quote from the Potter book which says that Potter is the "official UDR historian, at the invite of the British MOD." This of course was completely untrue as the book says no such thing. Within three days of starting to edit, they post not only on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard but start treads on both Wikipedia talk:Verifiability and then on the very same day the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard before going onto WikiProject Military history/British military history task force. It won't be the first time that we get the call of help, I'm an inexperienced editor. This editor has been at this since October 2010. They have been making the same claims, starting the same discussions, and claiming inexperience. They understood enough about wiki from the start of their editing so its time to change the record. Asking WG Finlay "whatever happened to "extend good faith" and "don't bite new editors"? is a complete joke. Still claiming that they are new in 2012 and inexperienced is really pushing it. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Despite SonofSetanta topic ban, clearly stated on their talk page, stating that SonofSetanta is banned from "all articles, discussions, and other content related to The Troubles, broadly construed across all namespaces for 90 days" they ignore this, and post on the very same article talk page. And per norm, claim ignorance. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by One Night In Hackney

There's little point me going over the frivolous report on me again unless really required? I have to echo the comments about "good faith", since SonofSetanta blatantly lies about what a book says (although this is the whole "is Potter the UDR historian" debate he's presenting what he claims to be an exact quote from the book, only it doesn't appear in the book at all) and describes my behaviour as "spurious in the extreme and this warring on the UDR article is part of a larger strategy to prevent articles on the Irish Troubles from being editied with a neutral POV". That's hilarious, and you'll have to forgive me for blowing my own trumpet for a little while. Take a look at Category:GA-Class Irish Republicanism articles. 1993 Bishopsgate bombing, Maze Prison escape and Mountjoy Prison helicopter escape were all created and taken to GA status by me, and pretty much me alone. Real Irish Republican Army was taken to GA status by me. So out of the seven articles, four were taken to GA by me. Or how about the only article in Category:FA-Class Irish Republicanism articles? 1981 Irish hunger strike taken to GA by me, then taken to FA by me (with some minor help from others). Or how about the discussion regarding me at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Proposed decision#Proposed Finding of Fact 2? Like most things SonofSetanta says, it has little basis in reality. I grow pretty tired of him slinging mud at editors left right and centre (more diffs available, but I didn't feel the need to hammer it home) without anything to back it up, then demanding other editors assume good faith with him. Not happening under those circumstances.

I move (second time lucky, hence the "One intermediate revision by one user not shown") an article SonofSetanta created to the correct place, and he thanks me for the help. But when I make an edit to correct (described by Elen of the Roads as a "good edit") another new article SonofSetanta created, I'm a wikistalker. Obviously he hasn't read WP:STALK - "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy". If you make an edit to any article SonofSetanta edits that he doesn't like you're disruptive and/or a stalker and he reverts you, it's that straightfoward.

There's still major WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problems as well. After severe problems in the discussion at [4], I post the text of the book being referred to here. Nowhere in the text does it say Potter claims to the the "UDR historian", "regimental historian" or "official historian", as a matter of fact it doesn't even contain the word historian. I also wasn't aware historian was a title you could bestow upon yourself even if it did. He was told here by Elen of the Roads that "you need a reliable secondary source that he IS the UDR historian". But despite this, while banned, we get "It actually proves everything. Potter IS the official historian. Clear as day". This editor will not listen, he constantly claims to be new and says experienced editors should help him more. But when then do try and help he just ignores everything if he doesn't agree.

If, for a second, we accepted SonofSetanta's notion that one edit equals four reverts if it happens to revert four edits at the same time, surely that would mean by making four edits in one day he is attempting to game 1RR by making so many edits they cannot be reverted without breaching 1RR? Food for thought...

Unless this editor is prepared to change I have little doubt we will be back here at AE dealing with him again within a week of the ban expiring. I see nothing since the ban has been imposed that makes me think there would be any benefit to it being shortened at present. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by SonofSetanta

Comment by BorisG

Textbook case of IDHT. - BorisG (talk) 02:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by SonofSetanta

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

Unless there is more to the story than the diffs presented above, I can't see any merit to an appeal of the "verdict", so to speak. The only grounds on which an appeal might succeed would be an appeal of the sanction itself. I see nothing so far that would make me think a 90-day topic ban is unreasonable, but I would be willing to listen to an argument to that effect. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The original complaints by SonofSentanta are apparently vindictive and at least one is also manifestly frivolous. 90 days is probably lenient. Decline. T. Canens (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Granateple

User notified of general sanctions in this topic area. --WGFinley (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Granateple

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Fifelfoo (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Standard_discretionary_sanctions

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

23:23, 31 January 2012 23:47, 31 January 2012 23:42, 30 January 2012 Personal attacks ("cabal"; "totalitarian chickens")
06:15, 30 January 2012 Battleground
01:17, 30 January 2012; 04:43, 30 January 2012 IDHT and attempts to rapidly revisit community consensus
1. For evidence regarding consensus, please see the concurrence with the closure in the permanent archive of the initial AN/I discussion; and in ongoing unarchived discussion.
02:53, 26 January 2012 Related to this closure of an RS/N request regarding a source making MEDRS claims about a Transcendental Meditation practice
05:43, 26 January 2012 And this closure rationale.

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

Request a Transcendental Meditation warning be applied to User:Granateple

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning Granateple

Statement by Granateple

A non-admin recently closed a free and open discussion on RS/N, and acted as if it was an arb notice board. He brought the closure before ANI for review, but ANI didn’t want to review it. I don’t know why. Just as I was considering contacting ArbCom, this editor contacted you.

The good thing about this case and incident is that everything is contained in only two threads. The downside is that those two threads are rather lengthy (perhaps 25 minutes to read through), but they are essential for an understanding.

I am not very impressed when someone rely on a selection (and interpretation) of these threads, and I would like you to read them, so that you get an impression from the original two sources, so to speak. I am a newcomer to Wikipedia, that is why I mention it. I don’t know how these things works.

The first thread is called “Is Hindawi a RS publisher for this content?”, and is found on RS/N.

The second thread is called “Please review my closure of an RS/N discussion (restored from archive)”, and is found on ANI.

I have nothing more to add, and thank you in advance for your time and patience. Granateple (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Granateple

Result concerning Granateple

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

I have warned Granateple, the conduct on the reliable sources noticeboard and some of the other diffs were enough for me. However, this was close to a WP:BOOMERANG, there's AN/I discussion here that seems to agree the RS discussion shouldn't have been closed by the user who filed this AE report. I feel this is probably not the last we've heard of this, there's quite a bit of tendentious editing to go around and it's not solely Granateple. --WGFinley (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luciano di Martino

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

Request concerning Luciano di Martino

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

The history of this problem is elaborated at Talk:Giorgio da Sebenico#References and onwards. There is a problem at the article Giorgio da Sebenico regarding the artist's nationally-related designations between how they're referred to in Italy and in Croatia, which is an area covered specifically by the area of conflict in the Dalmatia case (medieval Zara) and also the WP:ARBMAC#Area of conflict. The general consensus about that article name has been established using all the proper procedures, by English-speaking editors and using English-language sources, back in 2007, which is well documented in the talk page archives in a detailed requested move.

Regardless of this, this user has pushed their POV and consistently engaged in a seemingly endless series of reverts, typically removing or even explicitly denigrating references that don't fit their POV. They don't often revert completely so the edit war is less obvious, but anyone who even looks at the history of the article and the talk page can see a pattern - it's the same person and it's the same POV. This has gone on since May last year, and the user has since supposedly stopped using the named username, but merely in favor of anonymous accounts, which I believe to be abusive behavior, as I've explained and enumerated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Luciano di Martino. The SPI includes the list of IPs used by the user.

Yesterday, things took another turn for the worse, when User:Eleven Nine, which I believe to be yet another sockpuppet of the same person, added their POV back into the article claiming they were just copying it from the Simple Wikipedia - as if that is somehow a legitimate rationale for abuse. Yet, this is simply transparent - http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Giorgio_Orsini&action=history clearly lists all the same IPs used for the same abuse on the English Wikipedia.

All this amounts to an amount of disruptive behavior that is well beyond the threshold of abuse defined by the aforementioned arbitration decisions. I am requesting we block this user and any of their sockpuppets for a longer period of time in an effort to curb further abuse.

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

Warned on User talk:Luciano di Martino when they were blocked once for the same abuse back in May 2011

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have tried to engage this user in discussion regarding the matter, and also reverted many of their abusive edits myself, so I can't enforce such an arbitration decision myself because of WP:INVOLVED.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

I've placed the notification at their latest two sockpuppet talk pages:

BTW looking at the edit history pattern, I also suspect User:Davide41 may be an earlier sockpuppet. This might have been going on for quite a while now. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re WP:SOCK allegations need to go to WP:SPI and not here: The edit history for "Eleven Nine" and "Davide41", AFAICT, is inconclusive, and given how my previous WP:SPI reports have been judged, I doubt they would render a conclusive judgement based on it. I could request checkuser, but Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Checkuser criteria and letters says "Question about a possible sock puppet related to an open arbitration case - Request checkuser on the arbitration case pages." so I mentioned it here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my mistake - I thought this is an open arbitration case :) Yes, there is little to be done about the sockpuppeteering as such, but there's plenty of evidence of violating WP:ARBMAC, from the decorum onwards. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Luciano di Martino

Statement by Luciano di Martino

Comments by others about the request concerning Luciano di Martino

This "enforcement" is a tip of series of incivilties and personal attacks on a number of people who exposed forgeries used to "prove" that the famous Italian medieval sculptor and architect Giorgio Orsini is not descendant of the noble House of Orsini and, therefore, not an Italian.

The proofs of his family identity are given by famous British architect Sir Thomas Graham Jackson (end of 19 and beginning of 20eth century) based on works and documents discovered by Italian professor Dr. Galvani (Annuario Dalmatico, 1884 and in another of his works dated 1887). Sir Jackson is explicit: "The architect to whom it was entrusted has long met with unmerited oblivion and Dr. Galvani is entitled to the credit of having discovered his name and restored it to fame." Elaborated and full refutal of "Juraj Dalmatinac" name was given in the Ancora su Giorgio Orsini article in Atti e memorie della Società dalmata di storia patria, Volume 6; Società dalmata di storia patria, La Società, 1969, page 151. The most recent assessment of the Griorgio Orsini's family origins and identity are coming from Giuseppe Maria Pilo, Per trecentosettantasette anni. La gloria di Venezia nelle testimonianze artistiche della Dalmazia, Edizioni della Laguna, Venezia 2000, p. 37; 109

This Joy [shallot] attacker offered only forgeries written by Croatian scribe Fiskovic claiming that Orsini never used his family name contrary to the documents discovered by Dr. Galvani and asserted fully by Italian professor Giuseppe Maria Pilo. Two other professors Davide and di Martino tried to clarify Orsini's origins were mercilessly attacked, mocked and ridiculed by Joy [shallot]'s friends and forced in retirement and inactivity.

The Joy [shallot] attacker tried to disqualify di Martino claiming that a number of anonymous contributors are again di Martino himself, which was rejected by Wikipedia administration.

As to the WGFinley adiministrator, based on the 'warning' posted on my user talk page, it's obvious that he tried to blindly support the attacker meritslessly. --71.178.106.120 (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Luciano di Martino

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

I've protected the page for 7 days given the edit warning there and placed the DS warning on the talk page and in a talk post. There's a lot of WP:TE going on there and the talk page is pretty enflamed at the moment. I've warned 71.178.106.120 (talk · contribs) but WP:SOCK allegations need to go to WP:SPI and not here. This topic area is rife with socks, I'm not seeing any solid evidence to make a WP:DUCK judgment here. --WGFinley (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would be regarding an open arb case, this wouldn't qualify as it's regarding arb sanctions. A case that someone is socking to evade a block or sanctions is very germane at SPI, you need to have some evidence that supports doing it though and I don't think you have very much on it based on what was provided. --WGFinley (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NestleNW911

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

Request concerning NestleNW911

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Coffeepusher (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: NestleNW911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Single purpose accounts with agendas

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

[5] NestleNW911 is a self proclaimed Scientologist who has been editing Wikipedia for a little over one year
[6] NestleNW911 is a single purpose account who since December 10, 2010 when s/he made their first edit they have edited exclusively Scientology related pages.
Engages in a set agenda to promote Scientology as seen in the following
[7] [8] [9] argued for the insertion of a specific denial of the claim that David Miscavige attacked Hawkings, but was specifically concerned with a pro-scientologist interpretation and attempted to erase or delete a version more faithful to the primary source s/he suggested [10] [11]
[12] NestleNW911 engages in Ad hominem attacks against critics of Scientology.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: User:NestleNW911 was originally suspected as a sockpuppet of banned user User:Shutterbug, and has gone through three cases [13] one of which I myself filed [14] which ended up as inconclusive.

comment to WGFinley, First off I understand that being a single purpose account is not in itself a violation, however during the WP:ARBSCI investigation they found that SPA's with an agenda either for or against Scientology was so disruptive as to make it a sanction-able violation, as shown here. Now I do appreciate how you suspect this may be a WP:BOOMERANG and expect to be put under a magnifying glass. I would kindly request that if you find that accusation as unfounded if you could please strike through that comment.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment where did I say that he should be sanctioned because he was a scientologist? I did say that he was a scientologist, a SPA concerned with scientology, and was fronting a scientology agenda, thus a SPA with an agenda which is appropriate for sanctions. I don't believe that I said we should sanction him/her because s/he was a scientologist. now you are welcome to dissagree with my evidence, that is what this is all about, but how does that mean that I was boomeranging? I am just asking that if you find that I have not used this to cover up more egregious behavior on my behalf that you would be so kind as to strike your comments about boomeranging that was all. Coffeepusher (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentActually, I am going to just ask that you respect WP:AGF. You have accused me of Boomeranging based entirely on the fact that you disagreed with the evidence I brought to the table, as stated in your retort "in fact, your accusation that the person is a Scientologist and should be sanctioned without proof of WP:TE is closer to an ad-hominem personal attack than any of the evidence you submitted, hence WP:BOOMERANG." I did provide what I thought was proof of WP:TE, and you disagreed with it and assumed that this was a bad faith request without referencing or looking at anything that would prove WP:BOOMERANG. I am not saying that you haven't encountered multiple cases that resulted in sanctions against the posting party but you have read this page and automatically assumed that what I posted was in bad faith.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[15]

Discussion concerning NestleNW911

Statement by NestleNW911

I acknowledge that an ArbCom case has been filed against me by Coffeepusher. I stand by my arguments in the past that have rendered the past Shutterbug investigations inconclusive. Yes, I am a Scientologist, and hence I mostly edit on Scientology related pages. Scientology is a huge part of my consciousness and I would like to uphold it the best way I can, however, I have taken care to abide by Wikipedia policy when I can. Yes, I have argued for a specific denial of the Hawkins-related allegation, but I did so in manner that kept with Wikipedia decorum. Another administrator approved the addition of such a counter-claim, saying, "I have no objection to including a specific denial of a specific claim" and that was the only reason that I felt free to add that. I did not stubbornly insist on it with no consensus. Infact, when Coffeepusher insisted that the Hawkins information be retained, I left it alone. I have not made any disruptive edits.

I deny that I "engage in a set agenda to promote Scientology." As it is, the representation of Scientology is heavy on the criticism, and reflects the negative bandwagon perspective. I truly believe that I am helping achieve NPOV by citing alternate sources that give Scientology a just representation and allows them to air their perspectives regarding the criticisms. I simply want both sides to be represented fairly.

What Coffeepusher alleges as "Ad Hominem attacks" are simply me researching the sources, communicating what I find while aiming to comply with WP:RS. I am questioning the reliability of the source. If I inadvertently committed a logical fallacy in doing so, my apologies, but I have posted in good faith.

As BTfromLA has generously posted on this page, I have "engaged in good faith dialogue with other editors in talk page, usually proposes things there before making changes, and defers to the community when my arguments are rejected." I also reiterate BTfromLA's assertion that some of my suggested edits have lead to "positive improvements to the articles."

With that I give my case. Thank you to those who have adjudicated my case fairly.NestleNW911 (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning NestleNW911

I have edited some of the Scientology articles alongside NestleNW911 and Coffeepusher. I'm not sure of the current state of Wikipedia rules that bear on this, so I'll just offer my impressions of the situation in the hope it may be of help to the arbiters. NestleNW911 is, as Coffeepusher suggests and Nestle has admitted, interested in editing Scientology articles toward what he (or she, I'll use "he" until I'm corrected) calls a more neutral POV, arguing that the current state of the articles in that area is overly focused on critical accounts. Nestle can be a frustrating editor--he has indeed used ad hominem arguments in an attempt to disqualify sources (ad hominem toward the sources themselves, rarely pointed at other editors), has attempted to introduce blocks of text from Scientology press releases into articles and, most disturbingly to me, has pulled quotes out of context to distort their meaning. However, he has engaged in good faith dialogue with other editors on talk pages, he usually proposes things there before making changes, and he defers to the community when his arguments are rejected. And some of his suggestions have lead to positive improvements to the articles--his edits are not just obstruction or disruption. Frankly, any Scientologist who accepts the church's public statements as true is going to run into trouble at Wikipedia, as the church has habitually made claims that virtually all third-party sources have found to be false, and has systematically responded to investigative reportage with ad hominem attacks on critics and journalists. So, I understand Coffeepusher's concerns--he's not making up claims, nor is he a problematic editor--but if it were left to me, I'd say that NestleNW911 does not deserve censure at this juncture. And I certainly don't think that he should be forced through another round of sockpuppet investigations, unless some very solid evidence of that emerges. -- BTfromLA (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning NestleNW911

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

Being an SPA is not a violation, nor is being suspected a sock. Tendentious editing as an SPA is. I definitely don't see any evidence of a personal attack (the source is criticized, politely) nor does the behavior look tendentious to me, it looks downright polite which leads me to believe this complaint to be frivolous and possibly a WP:BOOMERANG, I'll wait for other admin thoughts. --WGFinley (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, being an SPA in and of itself is not a violation. You have to have tendentious behavior that underlies an SPA in order to have a case for sanctions. You haven't made said case with the diffs provided. As far as WP:NPA that applies to other contributors, not to sources. Sources are shredded on a daily basis here at WP (see also WP:RS) as a matter of course. In fact, your accusation that the person is a Scientologist and should be sanctioned without proof of WP:TE is closer to an ad-hominem personal attack than any of the evidence you submitted, hence WP:BOOMERANG. --WGFinley (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

174.94.43.164

User given WP:AC/DS warning, advised further violations will result in a block. --WGFinley (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning 174.94.43.164

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: RolandR (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: 174.94.43.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions

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

16:29, 2 February 2012 Contentious edit, in breach of WP:TERRORIST
18:35, 2 February 2012 First revert
18:43, 2 February 2012 Second revert
18:49, 2 February 2012 Third revert

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

Warned on 16:41, 2 February 2012‎ by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs)
Warned on 18:44, 2 February 201 by NawlinWiki (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This article, like all articles in the Palestine-Israel area, is subject to a one-revert rule. This editor has made three reverts, one after a final warning. Although s/he claims in this edit summary[16] to be "new to Wikipedia", in a later edit summary[17] they state that they could "can sign in with my editor account"; it is clearly a signed-out experienced editor who is well aware of restrictions and sanctions.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [18]

Discussion concerning 174.94.43.164

Statement by 174.94.43.164

Comments by others about the request concerning 174.94.43.164

Result concerning 174.94.43.164

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

Shuki

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

Request concerning Shuki

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: asad (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions, Violation of mandatory rule requiring editors to explain all reverts on the Golan Heights talk page

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

Feb. 2 2012 Partially reverts back to the revision of an IP and User:Plot Spoiler to change "Israeli settlers" to "Israelis"

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

Topic-banned on Nov. 29 2010 by Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs)
Blocked on Dec. 2 2010 by Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs) for "abusive sockpuppetry"

(Original topic ban was reset at end of block and expired two months ago)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Shuki has continued a trend originally started by an IP, and followed up by Plot Spoiler, of misrepresenting the source attached to the population numbers on Golan Heights infobox. The BBC source clearly states, "Population estimate: 20,000 Israeli settlers, 20,000 Syrians" [19]. Shuki's misrepresentation of that fact is a clear attempt to push a certain Israeli POV that Israelis in the Israeli-occupied territories do not need to be referred to as "settlers". While that might be a fine topic to discuss and try to reach consensus with on a talk or collaboration page, blatantly ignoring the source with a trigger-happy revert approach is unacceptable. Furthermore, there is a requirement that all editors must discuss any revert performed on talkpage. Shuki (and Plot Spoiler for that matter) have failed to do that.

I believe Shuki's history speaks for itself. Barely two months out of a topic-ban that was reset do to sockpuppetry, Shuki seemed all to eager to defend[20][21] a obvious, disruptive sockpuppet. I can't really see how to topic area has benefited from Shuki's presence.

@Shrike, it may have been a content dispute if they actually provided the source, but the just piggybacked and misrepresented the BBC source. -asad (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@The Devil's Advocate, No where in the report is it mentioned that there was no explanation. I am not quite sure what your point is. -asad (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, I have shrunken the text of what I feel is the less matter of importance in my report, as it seems there is too much attention being paid to that. -asad (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@WGFinley - You said, "Here we are to consider the removal or addition of a single noun describing a segment of the population in the Golan as "settlers" or not." I would really be hoping that you would consider it on the basis of an editor changing material that doesn't correspond with the source already linked to push a POV. If you are tired of the whole A/E saga, please just go to the WP:ARBPIA and tally the amounts of blocks and bans per each side of the conflict. I am sure that you will find the trouble is overwhelming coming from one side of the conflict. -asad (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[22]

Discussion concerning Shuki

Statement by Shuki

Comments by others about the request concerning Shuki

Statement By Shrike

There are academic sources that use different terminology [23] so its are merely content dispute.--Shrike (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is this ugly infantilism useful Sean? You have a proclivity to curse at other users which needs to stop already. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to revert that on TDA's sound advice and replace it with a diff where my comment is more pertinent. Since you have commented on it I'll leave it there. I rarely "curse at other users". I should do it more. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Troubling you've become so brazen that you don't care if admins at AE see your openly uncivil behavior and personal attacks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my stream of openly uncivil behavior and non-stop personal attacks are the problem. Nevertheless you should be concerned about making edits that violate ARBPIA restrictions and Strike should be concerned about saying things that misrepresent the situation. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

Looks to me like there was an explanation for the revert. The explanation is that the infobox should either mention that the Syrians are Druze Arabs or avoid calling the Israelis settlers. Shuki should not be dictating the terms to be used in an article, but that is not enough of an issue.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, nevermind, it appears the restriction requires discussion on the talk page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like neither Shuki or Plot have contributed to that article since the restriction was imposed so it is reasonable to presume they would not be aware of it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should further be noted that neither editor was duly warned of the unique restriction on the article. Shuki was given no warning at all, while the warning to Plot was vague in saying reverts needed to be explained per the requirement, without mentioning that such an explanation is required on the article talk page. Asad, all the same, has rushed to AE with this request.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@RolandR This is a unique restriction on the article, not a general ARBPIA restriction from what I understand. Seems a bit much to say they would definitely be aware of some article-specific restriction in an article where only one of them has made any contributions before this and that nearly two years ago. Rather than assume that both of these editors looked over the talk page notices with a fine-tooth comb and decided to ignore the restriction, I think we should assume good faith of these editors and recognize that most people don't even think to check for a unique restriction on a specific article. Warning both editors of the unique restriction on Golan Heights in clear detail is the only action that any admin should take.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RolandR

It is irrelevant whether Shuki and Plot Spoiler have been individually informed of the restriction, since the article's edit page has a big header stating: "WARNING In accordance with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions, editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours and MUST explain the revert on the talk page. Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks." When reverting, they must surely have seen this. RolandR (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TDA, this is not a small announcement hidden away on the Talk page. It is a statement in bold letters, in a box, at the top of the edit page. I don't believe that it would be possible to miss this when editing the page. RolandR (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Shuki

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

Will it never end for some folks? Here we are to consider the removal or addition of a single noun describing a segment of the population in the Golan as "settlers" or not. This has led to a revert war putting the article back into protection again and this case on AE. I think we need to seriously approach our work in this topic area and if the same folks are going to come here time and time again with some fight or another then they shouldn't be editing this topic. Then we have the polite exchange among various parties as well. Don't even know where to start with this one. --WGFinley (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One thing is clear though, I definitely agree that article needs to be indefinitely semi-protected, it's under constant disturbance from anon editing, with the number of bans in on this topic there's a good chance it is sock editing and deserving of protection. --WGFinley (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2012 (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 199: / Line 199: @@
 ====Comments by others about the request concerning Luciano di Martino====
+This "enforcement" is a tip of series of incivilties and personal attacks on a number of people who exposed forgeries used to "prove" that the famous Italian medieval sculptor and architect Giorgio Orsini is not descendant of the noble House of Orsini and, therefore, not an Italian.
+The proofs of his family identity are given by famous British architect Sir Thomas Graham Jackson (end of 19 and beginning of 20eth century) based on works and documents discovered by Italian professor Dr. Galvani (Annuario Dalmatico, 1884 and in another of his works dated 1887). Sir Jackson is explicit: "The architect to whom it was entrusted has long met with unmerited oblivion and Dr. Galvani is entitled to the credit of having discovered his name and restored it to fame." Elaborated and full refutal of "Juraj Dalmatinac" name was given in the Ancora su Giorgio Orsini article in ''Atti e memorie della Società dalmata di storia patria, Volume 6; Società dalmata di storia patria, La Società, 1969, page 151''. The most recent assessment of the Griorgio Orsini's family origins and identity are coming from ''Giuseppe Maria Pilo, Per trecentosettantasette anni. La gloria di Venezia nelle testimonianze artistiche della Dalmazia, Edizioni della Laguna, Venezia 2000, p. 37; 109''
+This [[User:Joy|Joy &#91;shallot&#93;]] attacker offered only forgeries written by Croatian scribe Fiskovic claiming that Orsini never used his family name contrary to the documents discovered by Dr. Galvani and asserted fully by Italian professor Giuseppe Maria Pilo. Two other professors Davide and di Martino tried to clarify Orsini's origins were mercilessly attacked, mocked and ridiculed by [[User:Joy|Joy &#91;shallot&#93;]]'s friends and forced in retirement and inactivity.
+The [[User:Joy|Joy &#91;shallot&#93;]] attacker tried to disqualify di Martino claiming that a number of anonymous contributors are again di Martino himself, which was rejected by Wikipedia administration.
+As to the [[User:Wgfinley|WGFinley]] adiministrator, based on the 'warning' posted on my user talk page, it's obvious that he tried to blindly support the attacker meritslessly. --[[Special:Contributions/71.178.106.120|71.178.106.120]] ([[User talk:71.178.106.120|talk]]) 17:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 ===Result concerning Luciano di Martino===

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