Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
Requests for enforcement
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
![]() | Important information Please use this page only to:
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}}.
|
Teachings of Prem Rawat
Gazifikator
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Gazifikator
- User requesting enforcement
- brandспойт 08:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Gazifikator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2
- Sanction or remedy that has been violated
- Disruptive editing, Wikipedia is not a battleground
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy
- [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]
- Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue
- Ongoing point-pushing and political struggle in AA topics, now in the Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan (official warning)
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- 1RR or at admin's discretion
- Additional comments
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [8]
Discussion concerning Gazifikator
- I don't see any violations in my actions. I created the Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan article, which is completely sourced and seems to not have any problems with Wikipedia rules. Then user Brandmeister suggested to merge it with "Islam in Azerbaijan" article [9]. During the discussion I explained that these two terms are not the same and that it is not correct to merge an article about peaceful Islam believers with the one about radical Islamists and wahhabist terrorists [10]. As a result, user Brandmeister merged these two articles without waiting for a decision by an admin [11]. I returned it back, as user Brandmeister obviously violated Wikipedia rules on merging and the only third-party user is also opposing the merger [12]. Then without waiting for a decision on merging, user Grandmaster started to add irrelevant info (again about Islam believers) to the article which will support their position to merge these two articles. Another user, who is now indef. blocked and never discussed his actions, supported their actions [13] [14] [15]. And lately, user Baku87 reverted the article to indef. blocked user's version without any explanations at talk page [16], while I explained all my edits there. And the only notification ([17], not a warning) I received, was for my edits in a different article on genocides and no any relations with this case. Gazifikator (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- It appears to me that repeatedly reverted Radical islamism is a part of Gazifikator's politically-coloured articles with possible coatrack. In this recent edit for example Gazifikator deleted sourced info, which was labelled as 'unsourced POV-pushing'. Regarding Goldorack, as per WP:BAN, good-faith edits must not be reverted just because they were made by a banned user. brandспойт 20:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- To Gazifikator: I'm quite confused as to why a pagemerge should not have went ahead because a "decision by an admin" had not been passed. Administrators take no role in article content matters (but rather monitor user conduct).
Separately: I'd note that Sandstein placed Gazifikator on notice earlier this month, and so discretionary sanctions could (per AA2) be placed on Gazifikator's account (although I make no comment as to whether that would be warranted at this time).
AGK 15:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- These edits seem to reflect content disagreements and do not violate "Disruptive editing" and "Wikipedia is not a battleground". They are, however, part of an edit war between Gazifikator and Goldorack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Since Goldorack is already indef-blocked, the edit war will likely not continue. I see no compelling need to issue sanctions against Gazifikator at this time, but I am ready to do so should his name appear on this board again associated with A/A disruption of any sort. Sandstein 06:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- To Gazifikator: I'm quite confused as to why a pagemerge should not have went ahead because a "decision by an admin" had not been passed. Administrators take no role in article content matters (but rather monitor user conduct).
- It appears to me that repeatedly reverted Radical islamism is a part of Gazifikator's politically-coloured articles with possible coatrack. In this recent edit for example Gazifikator deleted sourced info, which was labelled as 'unsourced POV-pushing'. Regarding Goldorack, as per WP:BAN, good-faith edits must not be reverted just because they were made by a banned user. brandспойт 20:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Gazifikator made 11 reverts just on Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan, trying to suppress the information about the number of ardent believers in Azerbaijan, supported by reliable sources. This information has direct relevance to the article, yet it is being deleted for no reason. How can one assess the relative weight of radical religious trends without knowing the number of religious people in general? Some examples of edit warring by Gazifikator on that article: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]
Note that every time Gazifikator reverted, the following information was removed:
A survey estimated the proportion of ardent believers in Azerbaijan at close to 7 percent, slightly more than the number of declared atheists — almost 4 percent — with the largest numbers falling into the category of those who consider Islam above all as a way of life, without strict observance of prohibitions and requirements, or as a fundamental part of national identity.[1]
In my opinion, this is a deliberate attempt to suppress useful and sourced information, and the paragraph above was originally included by me and other users, not Goldorack. I think that Gazifikator's activity on this article is a violation of arbitration ruling, discouraging edit warring. --Grandmaster 08:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, indef. blocked Goldorack just reverted every time to your POV lead, that is going to assure voters that these two articles need to be merged. It is your policy: to add big volume of irrelevant (and sourced) info to an article you dislike, and then show how the merge is justified. The text by Swietochowski is obviously about religion, and Islam in Azerbaijan, it never uses the term of radical Islamism, and this irrelevant info have only one use, to show that these two articles are about the same topic, the "ardent belivers of Islam". I think, such edit's can be considered as disruptive! And when you say I removed this info every time, you're in a big mistake: the last versions (reverted by me) include this quote. I'm not agree with it but I 'm acting civil, so it is there, just look [25][26] to not push disinformation about my edit's. Gazifikator (talk) 08:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- First, Goldorack made his edits before he was banned, therefore you cannot rv his edits just because he was banned. You are allowed to rv his edits only if he made them evading his block, which he never did. Second, the information from the top international expert on Azerbaijan about the number of ardent believers has a direct relevance to the article. The purpose in creating this article seems to demonstrate that Azerbaijan is some sort of a Taliban ruled place, a stronghold of radical Islamism, which it is not. The statistics on practicing Muslims demonstrate the role of religion in the society, and thus is quite appropriate. If you disagree with the inclusion of this info, you could have asked third opinion, or follow other WP:DR procedures. Instead you chose to edit war, made 11 rvs and continue edit warring. And the info from professor Swietochowski is not the only material that you keep on removing from the article. In my opinion, this is disruptive editing, and application of revert limitation should be considered. Grandmaster 09:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Goldorack was blocked as "WP:SPA and likely sockpuppet for POV-pushing, edit warring and adding original research, mainly on biographies of living persons)": see the reason [27]. He helped you to push some POV right before he was blocked, and reverted to your version without any explanations at talk, while I always discussed my edt's there. So my revert was justified. We also have a separate section in the article dedicated to the situation in Azerbaijan [28] and I'm sure this article is goodly sourced and too much neutral, isn't it? You never can prove that something is dubious there or I used only negative info, in contrary, the first section is starting with the words "Azerbaijan is a secular country, etc.". If you read the article, you will see that Azerbaijan is not a "some sort of a Taliban ruled place", but a state, where the authorities trying to solve the problem of radical Islamism, and they have some success. Gazifikator (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- First, Goldorack made his edits before he was banned, therefore you cannot rv his edits just because he was banned. You are allowed to rv his edits only if he made them evading his block, which he never did. Second, the information from the top international expert on Azerbaijan about the number of ardent believers has a direct relevance to the article. The purpose in creating this article seems to demonstrate that Azerbaijan is some sort of a Taliban ruled place, a stronghold of radical Islamism, which it is not. The statistics on practicing Muslims demonstrate the role of religion in the society, and thus is quite appropriate. If you disagree with the inclusion of this info, you could have asked third opinion, or follow other WP:DR procedures. Instead you chose to edit war, made 11 rvs and continue edit warring. And the info from professor Swietochowski is not the only material that you keep on removing from the article. In my opinion, this is disruptive editing, and application of revert limitation should be considered. Grandmaster 09:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Result concerning Gazifikator
This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.
Wowest
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Wowest
- User requesting enforcement
- Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Wowest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories
- Sanction or remedy that has been violated
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Discretionary sanctions
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy
- [29][30]
- Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue
- Wowest is canvassing new editors to a discussion[31] where he believes the new editors will be sympathetic to his cause.
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- Indefinite topic ban
- Additional comments
- Wowest has been a tendentious editor in 9/11-related articles for some time. Indeed, he has been banned before[32] and appeared on this page earlier this month, the result of which was a "formal, final warning" to Wowest by the closing administrator.[33] I will be notifying the closing administrator, AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), of this thread per his request. Update: done.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [34]
Discussion concerning Wowest
I would firstly express my concern that yet another complaint over Wowest's conduct is being presented to this noticeboard. I am unsure at this point whether the complaint has any substance (a point that I will explore in a little more detail below), but I would invite input from Wowest as to how he feels about being the subject of another complaint (even after my quite clear final warning a few weeks ago).
I would observe that the crux of this complaint seems, to my mind, to be that Wowest's conduct has constituted inappropriate canvassing of other editors. I copy for reference the summary table from Wikipedia:Canvassing, the project's behavioural guideline on this aspect of editor conduct:
Scale | Message | Audience | Transparency | ||||
Friendly notice | Limited posting | AND | Neutral | AND | Nonpartisan | AND | Open |
↕ | ↕ | ↕ | ↕ | ||||
Inappropriate canvassing | Mass posting | OR | Biased | OR | Partisan | OR | Secret |
Term | Excessive cross-posting | Campaigning | Votestacking | Stealth canvassing |
If sanctions are to be placed on Wowest's account as a result of this complaint, I would expect them to be because an administrator thinks his comments to other editors to be "inappropriate canvassing" (in one of its four shades—scale, message, audience, or transparency) rather than a "friendly notice." By extension, the question we ask ought to be whether Wowest's comments are negatively influencing editing in this subject area. I tentatively suggest that I think that may unfortunately be the case.
I would invite the input of other administrators (and, as above, Wowest) on this. AGK 15:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- After further review of Wowest's presence in this subject area, I am growing increasingly concerned about his editing there. I note my intention to pass sanctions on Wowest's account at the conclusion of this thread (although, as always, further input may give me cause to reconsider that intention). AGK 16:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Given that the user has not been following policy guidelines before, a limited sanction might have the effect that the user will look for the relevant guidelines before doing something that might be in violation of policy. I don't know whether such a form of "punitive-preventative" form of sanction exists or would be legitimate, however. Cs32en 16:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
By posting two messages to a partisan audience, Wowest (talk · contribs) has not followed WP:CANVASS. The user's messages were limited, neutral, and open. Wowest (talk · contribs) has apparently not been warned to stop the canvassing before this A/E request has been filed. There is damage to the editing process, but the damage is limited, as the canvassing can be taken into account when evaluating consensus. As sanctions are preventative, they should only be applied if editors continue a form of disruptive behavior after having been warned, or if they resume a form of behaviour about which they have already been warned previously. We certainly would be able to better judge about this case if the user had been warned before this request has been filed. A warning should generally be accompanied by advice on how to proceed without violating policy, i.e., in this case, the possibility of informing all editors who have contributed to related articles irrespective of their views on the issue. Cs32en 16:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Wowest has been consistently unhelpful in editing 9/11 topics. They were previously topic banned for 45 days. The inappropriate canvassing is just frosting on the cake. As an editor with first hand experience trying to improve these articles, I have suffered through a parade of single purpose, pro-Truther accounts with all their wikilawyering, endless pestering, and circular argumentation. This is a highly disturbed area where sanctions should be applied swiftly to prevent disruptive editors from driving off productive editors. Jehochman Talk 17:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- The unpleasant editing environment to which productive editors to the 9/11 area are subjected is something that I'm quite concerned about, so I'm sympathetic to your comment. In an attempt to strike a balance between "swiftly" removing editors and being recklessly hasty, I'd anticipate this thread being closed by tomorrow afternoon (after input from any editors who wish to offer it). AGK 17:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Check the date when Wowest was originally topic banned. Nothing has changed since then. Why rush now? By all means, take your time and take care of the matter properly. Jehochman Talk 21:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like it if Wowest at least has a few days to respond, as he has not done so yet. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear AGK:
- Thank you for your invitation to participate in this discussion.
- I am a physically disabled Wikipedian. As such, editing is one of many things which I am unable to do consistently, for extended periods of time or on a daily basis, and this includes defending myself here.
- I fully agree with Jehochman's last comment, beginning with "Check the date." I will attempt to reply competently to this matter at my earliest opportunity, and, to balance this, I agree not to edit any articles at all until this matter is resolved. Do you find that suitable?
- Wowest (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- If you would agree to refrain from editing the subject area in question until this thread has been closed, it would be appreciated, yes. However, I do feel that this matter is somewhat straight-forward: your editing, Wowest, has been a cause for concern for some time, and I think it inevitable that sanctions are going to be passed on your account.… Naturally, I'm open to be convinced otherwise, by your comments or those of other editors. AGK 13:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I very recently became involved in the 9/11 related articles and I must say that the general atmosphere is not really constructive. To the extent that wowest made people aware that there was such a !vote he probably was the only one that made such efforts. It seems to me that WP:IDHT and policy shopping is par for the course. Even Ice Cold Beer seemed to ignore the sources that I and other editors had provided, you can see that at the time of his !vote I had listed 9 sources which I believed established notability, they have yet to be acknowledged or commented on. We also have the almost absurd situation where an editor, seemingly in all seriousness, is arguing for the deletion of 9/11 Truth Movement because it is a neologism. The bid for deletion was, I believe, in part sparked by the hitherto unsuccessful attempt to merge Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth into 9/11 Truth Movement and later renaming 9/11 Truth Movement to 9/11 Deniers. Despite repeated efforts to engage the editor he continued and made sweeping changes without prior discussion based on his misapprehension of WP:NEO. The worst thing is that none of the other editors who otherwise seem to have agreed with him on other changes challenged him on any of this, obviously they seem to know better than to vocally support it though. These tactics of attrition and wasting other editors' time are, in my opinion, inexcusable and should not be be something that we tolerate. Unomi (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- (I moved the above comment to here from the "request" section.) Unomi, this request is about Wowest. To facilitate its processing, please limit your comments to matters related to his conduct. If you think other editors violated Wikipedia norms, please open a separate enforcement request related to them. Sandstein 05:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Result concerning Wowest
This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Shutterbug
- User requesting enforcement
- The Legendary Shadow! (talk)13:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Shutterbug (talk)
- Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology
- Sanction or remedy that has been violated
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Scope_of_Scientology_topic_ban
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy
- Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Statement_by_Shutterbug
- Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue
- Section 3A of 'Scope of Scientology topic ban' states:
3A) Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles, including as examples but not limited to, articles for deletion, reliable sources noticeboard, administrators' noticeboard and so forth.
User has posted to the talk page of the arbitration case on Scientology, this is clearly a violation of the above terms of their topic ban.
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- as per terms laid out in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Enforcement, user should be blocked for 1 month
- Additional comments
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.
Discussion concerning User:Shutterbug
The user has self reverted so I'm not sure whether any action is required. PhilKnight (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
It was his comment on the talk page of the arbitration case that I was referring to, I wasn't aware of any action on the Scientology article. The Legendary Shadow! (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Unless repeated or disruptive, I don't think that banning a named party to a RFAR from comment is a good idea, even after the close. Meanwhile, isn't launching AE complaints broadly concerning Scientology articles also topic-blocked under the "and so forth"? (To prevent continuing conflict by other means.) It's best to let all drop, and I'm sure that many admins are keeping an eye out for serious violations. (With that, out of here before I get smacked—but clarification of if the block also extends to AE actions as well would be nice.) AndroidCat (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Mind you, the requesting user above, The Legendary Shadow!, has been topic-banned by the same ArbCom (Diff). So I consider her enforcement request as another attempt to stir up trouble and unrest. As I noted on the ArbCom page (that is not an "article" per 3b) of the ArbCom "decision"): there are lies left in this case and that is why it will never get to rest until the discrimination issue is sorted out. Shutterbug (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Result concerning User:Shutterbug
Closed without action. This request is not actionable because the "request" section does not contain an actual diff of the conduct alleged to have violated an arbitration decision. Sandstein 06:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Smith2006
Jeffrey Vernon Merkey
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Request concerning Jeffrey Vernon Merkey
- User requesting enforcement
- Pfagerburg (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey
- Sanction or remedy that has been violated
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey#Jeffrey Vernon Merkey banned
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy
- [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]
- Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue
- With his named account blocked, Jeff Merkey uses two IP addresses to edit, and both are trivial to prove as being him, by examining the last hostname that shows up in a tracert: tracert 166.70.238.44 and tracert 166.70.238.45; both stop at "jmerkey.fttp.xmission.com."
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- IP address block, as these are static IP's assigned to Jeff Merkey.
- Additional comments
- Some of these edits were brought up on AN/I and addressed only by semi-protecting the page which he was vandalizing. I had already reverted an edit per Enforcement by reverting edits which he then quickly put back and changed a signature on the talk page [45]. Even without Werdna's indefinite block, the previous extension to Aug 2009 hasn't even expired, and Merkey is back again editing from that IP address, trying to put material in the Eric Schmidt BLP which was rejected by everyone else on the talk page discussion.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [46] and [47]. Pfagerburg (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Jeffrey Vernon Merkey
Also, vandalism now.
It might be time to block those IP's from editing the talk pages, either. Pfagerburg (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Result concerning Jeffrey Vernon Merkey
The 166.70.238.44 IP has effectively admitted to being Jeff, and there is this page which explains about the indefinite block. Given the traceroute link gives jmerkey.fttp.xmission.com, I'm assuming the chances of collateral damage are limited, so I've blocked the IP addresses for a year. PhilKnight (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
After further legal threats and disruption I protected User talk:166.70.238.45 to prevent further abuse. I also mistakenly reduced the block length after misreading the expiry from PhilKnights's block above, but have reinstated at one year. --Stephen 05:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Domer48
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Request concerning Domer48
- User requesting enforcement
- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names
- Sanction or remedy that has been violated
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ireland&diff=293728520&oldid=291895789
- Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue
- Changed the "Ireland" article from an article about the island to an article about the Irish state, in violation of "no moves" -- which he clearly knew about, having supplied a statement at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyDomer48
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- Temporary block at minimum
- Additional comments
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Domer48&diff=293744985&oldid=292273667
Discussion concerning Domer48
- I dont consider that a breach of the ruling. Play on!--Vintagekits (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Reply to user:roux; Says the Anglophile monarchist! Mabye a just tab overeactionary and hypocritical imo.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have never to my knowledge edited a single article dealing with the whole Ireland mess (I believe I have made some minor edits to Chief Herald of Ireland--that would be Republic Of, not Northern), I left all monarchy-related articles due to a particularly tenacious tendentious editor driving me away, and I would support a topicban for anyone pushing a nationalistic POV on either side--were he pushing a RULE BRITANNIA! position, I would be saying the exact same thing. In addition, thank you for proving my point, because if I were an admin you would have received a timeout for that 'Anglophile monarchist' comment, as it is using an ethnicity or ethnic affiliation in a pejorative manner. //roux 17:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Nominate yerself fer adminje an I'll be shur ta support ya laddie!--Vintagekits (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Your comment here is enough for me!--Domer48'fenian' 17:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oh good, so you'll stop wikilawyering then. Excellent! This is good for everyone. //roux 17:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Your comment here is enough for me!--Domer48'fenian' 17:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I move for immediate topicban of Domer from any Ireland-related editing for one year, based on my thoughts outlined here. It is past time to eradicate nationalistic bullshit from Wikipedia. //roux 16:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Domer48 knows full well that there is an ongoing debate about the Ireland naming dispute supported by Arbcom at - Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration. It is amazing that he and others made such radical changes without even informing people there or the moderators appointed by ARBCOM to resolve this dispute. Domer48, doesnt seem to think hes done anything wrong if he is unpunished it hardly sets a good example for others who will think they can simply rename articles over and over again without consensus and dispite very clear ARBCOM rulings on the matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- First off, I was not informed of this discussion! Second, I've not broken any ArbCom ruling. Third, I did not move any Article. So show me were I have done any thing to go against our policies. --Domer48'fenian' 16:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- You know, claiming that you weren't informed of the discussion doesn't work very well when the diff above shows you were notified 20 minutes before you made that claim.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Check out the link you gave, saying you gave one doesn't work very well when the diff you did give did not come here. --Domer48'fenian' 17:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- You know, claiming that you weren't informed of the discussion doesn't work very well when the diff above shows you were notified 20 minutes before you made that claim.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Even if he didnt think he was doing anything wrong he is clearly lying to people here. "Third, I did not move any Article" How can he say that when the evidence clearly shows hes been up to no good. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Really? Then how did I just click on it and wind up at this section?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Even if he didnt think he was doing anything wrong he is clearly lying to people here. "Third, I did not move any Article" How can he say that when the evidence clearly shows hes been up to no good. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
"lying" ohh now that's a bit strong. I didnt do anything wrong! The "evidence clearly shows hes been up to no good" what evidence? Now who is telling pork pies. --Domer48'fenian' 17:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- You are a liar, that fact is very clear. Perhaps you should check ur contributions page to refresh your memory. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
References talk BS walks! --Domer48'fenian' 17:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Although the edits by Domer48 weren't using the move function, they were against the spirit of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names. In this context, a short topic ban, of perhaps a week, could be appropriate. PhilKnight (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- He seems to be threatening to move the articles again on the Republic of Ireland talk [48]. Can nobody stop him?? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- "Can nobody stop him??" - that genuinely made laugh, I expected to hear a "dun, dun, duuuuun!" after that. Talk about trying to create a bit of drama. Relax, chill out and stop trying to make a mountain out of a molehill!--Vintagekits (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well this started a couple of hours ago and yet less than 10 minutes ago he again threatened to move the article again despite being advised not to and knowing there is this on going discussion. Im not creating a drama, i popped on to wiki a couple of hours ago and found the world had gone mad, several editors along with him kept moving the articles all around, even though they all knew about the on going dispute.. Yet still Domer thinks hes done nothing wrong and nobody has punished him for his sins. This sets a very bad example, we will end up with nationalists and separatists running wild all across wikipedia.. they need rules. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- "Can nobody stop him??" - that genuinely made laugh, I expected to hear a "dun, dun, duuuuun!" after that. Talk about trying to create a bit of drama. Relax, chill out and stop trying to make a mountain out of a molehill!--Vintagekits (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- He seems to be threatening to move the articles again on the Republic of Ireland talk [48]. Can nobody stop him?? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
My edits were not against the spirit of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names. Just saying something does not make it so. I've not violated any policy or gone against any ArbCom ruling. Please provide diff's. In addition comment on the RoI article, and explain how I was incorrect with the edit. --Domer48'fenian' 18:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oh you admit youve been making some edits then? Awhile ago you claimed you had not moved any articles, is that still the case or were you lying? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- PhilKnight the text currently on RoI is a POV Fork. It is POV inspired, so do you support this violation of our policies. How are our readers to know that RoI is not the name of the Irish State, if the text which explains it keeps getting removed? The current text is against the spirit and violates a whole host of our policies. Misinforming our readers is a major no no. So comment on that before you start to talk about blocks in such a casual manner. --Domer48'fenian' 18:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- The introduction on Republic of Ireland says ". The name of the state is Ireland, while the description the Republic of Ireland is sometimes used when there is a need to differentiate the state from the island" How are people being misled and how the hell is it a POV fork??? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'll support any solution the Ireland Collaboration produces. PhilKnight (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
You agree that no solution which involves misleading our readers would be agreed by anyone? Now, please explain how I went against the spirit of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names, since your the one suggesting blocks. Do you agree that the current text on the RoI article is misleading, and removing the text I added prevents informing our readers on RoI? --Domer48'fenian' 18:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Result concerning Domer48
With his edit [49], Domer48 performed what amounted to a cut-and-paste move of Republic of Ireland to Ireland, in violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion which forbids such moves. Since he appears intent on repeating this violation of an arbitral decision, I have blocked him for a week. I will lift the block, and I consent to another administrator lifting it, as soon as Domer48 gives credible assurances that he will not repeat such moves, whether by means of the "move" function or by cut and paste.
Whether a topic ban or other sanction is also required is for the community to decide. I suggest that any further discussion takes place at WP:ANI. Sandstein 20:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Shutterbug
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Shutterbug
- User requesting enforcement
- Antaeus Feldspar (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Shutterbug (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology
- Sanction or remedy that has been violated
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Shutterbug topic-banned and restricted, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Scope of Scientology topic ban
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Miscavige&diff=next&oldid=292796506
- Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue
- The remedy "Scope of Scientology topic ban" clearly states that "Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages" (emphasis added.) The remedy "Shutterbug topic-banned and restricted" clearly states that "User:Shutterbug is topic-banned from Scientology" (emphasis added.) This edit to Talk:David Miscavige, made on May 30, 2009, is thus a violation of Shutterbug's topic-ban. It was made after Shutterbug indicated awareness that he was among the topic-banned.
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- block, as called for in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Enforcement by block
- Additional comments
- Shutterbug may claim that he was not aware that he was prohibited to edit the talk pages of Scientology articles, despite this being stated in plain language in the section "Scope of Scientology topic ban". Even if this claim of ignorance were accepted as truthful, it would not mean that the penalty for violating the topic ban should be withheld. In the arbitration that led to Shutterbug's topic ban, many editors were punished for behaviors that were not specifically prohibited anywhere (such as "over half ... of [one's] most edited articles [being] Scientology topics"[50]) but which arbitrators chose to constitute as offenses against Wikipedia and to apply penalties for. If the Arbitration Committee, after examining this instance of Shutterbug violating a prohibition that was very clearly spelled-out, does not apply the penalty of a block, it will invite questions of why Shutterbug is getting more lenient treatment than other editors.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shutterbug&diff=293835727&oldid=293637490
Discussion concerning Shutterbug
Comment to Feldspar: tl;dr.[51]. I am not interested. Shutterbug (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Result concerning Shutterbug
This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.