Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342

Mooretwin

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Result: Mooretwin blocked for one week, probation extended for 3 months. --El on ka 18:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Mooretwin

User requesting enforcement: O Fenian (talk) 10:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Probation for disruptive editors

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

[1] First revert
[2] Second revert within 7 days of the first, a breach of his 1 revert per week probation

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): Not applicable
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Administrator discretion, but Mooretwin has a lengthy block log for edit warring

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Mooretwin claims the second revert is not a revert, but it is a clear partial revert of this edit, and his summary even makes it clear he is undoing the actions of another editor. The wording may not be identical, but that is not necessary it is still a partial revert. O Fenian (talk) 10:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [3]

Discussion concerning Mooretwin

Statement by Mooretwin

LOL. The second one wasn't a revert! It was also part of a dialogue on the Talk page with Gnevin which resulted in agreement - why would anyone wish to punish an editor for taking part in a constructive dialogue? Finally, according to Elonka "partial reverts" aren't included, if that is what fellow-editor O Fenian is arguing. It's nice to know there are fellow editors out there ganging up to try to get others banned, though - O Fenian acting here on behalf of Domer48 and BigDunc - see here and here. Is that acceptable, desirable or mature behaviour? Petty wouldn't be in it. Maybe I should follow suit? Oh, and I object to the probation, anyway, as I was only put on probation as a scapegoat to make it look like Elonka was being "even-handed" in dealing with Domer48. I didn't, however, engage in a campaign of harassment against Elonka as Domer48 did. Mooretwin (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Mooretwin

O Fenian, could you please link to the decision imposing the 1 revert per week probation that you allege has been infringed? Sandstein 18:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka placed MooreTwin on 1RR per week here. BigDunc 18:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had hoped that it is logged on the case page would be sufficient. The notification informing Mooretwin of it is here. O Fenian (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any 1R restriction for Mooretwin on the case page log, just a probation, that's why I asked. Can you please provide the diff of the edit with which the 1R restriction was imposed? Sandstein 18:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC) – Never mind, I found it, here. Waiting for a statement by Mooretwin. Sandstein 18:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mooretwin claims the text was "different", it was not different to any significant degree it was virtually identical. Attempting to add a paragraph for the second time with virtually identical wording is a revert, by the accepted definition of the term. If as Mooretwin says "It was also part of a dialogue on the Talk page with Gnevin which resulted in agreement - why would anyone wish to punish an editor for taking part in a constructive dialogue?", if there was any such agreement why did Gnevin make this edit to remove the so-called agreed upon text? O Fenian (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Silly bickering unrelated to the request removed. Sandstein 22:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

This is a very poor block of a good faith edit. I removed the text from GAA requesting an improved reference. Mooretwin duly supplied the reference and after some back and forth we reached a compromise which improve the text. Isn't discussion how we are meant to avoid edit wars? Gnevin (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel your timeline is confused. Mooretwin's revert was made at 21:29 on 7 February, when the section you linked to looked like this. There was no discussion by Mooretwin prior to edit warring, all the discussion came after. O Fenian (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I'm finding it difficult to find your request for this block or your request to maintain this block with in the bounds of good faith . Are you seriously suggesting we block a user for 3 months for a 2 minute lag in between adding a requested reference and leaving a curiosity on the talk page which shows there willingness to engage in discussion ? Gnevin (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a diff where I requested any sort of block, or strike your comment. My quite correct point is that Mooretwin did not discuss whether his edit would be acceptable on the talk page prior to making it, he just went ahead and made it anyway. He did not attempt to come to any sort of agreement prior to making the edit, he went ahead and edit-warred despite his probation. O Fenian (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are the user listed as the User requesting enforcement here . So you maybe you be not requested a block out right but for a user with Mooretwin's history it was the most likely outcome. Why would a edit which adds a requested reference be considered edit warring? As I say I take a very low view of this request for enforcement, your splitting hairs over 2 minutes in between discussion and edit. Your highlighting an edit which lead to a discussion and an improvement of the article and is not even a revert . All that aside. I've made my point Gnevin (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply pointing out that any discussion and/or agreement took place after the edit was made, which was not in the slighest obvious in your first post. "Isn't discussion how we are meant to avoid edit wars?" you asked, the whole point is that Mooretwin edit warred prior to discussing. The two minutes is quite irrelevant in my opinion, even if he had posted one hour before it would be meaningless. He did not wait for agreement, he did not wait for consensus, he reverted without doing either of those. O Fenian (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the length of the block, but the less disruption Mooretwin is able to cause the better in my opinion. Perhaps Rockpocket could provide a diff to where he objected to Domer48's probation recently being extended by three months? O Fenian (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware his probation was extended by three months; I understood Domer's complaint to be that the original probation was invalid, I didn't realize it was an extension. I would note, however, that I tried to offer some advice to help Domer get his block rescinded, but he made it clear my input was unwelcome. There is only so many times one is going to try to help when that help is rebuffed with insults. That said, I would suggest the same extension length be applied to both editors (should a sanction be deemed necessary). Rockpocket 01:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further, Mooretwin emailed me and asked me to draw attention to his explanation on his talk page. I'm happy to do that since I do find it compelling. In short, he points out that: the person he is alleged to be edit-warring with asserts he was not; that the edit in question was not a revert but an amended text (with a new reference) to address a concern; and he immediately went to the talk page where he engaged in a dialogue that eventually resulted in consensus. This appears to me a reasonable example of how we should be editing in order to improve our encyclopaedia: be bold, use sources, engage with others. Rockpocket 02:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit in question was a revert, by the definition of revert. The reference may have addressed the concern, but there was no way Mooretwin could known that for definite in advance. If you are even familiar with Mooretwin's editing you will know revert then post to talk is a common tactic. In my opinion the correct example of how we should be editing is not to revert edits without discussion resulting in a consensus as to whether proposed text is acceptable, this did not happen did it? That on this occasion another edit war did not happen may be correct, but this method of editing is how Mooretwin has caused dozens of other edit wars. O Fenian (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

arbitral sanctions are imposed only in particularly problematic topic areas. The GAA has never been consider part of The Troubles in any great way. Has never had any significant edit warring over the troubles that I am aware of. Yet a other reason why I consider this block a bad block. This is surely a case of WP:IAR? Gnevin (talk) 10:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of Troubles relating to the case includes "Irish nationalism", which clearly includes the GAA. O Fenian (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That definition is also pretty much the definition of Category:Ireland, you've clearly issues with this editor and I think it's a bad road for wiki to go down when good faith edits can be ambushed used for Wikipedia:Wikilawyering and WP:GAME Gnevin (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that nearly every edit is made in good faith, but that doesn't take away from the breach of the sanctions, MT is aware of the 1rr yet he chose to breach it, doesn't matter what his intentions were, good or otherwise. Hundreds of editors have been blocked for good faith edits. If I make 4 reverts my defence can be that they were made in good faith? We are responsible for our own edits simple, nothing to do with wikilawyering or gaming, don't breach and no sanction can get apllied. BigDunc 12:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you really accepted edits in good faith, you would accept he didn't "choose" to breach it [4]. Blocking an editor for 3 months for a technical and accidental breach (if that is even what it was) makes no sense. And if this were not Mooretwin, but someone of a persuasion closer to your own, you would be calling foul too. I'm sick of the partisan color-blindness on display here: robustly defending one editor for something then actively persecuting other for essentially the same thing. This infraction had zero direct impact on you ~~Domer~~ or O Fenian, and did the project no harm whatsoever, leaving one with the impression that you saw an opportunity to get one over on an editor you consider an adversary. Its telling that everyone else who has commented, and who doesn't have that axe to grind, finds this sanction to be disproportionate. Rockpocket 17:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The telling thing is that the people who allege the sanction to be disproportionate are performing revisionism on the events. What has his wikilawyering over reverting got to do with anything? Nobody can dispute the basic facts. He chose to edit war, making two reverts in less than a week. He did not discuss the edit before making it and wait for consensus. You talk about axes, well you are well known for having an axe to grind against certain Irish editors. O Fenian (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"You are well known for having an axe to grind against certain Irish editors" Oh really? "well known"... "certain Irish editors"... do you write for a tabloid gossip column or something? Who exactly are you referring to? Perhaps you mean Domer: who I have never blocked, but have unblocked and have, several times, argued strongly on his behalf when others have tried to have him indefinitely blocked. Likewise, Big Dunc. Likewise, Sarah. Likewise, MickMacNee. e.g. [5][6][7][8] If not them, then perhaps you could provide some actual evidence to support such a ridiculously obtuse claim. If you can't or won't provide something better than unsubstantiated nationalist mudslinging that has nothing to do with this discussion, the honorable thing is to withdraw it. Rockpocket 19:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4 reverts and you know your in a disagreement and as such you know if you should be discussing the issue, you can claim good faith your editing history will show disruptive editing. Adding a reference requested on a talk page and changing the text is a good faith edit and it's a major stretch to call it a revert. What annoys me here is that the so called edit war which I apparently was in but unaware of until 3 days later lead to a great compromise. Gnevin (talk) 13:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with edit wars how simple do you want it, 1RR per week means revert no more than once per week he didn't do that he reverted twice. You also say your editing history will show disruptive editing have you looked at MT's history? IMO, Mooretwin and Domer shouldn't have been on probation in the first place as it was placed on spurious grounds, but that is beside the point.BigDunc 16:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gnevin seems to have things back to front again, like he did with his timeline of events. Mooretwin's edit was a revert according to policy, the only "major stretch" is claiming restoring a paragraph that had been removed by another editor is not a revert. O Fenian (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why is Rockpocket editing the section below? He is the furthest from an uninvolved admin that you could find on Troubles cases. BigDunc 16:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. O Fenian (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer I have never edited the article in question and never sanctioned the editor in question, therefore I'm perfectly entitled to edit the section below. It took a little longer than usual for the label anyone who disagrees with you as involved tactic to appear, but you got there in the end. Rockpocket 17:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with the article it is to do with The Troubles AE, also who says I disagree with you, IMO the probation shouldn't have been placed on either Mooretwin or Domer. BigDunc 18:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find it was made explicitly clear that those admins who had past experienced with the Troubles editors were to be considered uninvolved too. Sandstein has enacted more administrative sanctions in this case than I have, as it happens, so by definition I can't be the furthest from an uninvolved admin that you could find on Troubles cases.

We may be of the same opinion on this probation (I doubt it actually, as its not clear to me what happened to result in the probation in the first place, so I can't really offer an opinion on its appropriateness. I look forward to the promised RfC so I can the justifications of each participant), but the difference is this: I offered help to both Domer and Mooretwin get unblocked when their situations came to my attention. One editor welcomed that help, one rebuffed it. Irrespective, if either wishes to make a case to ArbCom or try to get a community consensus: I'll be the first to help. If your objective is to address the unfair sanction equally, rather than favor one editor over the other, then why on earth do you choose to condemn Mooretwin, but not Domer, for the same infraction (a 1RR/week violation under the same probation)? Rockpocket 19:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall and am open to correction but when has Sandstein ever edited an article Troubles related? He is carrying out his admin duties as a regular editor here at AE. And where have I condemened Mooretwin? BigDunc 19:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea if he has or not (but given pretty much anything can be considered Troubles related these days, I expect he probably has!). To be clear: neither of us has edited the article involved, but both of us have been involved in Troubles AE in the past. The fact that I have edited other Troubles related articles (Sandstein may or may not have) is beside the point, as ArbCom made it clear that experience in the area does not constitute "involvement". With regards to selective condemnation, perhaps that is a slightly harsh choice of words. But you did report the transgression [9] and volunteer, above: "You also say your editing history will show disruptive editing have you looked at MT's history?" and "MT is aware of the 1rr yet he chose to breach it, doesn't matter what his intentions were, good or otherwise." I did not see you pointing out similar justifications in support of Domer's recent block for 1RR recently. Quite the opposite, in fact, you instead chose to question the blocking admin extensively. Edit-warring is edit-warring, 1RR is 1RR irrespective of who is doing it. Ironically, this lack of consistency is exactly the same thing you express frustration at in others [10] Rockpocket 20:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a "substantial change of text" by any stretch of the imagination! BigDunc 19:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Mooretwin should be unblocked, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

[Withdrawn/deleted my comment from this mind-bogglingly needless & unjustifiable bureaucracy]. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see certain editors here are shooting the messenger, and are voicing the so called good faith edits in regard to the breach of the sanctions by MT but not showing any good faith to the editor who posted this report. Are editors not supposed to bring breaches here? If bringing a breach here are you then part of a big conspiracy against the editor in question? The latest posts by MT on his talk page is laying the blame for his actions at the door of 4 editors, O Fenian, Domer, Scolaire and myself, this is a BS. He is responsible for his own actions and no amount of wikilawyering by editors will change that. BigDunc 14:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my mind (sorry Mooretwin), but perhaps it's time for a black/white approach. If one breaches intentionally or not, partially or not, one get blocked. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since when did community consensus only involve admins? We have a couple claiming community consensus below which frankly I dont' see. BigDunc 16:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tyrenius Rockpocket et al. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My first impression on looking at the edits were that the second wasn't a revert. On looking at it more closely it is a technical revert for the purposes of 1RR and therefore the same sanction should apply to Mooretwin as to other editors in a similar position: a one week block and advice to use the undo button a little bit more judiciously. A three month block would be way over the top and unjust given the good faith nature of the edits in question. Valenciano (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Mooretwin

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

I find the request to have merit. At [11], Mooretwin was made subject to a 1R/week restriction until roughly 11 February 2010 as provided for by WP:ARBCOM/TROUBLES#Probation for disruptive editors and WP:ARBCOM/TROUBLES#Terms of probation. With his edits of 23:55, 1 February 2010 and 21:29, 7 February 2010 he violated this restriction. Both edits were reverts as defined at WP:3RR#Application of 3RR ("A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part"); indeed, both edits were made using the WP:UNDO feature as can be seen from their edit summaries. In view of the policy's clear language, Elonka's wrong advice that "partial reverts" are allowed is immaterial; moreover, the second revert was not partial: it re-added all the content that the previous editor had removed but added another reference, which is not the "attempting to find a compromise" that Elonka would have allowed. The reverted material at issue relates to the Troubles and is thus within the scope of the case.

The applicable remedy, WP:ARBCOM/TROUBLES#Enforcement by block, provides that "participants who violate the terms of the probation may be blocked for an appropriate period of time." In determining the appropriate period, I take into account that Mooretwin has been blocked nine times previously, each time for edit warring or violating revert restrictions, and that the two most recent blocks (in 2009) have had a duration of one month. It therefore appears that even blocks of this length are not sufficient to effectively prevent him from reverting excessively. For this reason, I believe that an appropriate length of an effective preventative block is three months. I am now imposing this block, but will lift it if Mooretwin instead agrees to abide by a complete topic ban from any content and discussions related to the Troubles for these three months.

Independently of the block or ban, I am also re-imposing the one revert per week probation upon Mooretwin for an indefinite duration. Sandstein 22:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find this to be a disproportionate response. For all the edit-warring, name calling, bad-faith and POV pushing that goes on in this sphere, largely tolerated, I consider it unwise to sanction someone over this. Replacing questioned content with a supporting reference, then going to the talk page to discuss the matter in good faith may well fall foul of the letter of the probation, but its very hard to believe it falls foul of the spirit of the probation. We are supposed to be encouraging editors to add sources and engage on the talk page. This sends the opposite message. Moreover, a 3 month block and a indefinite probation is extraordinary, given the circumstances. The probation was due to expire in just a few days. I strongly urge the blocking admin to rescind the block and indefinite probation. Instead, a much more suitable response would be to warn the editor to be more careful in future and, if he felt some action was required, simply extend the probation for some finite period. At the very least, consult with the admin who placed the probation and get their opinion on the transgression. Rockpocket 00:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken note of the above argument and of those on the user talk page. There is, I feel, no point in discussing whether the second revert was a "good" or a "bad" revert, and no need to wait for the opinion of the admin imposing the probation or of other editors. The terms of the probation prohibit all reverts, no matter whether they are part of an edit war or part of a constructive discussion. To abide by the probation, Mooretwin should have proposed the edit at issue on the talk page and let another editor make it. This is harsh but necessary: arbitral sanctions are imposed only in particularly problematic topic areas, and probations again only on editors that have been disruptive in that problematic field. If there was a third opportunity - after the arbitration and the probation - for a discussion on the merits of an editor's editing in each case a probation was infringed, probations would be nearly unenforceable. Instead, to remain enforceable and predictable, arbitral sanctions must be obeyed to the letter, save in truly exceptional circumstances, and if the sanctioned editor acts according to what they believe is the spirit rather than the letter of the sanction then they must be ready to take the risk that - as here - an administrator disagrees. A 1R/week restriction in a very limited topic area is not a very onerous restriction indeed, so there is almost no conceivable case where violating it is really necessary. For these reasons, I decline the request to lift the sanctions. Sandstein 06:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that absolutist AE philosophy, though it's not an interpretation I agree with. But even if you feel that way, what is exceptional in this case is the severity of the sanction. It appears punitive to block someone for three months for such a trivial transgression, when the difs show the editor did not intend to edit war. So trivial, even the person he "edit warred" with questions your decision. As you are aware (having declined his unblock request), the other editor who was put on the same probation was blocked for a week and had their probation reset for a recent, comparable transgression. If you feel a sanction is automatic, then it is logical to show some parity in the extent of the automatic sanction. One of the biggest complaints I hear from editors is over inconsistency in administration, this is a prime example. Rockpocket 07:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained my thinking about the block duration above. It's a simple matter of escalating blocks: If two one month blocks have not been sufficiently preventative, then maybe a three month block will; moreover, the block will be lifted if Mooretwin agrees to abide by a topic ban instead. With respect to inconsistent enforcement, yes, sanctions may be inconsistent, but then consistency would not be reasonable to expect given that sanctions are imposed by many different administrators. Some infringers may get lucky and be treated leniently, others not; it all evens out on average. What matters is that the individual sanction is appropriate to the specific situation, without regard to how others may have been treated in similar (but never quite identical) situations. The best way for editors to avoid inconsistent (or other) sanctions is not to infringe arbitral restrictions in the first place. Sandstein 08:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't even remember declining the unblock of the other editor (who was that?), much less that he was in a similar situation. As explained above, I tend to look at each case individually. Sandstein 08:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You declined a review of Domer's 1 week block which was placed for a undisputed second revert in violation of the same probation (the validity of which he disputed). So compare: 1 week + a reset probation vs. 3 months + indefinite probation. An undisputed revert vs. a technical violation (if even that, I'm not convinced the second edit was actually a revert). Past block logs are comparable.

There will be disparity between sanctions from different admins, but when attention is drawn to such an extreme disparity, one might expect admins to take them into account and adjust their sanction accordingly, rather than maintain a position that has drawn a significant level of concern from a number of uninvolved editors in good standing. Given this impasse, it may be prudent to get further admin input at AN. Rockpocket 18:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was sanctioned relatively lightly for his infringement by another admin, that does not compel me to sanction this case of infringement equally lightly. You are free to disagree and to also use lighter sanctions should you ever decide to engage in arbitration enforcement. I have advised Mooretwin about how he may appeal this block on his talk page. Sandstein 19:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am still coming up to speed on the situation, but my initial thoughts are:

I would not have classed Mooretwin's second edit as a revert, since it involved a substantial change of text. He may have used the "undo" button to start the edit, but it clearly wasn't a classic "undo" revert.
There are cases where reasonable administrators may disagree on the best course of action. So even though the edit may not have been a revert by my definition, if Sandstein defined it as a revert by his own definition, I would say he was acting within the realm of administrator discretion.
A three-month block for a questionable revert does feel excessive. However, Mooretwin does have a history of disruption in this topic area, so neither do I feel the block is completely unreasonable.
An indefinite probation is not supported by the current rules of the Arbitration case (check the community-imposed changes at the bottom of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles). The maximum allowed is 6 months.

It would probably be helpful to get some opinions from other administrators as to whether or not the second edit was a revert or not, and for Sandstein to be open to engaging in a good faith discussion with other uninvolved administrators, to determine a consensus on the best way to deal with the situation. In the meantime, keeping Mooretwin blocked seems reasonable. He does have the option, as Sandstein said, to be unblocked if he's willing to give his word to avoid articles in the topic area for the time being. --El on ka 19:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to briefly address your point four, what I am enforcing (on this board, at least) is the Arbitration Committee decision, not any later community sanction. The Arbitration Committee decision, which does not limit probation (indeed, the remedies' wording suggests that all probation is indefinite) is not subject to amendment by the community, and remains in force until amended by the Committee itself. Sandstein 20:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you know what, this is getting tedious. Elonka, you seem to have more experience in this topic area; feel free to amend my sanction in whatever way you deem appropriate. Sandstein 21:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka, given the growing number of editors who have expressed disquiet over the extent of the sanction for a questionable revert (I'm counting five or six here and on your, Sandstein's and Mooretwin's talk page), I would urge that block be revoked and the probation reset to expire three months from the incident. If there is to be a block (and I really can't see the point unless as punishment, as the difs clearly show the incident unintentional) then at least reduce it to 1 week. This way both editors under this probation can have little complaint about bias. I would also suggest that that both editors be warned that next time either of them transgresses the block will be longer. The alternative is likely another needlessly long and distracting debate at AN, as I'm pretty sure Mooretwin will appeal. Finally, I would urge these editors attempt to get away from this tit-for-tat reporting of each others transgressions. At the risk of sounding like Sarah Palin (which is not something anyone should cherish) this "gotcha" culture is doing no-one any favors, least of all the project. If an incident is not serious enough for those involved to consider it an breach, then just leave it be. Rockpocket 00:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, everyone who has commented in those venues was an involved editor, and what we really need are uninvolved opinions. My own inclination here is to follow Sandstein's lead, and leave the block in place, or possibly replace it with a 90-day topic ban. The problem is, the Troubles case doesn't explicitly allow topic bans, which means it's easier to block an editor entirely, than simply to temporarily restrict their editing from part of the project. Then again, if administrators here at AE were willing to support a topic ban, that might work. So, can we achieve a consensus to apply a 90-day topic ban? This ban on Mooretwin would include both the articles, and their related talkpages, but would not include comments placed in other namespaces (such as at administrator noticeboards). Would that be a reasonable way to proceed? --El on ka 02:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)This block is not only draconian but inappropriate. 1RR is a device to stop edit warring, not a goal in itself. The goal is to improve the encyclopedia, which is why one of the oldest policies is WP:IAR: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." (emphasis in the original). Two users were in dispute, the other being Gnevin, who has stated above:

This is a very poor block of a good faith edit. I removed the text from GAA requesting an improved reference. Mooretwin duly supplied the reference and after some back and forth we reached a compromise which improve the text. Isn't discussion how we are meant to avoid edit wars? Gnevin (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This should be the end of the matter. We should strongly discourage restrictions being used as a weapon by editors against others, when those editors are nothing whatsoever to do with the content in question, and particularly when, without their gratuitous intervention, there would actually be no problem at all. I note User:O Fenian has not been editing the relevant article and is not a participant in the "dispute". I note also that the block was placed for one reason, which turned out not to be the case, so another reason was substituted to justify the block.[12] It wasn't a straight revert, but a modification of content with a reference, which Gnevin, the other editor involved, approves. If this is deemed to be a technical violation of 1RR, I suggest a technical block of ten minutes, with time served already. Ty 04:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree with Gnevin, Tyrenius and Rockpocket, up to a point anyway. These restrictions are not a club with which to beat opponents (and if you have opponents, or act as if you do, your card will end up being marked too), nor are they a shield to hide behind. Editors who are on probation would be very well advised to exercise great prudence in reverting, and indeed all editors should do so. There's rarely an urgent need to revert anything but vandalism, and even Randy from Boise's skeletons can wait for a day or two. Where I have most trouble is with Sandstein's rationale for a three month block. A word to the wise is sufficient. Sadly in Mooretwin's case it needed a three day block by WMC last summer to act as a reminder, but that was a reminder that stuck for over six months. If only the usual suspects would all behave for six months after a block we'd be as happy as pigs in shit and AE could shut down. I'd let Mooretwin twist in the wind for a bit just to remind him, once again, that there are no deadlines on Wikipedia, and that there is no need to be reverting anything but plain vandalism. A week or thereabouts would seem to be the right order of magnitude. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given we now have further, uninvolved comment along the same lines, it pretty clear there is not a consensus for the sanction as it stands. I'm therefore going to make a proposal. I feel Ncmvocalist hit the nail on the head. The issue should not be about blocking because a line has been crossed, the issue is looking at the purpose of the remedy that Mooretwin was under, and asking what do we need to do to ensure that purpose is fulfilled. Therefore I intend to enact Ncmvocalist's solution:

"if Mooretwin is not willing or able to comply for the future, then the sanctions should stand. However, if he is, the block should be lifted and no topic ban is necessary; all that would be required is for the probation clock to restart to ensure that further sanctions do not become necessary. (If he were to violate this principle again, either carelessly or otherwise, then all bets are off).

I'll leave it a day or two more to address objections, but then I will ascertain whether Mooretwin is willing to comply. If he is, I will unblock him with time served and reset the probation from the day of the edit. This gives the community ample to to ensure he is willing and able to edit in an acceptable manner. If we find ourselves back here again then all bets are off. But on the other hand, a dim view will be taken if the same, small group of editors take it upon themselves to police every single one of Mooretwin's edits looking for an innocuous slip up. In other words, if it does you no harm and it does the project no harm, go and do something more constructive than reporting other editors for the sake of it. Rockpocket 18:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should not do this. In this section, there are currently three admins (you, Tyrenius and Angusmclellan) who disagree with the sanction, whereas I (evidently) and Elonka (mostly, it seems) support it. There are also a handful of opinions either way by a few apparently involved editors here and on the user talk page. Per the motion cited in the red box at the top of this page, enforcement actions are not required to have positive consensus in their favor; rather, "clear, substantial, and active community consensus" against an enforcement action is required to overturn it. Should you undo an enforcement action absent such consensus, which is not present here, you yourself may become subject to sanctions by the Arbitration Committee. Moreover, your contributions indicate that you have edited numerous articles in the area of conflict (I didn't check the substance of the edits). While this does not make you an involved editor, strictly speaking, it means that you might not be best suited to be the one to ascertain consensus in this case. Sandstein 19:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On these points, at least, I am 100% in agreement with Sandstein. Rockpocket, it would be unwise for you to use tools in this matter. Your insight is welcome, but you've been editing too much in this topic area to be considered sufficiently uninvolved to make a controversial action like that. --El on ka 20:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is utterly ridiculous, Sandstein. It says a lot for your judgment that you consider Elonka's earlier comments in support of your disproportionate response; and your evermore desperate attempts to justify them against a clear administrative consensus is tedious. I made clear this action was subject to objection. You have objected, therefore we can now spend another week debating this - frankly - outrageous bureaucratic waste of everyone's time at AN. Good work. Rockpocket 21:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me there is a clear consensus that the block is excessive and needs to be changed. I disagree that Rockpocket is an involved editor re. this matter. I also point out again there was no problem to start with. This is just rules wonkery. I have asked for more input at AN/I. Ty 21:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the three month block is quite excessive. A 24 hour block would have sufficed in this particular instance. I would have no issue with converting the 3 month block to a 3 month topic ban though. Is there any reason that avenue wasn't pursued? NW (Talk) 21:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that the arbitration remedy only allows blocks, not topic bans. Otherwise of course I would have used a topic ban. But in my sanction I offered to unblock Mooretwin if he agrees to abide by a "The Troubles" topic ban, so it's really his choice. Sandstein 22:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A topic ban is not an appropriate response in the context of the supposed transgression. The big box at the top of this page also says ArbCom decisions are designed to be coercive, not punitive. They guy was trying to do the right thing, and actually did the right thing to advance the encyclopaedia, but fell foul of a technicality. Why on earth punish him for that? All that is needed here is an extension of the probation, to ensure that he continues doing the right thing to the best of his ability, and a clarification of how avoid accidentally falling foul of the probation again. Anything else hurts the project, it does not help it. Further, Mooretwin has asked me to post an appeal on his behalf. It can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Input_requested. Rockpocket 23:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there definitely seem to be differing opinions here. As a reminder to everyone, we, as administrators, should strive to set a good example of how disputes should be resolved and consensus reached. In that vein, I'd like to at least summarize the the suggestions so far, which are:

Keep Mooretwin's 3-month block and indefinite probation in place
Lift the block entirely (or lift it as "time served"), and place him under probation for another 3-6 months
Reduce the block to 1 week, plus 3-6 months probation
Replace the block with a 90-day topic ban from the Troubles articles

Perhaps the administrators here could list the above options, in their order of preference, and we could see if we could determine consensus that way? My own preferences (from most preferred to least) are: 4, 3, 1, 2. --El on ka 00:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2, 3, 4. I'm not listing the current option as a "preference" because putting anyone under that restriction is tantamount to forcing him to choose between an indef topic ban or an indef block. Editing under a zero tolerance, indefinite 1RR/week with an explicit promise of increasing blocks (starting a 3 months), bearing in mind we have a team of editors ready and willing to scrutinize and report every single edit for a technical violation, is near impossible. We should call it what it is. Rockpocket 02:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2, 3, 4, 1 (most preferred listed first). Ty 07:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4, 2, 3, 1. (most preferred listed first). NW (Talk) 12:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka has been watching Yes, Minister I think: option 1 is apparently there only to shepherd us towards the "right" decision. Not quite by the book though as "is commended" seems to have been missed. Either 2 or 3 is close enough. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons given above, I prefer 4 or 1 (equal preference, Mooretwin's choice) to 2 or 3 (also equal preference). Since 4 cannot be implemented as an enforcement action under the current remedies, it would need Mooretwin's agreement or, theoretically, broad positive consensus as a community sanction. Sandstein 20:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that the consensus is boiling down to options 2 or 3. We can probably accommodate this somewhat by reducing the block to one week, starting from the time it was implemented, February 9. Or in other words, Mooretwin's block should be reset to an expiration date of February 16, and his probation reset to expire on May 9. Does that sound reasonable? --El on ka 21:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable. Rockpocket 23:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good solution. Ty 06:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that a discussion involving only six editors (even after an ANI announcement), where at least two do not agree with the other four and there is no clear plurality for any one solution, does not amount to the "clear, substantial, and active community consensus" required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. Sandstein 13:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Six administrators is generally more than you would see in any AE discussion. Elonka, myself, Rockpocket, Tyrenius, and AngusmcLellan all seem to think that the third option is a reasonable compromise. I think that is certainly enough to change the original enforcement action. NW (Talk) 13:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, six administrators is much in AE terms, but six people are not the community. What is required is substantial community consensus. Sandstein 14:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's required is either "the written authorization of the Committee" or "a clear, substantial, and active community consensus". It's been posted on AN/I, and all of the community who wished to participate are now in agreement. It would demonstrate collegiate spirit to acknowledge that and avoid taking up any further unnecessary time over this. Ty 15:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please drop the stick, Sandstein. There is a point where conviction in process becomes intransigence. Simply being the first to dish out a disproportionately block that has zero support does not give you a veto when everyone else who commented can reach an agreement on a more suitable response. Moreover, previously your stated Elonka was free to amend your sanction in whatever way she deemed appropriate. If you have changed your mind, you should probably strike that. Finally, if anyone else would like to offer their opinion on the options under discussion, I'm sure it will be given the consideration it deserves. Rockpocket 17:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed that Elonka modify my sanction as she deems fit, and of course she remains free to do so. What I still object to is the characterization of this discussion as constituting sufficient community consensus to overturn my sanction absent such agreement by me. Rockpocket, since you are very certain what constitutes an appropriate sanction in this case, may I assume that you will continue to help out with patrolling this noticeboard even where no issues dear to your heart are concerned? We could use some more admins here. Sandstein 18:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion of what is appropriate is no more inherently correct that yours. I may have a strong opinion and argue it robustly, and I expect you do too, but where we appear to differ is that I will not try to enforce my solution if becomes clear that it is not shared by other admins. Irrespective of who blocks first, or what rules I could cite to support my position, the right thing to do in all cases is consider all the responsible opinions expressed and apply the approximation of the consensus. The consensus to modify your sanction may be small in number, but in comparison there is no consensus to maintain it. This is why I find your position inexplicable. To answer your question: this issue is not "dear to my heart". I was asked for assistance and my understanding of our job was to assist editors. I'm currently in the process of a transcontinental relocation and am trying to get an article to FA status. Therefore I have limited time to take on other responsibilities. However, If your request is genuine, I'll give you my word that once I have settled in my new location, I will try and spend some of my time here to help out. If your request was sarcastic, then your point is duly noted. Elonka has expressed concern that there is a personal issue between us which is distracting from this issue, therefore I'll now disengage from here. If you wish to continue to communicate with me you can do so on my talk page. Rockpocket 19:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done so. More generally, I'm reproducing what I said to Elonka elsewhere, because it may help others understand why I am continuing to discuss this. I'm not really objecting to a reduction of the sanction on the merits. The reduction is unlikely to have much of a practical impact with respect to preventing disruption - after all, Mooretwin can be easily reblocked if he continues reverting too much. Rather I object because I strongly dislike admins second-guessing, rather than supporting, each other in the area of arbitration enforcement. Arbitration (and its enforcement) is one aspect of the project that's not really subject to the consensus mechanism. If we treat it as though it were, the net effect is the weakening of the arbitration mechanism and the empowerment of the ethno-religious battleground editors that are normally the main focus of AE. I've expanded a bit on this on Rockpocket's talk page. For this reason, I consider it a collegial obligation to support and help enforce any AE action that can reasonably be supported by the wording and intent of the relevant remedy, even if I myself would have made a completely different decision. Such is the nature of administrative discretion. I believe that if all administrators were to adopt this approach, it would help substantially in reducing the general level of battleground-type disruption. Sandstein 21:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per Honor et Gloria (previously known as PHG)

Not actionable: the invoked remedy has expired.

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

Request concerning Per Honor et Gloria

User requesting enforcement: El on ka 22:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance#PHG restricted

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

[13] POV-pushing at Good Article Nomination
[14] PHG attempting to re-open old issues against consensus at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance
[15] POV-pushing at GA nom

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

[16] Warning by Elonka (talk · contribs)
[17] Warning by Elonka (talk · contribs)
[18] Warning by mentor Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
[19] Warning by mentor Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Extension of PHG's topic ban for another year, due to disruption at Franco-Mongol alliance. Ban should include not only article edits, but also participation at GA/FA nom, since his behavior there has been disruptive as well.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: The original topic ban was on PHG (talk · contribs), a user who has since changed his name to Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs). His original topic ban, placed in March 2008, prevented him from making any edits in the entire topic area of medieval or ancient history for one year. This ban was extended in April 2008 to also require that PHG use only English-language sources, and use a mentor (Angusmclellan) to assist with sourcing. Further problems were reported in July 2008.[20] See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance for a long list of statements from established editors who were expressing concerns about PHG's use of sources. PHG has two specific POVs that he's been pushing, for over two years now: (1) That the Mongols "conquered" Jerusalem in 1300, and (2) that there was an alliance between the Europeans and the Mongols. Actual mainstream history, is that Jerusalem may have been subject to a Mongol raid at one point, but was not conquered; and that though there were attempts towards alliance, the attempts were unsuccessful. The Arbitration Committee investigated PHG's behavior in 2007/2008, agreed that PHG was misusing sources, and banned him from the medieval history topic area for a year.

Officially, the topic ban expired in 2009, but now that the Franco-Mongol alliance article is up for a Good Article Nomination, PHG (Per Honor et Gloria) has resurfaced, and is resuming old tactics: Cherry-picking sources, pushing the same old POVs, and attempting to restore the article to the kinds of things it said back in 2007 that led to the ArbCom case in the first place. Of particular concern is that he is de-railing the GA nom, by dragging back up his "there was an alliance" POV, insisting that the lead sentence of the article be re-written to say that there was an alliance. This is making GA review extremely complex, as we don't want to have to re-debate this entire thing over again.

One of the things that makes PHG's POV-pushing so damaging, is that he (usually) tends to stay very civil, and his edits always look well-sourced. However, when experienced editors go in and actually look at the information he's trying to add, it becomes clear that PHG is not fairly representing what the sources say, and that he's also pulling in questionable sources, such as fragments of statements from works that are centuries-old,[21] or fragments from footnotes of books that are from long out-of-date historians, or works that are of unclear provenance.[22] Repeated requests to PHG to desist have been made at the article talkpage, and at his user talkpage, by both myself (Elonka), and PHG's mentor, Angusmclellan (talk · contribs). PHG promised Angus in email that the problems were over, but then continued with disruptive actions,[23] which are escalating at the GA nom.[24] Accordingly, I am asking at AE that the topic ban be reinstated for another year. If necessary we can proceed to a full ArbCom "Request for Amendment", but I'm hoping that a simple AE request will cover it. Thanks, El on ka 22:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 Per Honor et Gloria

Statement by Per Honor et Gloria

Nice trap! Elonka threatens me of prosecution a few days ago [25] telling me "Do not edit it, do not participate at the talkpage, do not participate at the GA nom." at the Franco-Mongol alliance page, in itself a rather unethical threat... Then she nicely invites me to respond to her on that very page [26], I am stupid enough to answer to the invitation [27], and now she uses that as a justification to implement her initial threat. Isn't this wonderful?

My edits, my good humour, my civility, my sourcing

Altogether, I must have done about 20 edits to the Franco-Mongol page and its Talk Page in the last two weeks or so. I have been taking pains to make extremely well-sourced statements with mainstream academic online references so that all I write can be checked by anybody. No disputes, respecting the content of other contributors: Wikipedia editing at its best [28][29][30]. But no, Elonka seems to resent the very fact that I simply contribute, however professionally, to the Franco-Mongol alliance page, an article I created two years ago.

To use Elonka's own words, I tend to remain "very civil" because I do think it is important to be so, and to respect the others. I do tend to resent incivility or the callous treatment that some Administrators give to other users "Stop…." "Enough…": we are no cattle, we are not members of a boot camps or prisoners, just unpaid volunteers. As a gesture of goodwill, I have even made small presents to Elonka [31], explaining her several times that I wanted to please her and be her friend [32].

My sources "look good", because they are good: I remain very factual in my contribution and as often as I can link to scholarly online Google Book references so that everybody can check for themselves, and, if desired, can correct the Wikipedia content accordingly. I have learned to do this for contentious issues, so that the sources can be accessed by anyone who has doubts. You will see that virtually all online references in the Franco-Mongol article today were added by myself.

Oh! Jerusalem!

Elonka has been forcing her point of view on the relationships between the Franks and the Mongols in the 13th century, attacking the main contributor on the subject (me) if my views did not fit hers.

Most significantly, she has attacked me strenuously for several years for claiming that the Mongols were in Jerusalem in 1300 (a nice academic source). Elonka's problem now is that User:Srnec painstakingly studied the sources himself and strongly challenged her former interpretation, declaring that "the modern, reliable sources say unequivocally that the Mongols were in Jerusalem" [33]. It turns out that the raid of 10,000 to 20,000 Mongols resulted in huge depredations reported in detail by Muslim sources [34]. Elonka herself has been forced to change her writing to the Mongols "probably" raided Jerusalem in 1300! [35]. After pursuing me so harshly for so long for writing about the Mongols and Jerusalem in 1300, this is quite a change isn’t it? I think a small word of apology for getting the facts wrong, and accusing me unduly, would have been in order, but, no, all she can find is sending me here. The problem I believe is that Elonka makes very strong statements, and pursues other users harshly based on factually wrong premises. Just as she misrepresented facts for Jerusalem, there are many more instances where she takes such a stance, and you have to follow it, or else.

I think our responsibility as Wikipedians is to follow the sources punctiliously (I've become much better at that, and I'm now making sure all my contributions can be checked online whenever possible), and to make sure that power-hungry or drama-hungry individuals do not skew the facts too much. Best regards to all, and happy editing! Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 06:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Per Honor et Gloria

Comment by Gatoclass

The editing restrictions against PHG expired long ago, so I don't see that this is a legitimate venue for discussion of alleged current problems with PHG's editing. Gatoclass (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mathsci

I would advise more care on PHG's part in (a) locating sources that discuss topics in reasonable depth (b) avoiding sources that discuss topics superficially and (c) interacting in a less bristly way with those who point out either (a) or (b). I personally noted PHG's edits to Marseille which were slightly oddball. He inserted an unduly large image of Hellenistic coins with a slightly POV caption and introduced an alternative image of a map already in the gallery; after my cleanup, he then placed the images on the talk page. The coin images originated in his article Greeks in pre-Roman Gaul, a well trodden subject. PHG's version of the article had not located sources with extensive sections devoted to that topic (Rolland, Ebel, King) and he was initially reluctant to take this on board, perhaps personalizing the discussion in favour of his own version a little too much. I had objected to the undue prominence he had given to a throwaway sentence in a general Ancient History volume that Glanum might have been originally a Greek settlement. Subsequently, although not immediately, he withdrew this statement and used one of Ebel's books on Transalpine Gaul to rejig the article and resolve most of my misgivings. Like all articles, a more systematic summary of the main sources I mentioned would result in a more satisfactory article. I have cleaned up the article subsequently, introducing images of the remains of the Greek harbour in Marseille and an inscription in Gallo-Greek on a pre-Roman tablet. PHG has so far been more cooperative and I hope this will continue without the necessity for any further action. There are still fascinating details that can be included about sites like Glanum, where Greek elements mix freely with Celtic ones - Greek architecture was adopted but with Cetlic measuring units, Celtic deities were still worshipped, etc, etc. All of this is in the sources, waiting to be summarised.

So my advice to PHG is to be more careful in locating principal sources, to avoid those that don't treat a topic in depth, and to avoid going on the defensive when it is pointed out that he has not done so. There is no need to personalize discussions when editing articles that are completely mainstream. Mathsci (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Latebird

I have seen ample justification for the original topic ban and its extension. Now immediately after it has expired, I had to observe that the same old problems resurface virtually unchanged. In fairness, the one visible change is that he dresses his POV pushing (and even his personal attacks against Elonka) in very polite words now, where in the beginning he could be highly caustic. But that is really just sugar-coating on the actual problem. As strange as it seems, PHG appears entirely unable to view historical topics from a neutral distance, and to look at his favorite details in the light of a larger context. Over several years, all arguments by others have washed right off him without leaving any traces of insight. So while this "enforcement request" may come after the restrictions to enforce have actually lapsed, I still see an ongoing need for damage control. Whichever is the formally correct path to get there, I will support an indefinite extension of his topic ban. --Latebird (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Per Honor et Gloria

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

Gatoclass appears to be right: the only enforceable remedy from this case has already expired, so there's nothing to enforce here. If problems persist, a new ArbCom decision (or other form of dispute resolution) is needed to resolve them. If no other admins disagree, I'll close this request as not actionable. Sandstein 06:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So closed. Sandstein 06:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monshuai

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

Request concerning Monshuai

User requesting enforcement: Athenean (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Purpose_of_Wikipedia, Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Decorum, Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Editorial_process

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: See related ANI thread for evidence and community discussion: Wikipedia:ANI#Propose_community_ban_of_User:Monshuai

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

[36] Warning by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs)
[37] Warning by Alison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): ~~Indef block~~ appropriate sanction under WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions rule, recommended topic-ban from Bulgaria-related articles (this section edited by Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: At the time of writing at ANI, there were some 10 users in favor of a ban, with only 2 against (one is User:Gligan, who is also Bulgarian, the other is User:Sulmues). Particularly telling is that Bulgarian users alone are 3-1 in favor of sanctions (Tourbillon, Tomatoman, Preslav for, Gilgan against). Athenean (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: He was notified of the ANI discussion on his talkpage [38], and has now been notified that it has moved to WP:AE [39]. Athenean (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Monshuai

Statement by Monshuai

I must cover the allegations against me even whilst I am limited in what I am allowed to say. Future Perfect at Sunrise states that I support the claim that the Bulgars are Iranian (Aryan) and not Turkic. This is patently false! As I stated before, years ago I believed that all theories about the Bulgars' ancestry be included in the respective article, as there did not seem to be absolute consensus amongst academics regarding their origins. I was also under the impression that Dr. Peter Dobrev's (of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences) Iranian-Bulgar theory was properly referenced and peer reviewed. However after studying the issue I came to the conclusion that his theory was not supported by a majority of the academic community and therefore most of the evidence pointed to the (Hunno-Bulgar) Turkic theory being correct. In other words, through intense research and education I came to view the Iranian hypothesis that I previously supported as being what Wikipedians refer to as a fringe theory. Therefore I stopped supporting its inclusion and all my edits hence forth were in favour of the Hunno-Bulgar Turkic theory. I have also read about the theory proposed by Dr. Shin Yong-Ha that the Bulgars originally stem from the Korean Peninsula as the Bu-Yeo culture that then migrated to the region presently known as Greater Mongolia. It seems Dr. Shin's premise directly ties to the primary theories about the Bulgars' Altaic (Turkic) origins. In other words, there is growing evidence that the Bulgars stem from central regions of north-eastern Asia. In light of this I was the one that made the edit that the Bulgars are associated with the Turkic Huns and that they originate in the steppes of Mongolia. Further still, I added another constructive edit (removed consequently by another editor) that according to academics the Bulgars were comprised of loosely confederated steppe peoples of various backgrounds. Thus I have shown that with hard work and in-depth research of numerous reliable sources I can not only admit my past errors of supporting a fringe theory of Dr. Peter Dobrev, but more importantly fix those errors!

From the start I have stated that all modern nations are composites of multiple ancestral groups, and thus I have always been opposed to the racial purity theories propagated by many other editors. As an example of this, please look into my more recent edits about Bulgarians being an amalgamation of different ethnic groups. I have used the following sources to show this:

-Graboïs, A. (1980). The illustrated encyclopaedia of medieval civilization. New York: Mayflower Books., p. 148

-The South Slav journal: 43-44 vol.12 no.1-2 Spring-Summer 1989. (1989). The South Slav journal, 43-44 vol.12 no.1-2 Spring-Summer 1989. London: the journal., p. 4

-Ference, G. C. (1994). Chronology of 20th-century eastern European history. Detroit, MI: Gale Research., p. 61

Furthermore, I reasoned with the editor who tried to racially profile the First Bulgarian Empire by trying to explain to him that the state was multi-cultural and multi-ethnic. Now before I continue, my understanding is that Sandstein has told me that in this arbitration case I cannot make direct name references to the edits/diffs from other editors. Thus I am not going to state names in respect to edits and consequently I will simply refer to this/these person(s) as editor. I showed this editor the sources (a few of which are provided above) and I stated in the talk page that "the role of the Bulgars was to incorporate various ethnic groups into their empire. These were the Slav and local Byzantine populations. Since you (the editor) insist that ethnicities be mentioned, then the relevant roles and amalgamation of the various ethnic groups in the formation of the state also must be mentioned." Indeed, this was disregarded by the editor who continued to push the racial purity perspective. I then researched 20 sources and made them available to everyone else. I included page numbers so that the referenced information could be easily found by interested parties. In doing so I tried to explain that it is improper to racially profile a country as "pure" and that indeed there is a difference between Bulgars and Bulgarians. As I stated in the talk page, "the Bulgars were an ancient group, while the Bulgarians are a modern ethnicity that is a composite of several ethnic groups." Please ask yourselves whose comments are divisive, mine or that of the other editor(s).

Thus I repeat, I am using credible academic sources to show the contributions of multiple groups to the formation of a modern state. That is the opposite of what I am being accused of here. In addition, I am being lambasted for edits that I have made in the past, while my recent patience and use of sources in the talk pages is being avoided as topic herein. It is true that years ago I made questionable edits and even got involved in a revert war for which I was blocked for 24 hours (the only block I have received in 3.5 years of contributing in Wikipedia). I learned not to get involved in revert wars and therefore began using talk pages to present sources and intellectually debate various issues. A few months ago I was involved in another long talk page discussion. However after reading the sources provided by one of the editors who was countering my arguments, I realized that his premise was backed by better evidence than the one I had presented. Thus I thanked this editor for his impartiality in analyzing the said source and I left the discussion and article never to go back to it again. In summary, I have evolved as an editor, who both respects and presents credible sources. Unfortunately, the credible sources that I presented recently were disregarded by other involved editors that made false statements about page numbers, tertiary sources like Britannica, etc...

There is much more that I want to discuss, however the ground rules laid by Sandstein do not allow me to compose a more detailed defence. I must also say that while I respect Sandstein for originally telling my accuser that I must be given a chance to speak in WP:ANI, I disagree with him for stopping that discussion soon after it began. My hands are tied there and also partially tied here. Despite his opinion on this matter and communicated intention of wanting to rule against me very soon, I believe he is a good administrator and I ask him to look at everything I have recently said and done (both in the WP:ANI discussion and in talk pages) to note that unlike some of the other editors involved in the recent conflicts I do not get involved in revert wars, I respect and propagate the multi-cultural heritage of all modern states, I use reliable sources to back my arguments and I maintain a polite tone where I never use foul language. Thank you for your time.--Monshuai (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Monshuai

We probably shouldn't discuss about nationalities of the editors here. (well, at least if there's no obvious ganging up) man with one red shoe 01:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sandstein

A few ground rules, please. This is arbitration enforcement. The purpose of this board is to help a single administrator decide whether they should take enforcement action as requested. Community consensus for or against sanctions is neither required nor sought. There is no voting. Each contributing editor should limit themselves to a single statement in a separate section, as here. That statement should address no other question than whether or not the requested enforcement is warranted. Please do not discuss any other issues, such as the content issues underlying this request, or the conduct of users other than Monshuai (but you may make a separate request regarding them if warranted). There should be no threaded discussion. Disruptive conduct on this board is likely to result in rapid sanctions. Thank you. Sandstein 23:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Monshuai above, you have had the opportunity to respond at length both in the ANI thread and here. I have considered your statements and find them nonpersuasive in face of the evidence presented. Nonetheless you are free to say whatever you believe is necessary in your defence in your section above. You may also reply to the comments of others in your own section. (By "contributing editor", I did not mean you as the person against whom enforcement is requested, sorry for being unclear.) Sandstein 13:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Fut.Perf.

As I said on the ANI thread, I support this request for sanctions. Monshuai is the paradigm case of a tendentious editor; all his edits are designed to push some national agenda of his, often agendas connected to fringe claims (such as the Aryan/non-Turkic background of the ancient Bulgars, or promotion of continuity between ancient Thracians and modern Bulgarians). This has gone on for too long, and has led to disruption on too many articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sulmues

Strongly Oppose: As I understand it, Arbitration Enforcement enforces a closed Arbitration Committee ruling. There was no ruling at the ANI, therefore, this is the wrong place to enforce a ruling that does not exist yet. In addition, the ruling (had it existed) should not be based on voting but on strength of arguments presented. Furthermore, Monshuai is being accused of not abiding by ARBMAC rules while defending himself in the ANI thread. I really don't find any grounds why he should not defend himself and why he should not have the right to do so in the ANI. Furthermore he fully respected the rules while he defended himself. For the rest, I have already stated my strong support for Monshuai as an excellent contributor in Wikipedia, an honest intellectual that challenges the status quo with arguments that undermine weak conclusions of which Wikipedia is plenty, and also a person that is much more polite that many users who were involved at the ANI. We need more contributors like Monshuai, not less. You can also see my many long comments in the ANI for what I think about this case and its members. In addition, I request that the additional comment on the voter's nationalities at the ANI as told by Athenean above (and as soon as that is done, also this sentence of mine) be striken out of the record, because they are irrelevant, in addition to being incorrect (e.g. preslav is not Bulgarian). Last but not least: Voting was 6-2 at the ANI, (not 10-2 like Athenean is claiming) and two of the "supports" were indeed "weak supports", whereas one "oppose" (mine) was "strong oppose". Kind regards to all! sulmues talk --Sulmues 14:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved editor Loosmark

In my opinion the indefinite ban proposed by Sandstein bellow is too harsh. If there is really a need for sanctions then a milder one should be applied giving the editor a chance to reform and edit in accordance with wikipedia guidelines. Dr. Loosmark 23:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Monshuai

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

I have conducted a somewhat limited review (given time constraints) of the very large amount of evidence submitted at [40]. In my opinion, the request has merit. There is extensive evidence of longtime and persistent editing in violation of WP:NPOV, with a view to glorifying Bulgarian ancient history, alleged racial heritage, accomplishments, etc; combined with aggressive WP:BATTLEGROUND-type conduct towards others in that topic area, notably much of this after the WP:ARBMAC warning. This is prototypical nationalist POV-pushing, which Wikipedia is not for (WP:ARBMAC#Purpose of Wikipedia). In my opinion, an indefinite ban from the topic of Bulgaria (broadly construed, including Bulgarians, Bulgarian ancient history, ancient peoples on modern-day Bulgarian territory etc.) is required to stop this. Unless other uninvolved admins disagree, I intend to impose such a ban in about a day under the authority of WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions. Sandstein 22:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

result is withdrawn request...

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

Tothwolf

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

Request concerning Tothwolf

User requesting enforcement: Theserialcomma (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#Allegations_against_other_editors

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: # [[41]] Tothwolf has restored an uncivil diff which states "Theserialcomma, you aren't fooling anyone here either. You already know the case was not filed against me, it was filed on my behalf by Jehochman against yourself, Miami33139 and JBsupreme due to your wikihounding, harassment, collusion, and gaming of the system." This is an assumption of bad faith of which Tothwolf has been specifically admonished for by arbcom, and has been restricted from making. per point 9 of the arbcom decision [[42]] "9) It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation. Concerns should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all." Tothwolf is in direct violation of this point by linking an old soapbox diff where he gets to rehash his old allegations of which arbcom has reviewed and rejected. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#Allegations_against_other_editors

[<Diff>] <Explanation>
[<Diff>] <Explanation>
...

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): {{{Diffs of prior warnings}}}
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: tothwolf has been specifically restricted by arbcom to not make allegations against other editors. his talk page comments, which i removed and he restored, are allegations that me, miami, and jbsupreme, are "wikihounding, harassment, collusion, and gaming of the system". these comments, and especially against these users, are exactly what tothwolf have been restricted from making. we are the users who filed evidence against tothwolf to arbcom, and arbcom restricted him because of our evidence. he is undermining/ignoring his restrictions.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATothwolf&action=historysubmit&diff=344695703&oldid=344622521

Discussion concerning Tothwolf

Statement by Tothwolf

Comments by others about the request concerning Tothwolf

The crux of this seems to be a wikilink to a comment Tothwolf made back on Dec 13, 2009 here. The sentence the link appeared in, and was removed from, is the second sentence in Tothwolf's talk page intro paragraph:

When even ArbCom fails to stop disruptive behaviour, [1] the project is abjectly failing and it is time for me to move on and spend my time on another project. It is sad that the name of the ArbCom case was chosen as it was as that created an inherit bias and may have been a significant factor in it not being properly addressed. I for one hope that I'm completely wrong about Wikipedia failing and things somehow turn around, but that may just turn out to be wishful thinking. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't on first review see how this sentence, or that link, violate the arbcom finding.

Theserialcomma, please explain the specifics here: How does the link violate the finding. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you should visit the diff in question that tothwolf has linked [[43]] which links to [[44]]. tothwolf has been specifically restricted by arbcom to not make allegations against other editors. the diff that tothwolf has restored states "(the case against) yourself, Miami33139 and JBsupreme due to your wikihounding, harassment, collusion, and gaming of the system." claims that me, jbsupreme, and miami33139 are harassing, wikihounding, colluding, or gaming are in violations of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#Allegations_against_other_editors . tothwolf is not allowed to accuse or make allegations of wikihounding or harassing against anyone, let alone the people who filed evidence against him in his arbcom case. tothwolf is gaming the system to use his talk page as a soapbox to link to a diff which rehashes allegations that have been rejected by arbcom. this is a violation of his restrictions. no allegations. no casting aspersions. the violation is obvious. he cannot link to diffs that accuse specific editors of harassment and hounding and he cannot place the link on the top of his talk page. this is a violation of his restrictionTheserialcomma (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am significantly concerned that Theserialcomma acted in a baiting manner here, in several ways; see this warning on his talk page (now deleted by him, as is his right). Other uninvolved admin review is called for. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by A Stop at Willoughby

The comment to which Theserialcomma is referring (the one including the diff at issue) is timestamped January 5, 2010. The Tothwolf case was closed on January 25, 2010. I cannot see how his comment violated a remedy that had barely been drafted at the time.

It seems that Theserialcomma is filing this AE request on the grounds that Tothwolf reverted this edit, in which Theserialcomma modified a comment Tothwolf made on his talk page, alleging a personal attack. First of all, it is hard to see how a mere inclusion of a diff can be construed as a personal attack. Secondly, it is concerning that Theserialcomma performed this edit out of the blue in what certainly seems like an attempt to bait Tothwolf into violating his restriction. He should knock it off, and this request should be closed with no action taken.

i can see how this appears like baiting. however, i've been asking tothwolf to remove this comment for a while now because it accuses multiple editors of harassment. the arbcom case closed and admonished and restricted tothwolf for false accusations, so i once again requested the diff be removed. he didn't remove it. i should have gone to ANI and let someone else remove it, or let teh community decide. i see how this looks like baiting, therefore. so i am withdrawing this request and i'm going to ask the community instead whether this is a violation of his restrictions. i don't want to bait him into violating, i think the diff is a violation in itself, and him restoring the allegations, regardless of who removed them, is the issue. however, i accept that this looks bad, and i am withdrawing the request Theserialcomma (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Tothwolf

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

[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]

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