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

JBsupreme

Closed as not actionable.

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

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

Request concerning JBsupreme

User requesting enforcement: — Jeff G. ツ 21:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#JBsupreme_warned as amended (amendment passed in [1] 15:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC))

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

[2] 15:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC) personal attack and incivility "you're off your rocker"
[3] 16:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC) incivility "bullshit"[reply]

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

[4] Warning by Jeff G. (talk · contribs)
[5] Warning by 67.80.250.138 (talk · contribs)
[6] Warning by Marcus Qwertyus (talk · contribs)
[7] Warning by MickMacNee (talk · contribs)
[8] Warning by Jeff G. (talk · contribs)

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: There seems to be some confusion at WP:ANI#JBsupreme as to when the restriction starts (passing of the motion or archival of the request for amendment). The motion itself specifies "The six months starts from the day this motion passes." Thank you for your attention to this matter. — Jeff G. ツ 21:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [9]

Discussion concerning JBsupreme

Statement by JBsupreme

Comments by others about the request concerning JBsupreme

Gah. Everything about this report annoys me to no end. Something my 98yr old grandmother would be comfortable saying ("off your rocker"), is neither incivil or an attack; it is a mildly tart phrase to express disbelief in something someone has done or said. Non-directed profanity ("I'm calling bullshit...") is not in itself incivil. This isn't the kiddie pool; we can use profanity when we feel a need to express a point of view, as long as it isn't directed at or referential to another user ("this is fucking ridiculous" vs. "you are a fuckwit").

The "diffs of prior warnings" section has been IMO abused and exaggerated by Jeff G in a "Don't template the regulars" kind of way.

#1 is a warning given to newbies about content removal, given because JBSupreme removed unsourced birth info from a BLP.
#2 came from an IP...likely a logged-out regular...using template uw-vandal2 to warn about edits to JB's own talk page, but seemingly with no connection to an actual edit.
#3, template uw-npa1, given for this edit. Again, not even remotely a personal attack.
#4 was a likely a valid one and also a non-template personal msg, a warning from MickMacNee to stop edit warring. But this filing is about NPAs and incivility; 3RR is not within the scope of this AE.
#5 is from Jeff himself regarding editing at a now-deleted Regina (company) (so we can't see what the issue was there) and also at the same issue that Mick raised in #4. The problem is that Jeff's warning characterizes these edits as vandalism, using the level 4 vandal template. Ironically, it is considered uncivil to call someone else's edits vandalism when they actually are not. Content disputes are not vandalism.

The house of cards has been knocked over. Tarc (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. This is childish. Stop whining. RJ (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "you're off your rocker" is hardly a personal attack and barely even rude. Saying that you're "calling bullshit" on something is an expression, not an attack. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above. This is not actionable. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 08:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning JBsupreme

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

Without expressing an opinion about the substance of the edits, I agree with the commentators at ANI that this is not actionable because the amendment has not yet been archived as passed and recorded on the case page, nor has JBsupreme been officially notified of it. Jeff G., in view of the unanimous community opinion expressed at ANI, I think that this request is improper forum shopping and should not have been made. (I am leaving this thread open for now in case other admins disagree and think it is actionable.) Sandstein 22:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the ArbCom decision, I think only the Tothwolf remedy is enforceable by blocks. PhilKnight (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of Arb ruling at John Buscema

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema, closed 8 January 2008, settled a dispute between Skyelarke, who is now User:Scott Free, and myself, User:Tenebrae.

The Arb ruling states:

Skyelarke and Tenebrae may freely edit John Buscema but should respect consensus developed in the interim concerning the basic structure of the article and the nature of the material that should be included, including but not limited to the number of images. ... Any uninvolved administrator may ban Skyelarke or Tenebrae from editing John Buscema or any related article or page for a reasonable period of time ... if either engages in any form of disruptive editing, edit-warring, or editing against an established consensus.

1) Skyelarke/Scott Free attempted to restore his 2007 non-consensus edits in July 2008, as noted by now-admin User:Emperor here, who told him, "your edits to this page and the addition of that link is a pretty blatant attempt to get around things like consensus." After comments by Emperor and myself, Scott Free backed off from this attempt.

2) Scott Free returned 15:26, 11 June 2010, to make a large number of changes that included removal of wikilinks, unexplained truncation of cited authors' names and other undiscussed edits. On discussion at the talk page Talk:John Buscema#Revision/Expansion here, he again backed off and seemed prepared to behave collegially. Indeed, on June 15 I wrote to him on his page at User talk:Scott Free#Extending my hand to say, "Nothing would make me happier than collaborating equally well with you on John Buscema to help bring that deserving article to the same GA status."

At this point, he began to reinsert the same or similar non-consensus edits as he did prior to the Arb ruling — with the addition of certifiably false citations. Some, which I initially took to be the work of an IP vandal, were made under what I alter learned was his IP, User:132.216.67.168.

My edit summaries help tell the story of my attempts at working with those same/similar non-consensus edits as from before the Arb ruling:

"that [citation] doesn't say anything about Lee's offer - I couldn't find it elsewhere in the Woolcombe interview either." "21:56, 16 June 2010

"Going into who inked him in this or that specific individual issue is excessive detail [of the type an RfC consensus disallowed]. Also, non-standard footnoting inconsistent with footnoting being used throughout rest of article" 03:44, 18 June 2010

"rvt fannish, wholesale changes made without discussion, and similar to changes previously made that an RfC disallowed." 02:47, 22 June 2010

Before that last edit, I had written on the article talk page:

I'm a little concerned because after I contacted you on your talk page to initiate a discussion on your recent edits, and explain my own, you unilaterally, and without the reciprocal courtesy of a discussion, reverted many of the changes — specifically the clogging minutiae about a few inkers you seem to admire ... These are the kinds of contentious edits that resulted in an RfC that, as I recall, went against you, and I don't believe it's proper to reinsert them now. As well, another issues has reappeared, which is your occasional citing of references that do not say what you claim. [emphasis added] Spurluck, Sketchbook, p. 95 says nothing about retirement; indeed, Buscema says he would like to retire but cannot. You removed a citation request and added your own interpretation that, as far as I can see, clearly misinterpreted Buscema's own words.

3) I then sought an admin's help for an RfC, stating to User:J Greb that, "The rules for establishing an RfC appear to require that two editors first go the talk page where the dispute lies and try to mediate first." J Greb attempted to stabilize the page at 23:20, 23 June 2010. In response, Scott Free made an "Abuse of Admin Tools" accusation against him here.

The RfC at Talk:John Buscema#RFC has attracted little attention. It does, however, give detailed comparisons of Scott Free's disallowed, non-consensus edits from 2007 and his same/similar edits today.

I tried extending my hand. I tried an RfC. Yet for weeks now, Scott Free has tried to insert the same non-consensus edits as he did in 2007 and 2008, and which were disallowed both times. Now he's trying again, and using false citations on top of it.

This is disruptive editing, and while there is a lull while admins watch the page, Scott Free on the article talk page has made remarkable, obfuscating statements that indicate he will continue his efforts at first chance.

Because of this disruptive editing, and his violation of both the letter and the spirit of the Arb ruling I believe Scott Free should be banned from editing this article for a reasonable period of time as the Arb ruling states. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't informed of this request. Either I could make a defense, but I think at this point I'd like to request that the case be re-opened, since the above is virtually a reitiration of the previous arb case complaints anyway. I'd like to summarize the problems since the ruling and include evidence and submit evidence that would include User:J Greb in the dispute. Anyway, I volunteer to step back from editing the article and the talk page indefinitely.--Scott Free (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

defense

On second thought, since I don't see any indication that the matter will be resolved any time soon - I might as well respond here :

1) We had a productive discussion on mirror sites - I agreed the link was innapropriate - the cited comment is an uncivil accusation.a

2) I had clearly explained what I was doing in various ways: article talk page :b,

arbitration clarification: c

talk page to an admin d with GA comics article experience:e

placing a template on the page:

One instance of me forgetting to sign in is suspected as vandalism - why?

3) Accusation - I tried to resolve it in a civil manner beforehand and followed due procedure afterwards: f

"Scott Free on the article talk page has made remarkable, obfuscating statements that indicate he will continue his efforts at first chance."

"I'm a little concerned because after I contacted you on your talk page to initiate a discussion on your recent edits, and explain my own, you unilaterally, and without the reciprocal courtesy of a discussion, reverted many of the changes — specifically the clogging minutiae about a few inkers you seem to admire ..."

??? - Not true - Here's the article at that time of the comment (June 20) - the inker phrase is not there - see line 74f - I clearly offered discussion and explanation here (after line 111): g

Things were at least civil and going relatively OK until the abrupt - h

The above section has several innapropriate accusations - To his credit, of the 24 added references, there were 3 reference page typos which he spotted. I corrected them. What is the problem? I have explained on the talk page how the accusation of falsifying reference material is spurious and will add more info.

Stumbling Block 1 - Repetitive, rigid, dogmatic, illogical consensus statement

The so-called 2007 RFC consensus version is almost entirely unreferenced : 2007

Any I've material tried to re-introduce has been referenced, or modified according to comments in the 2007 RFC, or adapted, etc.. expansions

I had added over 40 referenced passages after the RFC - so clearly, it's mathematically improbable that the 2007 RFC with 4 refs can have a serious bearing on any expanded material - I think it represents a lack of understanding of the verifiability policy.

The problem is that he's seems convinced that I'm absolutely disruptively editing against a past consensus - (and seems to think that the arbitration decision supports his claim that there exists permanently rejected content on the article) and I don't think that that will change anytime soon. Has anyone besides TB supported this consensus claim?

Stumbling Block 2 - Repetitive, uncivil conduct and content accusations based on the above

This is what he's been repeating regularly since April 2007 1

Here are the recent sample of a string of uncivil conduct and content accusations, besides the many on the article talk page:

Article edit descriptions: 02:47, 22 June 2010 Tenebrae (talk | contribs) (35,463 bytes) (rvt fannish, wholesale changes made without discussion, and similar to changes previously made that an RfC disallowed.) (undo)

Noticeboard: 2

Admin talk pages: 3 4 (Calling it a brewing edit-war is exaggerated and inflammatory)

Unfortunately he seems convinced that his behaviour is perfectly justifiable and arbitration hasn't noticeably changed that - unfortunately it's proven very effective in creating suspicion and mistrust and makes it very difficult for me to get any neutral admin or community assistance.

Basically I see the real problem as being a small group of rigid deletionist niche editors attempting to block article expansion. If people are so concerned about NPOV issues (which I've never seen clearly explained in terms of NPOV policy per se) and respect of consensus, why are they relunctant to submit the contested material to a Peer Review? That would seem like an ideally adapted process to verify NPOV and establish a stable consensus.

I have no beef against anyone. I wish everyone all the love and happiness in the world. I simply maintain that I'm a trustworthy Wikipedia GA article editor attempting to get neutral, civil feedback on article expansions.

I've never bothered responding to the basic personal accusation, because I've always found it silly. But for the record, no, I'm not a deluded fanboy desperately trying to sneek in rejected fancruft. Peace out --Scott Free (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a lengthy defense, and I will be responding to it.

I'd like to note that even though we are in an enforcement proceeding Scott Free unilaterally today reinserted his disputed, non-consensus edits from before.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Scott Free

In the interest of brevity, I'll try to address just the major points.

1) He says, "I had clearly explained what I was doing". This "clear explanation" was an WP:OWN statement:

[I]t would be simpler to wait until all the revisions are added, before doing any extensive reversions or modifications.

Given his disputatious history with the article, it would actually be simpler for other editors to see his edits bit by bit, rather than try to deal with a giant batch of them at once. In any event, it's inappropriate to warn off other editors until after he's good and done.

2) His "another clarification" is in response to the following — and, as his own link to it shows, doesn't even address the following points, much less clarify them:

In his most recent multiple edit, he cites "Evanier, Mark, and John Buscema, Alter Ego vol. 3, #15 (June 2002) pp.16-17V" for the claim "His first recorded credit is" such-and-such. I turn to that issue, and "John Buscema: The San Diego 2001 Interview", conducted by Mark Evanier. Pages 16-17 (they are not "16-17V") say nothing whatsoever about any first recorded work. I could find nothing about it, in fact, in the interview at all.

In another example of his using false citations to support his own POV, he cites "Evanier, 7V" to support the claim, "His work on Indian Chief #30-33 is notable late 50's work." The only thing page 7 (not 7V) says is, in an identifying caption, "Also shown directly above is a page from a 1950s issue of Dell's Indian Chief," followed by an offhand comment by Roy Thomas that it, a Helen of Troy page and a Seventh Voyage of Sinbad page look like preparation for drawing Conan.
As I wrote on the talk page: "This is not a good faith error. These are the same kinds of discredited edits he tried to do in 2007, and for which he was banned from this article after trying to reinsert them after an RfC disallowed them."

3) His link where he says "I tried to resolve it in a civil manner beforehand and followed due procedure afterwards" goes to a post where he accuses an admin of "abusing admin privileges" for not agreeing with him.

4) He says "things were civil until the abrupt [Tenebrae post]".

That post was a response to Scott Free calling those above edits "typos" ("Thanks for pointing out the typos." ... 14:04, 25 June 2010). My "abrupt" post pointed out:

Those were not "typographical errors," which mean errant keystrokes resulting in misspellings. You were not misspelling "the" as "hte". You were deliberately citing content that did not say what you claimed. And you have done this multiple times before.

5) He is dismissive of the 2007 RfC consensus. If you would go to Talk:John Buscema#Magazine illustrators, you will see a number of editors who disagree with Skyelarke/Scott Free's version, and none who agree. Two sample comments:

"[A]s you can plainly see we all think that Tenebrae's is better in terms of an encyclopedic sense. ... If Skyelarke wants to keep reverting back even though we all say that his edits are not encyclopedic, then fine let him, he will get banned, and then we wont have to deal with it. ..." Phoenix741 03:57, 28 February 2007

(to Skyelarke/Scott Free) "Based on that and the tone of the article that you ultimately did create, I have absolutely no faith in your neutrality, your assumption of good faith in others, or your knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines." CovenantD 08:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6) He says he is not making the same edits that the RfC rejected. Here is just one example, which I gave at Talk:John Buscema#RFC, the 2010 RfC — a two-paragraph version with fannish minutiae, and the one-paragraph version that the consensus preferred:

[As I wrote on the Talk page] "Compare your non-consensus version from 2007, which you tried to sneak back in...

Buscema began penciling Conan the Barbarian with #25 (April 1973)with writer Roy Thomas following Barry Smith's celebrated run, and debuted as the Conan artist of the black-and-white comics-magazine omnibus Savage Sword of Conan with issue #1 (Aug. 1974). He would eventually contribute to more than 100 issues of each title (the former through 190, the latter through 101, then again from #190-210), giving him one of the most prolific runs for an artist on a single character. Ernie Chua/Chan was his main inker on Conan the Barbarian in the 1970s, (except for a hiatus between #’s 44-69 which were inked by Tony DeZuniga, Dick Giordano, Tom Palmer, Steve Gan and others). Highlights of the Buscema/Thomas run include the double-sized issues #'s 100 and 115.

He additionally drew the Conan Sunday and daily syndicated newspaper comic strip upon its premiere in 1978, and even contributed some storyboard illustrations for the 1982 Conan movie, as well as painting four covers for the Conan magazines. Alfredo Alcala was his regular inker on Savage Sword of Conan until #24 and they produced some highly regarded stories. Of note are "Iron Shadows in the Moon" (#4), "The Slithering Shadow" (#20), "The Tower of the Elephant" (#24,) Tony DeZuniga became Buscema' regular inker with #26 producing Conan literary adaptations until his departure with #58 (with Thomas leaving with #60).

"... with the post-RfC version:
Buscema began penciling Conan the Barbarian with #25 (April 1973) following Barry Smith's celebrated run, and debuted as the Conan artist of the black-and-white comics-magazine omnibus Savage Sword of Conan with issue #1 (Aug. 1974). He would eventually contribute to more than 100 issues of each title (the former through 190, the latter through 101, then again from #190-210), giving him one of the most prolific runs for an artist on a single character. He additionally drew the Conan Sunday and daily syndicated newspaper comic strip upon its premiere in 1978, and even contributed some storyboard illustrations for the 1982 Conan movie, as well as painting four covers for the Conan magazines.
[As I wrote on the Talk page]I've got other examples of your reinserting the very same text that a consensus of editors disagreed with you about in 2007/2008. I honestly and sincerely don't know how you can justify in your mind to wait two or three years and then sneak the very same, disallowed content all over again. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2010

7) He asks, "If people are so concerned about NPOV issues ...and respect of consensus, why are they relunctant to submit the contested material to a Peer Review?"

To which I replied on the Talk page: "So you're saying you should be allowed to make outright citation falsehoods and then see if excellent, experienced editors catch if after the fact?" In any event, it's currently the subject of an RfC, which is form of peer review.

I could give more examples, but it comes down to:

Scott Free wants to reinsert many of the same edits that an RfC rejected, as in the single example I give above.
He and I were banned from the article in 2008. His ban was extended when he again tried to insert those rejected, non-consensus edits.
Now he's trying yet again, in violation of the 2008 Arb ruling. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response

For the content issues, I had responded on the talk page: here

For point six - the unreferenced material that has been re-inserted has several references added to them. Obviously an important distinction. Current article structure has been respected.

I have no desire whatsoever to edit war - my last edit was simply to make corrections for the RFC discussion version. My main claim is that my efforts to initiate discussion to resolve the consensus confusion has been met with disruptiveness that makes it practically impossible to have neutral discussion.

I'd be willing to have the case re-examined by arbitration - as a new arb request or maybe an ammendment request - I'm not too sure how to proceed. But it would essentially be the same statements and evidence presented here, with maybe 3 or 4 added points. --Scott Free (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "my last edit was simply to make corrections for the RFC discussion version": What you call "corrections" are what the RfC consensus rejected and the Arb ruling disallowed. Calling disputatious edits "corrections" is disingenuous and an attempt at misdirection. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Sandstein

"Frankly, I am not able to determine, based on the lengthy and nonstandard enforcement request and the long discussion above, who if any of the two is editing in accordance with any consensus."

Precisely why I suggest taking it back to arbitration. Although I realize that the sanctions you propose are the standard thing to do, even though it won't change anything, I don't blame you. I suggest that the remedies apparently haven't helped resolve the content dispute and probably need to be revised. My situation as an editor has changed considerably since then and I would like to present evidence that the input of JGreb has emerged as a consistent pattern of non-neutral input that has been disruptive. IMAO, his description below is almost completely one-sided and in support of one party's unproven allegations. The charges of false references really are not true. I'm willing to provide scans of the reference works to prove that they are correct.

Edit warring - to put things in perspective - there was one very minor instance of edit warring 3 years ago that lasted 2 hours. What's happening now, whatever it is, is very slow thing that has stopped. I humbly suggest that two bathtub farts in four years do not a persisent edit war make:-) Cordially, --Scott Free (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would gladly submit to a year's ban for both of us if it would stop such disingenuous posts as Scott Free's immediately above. He and I were banned from John Buscema — he longer than I for attempting to insert the rejected non-consensus edits, as he does again now — so I wouldn't call what happened "very minor."

I think I've documented my points regarding the reinsertions, giving one example above, and also the false citations, giving multiple examples.

And I believe accusing an admin of bias simply for not agreeing with him is improper. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator discussion

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema indicates that this is the latest episode in a multi-year (since 2007!) series of edit wars between these two editors concerning John Buscema (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Frankly, I am not able to determine, based on the lengthy and nonstandard enforcement request and the long discussion above, who if any of the two is editing in accordance with any consensus. But a look at the article history shows that the two still edit war with one another about the article. Consequently, if no admin disagrees, I will stop the persistent editwarring, in enforcement of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema#Disruptive editing, by banning both editors from editing the article for the duration of one year. Sandstein 20:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2-ish¢, and take it for what it's worth since Scott Free would point out I'm and "involved editor" since I commented at the ArbCom case and the article level RFC.

Yes a lot of this goes back a long way. And a good chunk deals with a "preferred form" of the article, And frankly, if it were just that I'd agree with re-instating the article ban. I'd be very tempted though to come down a bit harder on the editor that decided to reignite the issue. Fairly good chunks of the article content issues were settled previously so revisiting those should be done on the talk page by asking if consensus has changed, not by boldly re-adding the material.

There is also a new issue brought up - the charge of falsified references. That one is really worrying, more so since most of the editors I know of that are likely to have a copy of the reference material (it's hard copy and unavailable on line) are what would termed "involved editors". Again from having commented on the RFC and at ArbCom. Frankly, if the cites are false - deliberately placed but but unable to directly support the information they are attached to - it does not reflect well on the editor trying to use them. Beyond that, at a minimum once a ref is questioned, it and the material it is the sole support for should be remove until the ref is verified by an editor other than the one that placed the ref and the one calling it.

With no uninvolved editors objecting, I am hereby banning Scott Free (talk · contribs) and Tenebrae (talk · contribs) from editing John Buscema for the duration of one year to stop their edit warring, in enforcement of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema#Disruptive editing. They remain free to edit the talk page (as long as they do it non-disruptively). Any other decision would require a thorough and time-consuming review of their editing, for which WP:AE is not set up. But if either party believes that a more nuanced decision is required, they remain free to ask the Arbitration Committee for it. The Committee, unlike AE, is set up to handle complex cases. Sandstein 11:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

Two socks blocked via WP:SPI.

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

Request concerning Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

User requesting enforcement: Pfagerburg (talk) 01:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

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

Edit history of User:Linuxmdb [10] shows a pattern which indicates that Jeff Merkey is the person behind the account.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=293584634

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Block the account Linuxmdb as a sockpuppet of banned user User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: User:Linuxmdb has seen this complaint, and removed it [11] calling it "vandalism." Previous sockpuppets of User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey have used this same M.O. - notices of sockpuppet investigations and other WP policy actions were called vandalism and removed.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [12]

Discussion concerning Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

Statement by Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

Comments by others about the request concerning Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

This is already at SPI, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. Sandstein 11:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So far the account has mostly been editing in relation to a new product Jeff Merkey has created, so it's plausible. Regardless, the account is using a product name, so if not blocked as a sock, could probably be given a {{softerblock}}. PhilKnight (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The account has been blocked indefinitely on checkuser evidence, so I guess this can be closed now. PhilKnight (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

Two socks blocked by Tim Song at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey/Archive. Sandstein 20:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by User:I Pakapshem

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user: I Pakapshem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – I Pakapshem (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban that covers all pages, parts of pages and discussion related to these topic from the topics of Albania, Albanians, Greeks and Greece imposed at:

[13]

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

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

Statement by User:I Pakapshem

I was not aware that I was violating any restrictions. I believed that the restriction imposed on me by User:Nishkid64 was expired. Since my return from my 6 month block I have been working to improve Albanian related articles and started some like Shaban Polluzha. --I Pakapshem (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, that was a year ago and I deleted that stuff from my talkpage. I think it's understandable that I might not remember all the details of a notification about sanction which I deleted and got almost a year ago.--I Pakapshem (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Sandstein

I agree with PhilKnight, below. Sandstein 13:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by <User:I Pakapshem>

Result of the appeal by User:I Pakapshem

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

There isn't any new information in this appeal. The user was notified of these restrictions, so the excuse that he didn't know isn't valid. In my opinion, this should be declined. PhilKnight (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Megistias

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

Request concerning Megistias

User requesting enforcement: Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions ("editorial process")

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

[14], [15] (resuming same edit-wars for which he was sanctioned earlier, see below)

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

n.a., was already sanctioned previously for same edit wars

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): at a minimum: reinstatement of revert limitation as previously imposed in May; preferably: full, long-term topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: In early May, a group of several Greek and Albanian users were put on revert limitation until "the end of June", following a "travelling circus" situation that had escalated in revert-wars over Dardanians and Albanian nationalism, among others. While the other sanctioned editors have largely tried to edit constructively under the terms of these sanctions, Megistias simply waited out the sanction without editing anything (except for a few tag-team votes in AfDs), but returned immediately on their expiry to resume exactly the same revert-wars. Both his reverts are blind reverts and without talkpage explanation to his preferred version from before May [16][17], undoing multiple intermediate constructive edits. They also show the fundamental problem with his editing: his extreme mental inflexibility, which makes it almost impossible to debate anything with him. In the Dardanians case, the content problem with his edits were extensively discussed at the time, to the point where even his allies conceded he was wrong [18]. He now reverted without any sign of acknowledgment that he even noticed the arguments against him, then or now. [Background sketch of content dispute: this is about an article on group A (the Dardanians), where M. insists on mentioning a certain group B (the "Peresadyes") as parts of group A, noting at the same time that B were also part of group C (the Thracians). The objections were that both the link between B and C is overstated (because the sources only mention it as a conjecture, whereas he insists on presenting it as fact), and that the link between A and B is non-existent, because no source even mentions B as part of A.]

Since these edits display the continuation of a very long-term, persistent pattern of disruption with no prospect of improvement, I ask for long-term sanctions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[19]

Discussion concerning Megistias

Statement by Megistias

Comments by others about the request concerning Megistias

Result concerning Megistias

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

Saguamundi

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

Request concerning Saguamundi

User requesting enforcement: -- tariqabjotu 08:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:ARBMAC#May 2010 –

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

[20] This is an open and shut case. His reversions to this very section to this very article without any discussion was exactly what led to his sanction in the first place. Less than twelve hours after his last AE block expired, he has violated his sanction again by reverting without any prior discussion on the talk page.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): Not necessary; he has a clear sanction placed against him
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Lengthy block, a week at the bare minimum

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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.; [21], 08:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Saguamundi

Statement by Saguamundi

No the reverts I made are not an attempt of arbitration enforcement. Otherwise the editions and reverts of tariqabjotu can apply as an arbitration enforcement as well.

I reeadded the Geology Flora and Fauna sections because of their relevance and credible academic references.

Any body has the right to contribute and is not vandalism.

Saguamundi

Comments by others about the request concerning Saguamundi

Result concerning Saguamundi

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

Tariqabjotu

Not an arbitration enforcement request; not actionable.

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

Request concerning Tariqabjotu

User requesting enforcement: -- User:Saguamundi 08:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

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

[22] His reversions to the section of the article without any compromise and arbitration and does not tolerate of any reversions and reeditions (In this case by me) including with credible academic references and explanations to them, that is why he abuses his status as an administrator.

Yes

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Lengthy block, a week at the bare minimum

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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.

Result concerning Tariqabjotu

This page is only for requests for the enforcement of an arbitration decision. Since this request does not concern the enforcement of a specific arbitration case, it is closed. See WP:DR for how to resolve disagreements with admins and other editors. Sandstein 10:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

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