Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Shortcuts

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

Cptnono

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

Request concerning Cptnono

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: asad (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Diffs

Cptnono is engaging in very uncivil commentary with elements of racism attached. I will not explain anything, I will just post the text:

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

Blocked on 24 November 2010 by PhilKnight (talk · contribs) for incivility
Blocked on 18 May 2011 by AGK (talk · contribs) for personal attacks.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This user seems to be wanted to be topic banned, if that is the case, he should be blocked as well as topic banned for the extreme and borderline racist nature of comments for an extended period of time. This is especially considering his two previous blocks for civility.

@T Canens: I understand the first six edits are actionable by a block, and I agree. But I would ask you to reevaluate the seventh diff provided. People who are identifying their editing practices by racial terms do not seem to have a place in the topic. Frustration or not, it is unacceptable. -asad (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1]

Discussion concerning Cptnono

Statement by Cptnono

TCs not enforcement makes no sense. I was clearly in violation of ARBPIA's final decision point 4 (Decorum). I was shocked When TC clarified on my talk page that it was not part of enforcement and said over there that "I don't think a topic ban is appropriate at this time." A civility block is supposed to only be in place to prevent disruption. An arbitration based topic ban can be used for a variety of reasons. So to make a civility block and ignore the decision of ARBPIA makes no sense at all.

I asked AGK to make a topic ban since I think it is needed. He in return asked me to instead abstain from the topic area. I am sure editors who play around on Wikipedia enough know that just not editing a certain page or area takes more willpower than some might have. A hammer over your head is a proper motivator. I have no qualms blaming other editors for my frustration (of course it is not all their fault) since the gaming is too much. It simply isn't worth the hassle to me at this point and I think a topic ban would be beneficial to everyone since I overreact to shenanigans. And I cannot stress enough that even if I find their actions terrible I cannot follow it up with some of the same.

In regards to the whole asdad v bio thing: asdad wasn't involved on the talk pages but jumped at the chance to collect diffs. He also failed to note that two of the diffs were removed within minutes. He did something that Biosketch does often: Overreach. My topic ban should have been assured with the comments that were not removed (No, they were not racist or homophobic. Just pointed and there is no reason to cry wolf over selected portions). So to you Biosketch: Stop worrying about it. You assume others are gaming and you should hold yourself to a higher standard. And to asdad: if anything a BOOMERANG applies to you as well. I would have rather you called me a jerkoff instead of calling a comment I made a "trick", especially since we were discussing a possible edit.Cptnono (talk) 04:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And laughed way to hard when I googled "freneminship"(no results) and then realized what was actually being said. Good stuff right there. Someone else will have to do that now!Cptnono (talk) 05:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, where's my topic ban?Cptnono (talk) 07:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TC, can you back up that this is not sanctionable. I assume you cannot but maybe you are thinking something that I am missing. I completely crossed the line. And I don;t plan on doing it again but am pretty sure I will again. Just the way it works. So as a favor to me and the rest of the project, it would be great to impose some sort of topic ban. I don't really care about length (if it is an indef I can come crawling back if I feel I am cooled off enough, but maybe I only need a few months) but do think that a mandated ban would work better than self control. Some admins will do this for blocks. I can go ask one of them if they will do topic bans if you are unwilling for some reason.Cptnono (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Cptnono

Statement by Biosketch (involved)

It should be pointed out that the hands of the editor filing this Request are far from clean. User:Asad112 is a single-purpose account who makes no meaningful contribution to the Project. His edits have an exceedingly high mortality rate on account of their POV-pushy and well-poisoning nature.

Here's a brief sample going back to August:

3 August – refers to Israeli settlements as colonies using Wikipedia's voice
6 August – reverts an edit for no valid reason, disregarding discussion and WP:BOP
9 August – mendaciously attributes to me a dislike for the Palestinian flag
19 August – rewords an article to hide that Israel was credited with a world record
31 August – falsely summarizes an edit as a wording correction
9 September and 9 September – pushes the word settlement three times into the lead paragraph of an article—Biosketch (talk) 10:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those edits are fine. The Golan Heights is not in Israel according to almost the entire world, from the UN Security Council down. The residents of Majdal Shams are mostly not even Israeli citizens. Moreover, that Ariel is a settlement is the single fact about it most noted in reliable sources, so writing that in an article seems fine to me. However, I agree that he should not have described your removal of the Palestinian flag from the WikiProject Palestine info box as being because you dislike it. Zero^talk 16:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, contemporary Israeli settlements are often described as Israeli colonies in serious books by serious people because that is one of the things they are. They are settlements, colonies, villages, communities, sometimes suburbs, neighborhoods, sometimes cities, and all sorts of other things. They're described in all of these ways to varying extents by sources. You won't find the word "colony" in the Israeli settlement article though which I assume is either an oversight or misguided censorship. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Sean.hoyland. See, this is when it's confusing trying to determine which Sean.hoyland is talking. The Sean.hoyland on 3 August 2011 reverted User:Asad112 with the edit summary, "population centres should be settlements, the standard NPOV term." The Sean.hoyland now, on the other hand, is insisting that it's alright to ascribe the word "colonies" to Wikipedia's voice. Well you were right the first time. And WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is clear that "Biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution." I didn't write that. It's policy. Editors are expected to follow policy regardless of their biases, otherwise they risk having certain privileges suspended. @User:Zero0000. You've missed the point. The argument isn't over whether the Golan Heights are in Israel or not; it's whether Israel had made the largest bowl of Tabbouleh or not. And that simply isn't for you or me or Asad112 or IP 12.130.50.103 to decide. Guinness credited Israel per reliable sources. That's the reality. Asad112 oughtn't to have edited Israel out of the article, regardless of his feelings toward that country or where Majdal Shams is. @User:Timotheus Canens. Timotheus, you know that after he married Beryl Hovius in the 1920s, the young John Dillinger served almost ten years in jail for stealing $50 from a convenience store. It was that excessive prison term, they say, that hardened him into the notorious bandit he later became. You have before you a constructive editor who's tried on numerous occasions to engage you at eye level in an effort to improve his interactions with this Noticeboard, only to have his endeavors repeatedly ignored. I directed you to a query on the Discussion page regarding the scope of ARBPIA. You've not replied. I've asked you for clarification on your Talk page regarding what qualifies as a stale diff. You've not replied. Not to sound condescending but remember that the purpose of sanctions is to prevent, not to punish; and in keeping with that spirit, one would expect threats of sanction to be accompanied by earlier attempts to genuinely resolve whatever the issue is. It's been my experience here that ill-faithed coatracking by opposing editors attends nearly every case discussed at AE. I can cite plenty of times where users made serious accusations against me that had nothing to do with the AE proper and no Admin saw fit to reprove them for it. In my case, however, per the dictum Serious accusations require serious evidence, I made it a point to substantiate my argument against Asad112 with diffs, as is policy. When the diffs against User:Supreme Deliciousness were deemed irrelevant on account of their having nothing to do with I/P, that was understandable. Now the diffs are clearly within the scope of I/P and even more clearly related to the editor filing the Request, but they're still being deemed irrelevant. Not only that but you're using them to try to support a claim to the effect that I'm "attempting to derail an AE thread," which is a quintessentially bad-faithed assumption. Asad112 himself encouraged me to submit the diffs as a separate AE, but it wasn't ever their intention to shift the focus away from User:Cptnono to begin with. Lastly, regarding the claim that I have "a history of filing frivolous or otherwise inactionable AE requests," that claim doesn't stand up to an objective account of my history here. The first AE I ever brought resulted in a six-month topic ban of a user; the second resulted in a user redacting a personal attack against me; and the third resulted in a user being warned against personal attacks. The fourth and fifth were therefore the only inactionable Requests, with only the fifth being unequivocally so. This one, number six, if you wish to call it that, wasn't a Request at all. It was a comment, made in earnest, in the spirit of WP:BEBOLD, supported by actual diffs.—Biosketch (talk) 08:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biosketch, allow me to clarify then. There is one Sean.hoyland. I try to just treat information as information and I have no emotional response to words that describe these objects. I also try to find compromise in the midst of mini-edit wars which is what your diff shows. Context is everything as you well know. Settlement is indeed the standard term in the limited sense that it is a modal term. However, there's no policy based reason to insist that the term "settlement" is used in all cases to the exclusion of all others in an article. To do so would be inconsistent with the usage distribution that is apparent from sampling reliable sources as far as I'm concerned. For example, I have no problem with a caption like "A neighbourhood in Ariel, home to...etc" in the lead image in the Israeli settlement article. It doesn't need to say "The Israeli settlement of Ariel". It's already clear from the context that it is a settlement. I don't see any difference between the occasional use of the word community, colony, city, neighborhood, or other terms instead of settlement in an article about a settlement or settlements as long as the article makes it clear somewhere that it is referring to Israeli settlement(s) at the earliest opportunity and links to the appropriate article. It's not a big deal or it shouldn't be. I don't see someone using terms other than settlement as unambiguous evidence of "unclean hands" or POV pushing. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. In this case it's a non-issue. You've made statements about Asad, an editor in good standing, who as far as I can tell has a net positive impact on policy compliance. Your evidence doesn't appear to support your conclusions. How many times has Asad made edits like this which I assume, according to you, would be good edits ? Did you check ? It would be unfortunate if an alarm only went off for the term "colony" but not for terms like "residential neighborhood" etc. What I strongly object to is the characterization of an editor using a word like "colony" as "POV-pushy" and having a "well-poisoning nature". I've seen a lot of irrational nonsense about language in this topic area over the years, claims that words like settlement and colony, words that sensible, respectable sources use, dehumanize and delegitimize etc. When I see you complain the same way about editors who use words like "residential neighborhood", "community" or any other CAMERA-friendly word apart from settlement I will believe that you are using rational decision procedures and being fair. Right now it just looks like bias. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re hardened him into the notorious bandit he later became. - Are you suggesting you're going to become a notorious bandit? You've already got the notoriety thing down I guess....

re prevent, not to punish - Ever consider that Canens is trying to prevent you from clogging up WP:AE with your relentless wikilawyering?

re fourth and fifth were therefore the only inactionable Requests - Oh please, you've launched gripes on user pages and etiquette that were pretty frivolous. NickCT (talk) 12:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Malik Shabazz (involved)

Cptnono is extremely frustrated, as are many of us, that a new editor is exhibiting outrageous WP:IDHT behavior. User:Veritycheck started edit-warring at Falafel as an IP and opened an account to continue. Despite the view of several editors that Veritycheck's proposal is WP:SYNTH, Veritycheck has continued to edit war. Now Veritycheck has asked for a GA reassessment on the basis that the article isn't stable (I wonder why that is?) and asked for mediation.

Cptnono is one of two editors who brought Falafel to GA status, and I don't blame Cptnono for feeling frustrated. Cptnono should have used nicer language, but I don't fault Cptnono one bit for feeling as frustrated as she/he does. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

""Fuck him. Obvious troll is obvious and he can suck on my balls." is inexcusable no matter how frustrated one is. I agree Cptnono is a productive editor in the ARBPIA area, but he has seriously un-addressed issues with civility - and has show signs of getting worse rather than better, in particular with "new" POV pushers. On the one hand, I do not edit ARBPIA that much anymore because nablezzy and cptnono (among others) freneminship keeps the place more or less clean of the most awful POV stuff, on the other hand, its really nasty to work in a topic when homophobic slurs are thrown around for fun. Frustration is a mitigating factor, but given that Wikifan12345 was recently indef topic banned from ARBPIA for a 1RR vio that s/he self-reverted in 30 minutes, ignoring Cptnono's behavior would be very unfair. At the very least a stern declaration against Cptnono's routine NPA and incivility should be given and mandated civility mentorship be entered. Of course, there are some WP:BOOMERANG issues here, but as we known, these kinds of SPAs always self-implode eventually, and always will exist, so WP:ROPE. --Cerejota (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Cptnono

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

Cptnono is blocked for 72 hours due to incivility and personal attacks; the frustration is understandable, but the methods chosen to express that frustration is quite unwise. I don't think a topic ban is appropriate at this time.
I see nothing actionable in Biosketch's list of diffs, which is not even related in any way to the subject matter of this thread, which concerns a number of edits related to Falafel; attempting to derail an AE thread with inactionable claims unrelated to the subject matter is disruptive. Biosketch also has a history of filing frivolous or otherwise inactionable AE requests, and their participation here is not constructive. Biosketch (talk · contribs) is requested to explain, in 400 words or less, why they should not be banned from WP:AE, except in cases of enforcement requests filed against themselves. T. Canens (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus Fatuorum

Malleus formally notified of WP:ARB911 discretionary sanctions by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs). No further action taken. T. Canens (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Malleus Fatuorum

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARB911#Discretionary sanctions

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

Failure to assume good faith:

Violations of civility:

Personal attacks:

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

Warned on September 23, 2011 by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have been editing September 11 attacks for about 2 years now. Malleus Fatuorum is a relative newcomer to the article. In that short time, he's made various complaints about the article. This, of course, is perfectly fine. Constructive criticism is welcome and encouraged. The problem is that when other editors disagree with him, he launches into attacks against those editors, accusing them of not editing in good faith, questioning their honesty, intelligence level and just making other uncivil comments. This isn't just a few isolated diffs, but an overall pattern that's promoting a toxic, battleground-like atmosphere on the article talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek: I did not ask for a ban. I just want the conduct to be corrected. Even a statement by Malleus Fatuorum saying that they realize that their remarks were inappropriate and that they would do better in the future would suffice. I filed this request because Malleus Fatuorum has continued with their misconduct[2] after the ANI thread was closed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek: I just want the conduct to be corrected. I really don't care how that is done. Whatever works, works. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Richerman: Yes, Malleus Fatuorum said he would not have anything else to do with the article.(08:06, September 24, 2011) But he has not stopped. Here he is again, this time making accusations against yet another editor. "Your strategy of chasing editors away with the kind of intimidation..." (22:51, September 24, 2011) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: I am not familiar with the editor Malleus Fatuorum is accusing in that diff, but apparently they've only had one edit on the article in the last 4 years[3] (although there were some edits back in 2007/2006). In any case, Malleus Fatuorum needs to focus on content, not the contributor. Repeatedly attacking other editors is not acceptable. There is an ongoing pattern of misconduct that needs to be addressed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[4]

Discussion concerning Malleus Fatuorum

Statement by Malleus Fatuorum

This request for sanctions against me is a step on a very slippery road. I became the target of the editors of the 9/11 article when I challenged its GA listing here, after having seen it fail at FAC. This is a very clear and deliberate attempt to eliminate anyone who disagrees with the current organisation and content of the article, of which I am far from being the only one. But as one of the few non-administrators with the balls to tell it like it is I'm obviously considered to be an easy target.

If any sanctions are needed, then they're needed against A Quest For Knowledge, and several others who have systematically sought to chase non-Americans away from their precious memorial to the events of 9/11. Malleus Fatuorum 03:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mathsci would do well to check his facts. I have never claimed that "explicit statements barring non-American editors have been made". Malleus Fatuorum 04:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Arthur Rubin. The GAR has now closed, so no need to petition for me to be banned from there. I was met with a hail of abuse for daring to suggest that the article didn't meet the GA criteria, but it now appears that others agreed with me. As for the 9/11 article itself, I have not since the warning, and will not, ever touch it again. That's not any kind of capitulation to the bullying that's been going on, or any kind of apology, just a statement of fact. Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Malleus Fatuorum

There has very recently been an ANI thread about Malleus and the 9/11 article that was closed as no administrative action needed at this time. LadyofShalott 16:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it seems to be based on the same conduct. Look, Malleus can be ... blunt. Malleus has made it clear that if he is to participate here, that's the way he's going to express himself. The community seems to have made the judgment that it would rather have Malleus blunt than absent.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine as far as it goes, but at some point "blunt" becomes disruptive, on an often-difficult talk page. I can imagine how it looks to someone thinking about contributing - "well, these aren't people I want to work with." It doesn't encourage the broader participation we need, and it doesn't improve the page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also doesn't engender much faith in a system that allows an editor to get block after block for the same behavior, and who never seems to learn anything from these blocks because admins, for some reason, have become so accustomed to their disruptive behavior that they no longer feel like doing anything to prevent it when it keeps happening. Shirtwaist ☎ 11:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with others here, this looks like some "ban-shopping". Volunteer Marek 17:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus was only yesterday notified of the arbitration conditions (as is a requirement of the conditions) - this report - if I was an admin I would close it on sight and I would warn, even perhaps block the reporter, (but that's just me) ban shopping/running to mummy call it what you like but its an attacking unnecessary report. - Off2riorob (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a block or final warning of AQFK per WP:BOOMERANG. This looks like forum-shopping in an effort to get an opponent blocked to further a content dispute, something we should be at pains to discourage. --John (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't admins take pains to discourage WP:ABF from everyone, including themselves? Especially themselves? Shirtwaist ☎ 00:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a warning about forum-shopping is appropriate. I don't think we need any blocks concerning this though. This report - especially so quickly on the heels of the closed ANI thread - does strike me as excessive. LadyofShalott 18:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would let it go.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked whether MF has continued commenting on 9/11 after the warning. If he has, then this enforcement request is appropriate. If not, then perhaps AQFK should be sanctioned. (And I would be considered involved in commenting either on MF or AQFK.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These attacks by MF on the 9/11 talk page were after the warning, and before AQFK's complaint. I think the matter should be considered. Certainly no warning against AQFK is appropriate, except for failure to note which actions were before the warnings. On the other hand, for WP:3RR blocks, only one of the four reverts need be after the warning. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOS - What length of time is appropriate for reporting abusive behavior that occurs right after a previous report for abusive behavior was closed? I'm surprised at your focusing on the filing of the report, and your apparent lack of concern for the fact that MF's abusive behavior that precipitated this report came so soon after an AN/I complaint against him for exactly the same behavior. Is there any accountability here at all? Or shall habitual abusers be allowed to continue to be habitual abusers for convenience's sake? Shirtwaist ☎ 00:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not merely the timeframe. The ani thread was closed because it was a mountain out of a molehill situation. It still is. LadyofShalott 06:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Now I have a clearer picture of your views on what constitutes actionable behavior and when action should be taken against it. Rather surprising coming from an admin, IMO, but so be it. Shirtwaist ☎ 07:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Malleus seems to have mellowed over the last 12 months. There is nothing here of any consequence, a ripple in a teacup. Do people have nothing else to be getting on with? Occuli (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re to AQ4K. Technically you're right. You asked for The 911AC "Sanction or remedy to be enforced" which I guess is strictly speaking different than asking for a ban. Nowhere in the request did you say you were just looking for some kind of contrition from MF (and if you know MF, good luck with that). Usually when people come here to AE they're looking to get people they don't like banned. If your only purpose was to get MF to apologize or something, then you're wasting your time, and that of others. Volunteer Marek 21:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@AQ4K, regarding your quotation of Malleus's comment about driving editors away, I don't find that abusive. I suspect there's at least a minority opinion he's right.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A problem with Malleus Fatuorum's participation on the page is his allegation that non-Americans are being chased from the article."The suggestion I've seen made that only Americans should be allowed to edit this article just beggars belief." [5] "Try looking for it, as I would have to do but don't have the energy for." [6]A number of UK editors have commented there without being heckled. MF has claimed that explicit statements barring non-American editors have been made, but he has produced no evidence and there seems to be none on the current version of the talk page. MF has repeatedly referred to "Americans" on the talk page in a way which seems unhelpful and is surely best avoided. [7] "I thought all Americans were Bible bashers" [8] "I'm not an American, so I have a different view." [9] Here for example he means the US government not Americans.[10] [11] Even after the logged warning from NuclearWarfare, MF is using the same problematic language ("their precious memorial to the events of 9/11") in his response above, where he repeats claims about non-American editors.[12] Mathsci (talk) 04:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC) modified content and diffs Mathsci (talk) 05:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Comment Malleus stated testerday on his talk page that he will have nothing more to do with the article. In that case any sanctions would be punitive rather than preventative so this request should be closed now. Richerman (talk) 10:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. His last two comments at Talk:September 11 attacks were after that note on his talk page.
2. He's still making non-substantive personal attacks in regard the GA nomination. As it's extremely likely that if anyone were to be restricted from commenting at Talk:September 11 attacks, he would also be restricted from commenting at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/September 11 attacks/2, this matter still isn't moot.
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe enforcement is needed here. Malleus hasn't been 'blunt', he's been disruptive. If someone you work with came up to you and the other workers in the office and did everything that has been listed above, do you think he would get off with not even a stern word? Unless you are working at Dunder Mifflin-Scranton (where you can incite mass panic and terror and and still become regional manager), of course not. Malleus has refactored talkpage comments, accused others of lying, and acted straight-out disruptive. Action is not only warranted, it is needed. Toa Nidhiki05 01:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toa, you acted incorrectly by trying to edit a closed discussion and then proceeded to edit war over it and template regulars. At the moment, it looks like you were trying to bait Malleus. I'd suggest that you strike your comment.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just close this already with either no sanction or no sanction and a warning to AQ4K and quit wasting people's time. This is another one of those things that can easily become an unnecessary drama magnet for folks with a grudge, or in some cases ones with an anti-grudge. Volunteer Marek 01:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been appalled by MF's behavior since he appeared on the September 11 attacks talk page. Despite any warnings which he may have been given, he hasn't shown any interest in improving his behavior, that I've seen. I've seen the arbitration sanctions abused in the past for petty matters, but if there were ever a case where their use seems appropriate, I would think this is it. AQFK summarized everything very well in making this request, and I think he deserves credit for a job well done. I don't understand the desire by some here to ignore the problem, although perhaps there has been something going on that I haven't seen. As with AQFK, I am not requesting any particular sanctions; I just want to see the arrogant behavior by MF come to an end. Wildbear (talk) 02:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus has stated to me that he is no longer interested in the article, however he has still made a comment or two since.--MONGO 11:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Malleus Fatuorum

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

I don't really see why admins at this board here would want to override what was apparently a consensus among admins over at ANI earlier today, that admin action wasn't currently appropriate. People at ANI were already fully aware that the case could potentially fall under this Arbcom rule, and if somebody had wanted to hand out a sanction under it, they could already have done so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I formally notified MF of the existence of the sanctions ~24 hours ago; it stands to reason that edits previous to that shouldn't be used as the sole reason to sanction someone using discretionary sanctions. If there have been inappropriate edits since then (which I haven't examined), then individual administrators should review and take action here no matter what the "consensus" on ANI was, if there actually was one. My understanding is that much of the purpose of discretionary sanctions was to handle situations where attaining consensus for sanctions in the traditional way is impossible because of community deadlocking. NW (Talk) 06:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as no further action taken. I do not think any AE action here will be beneficial. T. Canens (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nanobear

No action.

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 Nanobear

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: User:Vecrumba ►TALK 20:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Enforcement

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

19:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC), In keeping with past history of acrimonious behavior, Nanobear uses his farewell to Russavia to launch a vituperative, accusatory attack on Russavia's alleged enemies.[reply]

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

Placed on notice at WP:DIGWUREN 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I myself have commented on Russavia's positive contributions and echo Nanobear's statements in that regard. That said, the personal attacks and blame games and accusations of harassment—especially coming from someone who was permanently banned, as Offliner, from Wikipedia for an off-Wiki attack as a direct result of their participation as an accuser in the EEML case—must stop. Everyone decries the polarization and acrimony. If, however, we wish the acrimony to cease, we cannot tolerate this sort of grossly offensive personal attack relitigating the past. As my prior complaints to Nanobear about this sort of conduct have been met by his accusing me of personal attacks (diffs possible if needed), I have no recourse but to seek administrative action.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[13] [14] had been prompted by WikEd, creating additional header

Discussion concerning Nanobear

Statement by Nanobear

This is just sad. We just lost one of our best and most productive editors - now I suppose Vecrumba wants me to retire too? This is exactly why I have not edited much in the last 3 months. Nanobear (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response(s) by Vecrumba

@Nanobear, you have ignored my repeated complaints. There is an entire encyclopedia to edit, yet you choose to spend your time on personal attacks. What I want is for the acrimonious attacks fomenting your allegations regarding events to cease. It is for others to decide appropriate action, as I said, there is an entire encyclopedia to edit. I agree that coming to this point is sad, I have no joy in taking this action, I am not rubbing my hands in glee over some opportunity to "stick it to you." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Colchicum, for a while I believed Nanobear in his desire to move on from the past, and there were glimpses of hope. So, in actuality, it is my raised expectations which have been dashed as opposed to simply arriving here to complain about something I have come to expect. (And wouldn't that normally be a problem?) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Greyhood, I am unaware of any "unpleasant" circumstances of Russavia's retirement, I certainly have not acted against him in any way on or off Wiki and our non-personal contacts over content in the recent past were not unwelcome. Nanobear could have chosen to be gracious without spending most of his post on a personal attack. Do you advocate I choose to doom myself to Nanobear smearing myself and others with impunity for all time? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Nanobear is not the first to scream EEML WITCH! lately. You will notice I am not lobbying for any specific sanction (unlike my detractors who always seem to start at a year). I just want this crap to stop. BTW, you should know that, @EEML, regarding my "responding to canvassing" I had already visited and commented via my watchlist, reading Email only every few days to a week or more at that time owing to personal circumstances at home. Don't assume Nanobear's characterizations are in any way a objective representative of events. I see no need to provide leeway for personal attacks. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Admins, while part of EEML alleged "web brigade" per the departed, I have absolutely nothing to do with the situation Nanobear alleges to bemoan in his attack. What is your suggestion regarding future WITCH! screaming rants by editors? If I'm a leper (part of a group of lepers) who can be assaulted with impunity while my (IMHO POV-pushing) detractors can file frivolous AEs against me if I so much as sneeze, also with impunity, I would like to understand the double standard of engagement regarding what does, and does not, constitute a personal attack. Obviously, basic civility is out the window, so I'd also like to know if I'm allowed to tell editors to F*CK OFF if I feel like it.

Being that I have not asked that Nanobear be blocked, it's very informative that even a word to Nanobear to exhibit politeness or offer a simply apology for having gotten carried away is not in order—so thank you for letting me know where I stand, meaning also, of course, that my inquiries above are merely rhetorical unless you'd like to chat on my talk page.

It would appear we are done here, so please feel free to archive. Best, PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Nanobear

Vecrumba, please, let them alone, Nadobear is Nanobear, what else would you expect from him? Very melodramatic, but nobody is going to believe that R. is seriously considering retirement. Just don't read his rants. Colchicum (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically must agree with Colchicum. Why even further relitigating the past, making this arbitration request here, complaining about user who didn't accused anyone personally, and whose general comments on the part of EEML are not very far from the past reality? I think that most editors involved in the EEML case and related discussions should be well aware how hard it is to heal the wounds of the past. This includes the EEML legacy as well. And it is quite understandable that certain events, such as the recent retirement of Russavia (in the very unpleasant circumstances), might lead to bad memories resurfacing. Just leave it and don't stir the conflict even more, please. GreyHood ^Talk 20:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should explain what this is all about. As a matter of fact, Russavia violated his interaction ban by reverting my edit here and commenting here. I asked him to self-revert [15], but he apparently decided that he will not. With regard to his comment to Igny, he probably also talked about this: [16],[17],[18], [19]. As someone involved, I have no suggestions if anything should be done about this. Biophys (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Vecrumba, the situation is highly unpleasant and non-benefitial for Wikipedia, and there is no need to make it even more so. I don't see your name in Nanobear's post, and given that the situation is rather special, you might have better just ignored it. GreyHood ^Talk 20:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Nanobear

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

I'm not seeing anything here that requires a warning or a sanction. Anyone else? NW (Talk) 06:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Closed. Perhaps taking user talk pages off watchlists would help cool tempers in areas of conflict. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Domer48

Filer and respondent placed under standard-terms Troubles probation for two and six months respectively.

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 Domer48

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Mabuska ^(talk) 12:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case

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

09:25, 25 September 2011 - Removed a clarification tag and reworded the sentence in a way that doesn't match what the source quote says
09:27, 25 September 2011 - Removed a section relevance tag from the article despite ongoing discussions over the relevance of the section despite themselves having failed to prove it so far at a DRN. Previously on 20th September they removed it as well whilst discussion was on-going.
07:24, 26 September 2011 - After i restored ([20]) the sentence to better match what the source quote states, re-added the clarification tag, and re-added the section relevance tag, Domer48 then removed them again despite them failing to prove relevance or clarification at the DRN and the fact the discussion is still on-going via RfC. They also at the same time reverted the rewording of the sentence so that it is now once again distorts what the source quote states.

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

Notice placed on page by mediator from the DRN.
By the very fact they have reported Shatter Resistence ([21]), Jonchapple three times ([22], [23] and [24]) and myself ([25]) within the past few months alone for allegations of breeching this 1RR means they know full well about this Enforcement, the sanctions involved, and its ramafications.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Whilst i know that this may be seen as a tit-for-tat in response to Domer48's recent filing of an Enforcement against me for alleged breeches of 1RR however Domer48 has unquestionably breeched it and has to be reported for it regardless of possible concerns of tit-for-tat.

The section and inline tags are fully justified whilst the issue is still being discussed. Once the issue has been resolved then they can be removed without question after whatever resolutions agreed are enacted. The reverting of the rewording of the sentence in question is also problematic as it distorts the source quote to imply something that it doesn't state.

Even though the DRN has now been closed, it was referred to by the closing mediator to WP:ORN, with the mediator's personal preference being a RfC, to which i have opened one at the articles talk page prior to the closure of the DRN discussion. So the issue hasn't been resolved and there is no justification for these reversions all of which have occured within 24 hours.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification to user: User_talk:Domer48#Arbitration_Enforcement_notification

Update - As of 13:11, 26 September Domer48 reverted their removal as a result of this request. As a sign of good faith and common sense i am willing to drop this request, however they still violated 1RR and i have no assurances that once the next 24 hour period passes that they won't remove the same things again outside of the 1RR restriction.

So its up to an administrator or a closing administrator to dictate whether or not any action should be taken as i do feel Domer48 will remove them again without the issue's discussion having been resolved beforehand. A sanction to not remove the tags until the issue is sorted and to prevent the rewording of that sentence unless its properly clarified i think might be all that is required. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Mo ainm - Mo ainm argues that Domer48 added clarification to the sentence with the clarification tag - that is incorrect as if anyone read the source quote provided, the "clarification" was not supported by the source quote and it equated to synthesis. The re-worded sentence better matches the quote from the source Domer48 provided himself and until the issue is resolved would be the best way for it to be. The only sanction i asked for was for the tags to be left in the article until the issue was resolved. Something simple and hardly restrictive for any editor whilst a dispute is on-going.

In response to Mkativerata - If you feel that that should be the case, then i won't complain, even though this request was simply about Domer48's removal of tags and his rewording of a sentence that doesn't match its source. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Domer48 #1 - This does not equate to addressing the issue of clarification as it is synthesis as it doesn't match the sources statement "of this institution of the". And by moving some of the information to another article doesn't suddenly make everything else in the section relevant to the article. If you wanted the tags removed you should of discussed it to see was there still any issues - in which there are. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Domer48 #2 and for admins

I have to agree to some degree with Domer48 on his edit-warring comment. The edit-warring if that is what it is (a very slow one at that), is simply the section relevance tag removal which he removed three times in the past fortnight, to which i restored, and the distorting of that opening sentence (along with the removal of the associated clarification tag). However the last reverts were self-reverted by Domer48. I only reported an instance of this 1RR violation and then stated i was willing to drop it out of good faith and common sense as Domer48 self-reverted it - as long as something was done to ensure the tags remain until the issue is resolved (as they should be).

Whilst Domer48 added a lot of irrelevant sourced information to the article, the vast majority of it they removed, to which i then (whilst restoring the tags Domer48 removed) removed a couple of irrelevant sentences they had left in the article whilst keeping the sentence that is causing the core problem in the article. So if there is edit-warring its only over those three things i reported in my request, and at that its not an edit-war that is moving at a fast or highly disruptive manner (no doubt due to 1RR).

If Mkativerata or any other admin still thinks a sanction is merited for edit-warring, may i suggest that myself and Domer48 be both placed on probation to not edit the article in question again until the discussion on it is marked as resolved by all involved. In the meantime i'd suggest those tags remain in the article whilst the issue is under discussion and once it has has been marked by all involved as resolved and the resolution enacted by an uninvolved party, they can then be removed. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to probation - I've no problems with the verdict passed by Mkativerata and have no objections to it, as i don't edit Troubles related articles too often anyways, and when i do, i tend to keep to the talk pages of them rather than edit-war. Mabuska ^(talk) 09:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Domer48

Statement by Domer48

Having been made aware of a second revert, I have self reverted keeping in line with Arb Resolutions. Thanks--Domer48_'fenian' 13:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Mkativerata: Dispute resolution was not in process. You do not open a RFC at 23:14, 25 September 2011, having just removed the information the request was for 21:37, 25 September 2011. As was pointed out above, I addressed the issue on the clarification tag the Volunteers were the "institution", and I addressed the issue on the text by moving the text the relevance of which was disputed to the appropriate article with these edits here, so the tag was removed. Now the filing editor described my actions (not in a nice way} as me backing down from their arguement and trying to compromise which is hardly the actions of an editor trying to be disruptive. SO my edits were not disruptive, and my self revert was definitely not so your suggestion is with substance.--Domer48_'fenian' 21:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Mkativerata: Could you please say were this "editing warring" was, because it was not in these edits, [26]added sources added source added sourced text [27]added source [28]replaced sourced text added sourced text and move text per WP:DRN [29]added source plus the edits I addressed above. It is not in WP:3RR or WP:1RR. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Domer48

First two diffs provided can be counted as one as no other editor made a edit between and when an editor makes an edit which clarifies the text then they remove the tag. So we have one edit that was self reverted. Also funny that Mabuska wants sanctions imposed for what he considers a breach of 1RR when it can be seen above in his own report that he breached 1RR with no apparent sanctions being imposed. Mo ainm~Talk 18:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Domer48

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

Why shouldn't sanctions be imposed in respect of both editors for engaging in an edit war on the article while dispute resolution was in process about the very issues to which the dispute resolution related? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution was open at DRN from 19 to 25 September. Edit warring continued throughout the whole of that period. It then continued despite the DRN being closed with a recommendation to pursue more formal dispute resolution options. I'll await suggestions from other uninvolved admins, noting that The Troubles' remedies would seem to only allow a 1RR per week probation. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring does not have to be fast or a breach of 1RR to be disruptive. Indeed, the most disruptive kind of edit-warring possible is edit-warring during dispute resolution. Slow edit warring can be more disruptive than fast edit warring. That is the case here. Edit warring continued even after the warning in the AE thread above to continue dispute resolution. Dispute resolution only works if the editors involved keep off the article at the same time and give the dispute resolution processes the necessary oxygen to work. The result is:

Mabuska is placed on a Troubles-wide probation for two months.
Domer48 is placed on a Troubles-wide probation for six months.

The difference in sanctions represents Domer48's significant past history with unsuccessful probations.

The terms of the probation are the standard terms: that each editor is limited to one revert per article per week with respect to all articles concerning The Troubles. Reversion of edits by anonymous IPs do not count as a revert. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Mkativerata's decision and comments. After both Domer48 and Mabuska were cautioned to disengage and follow dispute resolution they continued with disruptive and pointy behaviour. Mkativerata is right to impose sanctions on both accounts at this time--Cailil ^talk 11:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MarkBrowne1888

Sock. Blocked. T. Canens (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning MarkBrowne1888

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy 17:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: MarkBrowne1888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR Restriction

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

At Middle East Forum
1. 15:18, 26 September 2011 Revert of this, same edit as this (and a few other diffs)
2. 17:11, 26 September 2011 2nd revert
At Pallywood
1. 15:14, 26 September 2011 revert of this
2. 17:11, 26 September 2011 2nd revert

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

Unnecessary, the 1RR stipulates blocking may occur on the first violation.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

A fairly obvious sockpuppet has appeared to reginite a number of edit-wars that had taken place in the past. We have enough problems without this never ending stream of throw-away accounts coming in to start this same crap over an over. Barring an indef block for obvious sockpuppetry, one should be placed for the 1RR violations.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning MarkBrowne1888

Statement by MarkBrowne1888

These two bullies are just upset that someone else is editing their favourite articles. MarkBrowne1888 (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning MarkBrowne1888

Also edit-warring at Hulda, Israel:

1 16:10, 26 September 2011, partial revert of this

2 18:12, 26 September 2011 2nd revert

This is quite clearly another sock of Ledenierhomme, and should be blocked indefinitely. RolandR (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning MarkBrowne1888

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

This is clearly a violation of 1RR; responding to the complaint here with a violation of NPA is not an encouraging sign. Unfortunately, with a very few exceptions, I am possibly the worst admin at identifying socks on the 'pedia. I will wait for another admin to address that potential issue. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Confirmed as AFolkSingersBeard (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) by User:MuZemike. Blocked indef. T. Canens (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by AgadaUrbanit

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: AgadaUrbanit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive92#AgadaUrbanit, logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

Administrator imposing the sanction

AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
EdJohnston (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 AgadaUrbanit

Other discussions

Statement

I've been sanctioned for "clear failure to accept consensus based on a closed RfC". I've ~~striked~~ the offensive comment and would like to apologize for appearance of undermining the authority of uninvolved admin. I've requested clarifications on closing admin talk page and generally my intention was to include all WP:V names in order to satisfy WP:NPOV. I did accept the specific name ratified by the RfC.
Ed mentioned also POV tag placement, but I feel that policy concerns were articulated properly and this action was a proper procedure balancing WP:DGAF and neutrality concerns.
My first topic ban was three month long and spanned over a single article. The current topic ban is an escalation of sanction severity both in length ( from 3 to 6 months ) and topic area span ( from Gaza War to "any page that relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict" ). This might appear as overreaction and a bit harsh.
I am a constructive contributor both to other topics of Wikipedia and also relating to I/P topic. See following examples which stick in Jerusalem, respected by all partisan parties among article editors and assist to avoid endless POV cycles.
1. I've closed a long discussion on status of Jerusalem as Israeli capital, accepting uninvolved editor compromise phrasing "capital, though not internationally recognized"
2. I have removed Israel as Jerusalem infobox pushpin_map and used neutral Jerusalem map to avoid endless edit warring on Israel vs. Palestine as location.
I am here to create a neutral encyclopedia. I am not here for advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to comments

@ZScarpia Some topics in Wikipedia do look like a turf war. For the record the mentioned capital status compromise was suggested by User:BritishWatcher. Now I notice there is also a footnote, since I guess this is a subtle issue. In Troubles topic I was lucky to moderate a consensus under which the gallery of flags in Symbols section of Northern Ireland article was replaced with more aesthetic flax flower - floral symbol of NI, improving consistency with corresponding sections in other articles of Countries of the United Kingdom topic and improving style by avoiding "stack-ups", per MOS:IMAGE. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re 22:07, 29 September 2011 Thanks you for compliment, ZScarpia. Honestly I believe that you one of neutral editors in the I/P topic area who indeed are part of the solution and not part of the problem. Another example would be User:Sean.hoyland. I divert, but as far as UK goes, clarification in the introduction section that It is a country in its own right[10][11] makes me think that something is still rotten in that kingdom. Mediation is a complex task, I'm not always proud of results. Another example of my involvement is Stepanakert Airport/Talk:Stepanakert Airport, my involvement there stopped edit warring, thought imho that article is an example of WP:RECENTISM that still needs some work. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, as I said to User:AGK here: I've been editing unconstructivly. Considering WP:DGAF the better approach would be tag the article and move on with my life. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AGK

Statement by ZScarpia

For myself, I would have no objection to the appeal being accepted. I wish, though, that AgadaUrbanit had chosen something other than the status of Jerusalem as an example of constructive editing. If a statement which presents the Israeli view as a fact is supposed to be a compromise, I hate to think what the pre-compromise versions looked like. A look at the article talk page archives will show that the dispute about the wording rumbles on. Most recently, a poll was started, but not concluded. ← ZScarpia 17:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@AgadaUrbanit, 19:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC): I was impressed by the way you responded to the topic ban. Hopefully that can be made to count in your favour. Does this discussion represent your mediation of a solution to the Northern Ireland symbols problem? If so, perhaps the use of the word mediation is a bit of an exaggeration? I'm not familiar with BritishWatcher, but, speaking as someone from the UK, I'd say that, unless its a joke, his or her user page isn't very promising. ← ZScarpia 22:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by AgadaUrbanit

I'm willing to field this one if I can get some statements from the enforcing admins and a viewpoint from the original complainant. AgadaUrbanit, please ask them to comment here?--Tznkai (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by AgadaUrbanit

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