Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

‎Aaron Abera

Blocked (though not for 1RR) and alerted before I saw this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

} This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning ‎Aaron Abera

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: WarKosign (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: ‎Aaron Abera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA : 1RR violation

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

13 October Unexplained modification commented as "typo"
13 October Unexplained modification commented as "typo"
13 October Unexplained modification commented as "typo"

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There was no positive contribution from this account so far, only experimenting/POV pushing/vandalism

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

here

Discussion concerning ‎Aaron Abera

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by ‎Aaron Abera

Statement by (username)

Result concerning ‎Aaron Abera

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

Blocked for 31 hours (though not for 1RR) and alerted before I saw this. Next one is likely to be long-indef. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexyflemming

Not actionable because this topic area is not covered by discretionary sanctions. Sandstein 05:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Alexyflemming

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Dr.K. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Alexyflemming (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia#Final_decision :
Introduction

This account is an SPA who tries to find evidence of increased acceptance of Northern Cyprus in the areas of UN declarations, recognition by international organisations, university education and court decisions. They also use and create templates that promote the idea of Northern Cyprus as a separate entity from Cyprus and they eliminate any mention of Cyprus from the template. The account has a habit of using walls of text and write loud remarks on talkpages, including writing in bolded and sometimes underlined all capitals. They also use original research and synthesis to advance their POV.

Importing the recognition of Kosovo into Northern Cyprus and subtopics

Creating templates to push the POV that Northern Cyprus is independent just like Kosovo and eliminating Cyprus as the de-jure jurisdiction.
Edit-warring on templates he creates invoking Kosovo

diff1
diff2

Hijacking the talkpage with comparisons to Kosovo and POV-dumping

Template_talk:Northern_Cyprus-note#Kosovo_and_Northern_Cyprus

Doing the same at other talkpages

Please search for the term "Kosovo" at the talkpage of Talk:Northern_Cyprus
<ins>'''This is just completely very big lie of some fanatic Greek Cypriots:'''</ins> On Talk:Cyprus, despite the existence of tens of reliable sources supporting the eviction of Greek Cypriots from the North after the invasion.
POV-dump at Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus flooding the talkpage with synthesis and POV: - recognize the Greek Cypriots as the sole representator of Cyprus (a country founded in partnership of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots) if Greek Cypriots try to capture all of Cyprus and try to kill all Turkish Cypriots? Answer: Obviously No! UN SC has no right to remove a sovereignty of a people from the country that was founded in partnership with that people.

Using deceptive edit-summaries

"Based on consensus" Eliminating "Cyprus" and replacing it with "Northern Cyprus" based on non-existent "consensus".
"Syntax": Eliminating Category:Greek Cypriot villages depopulated during the 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus

Warnings by other users

"sneaky removal of Cyprus name" Warning by TU-nor
"deceptive edit summaries" Warning by TU-nor on 3 October.
"Removal of all links to Cyprus in a long range of articles" Warning by TU-nor

Plasters US Court decision to many articles even if irrelevant or UNDUE

Using the same edit-summary across all of them:
(United States Federal Court:"Greek Cypriots cannot claim that the government in control of Northern Cyprus gave their homes to Turkish Cypriots... TRNC purportedly operates as a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC with a president, prime minister, legislature and judicia)

Edit-wars on the same articles when reverted by other editors

Loud edit-summaries

diff

Admits that the US court decision is a "milestone" for him

diff

Personal attacks

he attacked me at Talk:Northern_Cyprus-note: You can deceive ordinary users, but I am a flemish Northern Cyprus expert!
Today he came to my talkpage to tell me: Armenians said billions of times "genocide" since 1915 just as Greek Cypriots say billions of times "invasion" since 1974 and I said One can bury his head in the sand like an ostrich till the hunter (truth) faces him.. Please, transmit my this message to GC fanatics (perhaps you may know some of them) along with USA Federal Court decision so that they can take their heads out of sands. - I think he thinks he is a hunter for the truth and he comes to my talk to track me down.

Edit-warring on templates

Blocked before for edit-warring on templates:

blocked

Created Cypriot articles using unilaterally the Turkish names

Created Cypriot articles using unilaterally the Turkish names with no reference to the historical name and created duplicate entries to pre-existing articles. The articles were converted to redirects to pre-existing Cypriot articles by a helpful IP:

Obtuse synthesis and original research

Trying to prove that Northern Cypriots and Greek Cypriots are separate people using the falsehood that in the past 500 years only five couples had a mixed marriage. Purpose: To advance the use of his template note which promotes his POV regarding the independence of Northern Cyprus and its separation from Cyprus.

diff1
diff2

Advertising, unreliable sources and copyright violations

He used advertising, copyvios and completely unencyclopedic language to promote Northern Cyprus tourism. The sources were from commercial websites promoting tourism, Vimeo videos and comments from anonymous people and they are unreliable.
Northern Cyprus is described with many marvellous feelings all around the world such as "the last untouched paradise in Mediterranean Sea",<ref>[vimeo.com/105877921 Vimeo]</ref> "among most memorable destinations",<ref>[http://www.premier-travel.co.uk/our_people/cambridge_sidney_street/rebecca_allen Premier Travel]</ref> "lovely",<ref>[http://njpphotography.co.uk/photoplus-trip/ njpphotography]</ref> "unspoilt, un-commercialised, peaceful and beautiful",<ref>[http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowUserReviews-g2137421-d3942374-r177283079-Amazing_Seaviews_Penthouse-Buyukkonuk_Famagusta_District.html Trip Advisor]</ref> "a natural wonder and a tranquil undiscovered part of Cyprus",<ref>[http://www.ramblersholidays.co.uk/page/lesser-known-northern-cyprus ramblersholidays]</ref> "unspoilt paradise",<ref>[http://northcyprusunspoilt.co.uk/ northcyprusunspoilt]</ref> "paradise island" <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yZtXO95YXA North Cyprus - Paradise Island]</ref> etc.

Adding advertising inserts as reliable sources for education

diff1

Does not accept warnings that they are adverts:

diff2

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months

ARBMAC warning

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Please see this SPI of Justice Forever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification of user

Discussion concerning Alexyflemming

I will not bother to address points 1-7 of Alexyflemming's so-called rebuttal, as too trivial. Parts 8. and 9. of AlexyFleming's points are exactly where the problem lies with his edits. Regarding point 8. he has forced me to gather many sources just to keep him from inserting his POV synthesis into the article to dilute the non-recognition of TRNC by the international community. Just check his massive walls of text on Talk:Northern Cyprus where he has dumped his loud and synthetic POV which has found no supporters to date. As far as point 9. it is just another misleading representation of my arguments during the past move discussion where I was referring to the commonname of Cyprus where the massive volume of WP:RS referred to Cyprus as "island nation". But Alexyflemming creates his own version of WP:RS in his own mind, while at the same time rejecting the massive number of sources that don't suit his nationalist POV. That's nothing new. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see AlexyFlemming has added points 10. and 11. Part 10. are just the usual personal attacks on which AlexyFlemming thrives. Nothing new here. Part 11. is another clumsy attempt to relive his failed move arguments of Turkish invasion of Cyprus. It is useless to respond further. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Part 12. is another great show on Alexyflemmings immense POV. He disregards the great volume of RS to concentrate on a few UN papers. Part 13. The usual clumsy attempts at shifting blame. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Heimstern: Thank you Heimstern, but prior to making this report I asked EdJohnston and he indicated it should be ok. Ed has also warned GiorgosY under ARBMAC regarding Northern Cyprus. Also this user tries to use Kosovo as a lever to push his POV into this area, and Kosovo is covered under ARBMAC. On the other hand, the link you pointed to is significant and for sure this matter should be resolved amongst the AE admins. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alexyflemming

I know Dr.K. for a long time (I am a wikipedian since 2010). He and me were, are, (perhaps will be) many times discussed various Cyprus dispute-related articles including Northern Cyprus. His stance and my stance to the coverings are generally different. I stick to neutralism which WP dictates. I observed that he is very, very, very biased towards Turks, especially towards Turkish Cypriots. As a flemish, I have no prejudice towards Turks.
1a. Dr.K. tried to block me for the first time in 2014 January and his baseless claims were all rejected.

1b. Dr.K. tried to block me infinitely many times. I forgotten its number! (The content of the diff of this link is below; see the obsession.)

Dr. K.'s Infinite Efforts to Block Me Never Stopped:

You continuously and insistingly accuse me to be sockpuppettry of some other man.}}

Dr. K., you say "Nobody agrees with you". To become modest and humble in this world is not a bad thing, is it?. Are you everybody? You seem to see yourself as everybody.
Proof: See this page above: I am talking with T*U, and saying him "...You seem to miss this point...". You (Dr. K.) reply "...He is not missing any point...". You put yourself to the T*U's place. Are you T*U? Don't T*U have any mind and thought to reply me? Perhaps, T*U may disprove my thoughts and arguments better than you. If you put yourself to the place of everybody in Wiki world, then definitely your "Nobody agrees with you" makes sense!

Then, against your non-stopping and countless accusations, I even feared that someone else may block me without my disproving your claims. Fortunately, some Wikipedians acting with common sense and prudence, allowed me enough time to reply your millions of accusations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592735526

I replied to your countless accusations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592766108
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592771272
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592772379
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592773832

After my above defence, you continued to attack me with your new claims:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592780998

Against your new further accusations, I defended myself (look the edit summary: Further accusations and further proofs):
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592796962

Wikipedia authorities analyzed both your accusations and my defence. And, your claims found to be inconvincing. The case was closed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592803341

I hoped you would stop your sockpuppetrry accusations towards me; I hoped you stop insults to me. You continued to your accusations whereever you find: here are the places you accused me: User talk:Lfdder, Talk:Population_exchange_between_Greek_and_Turkish_Cypriots

These are your edits in User talk:Lfdder:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lfdder&diff=594339462&oldid=594339422
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lfdder&diff=prev&oldid=594339249
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lfdder&diff=prev&oldid=594335726
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lfdder&diff=prev&oldid=594280016

These are your edits in Talk:Population_exchange_between_Greek_and_Turkish_Cypriots:
"As far as the invasion being legal that's what multiple socks of Justice Forever kept saying" :
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Population_exchange_between_Greek_and_Turkish_Cypriots&diff=594443187&oldid=594422649 ).

"This is the usual MO of this user. Constant arguments which defy various Wikipedia policies including WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and in this case WP:COMMONNAME. Remarkably, the arguments used, reflect faithfully the historical arguments of Justice Forever and his many socks. It is getting disruptive":
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Population_exchange_between_Greek_and_Turkish_Cypriots&diff=594533973&oldid=594531437

I kindly alerted you that the place of sockpuppetrry accusations are not the Talk pages of articles or Talk pages of other Wikipedians. I alerted you to make such accusations in:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alexyflemming
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever

Furthermore, I think most importantly of all, you are building and collecting "proofs" (in quotation!) from various places and various arguements to use against me in directing me a new sockpuppettry accusation. You even highlight them with different color and text style like (I collected your embellished text from various places):
shows sharp and constant decline in 1979 when Greece's highest court qualified the 1974 event as "legal" and "intervention".
To justify yourself in your difficult edits about Cyprus/Northern Cyprus issue, you are almost always referring to the opposers of your edits by accusing all of them to be a sockpuppettry of justice forever. Strange coincidence, isn't it?
By counter thinking, Lfdder, Chipmunkdavis, you (Dr.K.) seem to defend the similar arguments. Though I did not check your IPs, I do not think you are all the same people.

What does all of these efforts, countless accusations, insults show? OBSESSION! OBSESSION!

(By the way, since my academic career, I had a break in my Wikipedia during 2011-2013; defending towards your numerous accusations and insults, I remembered and learnt Wikipedia syntax a little further. Though there are myriad things I have to learn: you are accusing me WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:COMMONNAME-violations. You enlighten me what I should deeply learn next!)Alexyflemming (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. Instead of using the Talk Pages of the Wiki articles, Dr.K. polluted my personnel user page frequently. I warned him many times.
3. Dr.K. deleted my replies to other Wiki users (i.e. has seen WP as his playground)! Also, Dr.K.'s tone of language towards me very bad. Dr.K. said "silly" for me! Even though this, I protected my common sense, and did not use any offensive language towards him (Language reflects people!).. I think Wikipedians should not address other Wikipedians with such ugly words.
4. Single Purpose Account (SPA): I have edits about Syria, Ukraine, Crimea, etc. On the other hand, I am an NC expert. And, it is normal that my edits are mainly on NC. It is not bad people writes on topics they know well!

5. "try to find evidence of increased acceptance of Northern Cyprus in the areas of UN declarations, recognition by international organisations, university education and court decisions.": When a development (a new membership to an international organization, a new university, a new court decision) appears on NC, I edit them in WP. Writing every new development about NC cannot be qualified as "trying to find evidence of increased acceptance of Northern Cyprus". If so, let's stop adding any new item to WP articles.

For example, newly that decision appeared:

United States Federal Court (09.Oct.2014): "..Greek Cypriots cannot claim that the government in control of Northern Cyprus gave their homes to Turkish Cypriots....Although the United States does not recognize it as a state, the TRNC purportedly operates as a democratic republic with a president, prime minister, legislature and judiciary...TRNC is not vulnerable to a lawsuit in Washington". Source.

Dr.K. removed this development from WP immediately!
6. To promote the idea of Northern Cyprus as a separate entity from Cyprus: Northern Cyprus is a definitely separate entity from Cyprus; recognition is another issue.
7. they eliminate any mention of Cyprus from the template.: Nope, in the templates, I mention Cyprus' sovereignty claim over Northern Cyprus. I stick to WP neutrality stance. See how I formed an example template.. For the newly created some Wiki articles on NC, I do not know their Greek names, and Greek users may add relevant information.
8. Dr.K. tries to impose his stance. See the beginning of NC article: "....international community as part of the Republic of Cyprus.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]...". Be sure that, in order to impose his stance, Dr. K. may put 100 reference here! When I offer "United Nations" instead of "international community", he immediately objected because he desires the Cyprus Dispute to be handled from "Greek Cypriot point of view instead of neutral point of view!" Look also: "...is heavily dependent on Turkey for economic, political and military support.[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]". When I ask how a country of 300.000 population that takes 65.000 (17.000 of which non-Turkey and from 114 countries) international university students and that takes more than annual 1.000.000 tourists and that has its own dollar billionars be heavily dependent on Turkey, he replies WP:TRUTH: "verifiability, not truth". When I say I have sources hence both verifiable and truth, he again rejects. i.e. He adds sources truthness of which even he does not believe!
9. Dr.K. distorts history and facts to impose and justify his stance. He qualifies Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots that have nothing in common for 500 years including race, religion, language, etc. (and that conflicted with each other continuously) as "island nation".
10. Dr.K. never stops! Observe I cannot catch his speed. Just after he made an arbitration request against me, he made 7 edits to this page, whereas I made 6! Too obsessive! Very very obsessive! Even disregards the minimal respect to other Wikipedians, including me. In law, one must direct all the accusations at once. Once the accusations are directed, nothing can be added it; because otherwise it turns claims, disproofs, new claims, new disproofs, ...infinite loop. There is an exception to this: If new claim is really so important that has the character to change the Court decision.
11. Please read the following discussion between Dr.K. and me (keeping in mind "island nation" of Dr.K.) when I made the moving offer: "Turkish invasion of Cyprus"..."1974 Cyprus war"

...misleading because it hides the name of the principal initiator of that war, which is Turkey, and the nature of the war which was an invasion. Such transparent attempt to hide these facts is non-neutral POV. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it hides the name of the PRINCIPAL INITIATOR of that war, which is Turkey !!?. Look at what you wrote a couple of lines below: Britannica: In July 1974 the Greek Cypriot National Guard, whose officers were mainland Greeks, atempted a coup, planned by the ruling military junta in Athens, to achieve enosis.. Hence, you disprove yourself your "hiding principal initiator" arguement. Notice that, almost whatever is handled in Cyprus dispute, there is some degree of bias just as your new "principal initiator" arguement. It should be Wikipedia's neutrality aim to be free from this conflict of interests. Also, 15.07.1974, Coup and declaration of "Hellenic Republic of Cyprus", 19.07.1974, Makarios' speech at UN SG: "Cyprus invaded by Greece", 20.07.1974, Turkey's meddling. Are 15.07.1974 and 19.07.1974 not preceding 20.07.1974? Are "coup", "Declaration of Hellenic Republic of Cyprus", "Enosis (union with Greece)", "Makarios(1st President of Cyprus, in UN SC meeting): "Cyprus was invaded by Greece"" not initiator for a war? Alexyflemming (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

12. Dr.K. strongly opposes the usage of neutral covering of United Nations in Cyprus related topics:

United Nations' Official WebsiteUNFICYP Mandate: "...Following the hostilities of 1974, ..."

United Nations' Official WebsiteUNFICYP Background: "Since the events of 1974, ..."

13. It is written in this page that: 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.. I demand Wiki admins to take care this important criterion and get necessary action towards Dr.K..

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Alexyflemming

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

The Arbitration Committee, in their infinite wisdom, determined that Cyprus does not fall under these discretionary sanctions. So unless I've missed something, this case is not currently actionable. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Cyprus is not part of the Balkans and therefore not covered by the WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions. Closing as not actionable. Sandstein 05:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andyvphil

Not actionable. Sandstein 23:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Andyvphil

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Viriditas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Andyvphil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: BLP discretionary sanctions :

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

17 October 2014 Restored negative material about Neil deGrasse Tyson after being warned; against consensus
10 October 2014 Restored negative material about Neil deGrasse Tyson against consensus
9 October 2014 Added negative material about Neil deGrasse Tyson not reflected in the source

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

3 October 2014 Recently blocked for disruption on The Federalist (website) (contribs) which is directly connected to the current dispute linked above on Neil deGrasse Tyson
2007-2008 Blocked once for edit warring on Norman Finkelstein BLP and twice for edit warring on Barack Obama BLP

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

User was twice notified of applicable sanctions a week before latest revert:

10 October notice
11 October notice

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: I request a topic ban for Andyvphil on all articles related to Neil deGrasse Tyson. User was previously blocked in this same topic area by TParis on 3 October 2014 for disrupting The Federalist (website), which is also under BLP discretionary sanctions. Therefore, this is the second major incident in the same topic area in less than two weeks, and just over a week after being twice notified of the sanctions.

@Sandstein: The policies on including BLP material point to consensus as the determining factor for inclusion. In the case that decided on BLP discretionary sanctions, arbcom wrote: "In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached."[1]. It is clear from this report that Andyvphil violated this rule of thumb on three separate occasions and continued a dispute in the same BLP topic area from which he was blocked just several weeks ago, disruption that also involved adding controversial BLP material without finding consensus for inclusion. Therefore, two separate violations involving the same BLP topic where Andyvphil attempted to add controversial BLP material in violation of best practices stipulated by our policies and arbcom itself on this very matter. Viriditas (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: As the diffs and discussion show, Andyvphil, in three separate instances, claimed Tyson “washed out” of his PhD program. The sources do not say this. This is part of a larger pattern of controversial BLP edits made by Andyvphil against consensus that began earlier at the federalist website article, for which he was also recently blocked. This arbcom enforcement request was filed to stop the bad behavior. I should also like to note that this request has failed to mitigate the poor behavior. Since this report was filed, Andyvphil has decided to turn the dial to 11, and he is now claiming in discussion, without the slightest bit of evidence "that it's virtually certain that Tyson got special consideration on account of his race". Again, I request an immediate topic ban to put a stop to this. Viriditas (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: BLP was not invoked as a first resort. The material was edited and removed more than three times by multiple editors, and as the diffs indicate above, Andyvphil added it back in three times against the arbcom recommendation "that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached." This was not a simple "editorial decision" by Andyvphil, this was a systematic campaign by Andyvphil on two different articles over two weeks adding negative material about Tyson contrary to the sources. Furthermore, talk page consensus has been against using the terms "washed out" or "flunking". It's especially important to note that Andyvphil's campaign against Tyson has not abated but has gotten worse, with him now claiming that Tyson got special treatment because of his race, even though there isn't a single reliable source that has made that claim. It looks like Andyvphil's latest comments on the Tyson talk page were deleted as a BLP violation,[2] so the problem has only gotten worse since this report was filed. Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: there has never been any consensus for using the terms "washed out" nor "flunked". I suggest you see the talk page discussion where consensus has determined that both terms are inappropriate for Wikipedia. This is not a content dispute. This is a systematic pattern of disruption and BLP violations by Andyvphil against Neil deGrasse Tyson on both his biography article and on The Federalist website article for which he was recently blocked. HJ Mitchell, were Andy's latest deleted comments on the talk page, BLP violations?[3] Is this a serious matter? Viriditas (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell and Sandstein: It is just come to my attention that Andyvphil's editing against consensus on the Tyson topic have occurred on three separate articles, not two. The first two, Thefederalist.com and Neil deGrasse Tyson have already been mentioned above. However, I neglected to mention List of Wikipedia controversies, where Andyvphil attempted to add material accusing Tyson of "fabricating quotes" against the consensus of the community.[4] Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: I have provided evidence of Andyvphil disrupting Thefederalist.com in regards to controversial BLP material that portrayed Tyson in a negative light; Andyvphil was subsequently blocked for that behavior. I have provided evidence of Andyvphil adding negative material about Tyson to his own biography against consensus. I have provided evidence of Andyvphil adding negative material about Tyson to List of Wikipedia controversies against consensus, where he accused him of being a pathological liar. I have also provided evidence of Andyvphil claiming that "that it's virtually certain that Tyson got special consideration on account of his race". Similar comments were deleted from the talk page as a BLP violation. HJ Mitchell, what additional evidence would you like to see of this "campaign" by Andyvphil to convince you that it is a direct violation of the BLP discretionary sanctions? We have three articles where Andyvphil tried to add negative info about a BLP against consensus and deleted talk page commentary removed as a BLP violation. Is it your opinion that a topic ban is not called for here and that Andyvphil should be allowed to continue his negative campaign against Tyson and against consensus? Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Andyvphil

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by uninvolved Lithistman

It should be noted that the main area of "dispute" with the material Andyvphil restored was with the phrase "washed out" regarding Dr. Tyson's time at UT. The source itself says he was "essentially flunked out" or something to that effect. Other than that one phrase, the material actually reflects the source quite well, and I would contend that "washed out" might actually be perceived as not any less kind than the way the source puts it, and accurately reflects what happened. Dr. Tyson himself notes, in the article serving as a source, that he's not particularly proud of the effort he put forth at UT. With all that said, given the context, I don't feel a topic ban is an appropriate course of action in this case. LHM^{ask me a question} 04:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Andyvphil

I'm not sure what to make of Arzel's evenhanded suggestion that if I am sanctioned for incivility, Verditas be as well. As far as I know this notice was triggered solely by a main page edit, my first of any kind in a couple days, I believe. But, we can do better than that link for Verditas. Somewhere on the Tyson talk page is Verditas' comment that I would fit right in with the "climate change deniers" and other neo-Nazis (the whiff of "Holocaust Denial" is of course intentional) of his fervid imagination. Then we've got Objective300's denunciation of this edit as, iirc, "the most disgusting ever" and Gamalael's dismissal of it as "bullshit". When it comes to civility I don't think they're standing on the high ground. ...and then there's Gamalael's simple falsehood (on one or two of his reverts) that the replaced text better reflected the source, which is absurd. As I pointed out at the very beginning of the discussion of this passage on the talk page the version which has been repeatedly reverted to claims there was a "vote" to dissolve Tyson's dissertation committee, which "vote" appears nowhere in the source. None of the editors who are unwilling to reveal in his biography that Tyson washed out of the UTA PhD program have bothered to attempt to fix even that. They just revert my attempt, which a number of editors have now remarked closely matches the cited text. And there no doubt that Tyson washed out, a better description of what happened than the source's "essentially flunked" (he got his Masters, he didn't really flunk), but when Objective300 first reverted I asked in the edit comments if he would prefer "essentially flunked", to no reply except that bit about "disgusting". If I can be topic blocked for this, there's no hope for this process. Andyvphil (talk) 06:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The amended complaint doesn't appear to address admin Sandstein's grounds for rejecting this block. In particular no explanation is given as to "which specific assertions in the edits are thought not to match which source". I'm just faithfully following the cite, a source that was already used in the article long before I ever edited it, just no longer failing to reveal a significant element in what it says. Andyvphil (talk) 08:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will further note that in the cite Tyson is quoted as saying that if he had been in his professors' position he, too, might well have agreed to "kick out" Neil deGrasse Tyson. Of "kicked out", "flunked out" or "washed out" the last is really the most accurate and requires the least explanation. Probably least "negative", as well. The idea that there could be a good-faith assertion, on the part of very experienced ~~POV Warriors~~ 'editors very familiar with this material, that mentioning it is a BLP violation, is, given Tyson's own words, completely absurd. Andyvphil (talk) 08:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gamaliel

Andyvphil has been belligerent and uncivil with other editors and uses the talk page to post lengthy harangues about other editors, the subject of the article, and his thoughts on Wikipedia policies. This is why we can't have nice things. Gamaliel (talk) 04:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Arzel

LHM has stated it well. The statement certainly was not a violation of BLP as it reflects the source quite well. One could find fault with his wording, but as LHM stated, it is not effectively different than what the actual source stated, and was directly related to the statement about the dissolution of NdGT's PhD's thesis committee. As for Andyvphil's claimed lack of civility. Viriditas has not been a shining example of civility either. If Andyvphil is sanctioned for civility, Viriditas should be as well. Arzel (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Obsidi

I believe the source said "essentially flunked out", which "washed out" is close enough that it had the same essential meaning without any additional negative connotation to it. As such I do not believe it violates WP:BLP. --Obsidi (talk ) 05:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This request for enforcement was brought about to request enforcement of BLP discretionary sanctions. As such I ask that we bring any complaints of incivility to the appropriate forum at WP:ANI.

As Viriditas has edited the complaint I wish to respond. It is my belief that WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE is being used to WP:Gaming the system. Basically what is happening is that editors are having content disputes. Instead of going through the normal WP:BRD process, they wish to skip all that. They revert and claim that there are WP:BLP problems, when others disagree they assert WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE and say there is not consensus as they still disagree. In so doing they keep the content out of the article and then WP:FILIBUSTER as long as they can. Now for poorly sourced or no sourced content WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE is there to prevent potentially libelous statements from remaining on Wikipedia while the editors debate on the quality of the sources. It is not there to win content disputes on properly sourced material, and I believe that is what is happening. --Obsidi (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and the WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE requires "good-faith BLP objections", not just any BLP objections. Given the tiny difference between "washed out" and "essentially flunked out" in context, it is my belief that Andyvphil did not believe this to be a "good-faith BLP objection" and as such was not bound by WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. --Obsidi (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies

HJ Mitchell et al., I do not agree that "flunking him" and "washed out" are the same thing at all. "Flunking" doesn't need much explanation, but "washed out" denotes "remove the dirt" (OED, first entry for "washed out") and thus, figuratively, carries a moral connotation to it that in the context gives one reason to pause. In addition, I've been considering blocking Andyvphil for some other suggestive language on the same topic--"It is of course virtually certain that Tyson got special consideration on account of his race (and maybe political connections)" (on the article talk page) and "it's virtually certain that Tyson got special consideration on account of his race" (on his own talk page). This is the kind of thing you can listen to on right-wing talk radio, but Wikipedia should not have statements of this kind anywhere in its space: the suggestion that the country's best-known astrophysicist was washed out like a piece of dirt from Texas and then accepted at Columbia only because he was black. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Andyvphil

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

The complaint is not clear enough to be actionable. It does not explain how exactly the edits at issue are believed to violate WP:BLP, that, is, for example, which specific assertions in the edits are thought not to match which source. "Against consensus" has nothing to do with WP:BLP. I would take no action on this complaint as it is presented here. Sandstein 05:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The comment by Viriditas of 07:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC) does not make clear, either, which specific negative statement in the article is being contested as untrue, unsourced or unreliably sourced, or as not conforming to a cited source. If no admin objects, I'll close this without action. Sandstein 09:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to me to be yet another absurd interpretation of BLP, and an example of editors invoking BLP as a first resort in a content dispute rather than just editing the contentious material or starting a discussion. The ousrce actually says "After Tyson finished his master’s thesis, his advisors dissolved his dissertation committee—essentially flunking him. “I still don’t talk about it much,” he says, “because it was a failed experiment, and I’ve moved on from that chapter of my life.” “With or without skin color, I wasn’t the model student,” he adds." And that's an interview with the subject! Personally, I wouldn't use terms like "flunked" or "washed out", but that's an editorial decision, not a BLP issue. I suggest closure with no action, except perhaps a reminder to all parties not to rely on BLP exemptions a a first resort. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Viriditas: From what I can see, the material was in keeping with the source—the subject himself says he failed his PhD. You're arguing over the difference between "flunked" (source) and "washed out" (Andyvphil). That's an editorial matter not a BLP issue. Editing against consensus, again, does not make it a BLP issue, though would be considered an aggravating factor at ANI/ANEW. Accusing another editor f conducting a campaign against a BLP subject is a very serious matter, and I've seen nothing in this complaint that comes close to proving that. Adding negative (sourced) information, and even edit-warring to restore it and advocating its restoration on the talk page is not—in and of itself—evidence of a campaign. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm still confused—why is this at AE and not ANI? Viriditas, first, to answer your question, the edit that was Revdel'd was mostly a legitimate comment about content and sourcing, but contained one remark that amounted to personal commentary on the subject. It wasn't libellous, but it was off-topic and unnecessary. I see evidence of edit-warring and going against consensus, but those things don't violate BLP. I see no evidence that this is part of a campaign (which implies some sort of ulterior motive and a deliberate attempt to defame or discredit the subject) other than your word. I'm not saying that Andyvphil's conduct has been acceptable, nor that I'm unwilling to be convinced, but that I don't see a BLP violation. Violating the edit-warring policy on a an article about a living person, for example, is not a BLP violation in its own right. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree that the difference between "flunked" and "washed out", if any, isn't a matter for AE, and neither is, in the context of the remedies invoked here, regular edit-warring or "editing against consensus". Closed as not actionable (but any admin should feel free to reopen if they believe that more discussion is required). Sandstein 23:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wlglunight93

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Wlglunight93

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Wlglunight93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA : 1RR violation

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

07:17, 19 October 2014‎ Edit summary: "Undid revision 628418226 by 183.171.175.71"
07:36, 19 October 2014‎ Edit summary: "Undid revision 630205026 by Dr. R.R. Pickles"
05:23, 19 October 2014 Edit summary: "Undid revision 630195365 by 150.203.246.127"
07:33, 19 October 2014‎ Edit summary: "Undid revision 630204742 by Dr. R.R. Pickles"
03:03, 18 October 2014 Reversion of this edit by Nomoskedasticity
03:11, 19 October 2014‎ Repeated reversion (after 24 hours and 8 minutes)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

14:44, 6 October 2014 48 hour block for breach of 1RR
15:39, 10 October 2014 One week block for breach of 1RR

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Fresh back from a second block for repeated edit-warring in the topic area, this editor has returned immediately to the same behaviour, reverting scores of edits by many editors on many articles, including those on which their previous edits led to sanctions.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Wlglunight93

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Wlglunight93

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Wlglunight93

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

Reverts of IPs are exempt from the 1RR, so there's no violation on Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades or Palestine Liberation Organization, but the two edits to Oslo Accords are both reverts of Nomoskedasticity, and of content Wlglunight knew to be disputed, and thus do constitute a 1RR violation, his fourth(!) in about three weeks. I've blocked him for a month. There was no support for a topic ban last time; I wonder if that's changed now that we're up to four obvious 1RR violations, the most recent of which have come almost immediately after the expiry of a block for the same. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:18, 19 October 2014 (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