Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Jytdog

Jytdog was indef blocked after an Arbitration motion. This makes the AE moot. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:27, 5 December 2018 (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 Jytdog

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Gwern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Jytdog (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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Jytdog_topic_banned

Jytdog violating GMO topic ban and harassing users

First, User:Jytdog was, other incidents, topic banned in December 2015 by Arbcom:

"Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted."

This lifetime ban appears to stand since I can find no information on the Arbcom page about an appeal or it being lifted.

Since then, he has repeatedly deleted content from He Jiankui, AfDed 'designer baby', edited Assisted reproductive technology/Mitochondrial replacement therapy/Human germline engineering/Gene therapy/Synthetic lethality/CRISPR/genetic engineering/Lulu and Nana - and that's in just the past week! (I have not tried to review all 3 years, but I suspect he has edited many other off-limits articles.) Diffs:

These are clearly GMO-related articles, narrowly interpreted; for example, the FDA has regulatory power over human gene therapy and germline engineering (such as He Jiankui's CRISPR babies) precisely because the results are legally defined as GMOs, and the main application of CRISPR currently is making agricultural GMOs. 'Broadly interpreted', they are even more clearly GMO-related. In addition, someone who has earned a lifetime topic ban should go above and beyond in avoiding the behavior that resulted in the Arbcom case and strive to avoid even the appearance of an impropriety.

Jytdog's response was to deflect and redefine his topic ban as narrowly as possible, double down on his behavior, and dare me to take it here:

"Please play the ball, not the man. My TBAN is on ag biotech, not this sort of thing...The locus of the case was ag biotech. I have been regularly editing human gene therapy and related topics and you are the first person to make drama over this. In any case, WP:AE is thataway. What you are doing here, is really inappropriate. I won't be responding to you further."

Second, Jytdog has engaged in unacceptable harassing behavior.

Jytdog and I have never interacted before and have no history, but when I criticized the justifications he made in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Designer baby (2nd nomination) of designer babies being 'sci fi' which don't exist and so not worthy of an article (pointing out the existence not just of He Jiankui's CRISPR babies but a long history of selection on optional traits, ongoing contemporary applied & research projects, and many imminent technologies widely expected in the future, all of which he appears to be ignorant of), his response was to look at my contributions and AfD not one but two of my articles, which I have worked on for years, on the grounds that they are too good for WP. His response?

"I am sorry you feel that it is hostile."

This is an unacceptable way to respond to criticism, and it is especially unacceptable as it is done while flagrantly breaking a lifetime topic ban.

Jytdog has announced his retirement (after apparently yet another, unrelated to this case, instance of poor judgment), but I feel his past behavior still deserves some scrutiny. --Gwern (contribs) 17:17 4 December 2018 (GMT)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [1]

Discussion concerning Jytdog

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 Jytdog

Statement by Doc James

Human cases of genetic modification I would view separately from the GMO topic. But at this point it is really mute. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, human GMOs are GMOs in every way, legally, biologically, and practically, there's no way to claim that the CRISPR article is human-only which is a 100% clearcut violation of his topic ban, and even if they were not, Arbcom specifically said to interpret it broadly. It is not a moot point because the decision has not been made & is still being discussed, the proposed remedy allows him to come back at some point, and it would not condemn his bad behavior in this case. --Gwern (contribs) 17:55 4 December 2018 (GMT)

No not legally. Different laws apply to humans. Also culturally very different. One does not say vet med and medicine are the same profession. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Excelse

Just noting that I have no dog in this dispute and only came here to fix the report which was filed in a malformed manner. Excelse (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingofaces43

CRISPR, gene editing, etc. generally do not fall under the classification of GMO. That topic area is reserved for insertion of genes like transgenesis, not editing. GMO can be a nebulous term for those not familiar with its use, but that's in part why gene editing is preferred nomenclature in this particular topic. The ArbCom case was pretty clear on making the DS and sanctions fall within agricultural related topics if you dig into the arb discussions. Either way, I recall this coming up before and the topic not being a problem at all in terms of the GMO santcions, though I'd have to dig for the specific AE or ANI where it came up later on if this doesn't get withdrawn.

As Doc James said, it's pretty moot at this point. Considering the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior Gwern has exhibited in the mentioned AfDs and talk pages. (inability to WP:FOC, sniping at editors on content discussion pages, etc.) this does look like a tendentious filing where they'd be risking a boomerang for pursuing battleground behavior. It's probably better and more expedient if this was withdrawn at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Just a brief statement to say that I agree that "GMO" as commonly understood does not cover CRISPR, so the diffs provided were not violations of Jytdog's topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aircorn

While likely moot I would just like to say that the topic ban was broadly construed and that would cover CRISPR, gene therapy and gene editing. He should not have been editing in this topic area if he was still banned. AIRcorn (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Jytdog

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

As filed, the request is not actionable because it does not contain diffs. Additionally, Jytdog wrote on their user page: "I am scrambling my WP password and deleting my gmail account and "Jytdog" will cease to do anything, anywhere. If you see any other Jytdog doing stuff in the future, anywhere, it is not me. (And no, I will be not be coming back here as a sock.) I urge Arbcom to do just do a motion and indef or site ban me." In view of this, I am of the view that this request should be closed without action, but that it may be refiled (properly, with diffs) should Jytdog nonetheless return to editing Wikipedia. Sandstein 18:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for adding the diffs. Nonetheless, at WP:RFAR, a motion effectively banning Jytdog is about to pass, which is why I am still of the view that this is likely moot. Sandstein 18:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by SonofSetanta

Appeal declined.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 14:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, 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: SonofSetanta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed: diff

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

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

Statement by SonofSetanta

I would like to appeal for the removal of an ArbCom decision some years ago to ban me from editing articles related to the Northern Ireland Troubles as a result of violation of Wikipedia guidelines on editing such articles. I have no particular motive for making my request at this time. I've noted that a number of more level headed and well informed editors have improved articles I worked on and believe that Wikipedia has taken appropriate action to moderate the behaviours of some whose idea of balance I took issue with.

There will be no mass editing by me as a result of a successful appeal. My history will show I have continued to assist in the improvement of Wikipedia on a small scale in the intervening time but have distanced myself from anything controversial.

I put it to you that I am a valuable editor who just didn't have the common sense to know when to stop over certain matters. Experience has begotten a wisdom I didn't have when I joined Wikipedia and age has calmed me down.

SonofSetanta (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Sandstein

Thank you for the opportunity and thank you for taking the trouble to set my appeal out for me. I was unaware you were the banning party.

I have no plans to edit anything at the moment, Troubles related or otherwise. Wikipedia was a very big part of my life for a long time and I believe I became obsessed. Since the ban I have largely confined myself to improving articles when I have noticed inaccuracies, spelling mistakes, missing citations etc. My intention would be to continue this policy. The biggest bone of contention for me was the Ulster Defence Regiment article. I joined Wikipedia specifically to improve it and remove what I perceived as bias; partly because of my specialist knowledge of the subject. I was unprepared for the reaction I got and I hadn't developed the skills and patience to deal with what transpired. I believe I have those qualities now, at least to a much greater extent than back then. That article is now pretty well balanced and I rarely look at it although I do refer others to it.

I note comments from interested parties below and am pleased to address those concerns: My previous identities are declared on my home page and have been for several years; a reflection on my improving attitude towards the wiki I would suggest. My major interests are military history and Irish history but I have a third level education (an HND in keyboard technology and a degree in history) and am knowledgeable on a wide range of subjects as my posting history shows.

I believe it is necessary to point out the difficulties surrounding editing Troubles articles when I joined and in many subsequent years. Although I have done no serious research on the subject prior to submitting my appeal what I have seen leads me to believe that the situation is calmer now as a result of various adjudications.

I should also bring to the attention of interested parties the difficulties I had concerning copyright of images. I did feel aggrieved as I felt there were no concerns about anything uploaded by me. Initially I searched through my own photographic collection and provided fresh scans and negative images to Wikipedia proving my ownership of the files. After a short time however I became disillusioned and stopped responding. I don't believe I have uploaded an image since then.

In a final statement I believe it is my behaviour over the last 5 years+ which merits the lifting of the ban. I pulled back and didn't make any further fuss.

I'd like to thank everyone involved for giving me the time of day, regardless of the outcome.

SonofSetanta (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

Note that I have reformatted this originally very malformed appeal, but it will still be closed shortly if the missing information (including a link to the sanction being appealed) and notification diff is not provided. Sandstein 20:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from the results section, Sandstein 07:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the above here because I initially didn't recognize that this was an appeal against a sanction by me.

Since the ban in August of 2013, SonofSetanta has made relatively few edits. I invite them to describe the edits they intend to make in the Troubles topic area if the topic ban is lifted. Sandstein 07:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My views on lifting the ban are similar to those of Salvio giuliano below. In the end, I still recommend not lifting the ban at this time until we see some more competent, conflict-free editing in other topic areas. In particular, the startling lack of technical competence exhibited by SonofSetanta in making this appeal (check their recent contributions) indicates that they are probably better suited to editing in topic areas that are not particularly challenging to work in. Sandstein 09:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Andy Dingley

Support You seem to have run afoul of Werieth (talk · contribs). I see that as no slight on any editor here, so I would support the removal of your restrictions. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by SonofSetanta

I've added the diff to what I believe is the original AE thread placing the TBAN. As Sandstein appears to have been the placing admin and has already commented here, I'm declining to notify them again. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no particular opinion on whether removing the topic ban will be beneficial to Wikipedia, but I'd point out that for a few years after the TB, they were fairly active, but that's not been the case more recently. This year, they've made 11 article edits, last year (2017) they made 6, and there were 6 in 2016. This would raise the possibility that they don't have substantial interests outside of the topic banned subject area, and if the ban was lifted, they're very likely to be an active editor in the area of The Troubles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought appeals were supposed to be posted at WP:ARCA? -- GoodDay (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The pink "Important Information" box says that one of the uses of AE is to "appeal discretionary sanctions to uninvolved administrators." The collapse box a little farther down, titled "Important: Appeals and administrator modifications of sanctions" says:

Appeals by sanctioned editors
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. The process has three possible stages... The editor may:
     1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
     2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
     3. submit a request for amendment at "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-llists.wikimedia.org).

Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by SonofSetanta

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

I'm not going to be any part of the decision either way on this, but I assume this is what's being appealed. Reviewing admins should also be aware of the history of SoS's previous incarnations ([2], [3]). ‑ Iridescent 22:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that, after the ban, SonofSetanta has made so few edits gives me pause, because, generally, that is how an editor shows that he has learnt from his mistakes and proves that he can make edits in a collegial fashion even concerning topics he has strong feelings about. And in the light of SonofSetanta's colourful track record, the need to show that he has learnt is, in my opinion, especially strong. On the other hand, this is an area for which discretionary sanctions have been authorised and, so, topic bans and blocks can be reimposed swiftly (and without much discussion, if need be), which makes me think that we can take a chance. So, basically, I'm still on the fence, but I'm not outright opposed to lifting the sanction. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would decline this for the reasons Salvio mentions above. Without an edit history post-TBAN, it's challenging to examine whether SonofSetanta will be able to edit in that topic area without new issues arising. For me, I'd need more 'good behavior' to look at to feel comfortable lifting this. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, would decline the appeal at this time. For us to consider an appeal, the appealing user has to show that they have been able to work constructively in areas not covered by their sanction. This user has not done so, and at their present activity level, is not going to be able to do so for a while. Vanamonde (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iovaniorgovan

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 Iovaniorgovan

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: RGloucester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Iovaniorgovan (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#Standard discretionary sanctions or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

28 November tit-for-tat nationalist skirmishing for the purpose of establishing WP:FALSEBALANCE
28 November strange WP:OR conclusion based on an image to support a nationalist position
5 December Attempt to assert false balance/equal validity through Wikilawyering
26 November Attempt to create false balance through equal validity.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Two blocks related to this issue can be found in the block log...it's not clear that either of them were DS blocks.

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

Eastern Europe alert - 18 April 2018
Balkans alert – 26 November 2018

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am writing this request as a neutral party. I have had no participation in this dispute or topic area. I became aware of it via Robert McClenon (talk · contribs)'s post at WP:VP/PR. The relevant dispute is about the Origin of the Romanians article. It is not clear whether this article belongs more correctly under the Eastern Europe or Balkans DS, but this user has been alerted to both at different times. Iovaniorgovan (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account. His first edits in April of this year pertained to this subject, and he has not edited any other subject since. From the moment he started editing, his sole purpose has appeared to be to promote the "Dacian continuity" theory about the origin of the Romanian ethnic group, and promote Romanian nationalism. From the start, he has been embroiled in conflict with editors who have had to fight his continued advocacy for that point of view, and has been blocked two times for this same advocacy. Having researched this dispute, which was recently declined at DRN, I have come to the conclusion that Iovaniorgovan is not WP:HERE to build an encylopaedia, but to promote this theory. He repeatedly attempts to establish WP:FALSEBALANCE through claims of "equal validity". I believe that topic banning Iovaniorgovan from the "Origin of the Romanians" topic will end the dispute, and so I am requesting review here. I do not think that nationalist editing of the kind done by this editor is in the interest of the encylopaedia. I hope an uninvolved administrator agrees with me, and makes use of the DS at their disposal. Maybe this is a malformed request; maybe I'm wasting my time. However, even the slightest review of this user's edits, and the sheer amount of time he has wasted for well-meaning editors at the origin of the Romanians article suggests to me that real problem is this editor, not any other factor. If he can prove his capability to edit neutrally in some other topic area, maybe I'll change my mind...RGloucester — ☎ 20:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification of AE request

Discussion concerning Iovaniorgovan

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 Iovaniorgovan

I unequivocally reject these charges. I am not a "nationalist", nor have I ever been, nor do I try to make any edits to the article in question along such lines. Perhaps the editor filing this AE is not particularly familiar with the subject, and I don't blame him/her because it's a complex subject. One of the main theories presented in the article is the Daco-Roman Continuity Theory; the "Daco" part represents the Dacian component, so "Dacian continuity" is part and parcel of "Daco-Roman Continuity Theory" [DRCT] according to mainstream scholars. Now please allow me to address the edits that the filing editor found to be in violation:

1. The work cited is by the President of the Romanian Academy, Ioan-Aurel Pop, and represents mainstream DRCT viewpoint (hard to find a more WP:RS than this, therefore I believe that the charge of this source being WP:FALSEBALANCE is unfounded).
2. The image in question was added in support of two WP:RS that have not been disputed by any editor and are still in the article ("Romanian ethnographers point at the "striking similarities" between the traditional Romanian folk dress and the Dacian dress depicted on Trajan's Column as a clear evidence for the connection between the ancient Dacians and modern Romanians."), which is exactly what the image depicts. Furthermore, this image is also included in the Romanian version of the article. Again, the image supports the "Daco/Dacian" component of the DRCT, and not some "nationalist" agenda, as the above editor implies.
3. That's taken from the Talk pages, where I stated my opinion that the current structure of the article is flawed (see more below) and hence I proposed a solution according to what my understanding of WP:NPOV is. It's just a discussion. Incidentally, we're in the middle of an RfC concerning precisely this issue (more on this later).
4. That's a revert on a previous revert by one of the editors supporting the article's current structure. This type of edit warring got us all in trouble, not just me. We all got hit with blocks, and deservedly so. My first block was lifted after less than an hour, while my second block came (after I added one image to the article) because I misunderstood the wording of the DS, but then so did everyone else (as you can see here). I've toed the line ever since.

Additional comments: While I have contributed to other articles, I agree that most of my edits have been on this article, the reason being it's time-consuming and as much as I'd like to contribute more I just can't find enough time at the moment. Once we agree on a sound structure for the article and things resume their normal course I'll surely expand my editing interests. Now here's the reason we've gotten to this point, as far as I can tell-- the structure of the article is flawed, as observed by several independent editors in the last few months:

How an editor characterizes the content of the article: [...] In fact, reading over some sections... the article is extremely abstruse as it is. [...] How is the average reader supposed to know what any of this "evidence" has to do with the origins of the Romanians? [...]
An editor's suggestion on how the article should look like: [...] This will help to keep the evidence framed: readers will see how evidence is marshaled in support of one theory or another and can get a feel for the arguments each side uses. I think the uninformed reader who just wants to know where the Romanians came from will be able to weigh two or three theories better than hundreds of fact(oid)s. [...]
An editor's description of sections in the article: [...] The archaeological data is the worst. It is an info dump the relevance of which is nowhere made clear.Part of the problem is that the "evidence" is written as if the reader should draw his own conclusions. Take, e.g., the paragraph on Gothia. One can only guess what this is supposed to tell us about the origin of the Romanians. [...]
How another editor describes the article: [...] I realise now this article intentionally presents the theories seperately from the evidence [...]
Another editor's take on how confusing the content of the article is: [...] I think part of the confusion that I experienced reading the article is that the two theories are occasionally mentioned in the same paragraph, with no clear division between the two.[...]
Again, the same editor providing a reader's perspective: [...] so I might not be able to add much to this other than offer the perspective of the reader. If there are two conflicting and contrasting theories about the history of Romanian, the two theories should be kept somewhat separate within the article, and it should be clear at any point which theory is being explained. It is not clear which theory is being discussed in the paragraph in question, and adding a single sentence about the other theory only makes things more confusing, rather than adding balance. [...]

So, as you can see, the independent editors are in full and unanimous agreement that the structure of the article needs to change (as is my view). In light of this, and in order to bring edit warring to an end, I already filed for a dispute resolution (it went nowhere unfortunately because apparently the Mediation Committee was disbanded recently), and then for an RfC (pending). I think it should be clear to anyone that my intent (as evidenced by my actions) is to solve the current issues, and not engage in time-wasting edit warring or promoting any kind of agenda. Furthermore, as I stated before in the dispute resolution comments, I'm willing to abide by whatever the "moderators" decide. As you can see, I have hardly made any edits lately and I believe it'd be wise to allow the (currently pending) RfC to conclude properly, seeing as we've all come this far.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Borsoka: Leveling false accusations will not help create a good editing environment. This editor however has contrived to create a false narrative by misinterpreting my edits/statements. The whole discussion he's referring to can be read here for all to see, where my edit in question is clearly this, which as you can see by reading the discussion was not about "ignoring facts" but was actually a "statement of fact" (as that editor did not partake in all discussions, including the most important ones). Having mostly Romanian and Hungarian editors involved is par for the course, considering most WP:RS are in Romanian and Hungarian (not exactly two languages of wide circulation), so making that observation has nothing to do with "nationalism" but with common sense. I've always been respectful of all editors, as one can see by going through my edit history. Moreover, a "bludgeoning" charge from 7 months ago cannot reflect on all my recent edits just because one editor (Borsoka) feels that way. After we all got hit with blocks (including Borsoka), the admin folks suggested that we bring up any issues to the Talk pages, and that's exactly what I was doing. If opening a conversation about an issue and talking with the other editors to try to achieve consensus counts as "bludgeoning" in that editor's opinion, then maybe he/she is not here to build an encyclopedia. Again, this whole debate is not about the false narrative of nationalistic impulses, but rather it's simply about structure (as anyone taking a cursory look at the article will not fail to notice). It's about building a better encyclopedia. p.s. the "independent editors" mentioned above have been notified of the pending RfC (except the editor who already "moderated" another RfC).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Sandstein : Thanks for taking the time, just wondering why not just tag my edits until I establish a better track record? Seems harsh to jump straight to a topic-ban, especially while we're in the middle of an RfC about the very subject of this heated debate.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 10:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Borsoka

I agree that Iovaniorgovan is not here to build an encyclopedia. He regards WP as a battleground between Romanian and Hungarian editors ([4]), clearly ignoring facts which contradict his assumption ([5], [6]). His bludgeoging tactics ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]) which have already been noticed by other editors ([14]) clearly show that he does not want to reach a compromise, but to push his own PoV. He has been quoting cherrypicked texts from other editors for weeks (as he does above), but he fails to ping the same editors to confirm (or disapprove) his conclusions ([15]). I agree that he should improve his abilities to cooperate in other articles before returining to his favorite (actually, single) topic in WP. Borsoka (talk) 04:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Iovaniorgovan:, I would appreciate if you pinged all editors whose words you have been referring to when defending your case. You only pinged two of them. You also informed only one of the wikiprojects which are interested in the article. Interestingly, your choice was WikiprojectRomania. Have you realized that you are on the edge of a topic ban? Do you think that this canvassing does support you ([16])? Borsoka (talk) 11:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tgeorgescu

Cealicuca is precisely the same story as Iovaniorgovan, but with admigration theory instead of Dacian continuity theory. I will let you research his activity and you should make up your own mind if another arbitration enforcement would be required. I prefer that somebody else, with more authority, collects the evidence for it, since I do not want to receive all the blame for the likely topic ban. Oh, yes, both editors are quite fond of WP:PROXY. I don't have a dog in the fight among the three theories. Equilibrium (truce, stalemate) is all we have and all we will have, so bickering about this is much ado about nothing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Cealicuca is also a WP:SPA, so following your reasoning he would qualify for a similar ban. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When Iovaniorgovan was asked at [17] to retract with <s> and </s> that accusation that I would be paranoid, he replied with [18]. I guess that's what people call gaslighting. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Iovaniorgovan

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

I lack the topic-area knowledge to be able to determine whether this is merely a good-faith content dispute or nationalist POV pushing. However, I can look at Iovaniorgovan's contributions and determine that they are indeed a WP:SPA. Single-purpose accounts are almost always a bad sign, particularly in hotly contested topic areas. On that basis alone, I would topic-ban Iovaniorgovan from Origin of the Romanians until they have a track record of at least six months productive editing in some unrelated topic area. Sandstein 08:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to Tgeorgescu, a separate enforcement request would be needed setting out, among other things, that the awareness requirements are met. Sandstein 10:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Over time, there has been a lot of disputing at Origin of the Romanians. Clearly the latest round of disagreement has been touched off by the arrival of User:Iovaniorgovan (about 4/15/18) and User:Cealicuca (early July) at the article. Both of these editors are WP:Single purpose accounts. When we notice SPAs working on hot-button articles that are prey to nationalist emotions, we expect that these editors ought to behave with extreme correctness if they want to continue. Rather than extreme correctness, we see a lot of editing that appears non-neutral. (Also a ridiculous response to being given a routine {{uw-3rr}} template). So I support User:Sandstein's recommendation for a topic ban of Iovaniorgovan, though my advice is to make the ban be from all topics covered by WP:ARBEE. The ban should be indefinite, though I agree with Sandstein it might be appealed after six months if 'they have a track record of at least six months productive editing in some unrelated topic area.' EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cealicuca

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 Cealicuca

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Cealicuca (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#Standard discretionary sanctions or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions.

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

Latest edit 2018-12-07 16:31 Evidence of being a WP:SPA: most edits at Origin of the Romanians and the rest of article edits (which are not many) regard Romanian-Hungarian disputes, except for [19], which is about Romanian nationalism, broadly construed. Since that is for now the only germane point, I kindly ask Borsoka to do the honors of providing more evidence if it would become needed. Anyway, if nobody else will do it, I will do it.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[20] 48 hours block for edit warring (27 November 2018).

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

[21] (27 November 2018) and [22] (4 May 2018).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Sandstein wrote I lack the topic-area knowledge to be able to determine whether this is merely a good-faith content dispute or nationalist POV pushing. However, I can look at Iovaniorgovan's contributions and determine that they are indeed a WP:SPA. Single-purpose accounts are almost always a bad sign, particularly in hotly contested topic areas. On that basis alone, I would topic-ban Iovaniorgovan from Origin of the Romanians until they have a track record of at least six months productive editing in some unrelated topic area.

Since Cealicuca is a WP:SPA same applies to him.

Explanation why that diff is nationalism, broadly construed: it basically says "We're not Russkies."

Additional reply: I won't go into details, but for Romanian identity it is very important that we aren't Slavs. I knew from the beginning that Iovaniorgovan and Cealicuca will be topic banned, but I tried to teach them the WP:RULES, etiquette (what we consider not done) and that they are WP:SPA. I wanted that they are given the chance to understand why they get banned and given a chance to better their ways in order to avoid it. They had enough time to learn from what I told them, but they chose to ignore it. If they will cease breaking WP:RULES and pushing POVs, I will have nothing against them.

Newbies rejecting honest criticism is never a good sign.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[23]

Discussion concerning Cealicuca

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 Cealicuca

I would respectfully ask the administrators as well as Tgeorgescu for some time (say a week, but more likely less) for me to come back with a full and comprehensive answer to this. In the mean time, and Tgeorgescu can make sure of this, I will not touch any article on Wikipedia, nor will I participate in discussions on any Talk page. This would ensure that the time I'm asking for would not mean letting me disrupt any article or talk page. I hope this is an acceptable request.

Thank you.

Ah, I see. Well, since my request is unacceptable, then I would point out, for the time being, to the following:

My account is 6-7 months old. I wonder how many editors start basically on an article, only to later "expand" to other articles.

Being very present (and frankly eating up all my time) on the Origin of Romanians talk page is both my choice (obviously) but also related to other factors I hope I can expand on soon. And it's also an accident - since it was purely chance that I decided to contribute. Of course, I thought that it's common sense to do that on the talk page, rather than going in the article itself. Oh how wrong I was...

I appreciate Tgeorgescu's concern, but let's do a comparison to other editors on that page, for the past 6-7 months. For example this is Borsoka's activity, with a majority of edits on the same article and an overwhelming majority of edits on the talk page. This, although his account is 10 years long (about 17 times more "time" than mine).

I am surprised of Tgeorgescu arguing my edit here is related to nationalism. I would be curious to see the argumentation.

Also, although I was indeed involved in edit wars, I was not the only one. Again, Borsoka (who's help Tgeorgescu asked) was received an arbitration "remedy" for Eastern Europe here, as well as several recent blocks (just like me), the latest seen here. You can even compare a little bit my activity to Borsoka's, on that specific page. Can't tell the difference, really. If you can't, look here. Borsoka seems to be a lot more active, both on the page as well as on the Talk page. So why the double measure?

For this specific accusation "and the rest of article edits [...] regard Romanian-Hungarian disputes", I will not answer (completely) right now. But it's a good thing that you mentioned this, since it helps me a lot. Thank you.

And the last thing... as I am well aware of just how much time this sterile and toxic article eats up, I have already tried to diversify. Some of my latest edits have tried to steer away from the article, and I've also acquired some new books which I intend to use as sources. Martin Gilbert's "The First World War: A complete history" (one of the best sources on WW1), Glenn E. Torey - The Romanian Battlefront in World War 1 (yet another exceptional source). Oxford's Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages is yet another source I will be able to consult. So yes, I fully intend on diversifying.Cealicuca (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: Changing the name of the category from "Slavic language" to "Slavic influence", for the Romanian language, is nationalism?!?...Cealicuca (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Cealicuca

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

As in the case regarding Iovaniorgovan above, I am of the view that discretionary sanctions topic areas are not a good place for single-purpose accounts dedicated to promoting a particular point of view. Cealicuca has not contested being such an account. A more detailed statement by Cealicuca, for which Cealicuca requests more time, is not needed. I would therefore also topic-ban Cealicuca from Origin of the Romanians until they demonstrate productive editing in other topic areas. Sandstein 12:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As argued in my post on the Iovaniorgovan complaint, I support Sandstein's proposal of a topic ban of Cealicuca, but suggest that it be from all topics covered by WP:ARBEE and not just from Origin of the Romanians. The ban could be appealed after six months per Sandsteins's condition that 'they demonstrate productive editing in other topic areas'. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2018 (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