Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:06, 7 June 2007

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

Edit this section for new requests

add new reports to the top of the section

User:ScienceApologist 2 (Redux)

This case has just been archived here, but has not been resolved, where I noted that ScienceApologist had not been building consensus with other editors. It followed on from an incident mentioned here where ScienceApologist was "strongly cautioned to avoid abusive language", and yet continued to do so during this incident.

I would also appreciate being addressed, the observation that ScienceApologist has "been given leeway" over other editors --Iantresman 13:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

admin response

(Admins only below this line, please.) First, I note that this request is mistitled. It is not ScienceApologist 2, but ScienceApologist 7. (SA 5 is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive4.) Looking over the new complaint, I see nothing that warrants anything more than a caution, which SA has already received. In an earlier complaint (archived here), after spending about 20 hours looking over diffs of the involved parties, I expressed concerns that the repeated filings of User:Iantresman here were close to vexatious litigation. I also note that since then an appeal to ArbComm about that ruling was rejected and admin actions (including my own) were endorsed [1]. Moreover, I again here state my concern that vexatious filings such as this one are tendatious and disruptive and may in fact be a violation of Ian's probation. I welcome further admin comments, but otherwise regard this matter as closed. Bucketsofg 14:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Zero0000

1. Admin Zero0000 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was advised by ArbCom and committed "not to take any further administrator actions against or in relation to Zeq, including but not limited to enforcement actions under their prior arbitration case, and admonished that so long as an editor, including one on probation, is not restricted in their editing of a page or area they are entitled to be accorded good faith and be treated with respect and courtesy when they edit in those areas. " [2].

Despite the ruling and his commitment to ArbCom (as well as previously on AN/I board) he overruled another admin action[3], [4] without discussing it with the admin involved and deleted - without review, without proper tag and without justification - an article I created. The deletion is an admin only action - he was not supose to take such action based on ArbCom rulling.

It also seems to be a violation of WP:AGF and violation of WP:NPA in edit summary[5].

2. Zero0000 (talk · contribs) has done that after I found that he misrepresented a source - please see bottom part of Talk:East_Jerusalem

All requests to address any of those issues did not got any response from user Zero000. Zeq 20:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Maybe this guy is not 24h a day on wikipedia.

Would you mind waiting for a few hours ?

Thank you

Alithien 22:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About East Jerusalem, I think you don't have this source, do you ?

If not I think you don't respect several wikipeadia principles. Alithien 22:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NB: SlimVirgin reverted my comments that I think are important to understand the case. Alithien 22:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alithien: I have a source which quote the source and Zero had pleanty of time to respond but he did not - which is by itself an admission. We are dealing here only with Zero0000 admin action the source isssue was just for clarification of the background. You want to discuss the source - please do so on the article talk page. Zeq 04:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zeq,

You talked about the problem of East Jerusalem and so I answered.

And it is not because you focus on this that I don't have the right to claim my point of view that is Zero cannot be full time on wikipedia and you would just have had to wait for a little time.

As any gentleman would have done.

I think you make a mountain of nothing. Alithien 07:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Zero0000 seems to have gone against the text "Zero0000 is advised not to take any further administrator actions against or in relation to Zeq" with regards to that deletion. So, I hereby endorse it, albeit not the deletion summary. Zeq, if you would like to claim that it was a neutral article that was written in the best of faith, I would like to claim you aren't telling the truth. Picaroon (Talk) 01:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Note that this isn't an "administrator response;" I'm just commenting as a random passerby.)[reply]

Picaroon9288: Your reponse is moot now. We are not dealing with the article. We are dealing here only with Zero0000 admin action. (PS: of course my edit, like all my edits is good faith and I will be glad to take the edit issue to a deletion review elsewhere but noy here) Zeq 04:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the ArbCom ruling supposed to cripple Zero's ability to administrate in this manner, though? if an article is judged to be offensively racist, should it be left to sit untouched until someone can get around to it? How about a hypothetical...Zeq posts some egregious WP:BLP violation, Zero comes across it, what to do? Supposedly such things are to be obliterated immediately, but here's this imposed gag rule based upon who did the editing. The ArbCom ruling is being treated as if it were a "keep 1000 ft away" restraining order, which doesn't seem right. Tarc 02:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is in no way crippled: there are a thousand other administrators and a whole encyclopedia. "until someone can get around to it" is fine, slap a speedy tag, or even alert WP:ANI, and if it is so clearly worthy of speedy deletion, someone else with an unbiased eye will do it in a matter of minutes. What was the emergency here, anyway? Dmcdevit·t 02:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy tag was indeed the way to go but Zero decided to take action himself instead of follow the most speedy process wikipedia has. Zeq 04:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that was so urgent from your point of view, why didn't you ask another admin to recreate that article ?

I think you use this as a bad reason to harm Zero0000 rather than with the idea of working constructively for wikipedia.

Could you please remind us what was the article in question ? apes and pigs or something like that ?

Mr Zeq, who are you making fun of ? Read WP:POINT Alithien 07:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ali: My actions are not at all the issue here. There is no urgency nither in creating, deleting or recreating the article. The only issue here is Zero's admin action. If you want to discuss the article itself we can start a deletion review and let the comunity voice it's view. Your accusation of me that I created the article as " bad reason to harm Zero0000" is worth only one reaction: Please appologize for a blant violation of WP:AGF. Clearly I did not invaited Zero to delete the article and even did not knew (initially) that he dleted it. Zero took all those descisions on his own. Zeq 08:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq's actions should be an issue here as well. How is it that Zero is expected to take a 100% hands-off policy, but Zeq is allowed to post antagonistic queries in talk pages such as Talk:East_Jerusalem#Is_the_source_misrepresented_by_Zero_.3F, that were in he end found to be unjustified? There is a serious double-standard going along here, where we have two historically conflicting parties receiving unequal treatment. Tarc 12:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Zero has had to withstand Zeq's harassment againts him for 1 year now. And it seems it will never stop. Everybody is aware of that but nobody does anything. I honnestly wonder how contributors with the quality of Zero stay with us and don't leave to Citizendium. Alithien 14:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islam_and_antisemitism describes this trope--nearly nearly 1400 years old--in a three paragraph section, and devotes a second section to the interpretation by scholars. Expanding the subject into an article of its own is feasible and legitimate. The most prominent Islamic website discusses the subject in seven pages, the use of this epitheton by contemporary Islam prompting 53000+ google hits. Properly dealt with, there's nothing wrong with that lemma. Its not up to Zero to define and enforce the loaded term Islamophobia, as he did in the deletion summary. A speedy would have been the proper process. --tickle me 08:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in few other forms it is well over 100,000: [6] Zeq 08:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't view the deleted article, but I'm at a loss to determine why Zero would have taken this decision upon himself despite the very clear and tightly-defined (Zeq only) ruling of the CommitteeProabivouac 08:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he is fed up ? Alithien 14:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, there are many other admins who would have been willing to deal with this article. Thatcher131 14:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even so ?

Proabivouac didn't understand the reaction of Zero. I think it is easy to understand.

The fact he was wrong to react that way, -what you say-, everybody is aware, even Zero.

Hopefully, that was an advice, ...

But are all protagonists of this conflict aware that they don't react properly ?

And even more, due to the fact we all left it go without reaction during 1 year, we are all responsible.

Even if there are wikipedia rules, there is also a human being who has limits he can withstand... Alithien 14:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answers to admin notes

"Zero0000 is advised not to take (...)"

All is written. It is an advice and for a "good" or a "bad" reason, he decided not to follow this. Given Zeq is sincerely interested by this article and is eager to fill in with good sources, all can be solved in "re-establishing" that article and reminding Zero not to take care any more about Zeq. Alithien 07:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq's comments

"Zeq violates his probation."

I did not violated my probation. You may dispute the article content but that is not the issue here. Read the probation terms and find out for your self. In any case the issue here is Zero admin actions. The article was already reviwed by one admin who decided not to speedy delete it. Zero over-rulled that admin decision and took the action himself. There are process for what he did and should just have followed them - instead he took an admin action himself. Zeq 04:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

No. I did not violate anything. My actions are not the issue here. Zero'a admin action are the issue. discusion of the validity of the article does not belong here and we should conduct an AFD if you think the article should be deleted. Zeq 08:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"additionnal comment by Zeq"

It was not and I am not going to deabte the content of the article here. If you think the article is not appropriate -please conduct an orderly deletion review. The only issue here is Zero Admin behaviour and it seems that yet again you are going to reward his behaviour. I created an article in good faith. Don't pick on me just because I am in probation. there is nothing wrong in the article itself and the best thing is to create it and put it to AFD if you think it should be deleted. I will accept an AFD after everyone has an opportunity to see the article (no one can since it was speedy delete without due process)
Also note that since ArbCom had the opportunity ro review my edit, my probation etc...and decided on the action you should not now issue any bans that are not even in my probation. You are way over reaching your authority here. Zeq 14:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zero clearly violated the trust this comunity is giving to admins. He broke a promise he himself gave to arbCom just few days earler. Zeq 14:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be for ArbCom to decide, as they did not give admins any enforcement measures. Even if they did, all Admins can do is block or delete, and it would be inappropriate to block Zero's editing when it is his use of admin tools that is under consideration, and only ArbCom can remove them. You are invited to post a request for clarification on WP:RFAR or to contact the members of ArbCom by e-mail. Thatcher131 15:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zero's response

Copied from [7]

Hello, Thank you for asking for my side of the story. I am going overseas and there's a good chance I won't be able to discuss this for about 10 days. I don't even have time left right now to read everything that has been said so far. I would much appreciate it if you could copy the following statement to the necessary place or places.

I found an article called something like "pigs and monkeys" which consisted of rabid anti-islamic filth. No attempt at context, no attempt at identifying the content as refering to an extreme fringe, no mention of the background of the groups that bring us this "information", no redeeming features at all but just pure islamophobic pornography. I reacted with the "delete" button in a fit of anger, just as I would if a Nazi came along and wrote a similar article about "some Jews". When I cooled down, I remembered the ArbCom ruling; reading it again now I can see that I broke it. So I have to plead guilty.

Thanks! --Zero^talk 09:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is clear that Zero has not responded as an admin should have. AS for his anger on the article. I am wiling to discuss it elsewhere about is the content anti-Islamic or filth or what ever he claim it to be. Proper response was to conduct a dletion review (especially after one admin alreday review the material and decided not to delete it.

Anyone who discuss the article just based on Zero's description or the name of the article is not doing the subject justice. The article should be reviwed nad looked upon in relation to other Wikipedia articles that have been pointed out to me since the original article was created. Zeq 15:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zero admitted to have taken the wrong decision as he feels, among Nazi allegations, that Zeq should have attempted "at identifying the content as referring to an extreme fringe," which is clearly his OR on the topic. A speedy was warranted at best, to have others evaluate what is an edit conflict. Discussing action against Zeq without even knowing the content of his article except by Zero'S hate spewing summary is unjustified. Violating Godwin's law when defending oneself for having broken an arbcom decision--being an admin-- is appalling, that other admins don't mind is a sign of pc going way over the top. --tickle me 16:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin notes

Admin only below this line, please. Bucketsofg 01:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Locus of dispute:

Apes and Pigs is an article that about Islamic interpretations of the Quran that allegedly claim that the Jewish people are descendents of apes and pigs. Its only contributer was User:Zeq. Bucketsofg 02:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

relevant ArbComm rulings

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000#Zero0000_admin_actions_against_Zeq

With regards to the remedy, "Zero0000 is advised not to take any further administrator actions against or in relation to Zeq", it seems that Zero0000 has not heeded this advice. The decision, however, gives no instructions for enforcement, and "advised" is the weakest of injunctions. Further action against Zero0000 should come from ArbComm itself. Bucketsofg 02:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq#Zeq_banned_from_articles_he_has_disrupted_and_placed_on_Probation

Zeq has probably violated his probation. According to the decision, "he may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing." Bucketsofg 02:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may also be worth noting this thread on the proposed decision talkpage in the recent case. Newyorkbrad 02:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Brad. My first instinct is that this should be taken back to ArbComm. Bucketsofg 02:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First step should be to ask Zero0000 for a response, which I will do. Newyorkbrad 02:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to shut it down for tonight and leave this in the hands of other admins. Bucketsofg 02:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that no action should be taken against Zero. He violated the "advisement" but said advisement is not enforceable. Against Zeq, I would strongly consider implementing a topical ban of some kind under his previous probation. Apes and pigs is about as appropriate as Coons and darkies would be, and we don't need to wait for a massive edit war when a user is on probation for previous disruptive behavior. Thatcher131 11:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone have a suggestion as to what form a topical ban should take? Bucketsofg 11:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)][reply]

It seems to me that Zeq's creation of this article was, given the editor's past tendencies, intentionally tendentious, provocative, and disruptive. Would banning him from creating articles be in order? Bucketsofg 12:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just responded here to this false accusation - why is my reponse removed ??? Zeq 15:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing was removed administratively. Maybe it was an edit conflict. Thatcher131 15:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin responses

Admin response in regards to User:Zero0000. Admin Zero has clearly not heeded the advisement that he received inWikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000 and admits as much. Given that this was an advisement only and that no enforcement mechanism exists, it is not the place of administrators here to punish him for his action. That he has ignored this ArbComm remedy so soon after it has been issued may be a matter that ArbComm itself will be interested in. (I welcome other admins' endorsement and/or reponse.) Bucketsofg 12:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user:Pigsonthewing (mk II)

Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) has previously been banned for one year and also limited to one edit per article per week for a further year and remains under perminant probation (see WP:PROB). Under this clarification, it has been confirmed that his revert parole runs until 25th January 2008 (see the admin's response here), where it was also stated that as he was not warned and the revert parole was not clear, he would not be blocked on that occasion (regardless of the fact that the edits cited breached WP:3RR), but that he may be blocked in future.

He has now made two reverts to article Birmingham in a week. One of these was a "sneaky revert" to my mind, in that he waited on the second occasion for further changes to take place, and disguised it by also changing the clarification of the disambig header. These are:

14:40, 1 June 2007 - [8]
21:30, 3 June 2007 - [9] (revert of this edit, and very little happened in between)

L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 21:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Infinity0

Infinity0 (talk · contribs) started to make reverts without discussing them on talk pages. On May 24 he made three such reverts 1, 2 and 3. Two of them were on anarchism related pages. His arbitration case can be found here.

Also, he created an account called AnarchoKapitalismus just for mocking anarcho-capitalism. I'm not sure whether that can be put under "inappropriate insertion of anarchy related material", but I think it violates WP:NOT and constitutes disruptive behavior. -- Vision Thing -- 13:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for edit number one; I was too hasty. I have since changed it to hopefully a more NPOV version which includes material I deleted.

For edit number two, changes have been discussed on the talk page of a different article, Talk:Anarchism - the same issues apply. Also, Vision Thing reverted without discussion first, and he reverted not only me but another user - see the edit's history and talk page. I posted my reasons for my edits on the talk page and the edit summary, and there was no response by Vision Thing at all before he reverted. So, Vision Thing is requesting that I discuss changes on the talk page, when he is the one that made the first discussionless revert? Hypocritical and gaming the system - just because I happen to be on revert parole.

For edit number three, the Lysander Spooner article, I was reverting the sockpuppet of a banned user. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Billy Ego.

I would like to point out that the vast majority of cases I have been discussing reverts on talk pages.

Around 1 in 10* of Vision Thing's past 500 (and very likely even more, but i didn't bother to check) edits have been reversions of various articles to versions which supports his own point of view after editors have attempt to correct to NPOV - see [10]. All the above edits listed of mine were cancellations of Vision Thing's original unexplained and undiscussed reversions; in particular the edits to Anarchism have been agreed with by multiple editors, see Talk:Anarchism#Culling_the_source-spam.

My article at User:AnarchoKapitalismus is a direct response to Vision Thing's own User:Vision Thing/Anarcho-capitalism which he lifted from banned user User:Anarcho-capitalism.

I have followed all of my arbitration requests such as 1RR. My activity is only on appropriate pages which my arbitration allows. -- infinity0 21:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*counting "rv" in edits; not including strings of "content edits" which are actually reverts, such as this

You have removed 26774 bytes (almost half of the article) of the sourced content from Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) without even a word of explanation on discussion page. You were put on parole just because of such edits. Your edits to Anarchism are also troubling but I haven't reported you for them. -- Vision Thing -- 15:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those bytes were POV-pushing from banned sockpuppet User:Anarcho-capitalism, and must be removed because they severely unbalance the article. You seem to paint a picture of me being some sort of fanatical POV-pusher but it is you who has been watching numerous articles and reverting edits you do not like. My edits to anarchism have either been overwhelmingly supported by people from WP:3O whose input you ignored; or they have been minor edits to improve balance, but you delete even those anyway without any sort of reasonable explanation. -- infinity0 12:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply not true. That content was in the article before User:Anarcho-capitalism started to edit it (easily established from this old version of the article and article's history). -- Vision Thing -- 13:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Half the content you are talking about is in that version; the other half was added by User:Anarcho-capitalism. The half that was in there was added by banned troll User:RJII. Besides, I have dealt with both users for over a year and am 99% certain they are the same person. -- infinity0 11:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity0 has continued to revert (1, 2) content without discussion contrary to the terms of his revert parole which explicitly states that he must accompany every content revert with discussion on the relevant talk page. -- Vision Thing -- 19:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sysop response. Infinity0 has been blocked for 24 hours, with diffs and a link to the ArbCom case provided. Vision Thing has been encouraged to discuss significant reversions and large article changes. Vassyana 20:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. Infinity0's block has been lifted. His revert parole recently expired. I have strongly cautioned him against disruptive editing. Vassyana 21:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for intervention in this and other case, but why do you say that Infinity0's one year revert parole recently expired? My understanding is that he is on probation until July 1 2007, since that decision was passed on July 1 2006 [11]. -- Vision Thing -- 14:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dacy69

Dacy69 has violated his parole:

Dacy69 is on Arbcom parole, stating that he has to accompany ever revert with a comment on the talk page: [12]

He violated it on Armenian-Tatar massacres. He reverted [13] yet left no response on the talk page: [14]Azerbaijani 23:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should not leave message if this is vandalism or edit by newcomer who destroyed the page And it is obvious that edit was done in violation of wiki stadard on page you mentioned--Dacy69 14:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not vandalism Dacy: [15] The user simply added a quote from a book, it was misplaced, but it certainly wasnt vandalism and could easily have been corrected, it didnt "destroy" the page, and it wasnt in violation of Wiki standards at all. The user is registered and has so far made three edits (including the one Dacy reverted) and so far he has committed no vandalism, and the information he/she has added has been sourced.Azerbaijani 15:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can argue about this edit on relevant talkpage. But it definitely does not fit the proper form. Anyway, another his edits was reverted and not by me [16]. But it will be nice if you teach him some Wiki rules as you like doing that.--Dacy69 15:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He hasnt broken any Wiki rules and he has not committed a single act of vandalism yet.Azerbaijani 16:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Selket issued a warning [17] but says he is unsure what response another admin may have.Azerbaijani 16:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was resolved by the admin at 3RR board, Dacy69 was warned: [18] Grandmaster 05:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator response: Resolved for now. All parties to the Armenia-Azerbaijan case are strongly urged to abide by their revert paroles, work together constructively, and avoid edit-warring. Newyorkbrad 03:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to continue here. Please see Church of Kish - both Grandmaster and Dacy69 reverted back twice already in past 2 days each on the article I think. I suspect it is violation of paroles.SincerelyHetoum I 04:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide diffs of my violation. I reverted the article only once, it is you who edit wars. Thanks. Grandmaster 05:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

diffs (I am not understanding this term) you reverted and then re-added same info after parishan. Funny that you as a parolee should accuse me of edit warringHetoum I 21:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because I do not edit war and you do. You reverted that same page many times. If you believe that I violated my parole, you should provide the evidence in accordance with the rules. Grandmaster 07:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just check kish history, ; )Hetoum I 04:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this is what the admins should do. Hetoum keeps on edit warring on that article, reverting it to his POV version. Urgent admin intervention is required. Grandmaster 09:11, 2 June 2007 (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]

@@ Line 97: / Line 97: @@
 *Anyone who discuss the article just based on Zero's description or the name of the article is not doing the subject justice. The article should be reviwed nad looked upon in relation to other Wikipedia articles that have been pointed out to me since the original article was created. [[User:Zeq|Zeq]] 15:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
+Zero admitted to have taken the wrong decision as he feels, among Nazi allegations, that Zeq should have attempted "at identifying the content as referring to an extreme fringe," which is clearly his OR on the topic. A speedy was warranted at best, to have others evaluate what is an edit conflict. Discussing action against Zeq without even knowing the content of his article except by Zero'S hate spewing summary is unjustified. Violating Godwin's law when defending oneself for having broken an arbcom decision--being an admin-- is appalling, that other admins don't mind is a sign of pc going way over the top. --[[User:Tickle me|tickle]] [[User_talk:Tickle me|me]] 16:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 ===Admin notes===