Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:27, 18 August 2009

Requests for 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

Dbrisinda

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

Request concerning Dbrisinda

User requesting enforcement:
Enric Naval (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy#Discretionary_sanctions

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

[1][2][3][4] adding POV tag and re-adding after several editors reverted and said in the talk page that there is no basis for the tag
[5] JeanandJane also restored the tag once

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

[6] Warning by Brunton (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
topic ban or something that stops the disruption.

Additional comments by Enric Naval (talk):
For [[::User:JeanandJane|JeanandJane]] (talk · contribs), the decision requires that an uninvolved admin gives him a warning in his talk page with a link to the discretionary sanctions decision), so please someone make the honors.

Both editors started placing the POV tag and arguing for it when they failed to convince other editors of their proposed changes. Both editors have been pushing flawed interpretations of sources and cherry picking sources for weeks now in Talk:Homeopathy, to the point where good faith fails and one starts suspecting pure naked POV advocacy. JeanandJane already displayed this behaviour in Talk:Oscillococcinum. Both editors try to squeeze every positive remark from sources beyond reasonable limits while ignoring the equivalent negative sources, which goes against WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT.

Notice that this article has seen heavy edit warring, advocacy and POV pushing in its talk page the past, in addition to edit wars in the article with POV tags.

P.D.: talk page has had 150 comments in the last 4 days, with many different topics conflated together instead of being in separate sections.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

[7] Dbrisinda
[8] JeanandJane

Discussion concerning Dbrisinda

Statement by Dbrisinda

Comments by other editors

~~This appears to be a straightforward WP:3RR violation~~, but without more, doesn't seem to me conduct that rises to the level of Arbitration Enforcement. —Whig (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is not even a 3RR violation. (Only 3 edits in total to the page in 24 hours, and only 3 reverts at all on the page by this user.) This is simply continued biting against an intelligent and competent new user who threatens to disturb the (improved, but still unduly anti-homeopathic) status quo at the homeopathy article. The first act was when on the first day that he edited the article some of his edits were reverted with the completely unfounded claim that he was a sockpuppet of Dr.Jhingaadey. It continued with an SPI, ANI, and now he is being dragged here. This is disgusting. I would say it's immoral, but I know Enric a bit better and suspect it's just carelessness. Hans Adler 19:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, the first time he added the POV tag was not a revert. —Whig (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Hans, you mean Wikipedia:ANI#DanaUllman? That one is about banning DanaUllman, not about these two editors. I think that the SPI case is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dr.Jhingaadey? It only mentions one IP, so I guess that Brangifer realized that Dbrisinda was not a sock. Has there been a new thread somewhere? This is getting difficult to follow. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Enric, I understand you couldn't know this. BullRangifer seriously screwed this up: He suspected (plausibly, as I now agree) that Dr.Jhingaadey edited under a certain IP, and very implausibly that he also edited as Dbrisinda. He tried to create an old-style checkuser request and was confused that it didn't work. It didn't occur to me to check for this error, so I commented there without noticing the problem. My comment led him to seriously refactor the report, removing all references to Dbrisinda.[9] Then someone showed him the proper place at SPI. As a result, the original report concerning Dbrisinda isn't even in the history of the SPI. Hans Adler 01:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how this could happen, since I have made similar mistakes when trying to catch reincident sockmasters, like NisarKand and Beh-nam (in Afghanistan-Pakistan articles), getting two innocent editors accused while trying to nail down all the socks from Nrcprm20260 (in Cold Fusion). I really need to fine-tune my sock-sensing sense since this annoys mightly the incorrectly accused users. Anyways, this is unrelated to the matter at hand: Talk:Homeopathy becoming a battleground since these two editors entered the fray. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since these two editors have done nothing meriting Arbitration Enforcement, ~~your bringing the matter here is really evidence of your own battleground mentality, in my opinion~~. Neither of them have engaged in bad behavior. —Whig (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I think Enric doesn't have a battle ground mentality so much as an idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:TALK and unusually low tolerance for chaotic discussions. Hans Adler 19:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, and I should not comment on another editor's state of mind. I'd rather say though that this AE request is not well considered. —Whig (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a lot of pointless edit warring over tags, so I think a 1RR for tags could be considered. PhilKnight (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you seriously consider imposing a 1RR penalty on a new editor? —Whig (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comments: I am of the same mind as PhilKnight. Edit warring over an article tag has to be one of the most counter-productive, silly actions a Wikipedian could undertake in the mainspace. Ideally, tagging should not be a Big Deal: if you tag an article and are reverted, then open a discussion on the talk page. If consensus there supports the tag, then fine, re-add it (and subsequently take steps to remedy the underlying weaknesses in the article); if no consensus is garnered, then just tackle the underlying problem—a tag is hardly needed to do that. (I am here delicately ignoring the issue of persons who uses article tags in order to damage a given topic or subject's reputation.) I would happily place any article that is the subject of a tagging war on a 1RR-for-tagging (edits made as a result of consensus-building discussion excepted, of course) restriction, and/or ban any user who engages in a tagging revert war from the parent subject area. AGK 17:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: I admire Dbrisinda 's edits: S/he has great ability in analysis, s/he is precise, s/he has clarity and demonstrates a rare kind of higher intelligence which combines sense, sensibility, honesty and nobility. This kind of refinement is rare - not only in Wikipedia -and I think that all editors ( regardless of their point of view ) should recognize and appreciate. If "edit warring over an article tag is one of the most counter-productive, silly actions a Wikipedian could undertake in the mainspace" it certainly requires two sides to make it happen. I did not see any comment about the other side. The problem is that the current dispute on the neutrality of the article is not recognized as such by the anti homeopathy editors. From their point of view Homeopathy is debunked by scientific evidence and the editors who disagree with this view are simply homeopathy's advocates. The reality is very different if someone bothers to read the unreadable talk page and check the mainstream journals and reliable sources which describes the topic as controversial. The only fair solution is to protect the page with the neutrality dispute tag as long the dispute lasts and not trying to ban the editors who think that the article is biased. In short, Dbrisinda, as a new editor read the wiki policy about the dispute tags and concluded correctly that the situation requires it. --JeanandJane (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An option that's perhaps worth considering is imposing a 1RR restriction for tags on the article, instead of on a specific editor. PhilKnight (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of this seems quite silly to me. When a new editor tries to fix a perceived problem and the edit is reverted, and when subsequent discussions don't end in consensus, it's perfectly normal to put a dispute tag on the article. If you think about it, it must be quite surprising for a new editor that drawing attention to a bona fide dispute can even be considered disruptive. This only makes sense once you understand that in Wikipedia we don't solve disputes as they arise, but instead we let them smoulder until one side gets banned or loses through a technicality such as bad behaviour. A new editor can't know this. I certainly didn't know this when I made this mistake at a language related article in my first month here.

Punishing Dbrisinda for falling into this common trap is not OK. And a general 1RR for dispute tags is also not appropriate because it would only give the stronger party in this dispute a tool to get new members of the weaker party into serious trouble for innocently breaking a surprising technicality. Hans Adler 22:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a general comment, I think it would be helpful for people whose primary or sole focus is on homeopathy to branch out and explore the encyclopedia a bit. First of all, it provides useful perspective and insight on how this place works. It's not healthy for one's introduction to Wikipedia to be on a deeply controversial article like homeopathy, where there is a preponderance of poor role models. Also, the long history of abusive editing there, and the discretionary sanctions in place, mean that a newcomer is likely to be cut less slack than they would elsewhere. Secondly, it's essential for one's sanity to occasionally visit uncontroversial corners of the project. Third, given the lengthy and unfortunate history of single-purpose agenda accounts at homeopathy, it's probably worthwhile to demonstrate that one has some interest in the project beyond simply promoting a specific narrow view of homeopathy. Just my 2 cents. MastCell ^Talk 23:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could an uninvolved admin go to JeanandJane's talk page and place a link to the discretionary sanctions? --Enric Naval (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so ([10]). MastCell ^Talk 06:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Dbrisinda

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

Arbitration Enforcement request in the Sathya Sai Baba article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request Concerning Activist Editing

Previous Arbitration Case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2

User requesting enforcement:
Radiantenergy Radiantenergy (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested:

Andries (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
ProEdits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ombudswiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that these user violated:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Conflict_of_interest

On August 5th 2009 I removed the BLP violating material as per RS recommendation here [11] from the article. [12]. Following that I had seen strong opposition by the above Anti Sai Baba activist. User:ProEdit edit-warred and added back the BLP violating material inspite of knowing that its as per the WP:RS recommendation here [13]

So far I asked for help from 2 administrators [14], [15] with no results. I have come here hoping for some help in implementing WP:RS recommendations and to stop Activist from hindering the BLP fixes to the article.

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

User:Andries: User:Andries was banned from the Sathya Sai Baba article due to his WP:COI. He is allowed to write in Sathya Sai Baba talk page. He misused this and wrote comments in WP:RS Sathya Sai Baba discussion forums.

User:Andries opposed the WP:RS recommendation in the talk page and also removed the 'Resolved' tag from the WP:RS discussion and wrote comments challenging the conclusions of other wikipedians in the WP:RS.

Andries edits removing the Resolved Tag here - [16],
Andries comments challenging WP:RS decision about removing BLP violating material here -

[17]

[18]

[19]

I have a question? Is User:Andries allowed to write his views in the Reliable source noticeboard discussions inspite of his WP:COI?

User:ProEdits: I looked at his userpage and contributions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ProEdits. In 'Robert Priddy' talk page discussions he used the first person pronoun "I" meaning he is Robert Priddy. Robert Priddy is a well known Anti Sai Baba activist in the web. If he is Robert Priddy why is he allowed to editwar in the Sathya Sai Baba article and talk page?

User:ProEdits due to his WP:COI editwarred and added back BLP violating material [20] there by he violated the remedies of the Second Arbitration. He also added his strong opposition to removing the BLP violating material from the article here - [21].

User:Ombudswiki:

User:Ombudswiki has been writing extensively telling other editors what they have to do in the Sathya Sai Baba article. His user page says he is 'Brian Steel'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ombudswiki. 'Brian Steel' is another well known Anti Sai Baba activist in the web who has negative attack page criticising Sathya Sai Baba. User:Ombudswiki edits and contributions fixing 'Brian Steel' website links in the Sathya Sai Baba article [22], [23] and his repeated recommendation to use Dale Beyerstein book (though declared unreliable in RS) to other editors in talk page [24] and his other contributions convinces me that he is likely to be the same Brian Steel. Being an Anti Sai Baba activist I don't see how Brian Steel will let other editors fix BLP issues in this article with out conflict.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Activist_editing

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

I request either topic ban or other sanctions other sanction) for these activist for editwarring and removing BLP violating material from the article due to their WP:COI. With out the arbitration enforcement on these activist I don't see how the WP:BLP issues in the Sathya Sai Baba article can ever be fixed.

Additional comments by Radiantenergy (talk):

I would sincerely appreciate if some one could look at this case. I am fed up fighting with one activist after another with WP:COI in trying to implement a RS recommendation. At the same time BLP issues have to be fixed in the article. We cannot leave BLP violating material in the article simply beacuse its opposed by the activist. I would like to remove the BLP violating material as per WP:RS recommendation with out going into edit-war with these activist. I am just frustrated seeing how difficult it is to fix the BLP issues in this article. Letting well known activist edit Sathya Sai Baba related articles and talk pages is not only against core wikipedia principles but also is against the remedies proposed by second arbitration rulings. Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: I notified all the 3 editors who are involved in this case here [25], [26], [27]

Radiantenergy (talk) 02:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion concerning the enforcement request with respect to Sathya Sai Baba

I see some serious problems here. The original RS question posted by radiantenergy had serious factual inaccuracies. It was misleading and inaccurate.

Andries pointed out many of these problems, but they never really got corrected or even properly discussed.

The question being asked is really a BLP policy question rather than a source reliability question. radiantenergy refused to consider raising the question on the BLP noticeboard.

While Andries may have a COI, radiantenergy seems unconcerned with factual accuracy, downplaying the difference between a California superior court - the lowest level of state court - and the California Supreme Court.

So, in my opinion, the original RS question posted by radiantenergy is fundamentally flawed and should be ignored. Sanctions on the basis of it would be ridiculous. Bhimaji (talk) 09:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bhimaji, You may not agree with me on all issues. Of course everybody is entitled to their opinion. Regarding BLP violating material it was discussed by very respected experienced wikipedians in the WP:RS where they concluded that BLP violating material has to be removed from the article. We always try to implement WP:RS recommendation in the BLP articles no matter who objects it. This is not just a discussion about BLP violating material but its more serious issue about well known 'Anti Sai Baba' activist popular on the web editing the Sathya Sai Baba article and talk page. This is not only a serious violation of the Wikipedia's core principles but as well as violation of the second arbitration remedy of 'Conflict of Interest' mentioned in the above discussion. Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You started the WP:RS discussion with inaccurate and factually incorrect claims. You mislead the WP:RS noticeboard. This is not about opinions, it is about basic facts. It doesn't matter how experienced the Wikipedeans were; if they didn't know the facts then the conclusions are unsafe. Bhimaji (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bhimaji, there were no factual incorrect claims. The cout name was immediately changed in the WP:RS even before the main discussion started. I will recommend you to read the WP:RS discussion again as you were not involved in this discussion. Its easy to miss the main details of the long WP:RS discussion. Again here the case is about Activist editing. From your perspective its clear that you don't care about Activist editing the Sathya Sai Baba related articles. But this is a serious violation of Wikipedia core principles and cannot be allowed. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop, plese. This discussion does not belong here. We only concern ourselves with arbitration enforcement.

Administrator comment: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2#Conflict of interest is a principle, not an enforceable remedy. If no enforceable remedy is provided and an argument how the edits provided violate it, this request will be closed soon. Sandstein 13:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I request you not to close this case - I have looked at only a few of these activist contributions so far and I need some time atleast another day or two to look at all their contributions so that I can present the case as you requested above. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Andries, ProEdits and Ombudswiki

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

Closed without action. The requesting editor has not cited, despite being asked to, an actual remedy or sanction by the Arbitration Committee that has been violated and that administrators can enforce. The principles cited in arbitration cases are not, by themselves, subject to arbitration enforcement because they are just restatements of general policy or practice. This means that this dispute is unsuited for this forum. To the extent that this is a dispute about the application of WP:RS, please use WP:DR. Sandstein 05:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dailycare

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request concerning Dailycare

User requesting enforcement:
Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Modi%27in_Illit&diff=308550197&oldid=308217125 (random example)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Modi%27in_Illit&action=history (history)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ma%27ale_Adumim&action=history (history)

The user is engaging in tendentious editing by constantly inserting controversial material on which there is no consensus to the article, despite the discussing being active. The user posts a message on talk, after which he makes pretty much the same edit (with slightly different wording) every time. The user has not been notified of this case (WP:ARBPIA) as far as I am aware, but has been notified that his edits are disruptive.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADailycare&diff=304713870&oldid=303924476 – original warning (might be slightly harsh) before the user joined the discussion on the talk page. No other warnings have been given.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
According to the text of the remedy, he should be warned and if this does not help, eventually blocked.

Additional comments by Ynhockey ^(Talk):
Just another reminder that the content dispute is not the issue here, and I hope that the content dispute with the user is settled on the talk page, which has an ongoing discussion.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADailycare&diff=308570270&oldid=308506349

Discussion concerning Dailycare

Statement by Dailycare

Comments by other editors

I don't know anything about Dailycare's editing, and Ynhockey may well be right about it; I don't want to interfere with the report as such. However, one of the examples of the tendentious editing is this. As far as content goes, Daily Motion is correct. It is not only "opponents" who regard Israeli settlements as illegal, but everyone other than successive Israeli governments, the settlers, and their supporters. This issue has been dealt with many times on Wikipedia over the last few years, and the outcome has always been that we should frame the issue the way most reliable sources do, including the UN. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SlimVirgin! I ask you to please keep the content dispute off this page and comment on Talk:Modi'in Illit if you have an opinion on the content. If you see a conduct issue with my edits, or those of Dailycare, please feel free to comment on that. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's quite difficult to separate the content issue from the behavioral one, because no one should be adding material that goes against the view of practically all reliable sources on the issue. If we give equal space to Israel on the one hand, and practically all governments on the other, as you seem to want to, as though it's just a question of differing but equally valid views, we're violating NPOV, V, and to some extent NOR. Can you show where Dailycare's edits have crossed the line into becoming tendentious? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Dailycare's edits, as I pointed out earlier, isn't the content dispute, which is a separate issue. It's the fact that he makes edits that he knows do not have consensus while the talk page discussion is still ongoing. This is not just tendentious, but disruptive editing. Several users have reverted him (especially myself), but none of us have introduced new controversial content or made any controversial change for that matter (except reverting Dailycare). I have personally made a very serious compromise (IMO, anyway) on the content, but this is, again, the content issue, which is quite easy to separate from the behavioral issue. When a user seeks to make a controversial change in an article, it's their job to attain consensus for the change, not everyone else's job to attain consensus that the change doesn't need to be made. That's how all processes on Wikipedia work, like requested moves for example, where no consensus defaults to the original version, not the proposed change. Same with XfD, etc. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, just speaking of that one issue, that edit does have consensus—wiki-wide consensus, as it's an issue that has been discussed many times in the past. It can't be overturned by a small number of editors on the talk page, because it's based on NPOV and V. His edit is not even slightly controversial; yours is.

My only concern about Dailycare is that he turned up out of the blue in June this year and is editing only sporadically, but then that applies to a number of other I/P accounts too, all of whom should be checkusered in my view—in fact, I'm fast coming to the view that everyone editing I/P articles should be randomly checkusered, but that's no doubt beyond the scope of this report. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much like to hear your opinion on the legality of Modi'in Illit and Ma'ale Adumim, but this is not the place to discuss that. Please post something at Talk:Modi'in Illit. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am baffled by this edit just made by you. You have not only not discussed it, but also made it at a time when a related behavioral dispute is ongoing (this AE case). This is not really nice of you, ~~and if you wish to get involved, for the 3rd time I invite you to the talk page.~~ —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had already commented on talk when you posted the above. [28] The point is you're forcing people to re-argue the same issue on the talk page of multiple Israeli settlements, telling them the edits violate SYN because the sources don't specifically name that settlement, and telling them they violate LEAD because it's UNDUE. With respect, that is arguably tendentious editing. You've reverted entirely, or removed from the lead, or rephrased as "opponents claim," that Modi'in Illit is an illegal settlement seven times since July 27. [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] But the edit is accurate, and clearly it's highly relevant (not UNDUE), given that the presence of the settlements is one of the major obstacles to peace in the area.

I make no comment on any other issue; I've looked only at this one. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Brewcrewer

I'm not familiar with the underlying tendentious editing issue, but I have a greater concern: This user's first edit included some fancy ref formatting and some fancy block quotes formatting, strong evidence that this user has has a previous account. I guess we can run CU, but a negative result should not make a difference. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LuvGoldStar/Archive stands for the precedent that negative CU results do not make a difference when a user is "obviously" a sockpuppet. Unless of course there's a good reason to distinguish between editors that are seen as pro-Israel and editors that are seen as anti-Israel.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Dailycare

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

Not actionable. No discretionary sanctions can occur at this time because Dailycare's warning did not include a link to the arbitration decision as required by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions. Moreover, only one actual diff is provided of the allegedly objectionable conduct, and that one diff is on the face of it not disruptive. Any sockpuppet concerns should be discussed at WP:SPI. Sandstein 05:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lida Vorig

Request concerning Lida Vorig

User requesting enforcement:
--NovaSkola (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FAzad_Asgarov&diff=308434162&oldid=308434162 (Flagging Azerbaijani Articles, by saying not notable for English wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FBahram_Bagirzade&diff=308435224&oldid=308435224 (another example)

The user is flagging Azerbaijani articles by inserting that, it is not notable in English wikipedia on which there is no consensus to the article, despite the discussing being active. The user flagged at least 10 Azerbaijani articles for no reason, and in six of her Azerbaijan-related AfD nominations today, Russian-language sources were easily located, or were in fact already in the article at the time she nominated it.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALida_Vorig&diff=306433572&oldid=306431464 (notification about editing restrictions by User:Nishkid64)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
According to the text of the remedy, he should be warned and if this does not help, eventually blocked.

Additional comments by NovaSkola:
Just another reminder that the content dispute is not the issue here, and I hope that the content dispute with the user is settled on the talk page, which has an ongoing discussion.

Also user's anti-Azerbaijanism could be traced throught this site, in which clearly states anti-Azerbaijanian view of this user. This user also has same IP http://www.pracuj24www.info/kraj-hy-show-Սպասարկող:Տեղեկամատյան

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lida_Vorig

Discussion concerning Lida Vorig

Statement by Lida Vorig

Hi again :)

While browsing, I found some articles that I didn't think meet the WP:NOTABILITY guideline. From a previous experience I knew articles can be deleted, so I searched and found the AFD. User:NovaSkola lists all the articles he created on his page, while he created a lot of notable articles, the 8 in my opinion are not notable.

DJ eXe Hosts weekly internet radio show in Baku, where he plays his music.
Elşad Xose rapper. Got arrested for heroin use.
Kamil Jalilov musician. Toured with a band in the 70's
Salakhat Agaev 17 year old goal keeper from Baku
Baba Punhan author, biography section of whom is made up from a single sentence. "He served in the military "
Geysar Alakbarzadeh single sentence article about a football player in Khazakhstan.
Azad Asgarov wrestler with questionable record, mostly supported with self published sources.
Bahram Bagirzade was part of some team in Russian TV during the 90's. Note that the team itself doesn't have an article

Since the nomination, Azad Asgarov was proven to be a president of some federation in Azerbaijan. So I would like to withdraw the nomination, but don't know how.

That being said, I really would like to know how this (http://www.pracuj24www.info/kraj-hy-show-Սպասարկող:Տեղեկամատյան) proves that I'm Anti-Azerbaijani and 100% armenian (capitalization belongs to NovaSkola, he seems to have a problem with that word). I keep looking at it, but can't figure out what it is. My name isn't there, my ip address, which NovaSkola claims he traced, isn't there. This is whole experience is just another proof that cleaning up is never easy Lida Vorig (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors

I'm the editor who first noted these problematic AfDs by Lida Vorig and added them to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Azerbaijan. Of a total of 8, IMO there's 5 which are clearly notable, 2 which are borderline, and 1 which seems non-notable. It seems to me that Lida Vorig can also speak Russian [36], so even if these aren't bad-faith nominations, they're a clear example of being unable to follow WP:BEFORE --- my Russian is rather poor and I can't even speak Azeri at all (just have basic conversational knowledge of a distantly-related language written in a different script) but I was able to find at least some sources for almost all of these articles. cab (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The links provided in the request are not diffs as described in WP:DIFF. Please provide diffs, or this request may be closed without action. Sandstein 05:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Fixed". The conduct NovaSkola objected to is the aggressive creation of AfDs with spurious rationales on Azerbaijan-related articles --- diffs seem rather superfluous. Also I added the diff of original warning given to Lida Vorig about the editing restrictions. cab (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Lida Vorig

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

Mythdon

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

Request concerning Mythdon

User requesting enforcement:
—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Motion 2 based on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Mythdon monitoring users' use of Rollback

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

[37] Mythdon undid a rollback I performed for the mere reason that I performed a rollback on that edit. This is in some way a violation of his restrictions within the case.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
"Not applicable."

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Block of some sort, per the case remedies

Additional comments by —Ryūlóng (竜龙):
As I state above, Mythdon only undid the rollback that I performed because it was a rollback, and that is confirmed by his response to me on his user talk.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Discussion concerning Mythdon

Statement by Mythdon

If I get blocked for this revert, then I'm perfectly fine with that. Nothing else needed to say, but please look at my talk page. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors

Myth did it for more reasons other than it just being a rollback. This is evidenced by his statements on the talk page, and anything saying otherwise is misleading.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 03:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on a possible remedy, because I haven't looked at the arb case, Ryulong shouldn't have used rollback in that case, it's use is limited to bad faith edits only (vandalism etc). If Ryulong continues to use it like that it will be removed. Mythdon's claim of having previously edited the page, and therefore having it on his watchlist (and not therefore necessarily following Ryulong's edits for the purposes of catching him out like this) is correct, he edited it approximately 3 weeks ago, removing a piece of unreferenced information. Given the history however, Mythdon is far from the best person to undo the rollback by Ryulong, incorrect use of rollback or not. Viridae ^Talk 03:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm recused from this case since I presented evidence against Ryulong, but it seems clear Mythdon violated Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong#Motion_2 by edit warrning with Ryulong and not showing better communication skills (discussing the undo beforehand). Also, while I don't think he was directly sanctioned for it, Ryulong seems to have violated the meaning of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong#Ryulong.27s_misuse_of_rollback. Possibly this thread should result in a block on both users. MBisanz ^talk 05:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On the basis of a failure to use rollback correctly despite considerable warning to do so I am removing Ryulong's rollback privileges. Block of both sides is probably warranted per MBisanz. Viridae^Talk 05:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Removal of the rollback privileges on my account is enough of a punishment in this case. No block should be made on my account, as there are no sanctions regarding my use of rollback (as it was removed with my administrative tools). I did nothing else except bring Mythdon's activities to the attention of this board because I felt he was violating the sanctions against him.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good move on Viridae's part. And if I was not somewhat involved, I would block both of them myself. Tiptoety ^talk 05:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I still fail to see how any of my activities warrant a block. The removal of the rollback rights should be enough.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why would you block Ryulong? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Ryulong's rollback privileges was correct. As to Mythdon, in view of the findings in the arbitration case, I am inclined to issue a sanction per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Conduct probation enforcement prohibiting Mythdon from reverting edits by Ryulong. Thoughts? Sandstein 05:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, and not surprised that that conclusion is being made. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Mythdon

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

Ryulongs rollback access removed, he can no longer violate that so per the blocking policy any block now would be punative. Mythdon I have just blocked citing "Arbitration enforcement, reverting edits by Ryulong, general disruptive, combative editing", Basically for ramping up the dispute all over the place and intentionally and disruptively needling Ryulong. Viridae ^Talk 05:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid continued silly drama of this sort, and in view of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Mythdon monitoring users' use of Rollback as well as the case's other findings about Mythdon's inadequate approach to dispute resolution, I am sanctioning Mythdon as follows under the authority of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Conduct probation enforcement: He is ~~indefinitely~~ for the duration of his conduct probation prohibited from reverting edits by Ryulong. For the purpose of this sanction, a revert is any action that reverses the actions of Ryulong, in whole or in part. Sandstein 21:27, 18 August 2009 (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]

Revision as of 21:14, 18 August 2009 edit Sandstein (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 186,770 edits →‎Result concerning Mythdon: sanctioned ← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:27, 18 August 2009 edit undo Sandstein (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 186,770 edits →‎Result concerning Mythdon: replacing "indefinitely" with "for the duration of his conduct probation" Next edit →
Line 347:		Line 347:
	*Ryulongs rollback access removed, he can no longer violate that so per the blocking policy any block now would be punative. Mythdon I have just blocked citing '''"Arbitration enforcement, reverting edits by Ryulong, general disruptive, combative editing"''', Basically for ramping up the dispute all over the place and intentionally and disruptively needling Ryulong. [[User:Viridae\|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae\|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 05:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)		*Ryulongs rollback access removed, he can no longer violate that so per the blocking policy any block now would be punative. Mythdon I have just blocked citing '''"Arbitration enforcement, reverting edits by Ryulong, general disruptive, combative editing"''', Basically for ramping up the dispute all over the place and intentionally and disruptively needling Ryulong. [[User:Viridae\|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae\|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 05:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

	* To avoid continued silly drama of this sort, and in view of [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Mythdon monitoring users' use of Rollback]] as well as the case's other findings about Mythdon's inadequate approach to dispute resolution, I am sanctioning Mythdon as follows under the authority of [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Conduct probation enforcement]]: He is indefinitely prohibited from reverting edits by Ryulong. For the purpose of this sanction, a revert is any action that reverses the actions of Ryulong, in whole or in part. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein\|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 21:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)		* To avoid continued silly drama of this sort, and in view of [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Mythdon monitoring users' use of Rollback]] as well as the case's other findings about Mythdon's inadequate approach to dispute resolution, I am sanctioning Mythdon as follows under the authority of [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Conduct probation enforcement]]: He is <s>indefinitely</s> for the duration of his conduct probation prohibited from reverting edits by Ryulong. For the purpose of this sanction, a revert is any action that reverses the actions of Ryulong, in whole or in part. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein\|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 21:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)