Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Hittit

Hittit (talk · contribs) warned.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Hittit User requesting enforcement Sardur (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Hittit (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 2 reverts on Armenian Genocide, an article suject to this: "Under the discretionary sanctions imposed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, this article has been placed on a one-revert rule. Any editor who makes more than one revert (and this revert must be discussed on the talk page) in a 24-hour period will be blocked. Please edit cooperatively, and seek consensus and compromise rather than edit-war." [1]: 1st revert [2]: 2nd revert Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) Not applicable due to the warning on the talk page of the article, which is reproduced in top of the article itself when you edit it. Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) I trust admins as for the appropriate enforcement action. I would however think that a topic ban may be appropriate given the tone of Hittit's comments (example: "THE TERM "GENOCIDE" WAS "COINDED TO DESCRIBE THE HOLOCAUST" ANY RELATION TO THE ORIGING OF THIS TERM WITH ARMENIANS IS SHEER MANIPULATION AS ATTEMPTED IN THE ARTICLE AND I WILL REVERT IT RIGOROUSLY. ENOUGH MANIPULATION."). It is imho a clear evidence of treating Wikipedia as a battleground. Sardur (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC) Additional comments by editor filing complaint See above. Sardur (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC) I'm not Armenian. Hittit should stop this kind of nationalistic and personal attack. Sardur (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC) Sandstein, this sanction has been applied several times already; last case (a very similar one, btw) was about TheDarkLordSeth. Sardur (talk) 10:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [3] Discussion concerning Hittit Statement by Hittit I find this complaint highly absurd. The question is of one revert in which a sourced clarification I added was reverted by MarshallBagramyan. Furthermore, filing complains against those who contribute to the article with a range of sources and try to correct statement such as insinuating a relation between the invetion the term Genocide and the Armenians is childish. See my sources, the term was coined to refer to the Holocaust, attempts to suggest otherwise is manipulation and needs to be rapidly corrected. This complaint is unjustified and should be effectively ignored. Moreover, Wikipedia cannot be a hostage to Armenian editors deleting, reverting or filing compalains against those who want to correct the level of POV in the article.Hittit (talk) 09:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Hittit Result concerning Hittit This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I believe that this request is not actionable because the sanction by Moreschi displayed at the top of Talk:Armenian Genocide is likely invalid. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement does not appear to allow for article-level sanctions of this sort; it appears to direct that sanctions must be directed at individual editors following individual warnings. If article-level sanctions are desirable, the Committee should be asked to amend their decision to provide for such sanctions.  Sandstein  10:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC) Wouldn't "any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project" probably cover this? Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC) Conceivably, yes; but the wording of the remedy, "... impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere ...", leads me to believe that any sanctions are intended be targeted at specific editors, not at articles as a whole.  Sandstein  12:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC) Requested clarification from the Arbitration Committee. NW (Talk) 16:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC) The clarification notwithstanding, has Hittit been put on notice of the existence of discretionary sanctions? Stifle (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC) I have warned Hittit with the generic {{uw-sanctions}} template. If he takes the advice, good; if not, a new report can be filed. Sound good? NW (Talk) 18:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Agreed; this should be closed as no action. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Marekchelsea

Request not actionable: the subject had not been placed on notice by an administrator. He now has.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Marekchelsea User requesting enforcement M.K. (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Marekchelsea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it As WP:DIGWUREN case concluded editors working in EE topics should demonstrate wiliness to cooperate and work in those topics. I see user:Marekchelsea's practice of masking his controversial edits as minor ones (despite request to stop such practice), revert warring and other disruption as a direct threat to Wikipedias integrity (more details below) and a breach of principles outlined in WP:DIGWUREN. Marekcheslea is not a newcommer, he is editining for two years now, and is well aware of the rules he is breaching as he was also warned by admins and other users multiple times before and there is absolutely no progress in his behavior – only viable option left is the restrictions under WP:DIGWUREN. Disruptive editing Undiscussed cut’n’ paste move marked as minor edit [4][5] Another undiscussed cut’n paste move marked as minor edit [6][7] And another one undiscussed cut n paste move parked as minor edit [8][9] Undiscussed move marked as minor edit with misleading edit summary “change name according to belarusian wiki)“ – while claiming that the change was made “according to belarusian wiki“ Marekchelsea was doing the opposite – moving the article from the name that is used in Belarusian wiki to the name that is not even mentioned in the Belarusian wiki. Just a "few" more undiscussed cut‘n‘paste moves [10][11];[12][13];[14][15] User never discusses his moves or controversial edits despite being asked to do so, and thus promoting his personal agenda. The user was warned already in 2008 [16] twice [17] against removing text, without edit summary and was asked to discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page, but no progress in his behavior can be seen so far. Just now I asked him kindly to stop this disruptive practices[18] but after this, Marekchelsea instead simply deleted previous admin warning [19], and continues to make undiscussed controversial changes marking them as minor edits non stop [20];[21] also continuing his stale revert warring at Jan Czeczot article [22] (prievious reverts [23],[24],[25]) Revert warring Marekchelsea was warned to avoid revert warring a couple times before. After being warned to avoid revert warring and obey WP:3RR, [26] and asked to discuss controversial changes at the talk pages [27], Marekchelsea continued his ways – most telling example is this article [28] Just at this article alone Marekchelsea made at least 17 reverts, multiple times breaking 3RR rule, of which he was aware by now, by making 4, 5 or even more reverts in 24 hours [29],[30],[31],[32],[33] and so on. Disruption during CfD and personal attacks After this CfD [34] that went not the way Marekchelsea desired – according to Marekchelsea consensus was simply wrong[35] - he created POV fork category which was soon nominated by uninvolved admin for deletion [36]. During this CfD Marekchelsea breached rules of WP:No personal attacks by attacking editor just because he expressed opinion opposing his views [37] Also CfD related revert spree accompanied by offensive edit summaries („this is sick“) aimed towards at least three wikipedia editors [38] is also worth noting. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) # [39] Warning by LAAFan (talk · contribs) [40] Warning by Xeltran (talk · contribs) [41] Warning by meco (talk · contribs) [42] Warning by M.K (talk · contribs) [43] Warning by BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [44] Warning by Renata3 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Block or EE topic ban Additional comments by editor filing complaint Most of the disruptive actions such as revert warring are actionable by itself under general WP policies especially if being repeated after multiple warnings (with no stopping signs). Regarding WP:Digwuren I would ask for a firm notice that further disruption such as undiscussed controversial cut'n'paste moves, controversial edits marked as minor with no explanation neither in edit summary nor in talk page, misleading edit summaries, revert warring without participation in discussions on the talk page, and other disruption will not be tolerated. M.K. (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Why this request is not processed yet? Any particular reason? M.K. (talk) 07:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Thank you, Stifle , for placing notification to Marekchelsea. I have further request concerning this issue: a) please, consider adding Marekchelsea's name on this list, because next time, somebody may argue about this. b) by closing this request please address, do documented Marekchelsea's behavior here is consistent with good editing practice or not (I am not talking about sanctions as such). I fear, that otherwise, by simply archiving case without such unambiguous note, bad signal may be sent and individual in question may see it as encouragement of such behavior. Also it would serve as a good preventive measure, that such disruption would not be tolerated in the future. Thank you. M.K. (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested notice delivered on 2010-04-18T17:03:45 Discussion concerning Marekchelsea Statement by Marekchelsea Comments by others about the request concerning Marekchelsea Result concerning Marekchelsea This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Please provide evidence that User:Marekchelsea has been put on notice of the general sanctions by an administrator, as required by remedy 12, paragraph 2, of WP:DIGWUREN. Stifle (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC) The request has not been further processed because nobody has provided evidence that an administrator placed Marekchelsea on notice of the general sanctions prior to the events linked above. If there is no evidence posted within the next day or so, this request will be summarily denied. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC) I have notified Marekchelsea of the existence of the general sanctions. If the matter is sanctionable under other Wikipedia policies it can be raised at WP:ANI, although as the user has not edited in three days and blocks are meant to be preventative rather than punitive, I doubt any further action would be taken there. This will be closed with no action. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Closing this thread down, per Stifle: not actionable. AGK 16:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Lihaas

User blocked for 8 hours for 1RR violation. Stifle (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Lihaas User requesting enforcement O Fenian (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Lihaas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 2 reverts in less than 24 hours. [45] First revert [46] Second revert Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) [47] Warning by O Fenian (talk · contribs) Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Block Additional comments by editor filing complaint In addition there was also a third revert, totalling three revrets within a period less than 30 hours. While List of terrorist incidents, 2010 as a whole may not be covered by the "Troubles" case, adding claims about Republican Action Against Drugs do make those edits covered by the Troubles case. He has been reverted by three different editors and I have patiently explained that the edit is in violation of three different policies, but he just keeps making it. To show how disruptive Lihaas is being on this article, he keeps adding this as a "terrorist incident", amongst others. This is against the agreed inclusion critera (which Lihaas ignores saying "ignore all rules") as it is not labelled as "terrorism" by the source. It is quite feasible that a pipe bomb blowing up a telephone box is youths experimenting with bomb-making, to label it as a terrorist incident in the absence of sources doing so is disruption. O Fenian (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [48] Discussion concerning Lihaas Statement by Lihaas Comments by others about the request concerning Lihaas Result concerning Lihaas This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Blocked 8 hours. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Lihaas 2

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

Request concerning Lihaas

User requesting enforcement

O Fenian (talk) 06:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Lihaas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case

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

1. [49] First revert
2. [50] Second revert, less than 24 hours after the first

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

Not applicable, has just been blocked under this sanction

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

Block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The IP editor is plainly Lihaas, given the edit to to the article and continuing the same discussion on the talk page, he is also participating in the same discussion as the account on Talk:Tapuah junction stabbing. Northern Cyprus presidential election, 2010 is another article common to both the IP and the account as well. I do not believe it should be necessary for me to file a WP:SPI first given they are plainly the same? Note that the "source" he has added is this, which only describes Rebublican Action Against Drugs as a "vigilante organisation" and does not use the word terrorism as required. This is the second time in a matter of days Lihaas has violated the sanction on this article, the report right above this one was his first violation. O Fenian (talk) 06:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[51]

Discussion concerning Lihaas

Statement by Lihaas

if one sees the discussion on the talk page for List of terrorist incidents, 2010#criteria for inclusions I have asked O Fenian for a debate where he refuses to debate the issue at hand but simply states : "This is not a list of bombings, so please do not add bombings..." + "If your only argument is that you intend to "ignore all rules" then this discussion is pointless" + "You either provide a source that describes the incident as terrorism, or it does not get added to the list." He then resorts to the tried and tested method of tag-team revertin with the user RepublicanJacobite from the the irish republican wikiproject (of which the two did the same on the RIRA/CIRA articles last year to remove the sources quotations from the IMC report of the time). On another issue on the page I had an issue with the addition of the Tapuah Junction stabbing incident which another editor added because wikipedia calls for editors to be WP:Bold. I'm currently in the process of debating with another editor why i think it is wrong to add and why he thinks it is right, as the onus is on me to challenge the info was agreeably left on the page till consensus. Then another editor comes along and adds this edit in question about RAAD, the 2 republican members seem to so politically charged that they dont want to discuss the issue or the criteria for inclusion (in general as per the topic of the debate) and refuse to discuss this but simply state the onus turns on us again. I have said it before in the debate that i agree there is stuff that shouldn't be on here but let's debate a criteria, yet they seem to think it is absolutely there preregotive to decide on an issue that suits them with scant regard for the talk facility. What is the point of a talk facility if political agendas have it there way without willingness to discuss? Even the hot-bed of the Middle East conflict is at least willing to discuss in the Jewish Exodus from Arab lands. Im not saying im right, im just saying have a debate fairly before removing. Then get consensus. Wikipedia explicity asked an editor to be bold and they remove without discussing it with anyone. Might as well get rid of all these rules then. (of which, btw WP:Ignore also states that rules dont have to be followed by the book, meaning WP:WTA has repercussions. Furthermore, another editor has also said how the list of terrorist incidents is unrelated to the troubles and that every act of terror/political violence in N. Ireland is not related to the troubles.Lihaas (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

As for his latest "blatant lie" he has used the talk page as a forum rather than discussion. i have listed what he said and refused to discuss. Talk page doesnt mean using it for the sake of it, its to be used for discussion of content not threats.

as for "edit summary of vandalism -- watch what you delete" if you read the edit you will find the edit removed undisputed info apart from the controvesy. go on and see how the dates of another entry were reverted, mind you without any edit summary whatsoever. At any rate, pending the outcome of this case i have not gone back and reverted. But then there is the other precedence for being WP:Bold in reverting other controversial additions like that of the Tapuah junction. if one wants to read/follow the debate in this regard i have postedon the talk page without reverting. the onus now falls on O Fenian to debate.

He now seems to say, after i have given an arguement with basis, that he doesnt want to debate because he seems to have changed his mind "This is becoming little more than trolling now. Unless reliable sources describe this incident as terrorism, or the perpetrators as terrorists, Wikipedia will not be doing so." Now i would like to ask an admin. Why should i have to keep justifying myself if he refuses to talk and debate?

There seems to be a new red herring to avoid debate. "finding it difficult to believe that straight after a block for a 1RR breach, an editor can breach 1RR again on the same article using a sockpuppet, continue edit warring after that" firstly, 2 editors vs. one finds this article is not related to the troubles so there is a 3rr rule. Secondly, i have ceased to remove his edit awaiting the setting of precedent. Thirdly, there is no "sockpuppet," which he seems to believe is the only reason to argue about.

Sockpuppet case

Why would i possible want to log out and log back in just to edit this? That to somethign that is blatantly similiar? If i was a sock puppet woudlnt i at least try to be different? My account seems to often log out on some comps im on b/c its a public facility or has low cache memory. i dont know what the reason is.Lihaas (talk) 09:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

previous block

on what basis was this? on the whim of 1 person? No others, no other admins. Is this a politically driven wikipedia that 1 person can make demands have it passed? Simply because he asserts a relation with the troubles doesnt make it true? Mr. O Fenian is not a historian by an qualification not a policy maker nor a wikipedia admin/rule maker. as above, 2 editors on the issue have shown this to be otherwise. Why is there no apology for the block? And as shown above the second "revert" adds another source to work through consensus, yet for some reason wikipedia seems to believe that only those who update regularly have the authority to make demands on others.Lihaas (talk) 10:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Lihaas, the block was on the basis of this remedy, which clearly states that editors who exceed 1RR "may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator". The remedy has the scope of "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland", and I consider the Republican organization is related to Irish nationalism. PhilKnight (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You said "any article that could be reasonably construed..." yet i didnt edit RAAD (even if it were to construed as a time of the troubles (as per the above not everything in the country has to do with the troubles), even though the topic on hand concerns actions in 2010). The article in questions is List of terrorist incidents, 2010. Seeing that page there are only a few facets that even consider ireland as a whole.

Furthermore, the RAAD page itself was created only lastmonth in response to action this year, long after the troubles were done with. Yes the remedy ties me up to the troubles which i havent even touched in a year

You can also see the tag-team revert editors supporting each other (the only this RepublicanJacobite seems to want to discuss. very likely to be a case of sockpuppetry)Talk:List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2010#Arbitrary_break

And i do all the admins actually read the content before replying? (See tim songs update below after i posted)

also, and more importantly, the block came from a "revert" that included lots of info. not just his that was another "revert" in less than 24 hours. see the previous info above. Didnt the admin who did the block actually read the info? Lihaas (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Lihaas

• Comment I think invoking AE is an unnecessary escalation of what has been a fairly slow-burn, civil discussion, albeit mostly carried out by edit summary, the more unfortunately. Firstly, I don't think this is a Troubles related incident, simply a vanilla question of whether a violent act by a vigilante group can be construed as terrorism. Not all terrorism in Ireland is by definition part of the Troubles. Secondly, the second "revert" diff linked by O Fenian above represents what appears to be a good faith effort to make a real substantive change to meet O Fenian et al's concerns by adding a new source on the issue. I oppose any blocks at this time as unduly chilling on the necessary give-and-take we're having on this list and related articles. (please see also my comments at the SPI case). Ray^Talk 18:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Considering Lihaas is once again adding the incident which is unsourced as terrorism with an edit summary of vandalism -- watch what you delete I would request that a sanction (or sanctions) of some description is/are issued. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Further accusation of vandalism, and also a blatant lie that "Time and time again you have refused to use the talk facility", when I have posted on the talk page repeatedly. A block at this stage would not be punitive, it would prevent him edit-warring to add back the incident which is unsourced as terrorism, since he shows no sign of stopping. O Fenian (talk) 09:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I am finding it difficult to believe that straight after a block for a 1RR breach, an editor can breach 1RR again on the same article using a sockpuppet, continue edit warring after that, make accusations of vandalism, and that nothing is going to happen about this? When will it end? O Fenian (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

To repeat myself, I don't think this falls under the arbitration case for the Troubles; Lihaas' problem here has nothing to do with Irish nationalism, and I've yet to see a serious argument that this incident springs from that. In which case what we have is a fairly frustrating and annoying content dispute, where I do think Lihaas is being a little bit unreasonable, but unreasonableness is not yet a reason for banning. Ray^Talk 04:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment From my uninvolved view with this current issue. I have dealt with O Fenian before and I noticed from his comment of complaining about accusations of vandalism, this reminds me of a certain accusation here where he falsely accused me of vandalism while I attempted to fix an infobox which I was only able to do poorly due to template problems. Hypocrisy? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

As anyone can see, that (which is not caused by any since-deleted templates) is a joke, and that any editor knowingly saw fit to leave an infobox in that state and not self-revert their edit is vandalism in my opinion. O Fenian (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to remove a flag that does not represent the whole of Ireland and due to there being no template to have it say "Ireland" without a flag, that was all I could do with the templates avaliable which is not vandalism. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Could I suggest you discontinue this thread? PhilKnight (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The point I was making is that O Fenian's motives may be questionable with the source I gave that suggests there may be some hypocrisy which makes one of his explainations suspicious. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Lihaas

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

• As the IP user was not evading a block, it would seem to me that the appropriate venue for this request is WP:SPI, where you can raise a type A checkuser request. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
• User:O Fenian has asked me to review this decision as he feels it is obvious that the user is Lihaas. I do not believe further action is appropriate here but am leaving the request open for other admins if they think differently. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
• The IP edits the same articles, at similar times, but never at the same time, so it certainly could be a sock. Given that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lihaas has already been filed, I'll wait for the result. PhilKnight (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I've declined the CU request, as it is definitely the same user. Someone here should figure out if any sanction is necessary. Tim Song (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
    • SPI has kicked it back to us. I am inclined to closed this with no action per Ray above, as blocks are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive. Stifle (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
• Question: Have all those accounts which violated an arbitration decision been blocked? If any remain free to edit, I disagree that they should go unsanctioned. Of course, if all accounts associated with this request have been blocked for sockpuppetry by the folks at SPI then applying a sanction would be needless. AGK 16:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi AGK, my understanding is there was an infringement, but Lihaas hasn't been blocked. I agree a short block could be appropriate. PhilKnight (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for clearing that up. Any block should be accompanied with a notice that further violations will result in an extended block and/or a ban from the topic area. This sort of problem editor can quickly escalate from being a small pain in the rear to being a major obstacle to collaboration and discussion. I do, however, hesitate at blocking now for the two reverts because of the time that has elapsed since the incident. On the other hand, a block may a good idea in light of the sock puppetry. AGK 23:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• Should we be kicking Lihaas out of this subject area permanently, in light of the sock puppetry? People who use alternative accounts to avoid scrutiny and push through their POV aren't the kind of people we need floating around contested, ex-arbitration subject areas. AGK 23:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

  My feeling, as above, is that blocks are meant to be preventative rather than punitive and it would do no good to block him at this stage. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What about a restriction that he may only edit while logged in? Any future failure to log in that is not immediately corrected will result in a block. Tim Song (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Stifle: Blocks are meant to be immediately preventative, yes, but I'm talking about sanctioning him. The preventative element of a sanction needs to be considered on a more long-term basis—so even if he isn't currently a "threat", it may be the case that his presence in this subject area is detrimental.
Tim Song: I don't think that's necessary. We usually deal with sock puppets by slamming an indef on the puppet/s and a lengthy block or indef on the master. I'm also not seeing any remedy in the The Troubles case that would allow us to levy such a sanction even if we wanted to. Maybe a community one-account restriction could be agreed to at AN/I, but again—I don't agree that it's necessary. AGK 21:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson

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

Request concerning Pmanderson

User requesting enforcement

Tony (talk) 04:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Pmanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

• Wikipedia:RFAR/DDL#Pmanderson topic banned - The original prohibition on editing style pages and talk pages was lifted, then reimposed and broadened after a few weeks because of bad behaviour.

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

1. !Voting in an RfC on a MoS talk page about a proposal to merge several outlying MoS pages into an existing MoS page.
2. Associated incivilities at WT:Words to watch -

   Refers to User:Gnevin as a "bully", in addition inferring that other editors on the page are bullies.

   Refers to MoS as "an illiterate disaster area"; Calls for sanctions for anyone who supports the merger; "Spotty reception"; "a falsehood",

   Refers to other editors at WP:WTW as "a aquadron (sic) of bullies".

3. undid and edit at WP:PEACOCK under guise of reverting vandalism
4. further comment at WP:WTW
5. further comment at WP:WTW

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

• Previous WP:AE report.
• Warned here, and has responded here that he believes his "restriction has lapsed". I think the user knows very well that the ArbCom restriction was for 12 months (i.e., until 14 June 2010).

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

Extension of the restriction for a further six months, to expire on 14 December 2010 contingent on good behaviour during the remainder of the restricted period. Strike-through of the edits in question at WT:Words to watch.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user has breached the ArbCom restriction. Furthermore, he has shown in the breaching that he is incapable of behaving according to WP:CIVIL, on the MoS pages and elsewhere, using a strategy of inflammatory attacks on editors and on the MoS itself. I note a long history of blocks for edit-warring, including one during the restricted period, on 15 December 2009, although rescinded on the promise to stay away from the article in question. I note also that, oddly, rollback tools were granted on 4 January, just a few weeks after that event. [My error: granted a year earlier—Tony1] (Please refer to previous WP:AE report).

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff.

Discussion concerning Pmanderson

Statement by Pmanderson

I followed an invitation to comment from WT:NOR, which has nothing to do with MOS, on an issue concerning three pages which have nothing to do with MOS, attempting to merge them into a MOS page. When I did so, I did not realize the target was a MOS page, I also thought that the restriction had lapsed (I'm not counting the days until I can continue with MOS, which is the intent of the restriction); but I will abide by any decision relating to WT:Words to watch.

However, I hope the decision will be to leave things alone. The restriction arises from a date-delinking case; this is a completely different issue.

This complaint is an abuse of process, attempting to Wiki-lawyer a loosely phrased reestriction, which will expire before long, into an area it was never intended to cover; similarly, the merge proposal is an attempt to bull through a change which has no consensus, and which will have the effect of expanding MOS.

Both of these flaws are endemic to MOS's way of conduct and to its regulars; is Tony's real objection to somebody pointing out this creeping imperialism? Or is it being reminded that MOS is widely (and justly) despised outside its Mutual Admiration Society? (Which is why I will not discuss the "guideline" if this merge passes; I will simply ignore it.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I observe that those calling for extended sanctions and removal of my comments are the other participants in the date-delinking case (who were also sanctioned); this is a small clique, attempting to remove the traces that people disagree with them.

The claims of idyllic harmony before I arrived are false: there was already a protest, led by PBS, against participants in the RfC presuming to declare it closed (after only a few days) and against wide dispute. In fact, this appears to be why Slim Virgin asked for outside voices in the first place. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You observe incorrectly. I am calling for the removal of your comments and I was not sanctioned in the date-delinking case.  HWV258.  22:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Really? How did ArbCom miss my opposite number? I may propose an amendment. ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

They didn't "miss" anything. (Unlike yourself) there's a good reason why I didn't receive sanctions.  HWV258.  01:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Tony has been attempting to gather together all my past actions; the result has described as Wikilawyering by third parties as well as myself. This continued effort to silence an inconvenient voice is really deplorable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This removal, by Gnevin (the proposer of this RfC) is at least indicative of the true purpose of this complaint. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Greg L

What I just read, the widened restriction, is as follows:

“ …restriction re-widened to include the pages and talk pages of all MOS and style guidelines due to continuing disruption. ”

Quoting PMAnderson: …which have nothing to do with MOS… perhaps. It is, however, quite clearly “style guidelines”. Moreover, we once again seem to be seeing “continuing disruption”, which is what happens if one accuses an experienced editor who has been around since 2005 with “vandalism” over a style guide issue (Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms) when it is quite clear that the edit PMAnderson reverted was over a legitimate difference in opinion and couldn’t properly be regarded as vandalism by any stretch of the imagination.

The reason for the topic ban on PMAnderson was to take a source of both the fuel and the spark from venues where debate was ongoing that were hot-button topics for him. The ban was widened because the scope of topics that were obviously hot-button issues proved wider than first thought.

As for PMAnderson’s protestation This complaint is an abuse of process, attempting to Wiki-lawyer a loosely phrased reestriction… I find he doth protest too much. The extended topic ban (“the pages and talk pages of all MOS and style guidelines”) is sufficiently clear. The motives and reasoning underlying the restrictions are even more clear.

As to the entire last paragraph of PMAnderson’s statement… (endemic flaws, the “regulars” on MOS, “creeping imperialism”), I frankly don’t know how to respond to that. Greg L (talk) 06:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a suggestion: he (and others) could stop attempting to take over policy pages, acclaiming seriously disputed proposals as consensus, and generally conduct themselves in accordance with policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Quoting PMAnderson: … conduct themselves in accordance with policy. Interesting. Tony has no restrictions on his editing style guides and MOS-related pages and talk pages; it is OK for him to be there. Tony has one single block to his record and that was an accident the blocking admin took back three hours later. Tony, who is an experienced wikipedian, has a long record of knowing how to contribute in a collaborative writing environment without being uncivil and disruptive and engaging in incessant editwarring.

  Tony also takes care, when coming to venues like this, to use the truth and nothing but the truth in his posts. I find it unfortunate and telling when PMAnderson writes I did not realize the target was a MOS page when it was so easy for the inviting editor to come here (as she later did) to point out that her open invitation began with There's a proposal to merge several pages as part of a project to streamline the MoS. It appears to me that PMAnderson brings both the fuel and the spark to the style-guide coal mines and we simply don’t need that. Greg L (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#Tony1_topic_banned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Ohconfucius

I do not mind a sincere and civil vote by Pma, and I think people would have overlooked a genuine 'technical violation'. However, it goes way beyond that: he charges into a discussion – and on-going rewriting work – which has been going on in a very cordial, collegial and enthusiastic manner for some weeks, without apparently having read through the exchanges, and then proceeds to insult those who have given their hard work to consolidate the mess which resulted from gradual evolution. I find the repeated pattern of unprovoked denigration of others and dissing of their opinions unacceptable. Even here (above), his rhetoric is belligerent, and I note his vitriolic attack ("creeping imperialism") of Tony for filing this case. His anger-management does not seem to have improved a lot, if at all, since the dates case.

He may choose to forget that the broadening of the arbcom restriction was a result of previous disruption; to say it is "loosely phrased reestriction" (sic) is stretching credulity to the extreme - the wording is, I believe, crystal clear. There seems to be a serious disconnect between his statement that he wasn't aware it was a Style guideline, and his assertion that editing restrictions placed upon him had lapsed already. This version is the one which Pmanderson voted on. The very prominent {{style-guideline}} tag at the top of the page is difficult to miss. The MOS tag has similarly existed on WP:PEACOCK since at least the end of 2007.

In view of the zero improvement in his behaviour, I believe a six-month extension to the topic ban to be entirely appropriate, to prevent further disruption. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

But all was not harmony before I arrived; there was already a protest, led by PBS, against participants in the RfC presuming to declare it closed (after only a few days and against wide dispute) - and I see it continues without me. In fact, this appears to be why Slim Virgin asked for outside voices in the first place. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Your participation was notable by its inflammatory nature, and the sooner you admit that, the better. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Pmanderson

• When it is confirmed that Pmanderson has transgressed his sanctions, I would request that all of his comments at Wikipedia talk:Words to watch‎‎ are removed. To not remove his comments makes a mockery of the arbitration process.  HWV258.  06:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Hesperian

Pmanderson provides a reasonable explanation for what is only a technical violation, if a violation at all. And his comments, if read in context, are only barely objectionable. Hesperian 09:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

What ever about his claim that the edits at W2W where accidental When I did so, I did not realize the target was a MOS page. This edit can not claim such a defence Gnevin (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your unsolicited support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by SlimVirgin

Just a point about Pmanderson's statement that he was responding to a request for comment posted on WT:NOR, and didn't realize it was connected to the MoS. I was the one who posted that request, and it's clearly connected to the MoS. I wrote:

Wikipedia talk:Words to watch#RFC. There's a proposal to merge several pages as part of a project to streamline the MoS. One part of the proposal is to merge Words to avoid, Avoid peacock terms, Avoid weasel words, and Avoid neologisms into a new page, Words to watch (W2W). Fresh input would be appreciated at the RfC. [52]

SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 12:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Pmanderson

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

By editing Wikipedia talk:Words to watch and Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms, which are labeled as being part of WP:MOS, Pmanderson has violated the extension of his topic ban to "the pages and talk pages of all MOS and style guidelines" by Shell Kinney (talk · contribs), an arbitrator. However, I'm not sure abount the binding nature (and hence the enforceability) of this extension, because the Arbitration Committee's decision does not authorize discretionary sanctions by administrators (which could include such a ban extension) and nothing indicates that the ban extension is the result of a (public or non-public) vote of the Committee, either in the course of the original case or an amendment motion. For this reason, I am asking Shell Kinney to clarify whether his ban extension was made in the exercise of the Arbitration Committee's binding dispute resolution authority.

• If Shell Kinney indicates that it was, I intend to enforce it according to the decision's enforcement provision; the conceivable question about whether a ban extension decided by an individual arbitrator is ultra vires would then be for the Committee itself (or Jimbo Wales) to review if they are seized by any appeal. This is because we as editors are not authorized to review whether an arbitral action is in conformity with the arbitration policy.
• If Shell Kinney indicates that it was not, the ban extension is void and this request should be dismissed.  Sandstein  16:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Shell did not become an arbitrator until the start of this year, so I can't see how a sanction she imposed in 2009 could possibly be under arbcom's authority. I do have concerns about Sandstein's proposed action, though. As a procedural matter, his proposal means that we would be overturning Shell's enforcement action, without either consensus or authorization from the committee. It could be argued that the action was not taken "pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy", but this potential is quite troubling. As a philosophical matter, sanctions normally stay in force until they are successfully appealed. We should discourage users from testing their sanctions in the hope that they would be found invalid. No appeal has ever been made in this case, and I'm almost minded to think that to the extent there are any objections to Shell's sanction, they have been forfeited. I'm not sure if we should reach, nostra sponte, an issue that no one in this request addressed. Tim Song (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: When the ban remedies were moderated in August 2009, the three amendments made to Pmanderson's and others' topic bans explicitly adjusted the restriction from "'style and editing guidelines' (or similar wording)" to "style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates". The intent of those amendments seem quite clear: only edits to MoS pages relating to date linking are to be sanctioned. Per Sanstein, in the absence of a provision for administrators to re-broaden the topic bans, this request does not seem actionable. Moreover, I am not seeing why Pmanderson's actions are at all of concern or at all might re-inflame the date delinking dispute. AGK 23:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Kedadi

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

Request concerning Kedadi

User requesting enforcement

Athenean (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Kedadi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ARBMAC#Editorial_process

Kedadi is a sterile revert-warrior on any topic related to Albania, a sort of self-styled "gatekeeper". Virtually all his article space edits consist of reverts [53], often with a hostile [54] or deceitful [55] edit summary (the version he reverted to is anything but stable). He has been particularly disruptive lately, always joining in whatever edit-war involving Albanian editors is going on [56] [57] [58] [59]. Whenever the other Albanian editors reach their 3RR limit, Kedadi is always there for that extra revert. He also almost never participates in talkpage discussions, except only to cast a !vote. Seeing how he appears to be a revert-only account, with minimal content building and causing considerable disruption, some sort of sanction, whether a revert limitation or topic ban seems appropriate. This has been going on far too long.

Diffs of prior warnings

His talkpage is a graveyard of warnings, notifications, conflict, and hostility, generally reflecting his contributions [60] [61] [62] [63]. He has been topic-banned before [64] as well.

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

Revert limitations or topic-ban.

Additional comments

The situation on Albania-related topics has reached boiling point of late, causing an administrator to issue the following warning [65]. I am content to heed this warning. It appears Kedadi is not.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[66]

Discussion concerning Kedadi

Comments by others about the request concerning Kedadi

I just checked one of the latest performances of the reverting circus between the Greek and the Albanian crowds: Dardani. For crying out loud. Aigest (talk · contribs) removes some alleged fact-bites, giving clear reason for the removal.([67] and subsequent edits.) Megistias (talk · contribs) reverts him with an accusation of "vandalism" [68]. Aigest explains on talk [69]. Nevertheless, Athenean (talk · contribs), Alexikoua (talk · contribs) and Megistias [70][71][72] revert him in tag-team four or five times, in what is apparently a kind of automated knee-jerk reaction for them. On the other side, Kedadi joins in the fray, reverting once [73]. Until, finally, the Greek team makes an effort to actually understand Aigest's point, and belatedly has to admit that he was right all along [74]. I can certainly see a list of people who need some kind of sanctions here, but Kedadi isn't necessarily on top of that list. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Kedadi has done nothing but revert, revert, revert, since he joined in 2005. Never discusses, never compromises, never stops. That's the difference. I heeded the warning given on Talk:Dardani. Kedadi chose not to. And for the record, the reason I reverted Aigest is because he clearly has no idea what he's talking about [75] (blame it on poor English comprehension), as is immediately obvious to anyone who actually bothers to consult the source [76] (which apparently does not include Future Perfect at Sunrise). And no, removing relevant, sourced information is not removal of "alleged fact-bites" (whatever that means), the reason given is not "clear" at all, and the only "automated knee-jerk reaction" is this [77]. Contrast my posting on the talkpage with Kedadi's sterile, WP:NINJA-style reverting. No response to my talkpage post, not even an edit summary, just an undo. Athenean (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The passage in the source reads: A corrupt passage in Strabo which was probably derived from Hecateus, may help us; for it seems to record the combination of the "Peresadyes" and the Encheleae to create a powerful state. If so, the Peresadyes was the name of the dynasty at Trebeniste. The name suggests they were Thracians...

Please observe the conjectural nature of this: If a corrupt passage is correctly reconstructed, then there was a dynasty called Peresadyes; the name suggests that they were Thracians. In the most recent revert war, this becomes a plain statement of fact: that there was such a dynasty and that they were Thracian; a distinct over-reading.

In any case, this appears to be settled (Athenean standing out), on the grounds that none of these were Dardani, and therefore the edit is also off topic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Kedadi

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