Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:55, 2 April 2014

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

ZORDANLIGHTER

ZORDANLIGHTER is indefinitely topic banned from topics relating to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan--Cailil ^talk 19:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning ZORDANLIGHTER

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan :

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

26 March 2014 Files a spurious SPI against myself, pure battleground mentality.
26 March 2014 Calls me "useless" and an "ISI agent" These are obvious personal attacks.
26 March 2014 Insertion of a blatant BLP violation, this unsourced "and cooking up lies and rumors" and the cited part "herself is found to be biased" is not even in the source used, the source actually says "Setalvad is alleged to have included charges that were retracted later by the witnesses." And that is all it says regarding this BLP. This is source misrepresentation to smear a BLP.

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

Warned on 26 March 2014 by Darkness Shines (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The fact that these edits came just after having being notified of discretionary sanctions shows, to me at least, a battlefield approach to editing in what is a highly contentious topic, notably the events which occurred in Gujarat in 02. Most telling were the edits which gave me cause to issue the notification. Restoration, twice, of the main article on the incidents to a version from over a year ago, which also contained BLPPRIMARY violations, and in doing so removed up to a hundred (wild guess there, I am not about to count them) academic sources which discuss the issue. This removal was a terrible breach of NPOV.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Notified

Discussion concerning ZORDANLIGHTER

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

Statement by ZORDANLIGHTER

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2002_Gujarat_violence#Biased_article_2

The entire article is biased inspite of open truth.Some unknown journalists are given more importance than well established news agencies.

Statement by Khabboos

Zordanlighter has not been warned by an admin earlier and may not yet understand the rules here. I think he must first be warned not to indulge in Original Research and that he should cite references that contain the same words as the sentence he uses on wikipedia.—Khabboos (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Smsarmad

This SPI case results might be of interest to admins reviewing this request. -- SMS ^Talk 21:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning ZORDANLIGHTER

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

Calling someone an intelligence agent in an attempt to discredit them is either simple trolling or an indication of a clear disregard for wikipdia's standards for behaviour. ZORDANLIGHTER is a relatively new account that has already been blocked for disruptive editing (only in the last week) and whose conduct has degenerated since being notified of discretionary sanctions.
Opening an SPI by linking 12 completely unrelated accounts without evidence and with the comment "Just 5% chance. 95% chance of myself being wrong" indicates that this person is either naive or trolling - but this is not within the remit of AE.
In terms of the RFAR this edit[1] gives me reason to consider that ZORDANLIGHTER is indeed just being disruptive because they've added[2] and removed this material within 1 minute. What worries me most is that this issue seems to be an escalation of issues on Total Siyapaa and rather than heeding the AC/DS warning ZORDANLIGHTER's behaviour has gotten worse.
I'd be inclined to issue a final warning in this case regarding edits to pages relating to the area conflict covered by this RFAR and separately issue a standard sysop warning regarding conduct toward other users. However, I am open-minded if other sysops see ZORDANLIGHTER's actions as warranting harsher sanction--Cailil ^talk 22:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be happy with that, but I'd be fairly likely to have a pretty low standard if there is further misconduct. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The situation that led to the block of ZORDANLIGHTER on 17 March (for removing others' comments) is explained in more detail on this version of his talk page. Since the DS warning was only just given on 26 March there has not been enough time for Z. to do much that is worthy of sanction. ZORDANLIGHTER's comments which can be seen on Talk:Total Siyapaa do not inspire confidence, but all but one of these comments were *before* the DS warning. Unless Z. decides to completely change his approach in the near future those who are expecting the worst probably won't need to wait long. In other words, closing this with just a warning should be sufficient. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the results of the SPI linked to by SMS above - I'm asking Salvio for input here--Cailil ^talk 16:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know what you'd like to know, Cailil; so, please do feel free to ask if you'd like to know more. In short, I ran a check on IMRANABBASCHAMPION and technical evidence showed me that there were strong links among said account, BLACKIEHINDU, Whistlingwoods and ZORDANLIGHTER. I found edits made by different accounts from the same IP address within a short time frame of one another and with the same UA – and, more than that, in general, all their edits came from the same /25 range with the same UA. For Whistlingwood, I also took into account the fact that his edits always supported Zordanlighter, which reinforced my original conclusion. In the end, however, I considered the technical evidence I gathered strong enough to call the whole bunch Confirmed. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Salvio - I missed the bit where ZORDANLIGHTER was blocked for 2 weeks. But fundamentally what I'm wondering is, if given this abuse we should move to a higher level sanction or just close with the warning? Personally I'd lean towards a topic ban at this point--Cailil ^talk 19:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the SPI result indicates that ZORDANLIGHTER engaged in disruptive topic-related sockpuppetry after being warned about discretionary sanctions, including with edits as BLACKIEHINDU (talk · contribs) such as "[living person] is an Dark and ugly South Indian Hindu" ([3]), I recommend an indefinite topic ban from everything related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Sandstein 19:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since ZORDANLIGHTER's abuse of multiple accounts is now confirmed and he has no record of any helpful encyclopedic editing I'd support a one-year block under discretionary sanctions. The above diff by User:BLACKIEHINDU is to be credited to ZORDANLIGHTER per the sock case results, and it certainly shows improper ethnic motivation for his Wikipedia edits. Z's other confirmed socks should be indeffed as a normal admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy leaving it as a two week block (as opposed to extending it to a year as Ed suggested) but placing the indef topic ban per Sandstein. I think a two week block is an appropriate sanction for the sockpuppetry and that the topic ban is necessary to prevent further disruptive edits to the topic area. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have no qualms about a year-long block, but I can certainly live with an indefinite topic ban. It's minimal effort to re-block if that proves necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Callanecc and HJ Mitchell regarding the block. Sandstein 16:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Sandstein and HJ and Callanecc - if there are no objections and nothing new comes up I'll close this in 24 hours with an imposition of an indefinite topic ban on ZORDANLIGHTER from the India, Pakistan and Afghanistan topic area(s)--Cailil ^talk 17:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, straightforwards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So closed, ZORDANLIGHTER is topic banned from topics related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan--Cailil ^talk 19:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AcidSnow

Not actionable, submitter Khabboos sanctioned per the section below. Sandstein 16:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning AcidSnow

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Khabboos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan :

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

Here,[4] he reverted my edit which provided proper citations about the Nowshera Mob attack and arson in Islamabad added to the Anti-Hinduism article. The references cited say the same thing as the sentence added to the wiki article.

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

Warned on [5] by admin ErikHaugen (talk · contribs)}}
Warned on [6] by admin DangerousPanda (talk · contribs)
Warned on [7]
Warned on [8]
Warned on [9] by Smsarmad (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Some editors wrote that the Nowshera Mob attack and arson in Islamabad cannot be added to the Persecution of Hindus article because the word, "persecution" was not mentioned in the references cited at the Talk:Persecution of Hindus page[10] (when actually one editor, Kanga Roo in the Zoo writes that the word, "persecution" is mentioned in one of the citations), but for the Anti-Hinduism article, the term, "persecution" need not be mentioned - mob attacks and arson directed against Hindus are enough to include citations in the (Anti-Hinduism) article. AcidSnow has also been stalking and reverting my edits:[11]

@Darkness Shines: I have not edited anything that I have been topic banned from after the AE against me.—Khabboos (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I have not edited anything that I have been topic banned from after the AE against me. AcidSnow has also been stalking and reverting my edits:[12]. If one sees the contributions by me, one can see that AcidSnow has also done something to that particular edit, but because they are too numerous, I'm only pointing to what was said on his talk page.—Khabboos (talk) 11:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some examples of AcidSnow stalking me: [13], [14], [15]

Darkness Shines, that edit at [16] is not an edit related to Islam!—Khabboos (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Notified

Discussion concerning AcidSnow

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

Statement by AcidSnow

Statement by Darkness Shines

How is this not a violation of the TBAN just imposed on Khabboos? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And this edit also appears to be a TBAN violation. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning AcidSnow

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

This enforcement request seems to violate the topic ban, that applies to Khabboos, because it concerns a complaint about the removal of content about violence between the Hindu and Muslim communities in Pakistan. On the merits, the evidence submitted here is not enough to establish actionable misconduct. I see one diff of what seems to be a content dispute, and vague allegations of stalking with no evidence. That's not enough to act on. Sandstein 10:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is no to not enough actionable evidence here. Khabboos's behaviour is being examined in the request below. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness Shines

Not actionable. Submitter Khabboos blocked for one month and banned from the topic of religion or ethnic conflicts in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Sandstein 16:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Darkness Shines

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Khabboos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan :

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

Here [17] and here [18] Removed sentence which had properly referenced citation.
[19] Talking of reverting and therefore edit warring if a sentence which had properly referenced citations is added to the article Hinduism_in_Pakistan.

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

Warned on [20] by admin Frank (talk · contribs)
Warned on [21] by Amadscientist
Warned on [22]
Warned on [23] by admin MarcusMaximus0 (talk · contribs)
Warned on [24]
Warned on [25] by admin Seraphimblade (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Despite having unclean hands, he has complained for AE against newcomers like ZORDANLIGHTER and me (Khabboos) here.

Darkness Shines, if a book states history accurately, it should be reliable, even if it was published in the 1800s'.—Khabboos (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Notified

Discussion concerning Darkness Shines

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

Statement by Darkness Shines

Just pointing out, MarcusMaximus0 is not an admin, and is in fact a blocked sock of Nangparbat. Regarding the diffs given, 1- I restored academically cited content which had been removed, ans removed an edit by Khabboos which he had added to the lede in violation of UNDUE. Which I explained on the talk page. 2- is the same as the first? 3- I said I would revert as the sources are junk. A book from the 1800`s are not RS. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Smsarmad

And yet again, another violation of TBAN by Khabboos (The article is about an Islamic spiritual song with Indian origin), despite the discussion in the result section moving closer to some kind of a sanction. I was tempted to open a new request but now that Khabboos's conduct is discussed here, so better avoid redundant case threads. -- SMS ^Talk 15:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Darkness Shines

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

The complaint does not include actionable evidence of misconduct. We have one article diff, which seems to reflect a content dispute, and unclear references to some talk page discussions. The conduct of Khabboos in filing this request, and the one above, appears vexatious and disruptive, including by engaging in personal attacks ("What a crook!"). I recommend extending their topic ban to everything related to religion or ethnic conflicts in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, because it is clear that they lack the clue needed to edit productively in this topic area. Sandstein 10:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to concur with Sandstein - obviously vexatious, and the violation of NPA in this filing is inexcusable. I'd go so far as to implement a one-way interaction ban. Otherwise, let's just indef and be done with this unacceptable behaviour. D P 10:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For those not following along at home, the editor decided to remove the violation of WP:NPA in this edit. That does not remove the fact that they felt it to be a good idea at the time, nor that it should have been struck, rather than removed as it had already been commented upon. ES &L 15:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but I'd suggest an AE month long block for violating the IBAN and personal attacks rather than changing the topic ban or indef blocking in this case. If there is anything more after the block then I imagine it'll be pretty quickly followed by a wide TBAN or a long/indef block, but as this is the first block and not long after the IBAN was imposed I'd rather not block indef this time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly concerning is that this enforcement request seems to be retaliation for a similar one closed yesterday. AGK [•] 12:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When a topic ban is issued (rather than a block) the assumption is that the person can do useful work in other areas and is willing to observe the terms of the ban. If somebody returns to the offensive against the other party so quickly, and files an AE which is technically off limits due to his ban, I think the only reasonable step is some kind of a block. I'd support User:Callanecc's proposal of a one-month block for Khabboos, as well as Sandstein's idea to widen the ban to cover religion or ethnic conflicts in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. I'd widen the ban further to say he can't edit any *articles* which contain mention of such ethnic conflicts. It is a concern that in Khabboos's AE against AcidSnow he seems to misunderstand what his ban covers. He seems to think that this edit is not related to Islam, even though the Sectarianism in Pakistan article is mainly about attacks said to have been committed by Sunni militant groups (see the second paragraph of the article). Attacks by Sunni militant groups are clearly related to Islam. EdJohnston (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the continued topic ban violations by Khabboos, one mentioned above and one here (referring to the implementation of the Sharia in Pakistan), I am closing this request with the sanction proposed by EdJohnston above. Sandstein 16:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal by User:Lvivske

Appealing user: Lvivske (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed: The other participants (Galassi (talk · contribs), Bandurist (talk · contribs) and Lvivske (talk · contribs)), all of whom have had prior sanctions and/or warnings under the "Digwuren" Arbcom rules, are placed under an indefinite revert limitation on all Ukraine-related edits: not more than 1 revert per 48 hours per article, with the extra slowdown condition that before they make any content revert (obvious vandalism excepted as usual), they are required to first open a discussion on talk, provide an explanation of their intended revert and then wait 6 hours before actually making it to allow time for discussion"

Topic bound 1RR per 48hrs with extra slowdown on Ukraine related articles. Sanctions were applied on this talk page on 30 October 2011.

Editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction: Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) / Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notification of that editor: diff

Statement by User:Lvivske

My primary area of editing is on Ukraine or Europe, be it in politics or sports, and having a topic bound sanction that limits my ability to engage in WP:CYCLE indefinitely is a major hindrance. The sanctions were applied in 2011, and really should have been limited to just the page where the edit war at the time was occurring, in order to slow down the conflict that happened that 1 day...which was over 2 years ago.

I wasn't even a prime mover in that particular conflict, and in a way got dragged in, but I wasn't an instigator. After the sanctions were applied, a user who was opposing me on the discussions stated:

User:Greyhood: I also think that user Lvivske's conduct wasn't really problematic here, at least for me, and I'd like to kindly ask the involved admins to reconsider the restrictions on him.

Also, the sanctions were predicated on having "prior sanctions and/or warnings under the Digwuren Arbcom rules". I had no prior sanctions under DIG. Also,my warning on DIG was made by Cailil.

This warning was related to a block Cailil made on me, the discussion related to which is here. Commenting users found that the admin was too involved. It was overturned.

Here are some comments by neutral users who chimed in:

User:Lothar von Richthofen: Cailil's DIGWUREN warning to Lvivske was handed out for the same "reasons" as the block. After much discussion, these "reasons" were found to be spurious at best. As a result, the block was summarily overturned. Shouldn't this mean that the warning also be rescinded?

User:Lysy: Having looked through the edits in question it seems clear that this block should not be held. Additionally, the content disagreement between the blocking admin and Liviske regading whether Mila Kunis is Ukrainian or not, not only does not warrant a block but on the contrary, should make the admin more cautious, and refrain from using his admin priviliges

User:Djsasso: I almost unblocked immediately this block was a very bad block by someone clearly involved and biased.

User:Piotrus: it would be helpful if the blocking admin would apologize to the victim (Lvivske).

User:Volunteer Marek: It should also give you two pause that folks who have had disagreements with Lvivske in the past are coming here to defend him. It's pretty clear that this was a horrible block, that it was abusive and that now just a whole bunch of excuses are being made. There's nothing uncivil about stating this fact

The admin's (Calil) conduct actually inspired another 3rd party user to file an AE report on him and cite many of the things that happened in my oreal here. The block itself in the end was overturned by Future Perfect at Sunrise. (which I guess is ironic that something overturned was later used against me)

I am thus asking for 2 things:

a) That my sanctions be lifted - they were harsh at first but after 2 years passing, I think I've learned my lesson. It's also debatable as to how involved I was in the first place.
b) That my warning on WP:DIG be removed from my record (or reworded) since it was based on a very questionable dispute and a block that was overturned and opposed by a slew of uninvolved users who thought I was unfairly treated. Something like this shouldn't be ammo to use against me in the future.

---Further comments---

@Callanecc: For the record, the dispute you're citing was resolved on the talk page. / Yes, I may have overstepped my bounds and lost track of my edits in that particular instance a few weeks ago. Nonetheless, I feel that I should be treated under the same 3RR rules as anyone else. I'm a very active user on talk pages, the sanctions imposed are more fitting for someone who reverts continually and/or ignores discussion while I do operate in good faith and try to engage as well as provide rationale behind my edits if disputes arise. --Львівське (говорити) 03:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DangerousPanda: I believe my track record does show greatly positive editing considering the volume I deal with, and positive interactions with other users far outweigh the few negative relationships (seeing as users I clash with come to my defense in, I would assume this is a rarity on wiki). Maybe my methods are a necessary evil? I'm not a bad guy.--Львівське (говорити) 16:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: This request is entirely unrelated to Stephen Sharpe's 3RR complaint. He had been after me for a while. I had been meaning to write this for a long time but just had no clue where to file this. I guess his harassment was a catalyst but not the sole cause.--Львівське (говорити) 18:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephen J Sharpe: Insinuating you were going to 'cut my balls off' and proceeding to 'nail' me for sanctions on the 23rd (dismissed) and then unprovoked again on the 30th for edits made on the 10th can indeed be seen as harassment. --Львівське (говорити) 20:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephen J Sharpe: If you truly wanted to avoid the noiceboard you wouldn't have filed a complaint 2 weeks after the fact when I was no longer engaged on the article. It seems, rather, than you went back in the logs to 'hunt' for a sequence of edits you could report me for; that is, not an active dispute. I don't know if you have better things to do, I can only go by your actions.--Львівське (говорити) 22:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to point out that Epeefleche is not a neutral party here as he was engaged in an edit war with myself and several other WP:HOCKEY folks dating back to June over a BLP issue. He's currently arguing with me on my talk page at the moment. I should also point out that his diffs indicating I'm reverting are actually links to me talking on talk pages...so...glean his motivations as you will. --Львівське (говорити) 04:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Epeefleche: Since context is key , I was accused of, and was replying to a direct quote insinuating that I held an ‘’“apparent belief that being Jewish & Ukrainian is not possible”’’. I stand by this being a fabrication, as I never stated nor insinuated such a belief. It was probably a misunderstanding, but doesn’t make my defense of it any less staunch. Epeefleche, however, seems to be persistent in his vendetta against me, hounding me, and coming up with imaginary conspiracy theories about “patterns” in my editing; cherry picking select content disputes years apart. ‘’’It reminds me of Chief Wiggum trying to catch the cat burglar’’’. I should also point out that none of this has anything to do with the appeal/enforcement of sanctions nor my editing, so it seems this user is just trying to pile on me for his own enjoyment, which fits his MO thus far.--Львівське (говорити) 23:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment

I think we should look at the log & sanctions section

On the 28th (October, 2011) I made one revert after a user (Voyevoda) engaged in disruptive activity (blanking, name calling another user in edit summaries). The user Voyevoda was blocked indefinitely for his conduct.

From these edit logs, it displays I never broke 3RR or even really got into an edit war in the first place. I tried to intervene in an ongoing dispute and made a single revert on a user who was so over the line he was blocked forever, and am still paying the price today. I was also heavily engaged with other users on the talk page. I wasn't a disruptive user but was punished as one.

If the question, as posed by Sandstein, is why the sanctions are no longer necessary, I would still argue that they weren’t really necessary in the first place. You guys are obviously looking at my block log and seeing that I’ve been without issue for over a year, and if we’re ignoring the couple hour timeout I got in Feb 2013 my last issue here was in March 2012. The issue in March 2012 was filed by Volunteer Marek, a guy who is standing up for me here. I think that says something. As others have noted, my conduct has been on the up as I’ve gotten more settled in here. I think this is a very good explanation as to why the topic sanction is no longer necessary.

If I need to show positive editing and positive user interactions, just look at my record. I used the quotes in my appeal to show that even users who I’m not always in agreement with support my being a contributor. Yes I've gotten into arguments, we all do at some point, but by and large I think that my editing is an asset to the community and this topic area, not a hindrance. Sanctions like this should be in effect for repeat offenders who need to stop breaking policy without dialogue, not people who engage honestly and actively who can go year(s) without issue.--Львівське (говорити) 17:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise

Comments by others about the appeal by User:Lvivske

Statement of Alex Bakharev (talk)

I have a long history of interaction with Lvivske and quite often we were on opposing sides of numerous editorial disputes and I cannot help but notice that his behavior significantly changed to the better. He is much more civil and stricter follows the rules than three-five years ago. This is of course my own opinion, but there is a fact: most people subjected to 1RR remedy would become banned from the site in a year - usually if somebody is unable to follow general 3RR rules then they certainly could not obey 1RR - Lvivske on the other hand not only survived on 1RR remedy without being banned for more than two years, he was not even blocked for a single time since then.

Now there is a series of very important events occurring in Ukraine since 2014 Ukrainian revolution and 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. The whole world is now looking on Ukraine, a lot of new events and a lot of editorial activities attracts many new users. Some of new users are not aware of Wikipedia policies, some are very opinionated, some might be trolls. Ukraine is the main topic for Lvivske and he is trying his best to keep the related articles in shape doing a lot of usable work. His ability to do this work is strongly affected by this 1RR ban: if an important article has dozens of edits per day and many are done by new or biased editors or people with poor command of English then it is easy to formally violate 1RR restriction by just doing noncontroversial edits like fixing BLP issues, removing repeated info, fixing grammar, etc. I think we should give Lvivske a chance to work without interference from the 1RR restriction. If he started to edit problematically when it is just a few minutes from any uninvolved administrator to put him on the restriction again. Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Actually, I don't have much to add that Alex above hasn't said already. Same thing. I often disagree/dispute with Lvivske (I think I got him blocked once long time ago). I think that over the last three years his behavior has gotten much better. And... oh, ok, I do have a bit to add: I don't think his behavior was all that bad to begin with. Just some usual minor stuff that happens in any sufficiently contentious topic area, but I've always found that if you actually approach Lvivske in a reasonable and respectful manner then... you get a reasonable and respectful conversation (which is A LOT, both on Wikipedia and in this topic area). I also agree with Alex that right now we really do need knowledgeable editors about Ukraine and Lvivske has a lot to contribute. The appeal is timely and well justified. Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Toddy1. Correlation is not causation. And anyway, by that logic we should slap some sanctions on anyone anywhere because "fear of sanctions will have a moderating effect on their behavior". You know, prevention, not punishment. You ready to volunteer to be first in line Toddy1? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of User:Toddy1

What Alex Bakharev says is all the more reason to maintain the current sanctions. The fear of sanctions has had a moderating effect on Lvivske's behaviour.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Mishae. The reason the wise admins put in the sanctions, was to preserve the benefits of Lvivske's enthusiasm, whilst trying to contain the bad effects of his/her behaviour. If I had been the admin I would have done an indefinite topic ban on any article to do with Jews or Ukraine. What you say, suggests that maybe the admins are wiser than me.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of User:Cailil

Regarding Callanecc's note on rewording warnings. I would have no problem with my warning being reworded if its considered helpful by the admins here.
But given that this sanction (Future Perfect's) has stood for years. And seemed to be well understood I think changing my warning is quite pointless at this point - but if it helps I will not stand in the way of the log being undiffed and reworded (but linked to this thread) - but only in the case that is considered necessary by a consensus of sysops here.
Also if I remember correctly Shell Kinney notified Lvivske of the RFAR in 2009 as well--Cailil ^talk 10:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also for the record Future Perfect granted Lviviske's unblock appeal of 72 hour block after 51 hours. he did not overturn or rescind my warning. He used his discretion in what was a normal non-AE block that any sysop could unblock without prejudice. Lviviske is confusing this non-AE action (the unblock) with overturning his notification of the existence of AC/DS (something that is impossible). Yes Volunteer Marek did file an AE thread against me. It was closed with "no action" (see here)--Cailil ^talk 10:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a constructive proposal if sysops want a reworded log at WP:DIGWUREN might I suggest:

Lviviske is notified of WP:DIGWUREN and the discretionary sanctions in place in that topic area

--Cailil ^talk 11:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Epeefleche For clarity Epeefleche the text you quote is from my block of Lviviske NOT the sanction he is appealing. Lviviske was not given an AE sanction by me. The sanction was applied by Future Perfect & his rationale is here[26]--Cailil ^talk 11:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of User:Stephen J Sharpe

Lvivske has already been operating for some time as if these sanctions do not apply. I recently cited 3RR violations and edit warring over on the noticeboard. The edit warring in question appear to be very similar in nature to the edit warring that brought about the original sanctions. Namely, Lvivske reverted multiple editors despite there being an ongoing conversation on the talk page where the emerging consensus supported the original text. Further, Lvivske has a history of attacking those who criticize him with personal attacks including repeated allegations that I am "headhunting" him, calling me "a nut", and yesterday accusing User:Solntsa90 of libeling him here. Clearly the status quo is not working - either the sanctions should be enforced or they should be removed. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As if to prove my point, Lvivske characterizes my 3RR report as harassment above instead of assuming good faith. As I understand, this is the same uncooperative attitude that brought about these sanctions in the first place. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: A perceived "information war" is not a good reason to hold long-term contributors to a lower standard "against the rules". If anything, it seems to me that long-term editors should be held to a higher' standard because they should be expected to have a better understanding of Wikipedia rules. For example, Lvivske's misinterpretation of WP:CYCLE, as User:Callanecc points out below, is all the more troubling given that he's been editing for 6 years. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lvivske: You misread it. I wrote that you had "cut off my balls" referencing our conversation where you called me "a nut" and removed it as soon as you complained. Why is 'nail' me in quotes? - I never used that language. So reporting you twice is harassment? I was active on both article when you made reverts that appeared to be a breach of your sanctions. I even tried to avoid the noticeboard for the 3RR violations by requesting help from User:Alex Bakharev but he didn't respond for a week. You could've assumed good faith; you could've asked me for an explanation; instead you accused me of "headhunting" multiple times as if I don't have better things to do. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lvivske: The latest 3RR violations were committed on the 18th and I notified User:Alex Bakharev on the 24th so that's 6 days. I didn't report it at the time because I didn't know what 3RR was until User:My very best wishes explained it to me on the 22nd in this discussion. I waited a week without a response from User:Alex Bakharev about the 3RR reverts and only then reported it on the noticeboard. The fact that I waited 7 days should be seen by you as evidence that I'm not terribly interested in your affairs but instead you somehow saw as further evidence of headhunting. Again - you could've just asked me this on my talk page but instead you just assumed bad intentions and have prefaced every conversation involving us and a third party with the same claims of harassment. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: Disclosure of personal information? You mean that Lvivske is Ukrainian and from Lviv? That's proudly stated on his user page. Why are you suggesting I'm a sockpuppet and how is this relevant to what's being discussed? Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: Please don't remove your previous comments from the talk page if others have already responded to them. It's also considered bad form per WP:REDACT. You're over-analyzing what I wrote - it was a joke, perhaps in bad taste and I removed it as soon as Lvivske complained. I'm still learning Wikipedia etiquette so I thank you for your explanation. You and Lvivske are welcome to discuss any other concerns you have on my talk page but lets not get distracted from the issue at hand here. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephen J Sharpe: I know you might disagree with me but 3RR rule is sometimes being overused here to the point of it being a harassment to some users. Lets face it: As someone mentioned here that majority of users get blocked indefinitely within a year because of this rule and lets not forget, some users don't even know of the rule existence until its too late. If so, that's how we lose many good faith editors (Lvivske included).--Mishae (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mishae: I can't agree or disagree as I've only been here 2 months. What I can say is this - I also didn't fully understand 3RR until User:My very best wishes kindly explained it to me in this discussion on March 22. My point being that I was editing for 48 days before I became aware of 3RR; Lvivske has been editing for 6 years but just a couple of weeks ago ran afoul of 3RR multiple times (while on 1RR restriction) as I reported on the noticeboard the day before he launched this appeal. For that reason, I am opposed to the sanctions being lifted. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephen J Sharpe: I think we need to give him another chance, considering that all of us are still learning the nook and crannies of this project, and we are learning every day, and it doesn't matter if we are newbies or level 4 editors. I think in some cases users still need to be reminded here that Wikipedia is not a dictatorship, and that's why WP:IAR still exists. On a side note, in my opinion, Lvivske just have spring fever, it will pass by April, I hope. --Mishae (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment of User:My very best wishes

I think that editing restrictions to experienced editors (such as all three people sanctioned by FPS) should never be given for a period of time longer than six months because this gives unfair advantage to SPA accounts who are engaged in WP:BATTLE. This is the reason I agree with Alex and Marek that restriction must be lifted - per WP:IAR. My very best wishes (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at atrociously POV editing by SPA/sleepers in this subject area, I now believe my first judgement was correct. My very best wishes (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@S.J. Sharpe. This is current version of userpage of Lvivske. No, it does NOT claim that he is a "Ukrainian" [citizen]. Neither it claims he is from Lviv (he comes from Ontario) as you asserted in your comment, which I believe was completely inappropriate and an obvious violation of WP:NPA while editing in the area of discretionary sanctions you was warned about. I also did not call you "sockpuppet". I did suggest that an SP investigation might be helpful. Sorry! I agree with one of admins that such suggestions should only be made after a preliminary investigation and with diffs on appropriate (SPI) noticeboard. My very best wishes (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of User:Paavo273

From my reading this appeal & the original blocking & reversal discussion, this vestigial sanction's status is analogous to fruit of the poisonous tree (lingering penalty from an overturned bad decision by an administrator the "fruit"). In real world, sanctions don't last ad infinitum, and in any case these IMO R clearly punitive, contrary to stated purpose4 sanctions. Parole & even probation expire. Kindalike judgment was overturned but judge neglected to vacate the sentence.

Lvivske appears IME to be one of few mainstays in building Ukraine-related content in the encyclopaedia, e.g., encyclopaedia, e.g., [27] and [28]. The few times our paths have crossed (he edits a lot more articles and creates a lot more content than I or most editors), Lvivske has been very helpful, e.g., I was working on an article when the founder of this site himself one day edited it. I mentioned this fact on the talk page and asked generally for some info. The very next day, Lvivske provided THIS. Another time I and some other editors were frustrated an article was so out of date it hardly even mentioned the reality on the ground in Ukraine. I posted this talk comment and Lvivske was the first to respond with a helpful link, which likely was a catalyst for transforming the article. I could cite many other examples where Lvivske is both a major sourced-content contributor and a help to less involved, less knowledgeable editors.

I’ve seen last few months exactly what Alex Bakharev (par2) & Volunteer Marek are talking about. Someone who knows how & cares must take time to write quality content & volume in order 4 the subject area 2B covered in something approaching encyclopaedic format and detail.

New comment 1 April (UTC): I agree mostly w/ the now deleted remarks of User:My very best wishes rel the state of "administrating" on Wikipedia. Well stated! I detect wikilawyering--esp. disregard for the core purpose of Wikipedia here. In admin. Callanec's 1st diff, he points to Lvivske's UNcontroversial correction of obvious error ('Never heard it any differently from what Lvivske corrected it to, EXCEPT ON WIKIPEDIA. I even saw RT report it correctly.) ‘Seems more interested in sticking it to Lvivske than having a factually accurate encyclopaedia to "administrate." Hamstring your core editors in their subject areas and see what happens to the quality of your encyclopaedia … It ‘BE happening & BEEN happening. I see wikilawyering in admin. Sandstein's & DP's remarks, too. I haven't seen a WP statute of limitations for correcting neglected reversible error (in the form of this per se punitive and unfair-to-start-with action). Paavo273 (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment 2 April (UTC): To respond to User:Epeefleche's "analysis" of Lvivske's "deletions of RS-supported material and RSs from the bio of a Jewish Ukrainian," the facts are not on Epeefleche's side. There is an ongoing dispute about that exact issue for the BLP subject mentioned, and the reality is that Lvivske there got caught up in an emerging edit-war between another user and myself. There were and still REMAIN serious concerns of lack of actual evidence (other than hearsay assertions (fr. press & academic sources) rel the BLP article subject's alleged Jewish ethnicity especially considered in light of it being a BLP, and that virtually every found source that mentions the Jewish ethnicity does so in the context of it being used to slur the subject and wreck his presidential campaign. The issue is compounded by the article subject’s scrupulously not self-identifying as of Jewish ethnicity.

This is yet another hatchet job on Lvivske, although I am not questioning Epeefleche's GF; Epeefleche may genuinely believe what he says, lacking in substance as it is. Paavo273 (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of Epeefleche

I believe that the sanctions should stay in place.

I'm a neutral editor as to the initial matter for which Lvivske was sanctioned, as I was not involved in it.

Note that when [^{April 1 add:} Lviske was blocked 28 days before] the sanction Lviske is appealing from was applied, part of the explanation for the [^{April 1 add:} block prior to that] sanction was that:

"The fact that you are now edit-warring over your apparent belief that being Jewish & Ukrainian is not possible is pointy, incorrect, and contrary to the core policies of this site (source based, neutral point of view edits). You should be in no doubt User:Lvivske that further behaviour like this will be prevented by block if necessary."

But Lviske asserts that "after 2 years passing, I think I've learned my lesson." I find that statement astounding.

The very day he posted that, he was involved in this discussion relating to Jews on Ukraine-related articles. I believe his actions alluded to there and, his statements there (especially as to his deletions of RS-supported material and RSs from the bio of a Jewish Ukrainian, evidence precisely the opposite. He did so asserting faslely, among other things, that it is wp:OR to maintain the RS-supported text. (?!) And his assertions in that discussion are amazing in that they reflect either an utter lack of understanding, or an intentional bald effort to disrupt. No lesson has been learned, from what I can see.

Also during the pendency of his request, he is on a totally unrelated (but, also Ukraine-related) article again accusing Sage of OR for ... reflecting what the RS does in fact say.[29][30][31] He seems to believe that it is OK for him to revert editors by using the phrase "OR", when the text he is deleting is just the opposite of OR.

The above matters in which he has taken these positions remain unresolved, so his tendentious but unsupportable positions have led to deletions of appropriate material.

Similarly, these problems on Jewish/Ukrainian articles are long-standing, from even before the incident that led to his above-discussed sanctions, as can be seen in the discussion initiated of his edits by Jayjg here.

Furthermore, I believe the warning should stay in place.

He wants it removed so that it won't "be ammo to use against me in the future." But it is precisely the sort of thing that we should have as background, when seeking to understand and weigh his editing and his comments in the afore-mentioned discussion, in which he "explains" his deletions. Without that background, we might fail to understand that this is part of an ongoing practice of his.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In a post Lvivske left just today he accused sysop Cailil of -- in Cailil's Block and Warning post to Lvivske -- having "completely fabricated" facts, and made "false statements". This may perhaps further call into question whether Lvivske has not, as he maintains he has, "learned" his "lesson." Epeefleche (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of User:Mishae

I know Lvivske since Euromaidan article was written here in early 2014. I must also add that I don't know Lvivske who was here 2, 5 or 6 years ago. I however need to point out that if anyone likes Lvivske as an editor here (me and Alex included), then they should at least lessen the sanctions. Otherwise we have a chance of losing a very knowledgeable editor. Besides, not many people know where Ukraine is and what its like, so this topic which Alex, Lvivske, @Yulia Romero:, (and sometimes me), try to expand upon is very important. We also need to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a dictatorship (I am surprised that such rule wasn't included in what Wikipedia is not), and that's why we have WP:IAR which was ignored by admins and users who issued concern about Lvivske. Keep in mind, no one is perfect and Lvivske is as equal as everyone else, just because he violated 3RR rule doesn't mean he should be sanctioned. Now I wanna know the admins response to my comment above (I bet their talkpages aren't clean from block either, and if they are, then there are some hiding in their archives). Feel free to throw NPA rule if you please, but I tried to be civil.--Mishae (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by User:Lvivske

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

These (from March 2014) seem like a violation of the 1RR/48hr restriction 1, 2 & 3 plus another 1 & 2. Lvivske explanation of the reverts as WP:CYCLE in progress (which it isn't as there is only one R in BRD) shows me that they don't understand the reason the restrictions were imposed (to make them discuss rather than revert) or what they actually mean. Given this I don't see a strong argument to remove or lessen the sanctions unless either the sanctioning admin wants to remove them or there are other arguments presented. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that it was resolved on the talk page but that still doesn't excuse the reverts in violation of your edit restriction. Also regarding the warning, there have been a (lot) of discussions about removing warnings from log pages and the agreement is that you can't un-notify or un-warn someone that discretionary sanctions are in effect so warnings therefore shouldn't be removed from the log page. Though they can be reworded, and I'm very open to considering that pending the logging admin's comments on the matter. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After all this time, I would have expected to support this. However, the appellant's argument TODAY is that the original sanctions were wrong, and beats us up using random quotes to support that. This is not at all what I would have expected as a appeal. Any form of topic ban appeal, whether AE-imposed or community-imposed needs to show a) positive editing b) positive user interactions. There seems to be violations just RECENTLY of the imposed restrictions. As such, there's no possible way to vacate this as of yet. D P 12:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As DangerousPanda says, it is not helpful to appeal a three-year old sanction with the argument that it ought not to have been imposed at that time. Rather, the appellant should tell us why the sanction is no longer necessary. As Callanecc shows above, Lvivske has recently violated the sanction and engaged in edit warring. The sanction seems therefore still to be necessary. Accordingly, I'd decline the appeal. Log entries are not to be removed. Sandstein 16:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally feel that 1RR/48hr doesn't help currently. That being said, if a violation as recently occurred then it's not beneficial to remove it altogether. I would suggest the sanctions be altered to the standard 1RR per 24 hours on the same articles. I do not know whether the extra slowdown clause should be modified if the sanction is indeed altered. Penwhale (nonsecure) ^{talk/footsteps} 19:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

76.107.171.90

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

Request concerning 76.107.171.90

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Askahrc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: 76.107.171.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions

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

There is a recurring WP:Battleground and WP:CIVIL issue with 76.107.171.90 (talk) using vulgarity, personal attacks and inappropriate behavior against the editors they disagree with.

My first encounter with 76 was on my Talk Page, when they jumped in on a conversation I was having with another editor. 76 suddenly posted a long rant in which they warned me never to edit the Rupert Sheldrake page again unless I was "absolutely determined to martyr yourself" and then posted an insulting rhyme (apparently inspired by my interest in the Golden Age of Piracy) that starts with "Well tickle me dick-hole and shit on a stick! I know of a troll who’s one hell of a dick!"

This exchange continued despite my attempts to reason with 76 until I finally gave up and decided to stop engaging. 76 continued to make abusive remarks and thinly veiled threats after that point. I had been willing to let the matter go, but the fact that 76 is still speaking to other editors about gathering "evidence" against me indicates that 76 has an axe to grind and won't stop their harassment until I'm blocked.

Incidents of personal attacks against me: 1, 2, 3, 4
Examples of issues: 1 (referring to a person as a "diehard retard"), 2 (referring to Liz's as a bullying troll for questioning 76's personal attacks), 3 (WP:Battleground tactics like writing up an AE arguing for an editor to be indefinitely blocked because they were "pro-fringe") 4, 5 & 6 (canvassing/soliciting other editors to assist in combating editors 76 dislikes)

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

Warned on Feb 25, 2014 by The Cap'n that his behavior was uncivil and unacceptable.
Warned on Feb 27, 2014 by Liz about making personal attacks.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Highlights (excerpted from Incidents above):

When I pointed out I hadn’t made any pro-fringe comments, 76 replied "Predictably, you’re feeling desperate to convince yourself that you’re “the victim” of a coordinated effort to silence “intellectual dissents” or “free thinkers” or “non-conformists” or whatever the fuck you call yourself. Or perhaps you have chosen to cower behind WP:BLP?"
When I stated that I had no desire for WP:BATTLEGROUND, 76 said "WP:battle suggests that one should not approach editing as a battle, but once a battle has erupted we are not required to deny that it has occurred or that there are opposing sides.", also reminding me "I’m also making it clear that people hold grudges."
When I pointed out that threats of blocking were not appropriate, 76 replied there was no threat, but rather "I am simply telling you that you’ve come to a point where you need to decide if you really want to commit “Wikipedia suicide”. If you persist in your fringe-pushing behavior then the decision to ban or block you was your own. Is getting yourself blocked really going to make you feel better Askahrc? Is it something that you feel you need to do to gratify your delusions of victimization?"
76 first claimed they were simply trying to help me "rejoin the mainstream", saying "And so I came here to talk to you in the hope that you might stop your disruption and become a productive editor once again." When I pointed out their behavior was far from helpful, they reiterated their threats, "I’m not “offering helpful advice”. I’m telling you to stop being a fringe pusher." and "But if everyone thinks that you had it coming then you’ll receive no sympathy at all if you get yourself blocked."
Here is an accumulation of the variety of ways that 76 brought up my blocking in our exchange (not including those mentioned above), insisting there was no threat implied: "The benefit of the doubt is for people who haven’t dispelled all doubt.", "Would you really like to get your name on Tom Butler’s list of shame?", "Seriously though, you should leave the Sheldrake page alone.", "I don’t have a reason to do so as there are others who will more than happily take you to WP:AE or WP:ANI.", " If you get yourself blocked for fringe pushing when you really were fringe pushing then it will mean nothing."

To this day I don't know what "pro-fringe, disruptive" edits I made that so upset 76, but this conduct seems unreasonable and inappropriate in any case, and violates every concept of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIVIL. In addition to insulting me in a threatening and vulgar manner, I find 76's use of the word "retard" to be repugnant. That is one of the most offensive terms in the English language and is especially unacceptable when used as an ad-hominem attack. This kind of conduct is not appropriate on WP.

@76; first off, I respect the decision of the admins in that SPI case, and would point out that the conclusion of the SPI was not that I had been engaging in a false flag abuse, but rather a warning to only use this account to edit. The case did not declare me a "known liar" nor that I committed any abuses on WP.

As far as procedures go, I'm a little confused by 76 declaring that this case is invalid because the multiple warnings they got about their conduct were not in the typical template, but then considers it acceptable to try to edit my own statements in an AE case against them. In any case, I am not surprised by 76's claim that this very AE is a reason to block me, considering everything outlined above. This strange vindictiveness is the reason for this AE; I had let the whole thing go until I discovered 76 was still contacting other editors to try to get me blocked even after I'd stopped arguing with 76 in Feb, stopped editing Sheldrake and did not provoke 76 in any way. The Cap'n (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.107.171.90&diff=602455670&oldid=597888651

Discussion concerning 76.107.171.90

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

Statement by 76.107.171.90

Askahrc is a known liar who was previously found guilty of engaging in a false flag technique to attempt to get Vzaak and Barney the barney barney banned from editing Rupert Sheldrake. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Askahrc/Archive.

Given Askahrc’s history of lying, I am asking for special permission to edit within Askahrc’s statement so as that I will be better able to refute his allegations on a point by point basis. I will do so in a different color so as to prevent confusion.

I would also like to point out that I think a WP:BOOMERANG is in order, and that the “warnings” that Askahrc has provided evidence of are not the typical template-style warnings that are normally used in these types of proceedings. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Liz

I don't think editors should be allowed to edit another editor's comments, inserting statements that cast the remarks in a different light or reinterpret the comments and interrupt the argument the OP is making. Better to copy the relevant parts into a separate statement and make a response to them there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Askahrc (talk · contribs) has a track record of poor understanding of policy related to WP:FRINGE, and WP:IDONTHEARTHAT on WP:CONSENSUS and WP:POLICY. 76's assessment of him as being anti-Fringe, anti-Wikipedia and not exactly fond of the truth, is I believe born out by facts.
Unless I am mistaken, I also believe this is in violation of Askahrc (talk · contribs)'s community ban from editing pages related to Rupert Sheldrake, broadly construed.
This does appear to be an extremely WP:PETTY attempt to get some WP:BATTLEGROUND WP:REVENGE for the above, which is never a good idea.
Liz (talk · contribs) should be ignored completely - she is very lucky she hasn't got a topic ban as well, but her own disruption is low-level but over a long period of time, usually in the form of moaning about "censorship" (quite a lot), making predictions about how "things will be change soon for the good" (which turn out to be incorrect), and encouraging users who subsequently get topic bans themselves. Good job Lizzy.
76 might have been incivil, but the trigger here is Ashrac (talk · contribs)'s disruptive behaviour. Remove the trigger, and 76 can be civil. It can be very frustrating dealing with people who demonstrate profound misunderstandings of how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia should seek to support WP:FRINGE editors.

In conclusion, an interaction ban for both of them would be useful, as would a reminder to Askahrc (talk · contribs) of his own topic ban from Rupert Sheldrake. I would also like this topic ban to be extended to "fringe theories, broadly construed", but realise that he might not have done enough yet to warrant this in the eyes of the moderators. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 76.107.171.90

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

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 427: / Line 427: @@
 ====Statement by [[User:Liz|Liz]] ====
 I don't think editors should be allowed to edit another editor's comments, inserting statements that cast the remarks in a different light or reinterpret the comments and interrupt the argument the OP is making. Better to copy the relevant parts into a separate statement and make a response to them there. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</font></sup> 20:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
+==== Statement by [[User:Barney the barney barney|Barney the barney barney]] ([[User talk:Barney the barney barney|talk]]) 21:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC) ====
+# {{user|Askahrc}} has a track record of poor understanding of policy related to [[WP:FRINGE]], and [[WP:IDONTHEARTHAT]] on [[WP:CONSENSUS]] and [[WP:POLICY]].  76's assessment of him as being anti-Fringe, anti-Wikipedia and not exactly fond of the truth, is I believe born out by facts.
+# Unless I am mistaken, I also believe this is in violation of {{user|Askahrc}}'s community ban from editing pages related to Rupert Sheldrake, broadly construed.
+# This does appear to be an extremely [[WP:PETTY]] attempt to get some [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] [[WP:REVENGE]] for the above, which is never a good idea.
+# {{user|Liz}} should be ignored completely - she is very lucky she hasn't got a topic ban as well, but her own disruption is low-level but over a long period of time, usually in the form of moaning about "censorship" (quite a lot), making predictions about how "things will be change soon for the good" (which turn out to be incorrect), and encouraging users who subsequently get topic bans themselves.  Good job Lizzy.
+# 76 might have been incivil, but the trigger here is {{user|Ashrac}}'s disruptive behaviour.  Remove the trigger, and 76 can be civil.  It can be very frustrating dealing with people who demonstrate profound misunderstandings of how Wikipedia works.  Wikipedia should seek to support [[WP:FRINGE]] editors.
+In conclusion, an interaction ban for both of them would be useful, as would a reminder to {{user|Askahrc}} of his own topic ban from Rupert Sheldrake.  I would also like this topic ban to be extended to "fringe theories, broadly construed", but realise that he might not have done enough yet to warrant this in the eyes of the moderators.  [[User:Barney the barney barney|Barney the barney barney]] ([[User talk:Barney the barney barney|talk]]) 21:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 ====Statement by (username)====

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards