Revision as of 12:14, 7 March 2008

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 informationShortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE 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, or is no longer an administrator; 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

Edit this section for new requests

Add new requests to the top of the page. Old requests will be automatically archived off the bottom three days after the last time stamp.

Macedonia

Due to growing risk of an edit war (three reverts by each of the two parties yesterday, and claims by one of which that such a risk is high), I have taken the preventative step of restricting Dpotop (talk · contribs) and Xasha (talk · contribs) to one revert per two days for two weeks on all related articles and zero-tolerance for incivility on the talk pages. I bring this measure to discussion before other uninvolved admins, whom I am asking to help enforce this. Note that I am forgoing the warning this time and thus am not logging it in the arbitration page — let this measure serve as a warning, and let's hope it resonates (if enough uninvolved admins feel that position is in error, the restrictions will be revoked). Thx. El_C 11:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you mixed up Moldova with Macedonia? (But no problem, we can easily extend the Balkans up there. :-) I know what you're going to say now: They both start with M, so I can't tell them apart.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding

• 70.109.223.188 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Waterboarding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This IP user seems to be edit warring. Could they be a blocked or banned user returning to cause trouble? Jehochman 19:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Gets very old very fast, doesn't it? I've blocked the IP user for 24 hours (the second block inside a week, I noticed). -- ChrisO (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Where is the 2nd block within a week? --nyc171 (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that they've been unblocked. For what it's worth, categorization disputes are generally kind of a silly thing to edit-war and better worked out on the talk page, but I think the unblock is fine as long as the IP is not edit-warring further. I'm considering semi-protecting the page temporarily given the volume of unconstructive IP editing over the past few days - any thoughts? MastCell  21:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a winner. We've got a repeat socker on the loose, recently banned, who will probably be showing up. If we take the wind out of their sails, they might go home and rethink their life. Jehochman 21:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The unblock appears to be a mistake. Here are the diffs for edit warring: When a user makes the same edit over and over and over again, that's edit warring. I like the way the user wikilawyers with ChrisO. It reminds me of Neutral Good (talk · contribs) and BryanFromPalatine (talk · contribs). Jehochman 21:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree he was edit-warring. Just not sure how useful replacing the block is going to be vs. semi'ing the target article, which I'm going to do now. MastCell  22:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about all the drama here. I was not trying to be disruptive and didn't know this was a "problem" article until I was told so on my talk page. I will try not to revert more than once on this article. The differences above are from 2 days ago before I was warned. Also, I was blocked awhile back when I first came here, not twice in one week. Thank you.--70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Bold text

Zeq

Zeq was banned from editing Israeli apartheid on 6 June 2006. I can find no record of the ban having been rescinded. Yesterday Zeq edited Allegations of Israeli apartheid, which is the same article under a different name. (The ban conditions specifically anticipated the article being moved to a different name, and in any case it's obviously the same article.)

Upon review, it appears that Zeq "tested the waters" in October of last year, with edits to AoIA and a spinoff of another article he was banned from. After being caught he backed off. He acknowledged that he knew about the ban, see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive314#User:Zeq potentially violating ban. Now he's trying again.

It's up to WP adminship, of course, to sort this out, but personally I don't see how it helps the project to have Zeq around at all. He's clearly here to push POV, he's using underhanded tactics, and he's a recidivist. At the very least, we don't need him cluttering up the talk pages of these articles with totally spurious nonsense: see Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid#Apartheid Vs. Huiman rights violations for one example out of many. <eleland/talkedits> 14:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw the accusation of ban-evasion. The ban had a time limit which was not clearly logged. Zeq's editing in general is tendentious but I'm not in the mood to compile a whole bunch of diffs and argue over it. <eleland/talkedits> 23:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Diffs

Recent AoIA edits: , etc etc.

October 2007 edit:

Response

This specific ban expired last year. The ban was from 2006 for 1(one) year which have passed. btw, it is not by ArbCom but from an administrator (as result of ArbCom probation). botom line: No case. Zeq (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• For this topic, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles also applies. Zeq has not yet been formally warned with respect to this case. Yes, the ban on that article was rescinded. The RFAR log shows "Rescinded upon discussion.--Sean Black 04:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)" Sean has since renamed his account, so I won't post diffs, but I can see Sean notifying Zeq, updating the log, and updating the article talk page. I'm going to formally notify Zeq of the newer case, it just seems a good idea. GRBerry 15:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That relates to "discretionary" sanctions which can be imposed on anybody working on I-P articles. Zeq's bans are not related to that provision. And I can find no record of them being for only a year. No such duration was specified on the ANI/AE or in the log of bans. <eleland/talkedits> 15:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Report reopened, I see that Tony Sidaway rebanned after Sean had rescinded the one he issued. Need to look at further. (Eleland, I agree with you about the one year rule - I haven't found it either.) GRBerry 15:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's User:Tony Sidaway's comments on the ban. pedro gonnet - talk - 04.03.2008 15:40

The probation Arbcom imposed is indefinite and any article bans have the limits set by the admin that imposed them. There is no expiry (of one year or any other time limit) on either the probation or Tony's topic ban. Thatcher 15:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

To the best of my recollection this was for one year. If I am wrong I appologize since a lot of time has passed. (seriously almost two years). Since my edits are minor and I have avoided edit war (notice all my edits are quicly reverted by a tag-team) I would suggest to reexamine the ban and maybe in the spirit of the new ArbCom rulling set an equal playig field in which all editors should act with the same level of caustion and avoid reverting and edit warring. Zeq (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Notice the characterisric sleight of hand here. Zeq is trying to make a change rejected by all other editors, so in his terms they all become "a tag team". That's a very clear attemppt to browbeat a consensus into accepting non-consensual POV edits. RolandR (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a fact that most or all of my edits in this article are reverted in short time . This is an issue of WP:Own - clearly what we have now is yet another attempt to control the article in a one sided way. Zeq (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've looked quite thouroughly, and am certain there was not a one year limit when imposed. There is a possibility that Tony came back at some point and put a limit on or otherwise shortened it, but he did not log that shortening. The ban on editing that article is still in effect. The imposed ban never included the talk page. I haven't yet reached researching the history of article edits and deciding what to do about it with respect to the original ban. GRBerry 16:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is Tony's comment on the original ban, which I solicited. I ask a more experienced WP:AE admin to decide what to do. GRBerry 16:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

GRBERRY, I don't recall the details but I do recall that a year after the ban someone told me that I can now post to those articles and I remember not using this ability. Over time I forgot the bans - really too much time has passed from them. Zeq (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been active on that article from the beginning (May 2006) and recalled something about this. I know the ban on Zeq editing that article was for limited duration, and I managed to find the first version where the notification template appeared on the talk page. See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid&direction=next&oldid=57174523. The template clearly states that the ban expires on March 5, 2007. I believe that date was chosen because it was one year after some earlier disciplinary action against Zeq, that was extended to the article in question by Tony Sidaway. So the ban expired almost exactly one year ago. I think there is a larger point here, which is why Zeq was subjected to bans that were wildly out of proportion to the discipline imposed on other editors in the same topic area (and on this particular article) who did worse, in my opinion. I think Eleland's initial comment in this thread, especially the part about not wanting Zeq around at all, poses problems of its own such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and quite frankly, WP:KETTLE as well, and maybe someone should look at that. But on the technical point of whether Zeq is still under his own special ban from the AoIA article, it appears that he is not. 6SJ7 (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a personal comment, because I think it's merited. I never intended my ban to have any more currency than was needed. It's now nearly two years later and any problems that might have been solely due to Zeq's influences are long gone. I apologise to Zeq if this ban has hung on and prevented him contributing to the encyclopedia in a constructive way. That was never my intention. To see that its legacy has persisted for so long, and perhaps blighted his reputation unjustly, causes me great regret. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The (Tony Sidaway) 20:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Tony: No problem. really. Even if they ban me forever from wiki on this and I'll never be able to post again: Don't feel guilty over me. I am enjoying myself and just hope I contributed to make this a more balanced and better encyclopdia. Zeq (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks 6SJ7. With this pointer I found the same diffs for the other three articles that were included in Tony's ban, and have updated the log page showing that this ban had expired. Since RFAR/Zeq was before I started editing, I don't know the full history here. The warning I issued under the more recent RFAR makes sense to me given what I do know of the history, but the old RFAR also applies and I am deferring the call about whether to apply another ban under it to a more knowledgeable admin. GRBerry 20:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for Tony for his note and 6Sj& for finding what I recalled which is the ban was for 1 year. Now I think we should all look carefully how Elaland, Tarc and RonaldR are doing everything they can to control this article. I suspect that all 3 of them are actually violating the recent ArbCom Rulling by virtue of their edir/revert war. They clearly refuse to comply with request to show that their edits comply with WP:V. I don;t even need to show diffs to proce it - just look at the article history page and every edit I make is being reverted. (a WP:Own problem) so I request any admin to review the whole history in light of the last ArbCom rulling. Zeq (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The ban clearly says "Zeq is banned indefinitely from 1948 Arab-Israeli War and Palestinian exodus," (one was renamed). Also the new arb case would also apply. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• and indeed those two articles I did not edited them since. Here- This is a different issue . Zeq (talk) 05:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues

Space Cadet again

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

24 hour block on Space Cadet and Ubudoda on restriction

Space Cadet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was placed on editing restrictions following this report. His ensuing attack of sharpest nature against the uninvolved sysop was noted but not acted on. If you have a look at his few contributions of just the last five days, you'll see much incivility, overstepping the restrictions:

• as edit summary: "revert German revisionist propaganda"
• in an edit summary: "don't just blindly revert as usual"
• "The point is we're making a compromise with German revisionists against all encyclopedic sources. What's next? A compromise with NPD, or maybe with Holocaust deniers, or finally perhaps with creationists about allowing their unscientific faith in schools?"
• in an edit summary: "read the article before editing it and inserting you unscientific stuff."
• in an edit summary: "Keep your RAŚ myths and fairy tales out of this encyclopedia."
• against a sysop in a content dispute: "Don't play ignorant all of a sudden"
• as edit summary: "Again fairy tales and myths about the Polish names being invented in 1945"
• "What are you - a wannabe preschool teacher?"
• "Is sarcasm a foreign language to you? Is a little irony really too much for you to handle?"
• as edit summary today: "If you call me a Commie can I call you a Nazi?"

Sciurinæ (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've confirmed that the warning was given by an administrator and logged, so the general restriction is in force. I looked at his actual response, and saw the IP editor's claims about it are rather overblown, and it was already dismissed by Thatcher, so shouldn't be considered now. Don't have time at this moment to investigate the current behavior, which is what should be considered now. GRBerry 18:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Space Cadet for 24 hours. It's quite marginal but a couple of the comments above violate AGF, which he's not supposed to do as per the terms of the editing restriction. At the same time, it looks as though Space Cadet was/is involved in a number of fairly heated disputes against opponents who have behaved badly themselves. This last bit needs further looking into. Moreschi (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Moreschi, can you look at this diff. It seems a bit more than a marginal problem to me, and wasn't highlighted above. GRBerry 22:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right about needing to look at others.

1. Starting with Gdańsk‎ & Talk:Gdańsk‎: User:Ubudoda would appear to merit warning and bringing under the general sanctions. - and those are more than 50% of this users contributions. I don't see anything else on this pair of pages.
2. If I read Polish, I'd investigate the discussions with LUCPOL. If an uninvolved admin that reads Polish sees them, please take a look. The edit summaries at Silesia suggest that user needs some commentary; though as LUCPOL was saying that a paragraph full of {{fact}} tags from March 2007 was unsourced he has a better leg to stand on than Space Cadet does in saying it was sourced.
3. Nicolaus Copernicus doesn't show me any editors that need the Digwuren warning - but a major lack of use of edit summaries and lack of use of the talk page should be addressed.
4. I suspect Colonel Mustard (talk · contribs) should be cautioned, but doubt that the formal warning is needed. ( & )
5. That is all I saw, but there could be more. GRBerry 22:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC) through 23:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Ubudoda (talk · contribs) is placed under the editing restriction - probably not this chap's first account, judging by his comments on the talk pages. Using 3-letter acronyms a bit early on, he is. This is a very silly thing to say, but looks...well, not harmless, but nothing to get seriously stewed up about, particularly seeing as Space Cadet is, well, Polish. Moreschi (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Highways

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Both restored, consensus building urged. GRBerry 18:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

and violate Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Proposed decision#Non-contentious WikiProject decisions and project page edits to resume. --NE2 06:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• The injunction says "No disputed cases shall be added to or removed". There is no evidence of a dispute on these two talk pages. If you personally wish to dispute these, start by saying so on the talk page (not be reverting, just by talking). Then, if after a reasonable period of time for the original editor to see the comments and agree or disagree they haven't self reverted, come back. GRBerry 15:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• • If you check the history of Talk:Outer Drive, it was already reverted after being listed here. --NE2 15:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • Yep, and the same at the other page also. I've reverted both, but it is your job to participate in consensus building on both article's talk pages. Go forth and address the substantive reasoning as best you can. GRBerry 18:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.