Revision as of 21:41, 7 February 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.

Eleland (talk · contribs)

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

both warned

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

User directed commentaries and breaches of the Decorum Principals by Eleland (talk · contribs) have become overbearing.

Background notes:
Editor was already noted multiple times about civility issues and even once, a long time ago, apologized (in a fashion which looked more like a mockery) for his user directed commentaries. Part of my personal unpleasant interactions with him included repeated insinuations that I might be a war criminal rewriting history on a battle/massacre I supposedly participated in, and despite numerous requests - sample - the issue persists.

Comment: The included diffs are constricted to the past 3 weeks.

1. "a number of editors... allowing their own ethnic identity and national affiliation" -
2. ("apology/rephrase":) "political leaders of a faction you identify with" -
3. "I realize it's a ] around here, but could you avoid punctuating... with obnoxious straw-man arguments... It makes you look rather desperate." -
4. "your personal crackpot interpretation of the RSes" -
5. "the writer still adheres to "there are no Palestinians" viewpoint" -
6. "rm unsourced propaganda; please do not regurgitate content" -
7. "stop with the puffery and WP:FRINGE theory pushing" -
8. "cleanup a really ugly piece of historical fabrication" -
9. "You can't recast... because you don't like them." -
10. "trim uncited conspiracism" -
11. "rv WP:FRINGE theory pushing" -
12. "An IP editor is campaigning... an Internet kook." -
13. "The guy is still a fringe pov-pusher" -
14. "looks a lot like just shouting "antisemite!" because something personally troubles you." -
15. "umm, yeah, "resifix" = "i made this up for wikipedia"" -
16. "I'm not sure why Leifern is so determined to portray this as vandalism or censorship." -
17. "One of the chief POV-pushers" -
18. "You're exhausting everyone's patience with this constant theory-pushing." -
19. "Bible Land is the name of the website you're spamming, not anything that exists in the real world" -
20. "When are you going to acknowledge the distinction between "which I personally like" and... You just keep making the same assertions." -
21. "your aggressive hounding of Huldra" -
22. "rv; ... stick to scholarly understanding... rather than imaginative" -
23. "sneak in the "prefers hype to facts" quote that you're so very, very fond of." -
24. "Anything else is... achieved via serial POV-pushing" -
25. "you seem to have gone back to... mass POV editing across multiple articles, accompanied by manipulation of the talk page discussion" -

Cordially, Jaakobou 18:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Link to the case,please? It saves us the digging. Thatcher 19:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

ARBCOM Case: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've gone over the diffs that you provided and consulted with another uninvolved administrator (Dmcdevit), Jaakobou, and we both feel that all but one of them is without merit. Even when you took those statements out of context, they did not become enforcement-worthy infractions. And when I do look at them in the context of the entire post, it's very clear that they're not. The only one that I was trouble by was the cheap shot at Jayjg in #3, but that comment was made a day before the ARBCOM case was closed, which makes it almost 3 weeks old. I'd consider a warning if it were recent, but it's not at all, and I can't find any more recent reasons to impose discretionary sanctions on Eleland. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ioeth for the case link.

Thatcher, I linked to the relevant section of the case (Decorum Principals), sorry if it was not clear enough.

I'd appreciate a re-inspection or possibly an explanation on the two most recent of the diffs and why they are not part of the Decorum Principals.

With respect, Jaakobou 19:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sidenote while I examine those in more depth: You should probably link to the actual case (here) rather than the proposed decisions. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The comment at #24 isn't directed at anybody in particular; it reads to me like an honest observation of the situation by Eleland and I have no reason to believe that it was said in bad faith. As far as #25 goes, if I were you I wouldn't be including diffs like that in reports here. Eleland could have come directly to AE with that, but instead decided to talk with you directly first. That seems pretty courteous to me. The message reads like a fair warning from a concerned editor, and frankly, it's probably written nicer than if an administrator had left it formally. I'm sorry, Jaakobou, but I just think you're off base with report. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ioeth,

• "serial POV-pushing" - I'm the only other editor involved on this issue (at Saeb Erekat).
• A "mass POV editing across multiple articles... manipulation of the talk page" comment by an involved party of the disputes doesn't seem as 'the courteous way to talk with others'. That is not the impression I received from the accepted principals.

I'm sure insinuations -- that I'm a revisionist war criminal -- did not help my ability for neutral observation but rude behavior can have a chilling effect on Talk pages and worsen edit-warring issues. These comments are restricted to clearly personal references and I still feel (the listed 25) are uncivil and improper. I don't see a change sticking on Israeli-Palestinian editors and editing style unless the core principals are being enforced in the proposed manner which will hopefully help make editing become more communal.

Regardless, thank you. Jaakobou 21:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, this is a simple case of pot calling the kettle black. You both need to just leave each other alone because you're as bad as each other. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems Eleland's civility is at borderline on most of these cited diffs, but I do have an issue with "your personal crackpot interpretation of the RSes". I also agree with Ryan. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Both warned. See Gildabrand thread below. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Requesting a kind reminder of when and where I have been uncivil after the arbitration decisions (the last three weeks, or before that) so that I'm receiving the honor of being called "the pot". Jaakobou 21:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

70.109.223.188 (talk · contribs)

70.109.223.188 (talk · contribs) has been making reverts, a due number of them improper ones, on articles where the IP has not made edits or discussions.

• "no comment - .
• "revert vandalism by troll account" - .
• "rv trolling" - .
• no comment - .
• no comment - .
• no comment - .
• rv pov - .
• rv - .
• no comment - .
• no comment - .
• no comment - .
• no comment - .
• sorry for not using edit summary, these are not needed - .
• no comment - .
• revert per talk - .
• Extra note: He's also removed a source because "it's foreign language" - .

Many of the reverts have been on me when the IP was not involved; the last "revert per talk" being in disruption to an 'on hold' mediation where Pedro Gonnet took time off:

• "Due to work and other reasons, I'll be off-line until February 18th." - .

I've inserted the material into the article adding references by Der Spiegel, United States House of Representatives and Reuters; Diff and was reverted by Pedro: and then reverted a second time by the IP.

I believe 70.109.223.188 (talk · contribs) is some type of a ban/mentorship evasion account used to edit war where the editor wished to remain incognito.

The IP has been disrupting the 'Editorial Process' and I am requesting:

• A checkuser on the anon; to see if his IP corresponds with another editor or if it's similar (same ISP) to any of the IPs of the involved editors.

With respect. Jaakobou 15:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser's won't necessarily be perusing this board, so if you have substantive evidence that this IP might be Pedro Gonnet, you might want to file a request at WP:RFCU. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, one of them does. Thatcher 19:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course you'd show up now! Here's a link to the ARBCOM case: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• 1. Please link to the case, it makes our work easier. 2. IP addresses may change and the case was not closed until recently, so stick to recent diffs. 3. I can see who this is and it is definitely not Pedro or any of the other parties named in the case. 4. Logging in to edit is not required, can you show a pattern of edits or reversions that we can use to put this user on notice of the case? Thatcher 19:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, I linked to the relevant section of the case (Decorum Principals), sorry if it was not clear enough. The case is Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles.

My prime suspect for the IP was listed here - Statement_by_Jaakobou. I've sent a request to a clerk to add the names but was noted that it's probably redundant since the case will be a generic thing and not a per-user thing. Regardless, each of the mentioned names (anon. IP included on the list) are parties of I-P disputes and conflicts. Jaakobou 20:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Bluemarine / Matt Sanchez

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

The sock has been blocked. John Vandenberg (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a suspicion that the new user matthewsanchez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) might be now-banned and blocked Matt Sanchez, based on its one (unsigned) contribution here. I realise it isn't a mainspace edit, but still thought that it should probably be blocked on principle. Jay*Jay (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• ArbCom remedy here. The pages of the ArbCom case plus other on-wiki discussions established that user:Bluemarine is Matt Sanchez, and so is user:Mattsanchez. Both are banned, and the link on user talk:Mattsanchez regarind that ban redirects to user talk:bluemarine. Jay*Jay (talk) 09:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• The identity is pretty obvious. However, the one edit the new account made seems benign enough. While technically a breach of the ban, I don't see any need for further action here, apart from the obvious reblock that has already been done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• The reason for the breach is to influence the images used on the Matt Sanchez article page. Give a mouse a cookie... Jay*Jay (talk) 09:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• I can see nothing wrong with a single, polite, reasonable request regarding a personal photograph. Formally speaking, he should perhaps have done it through OTRS rather than on wiki, but that's a minor point. What action do you want taken? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• I did not specifically request a remedy because I was unsure how seriously this action by Matt would be seen; thus, I simply made a report, and provided the evidence to support it. If you are asking what I would do were I an admin, I would issue an indefinite block, because his action is unacceptable on principle, provided I was confident that I could establish it must indeed be him. I would then log the breach on the relevant ArbCom page. I suspect that creating a sock puppet within days of the ArbCom decision would not be viewed positively by the committee. By the way, it is evident that I see this situation as more serious than do you (fair enough - the world would be boring if we all agreed all the time). FYI, I see it as important because Matt's actions are clearly aimed at changing the content of his article. He has already managed to have the previous photo deleted, based on what appears to be a highly suspect claim of ownership. Matt's wiki-actions and the case that followed have consumed a lot of wiki-time, and resulted in a concurrent indefinite community ban and a one year ArbCom ban. In such a case, any sock puppet - no matter how minor its edits - should be banned. As a non-admin, I have no power to act, so I have raised the issue for others to consider in what I believe is the appropriate forum. It is now up to others to consider the evidence, make a decision, and take whatever further action they deem is appropriate. Jay*Jay (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, fair enough. But here's one remaining difference of opinion: Matt is entitled to wanting to influence his article. It's his biography. Article subjects, even when banned, are still protected by BLP and have a right to have their voice heard when BLP problems occur. Being concerned about privacy or security issues over an image is a legitimate thing to raise. Even if the proper channel would be OTRS rather than sock editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree completely that Matt is fully protected by BLP, and believe that this is entirely appropriate. However, it seems clear that Matt wants his article to be under his control. First he tried to edit the article to his liking. Then, when it became evident he was going to be banned, he asked that the article be deleted. Now he wants a nice "military" style image (my description, not his) like this - and his suggestion is not about privacy or security (as you characterise it), but about influencing the impression created by a cursory look at the WP article. Ignoring the copyright issues and just thinking about NPOV, the image Matt suggests is inappropriate in the same way as would be one of the "action" photos from his gay porn career. By the way, he has claimed ownership of images which he does not own - including this one. A more neutral image (like the Columbia one that was removed) would be appropriate. In short, Matt's past actions make his objectivity in influencing the Matt Sanchez article questionable, and mean his suggestions require very carefully scrutiny. Jay*Jay (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• There's nothing wrong with him trying to exert some control over what images we show. Since he is mostly a private, not-really-all-that-prominent person, there won't be too many potentially free images of him around that are owned by others. Most existing photographs will indeed be his. So, we are entirely at his mercy when it comes to him giving us photographs of himself. As for the deleted image , I can't check its history (not being a commons admin). I have currently no reasons to believe there was any foul play in either his uploading it or in his later having it deleted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Evidence of notification on user page here. Jay*Jay (talk) 09:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Note, for everyone's information, Luna Santin has now instituted an indefinite block of user:matthewsanchez. Jay*Jay (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi

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

Is That All There Is? Thatcher 00:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Subject to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Martinphi restricted Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, they may be banned from any affected page or set of pages.

I would like to call the attention of uninvolved administrators to this particularly provocative comment: where he lectures another Wikipedian who has been around for a long time with some pretty harsh language:

"This is not valid for Misplaced Pages. Your arguments are completely your POV, and have nothing to do with WP policy. Thus, they are not valid here."

I think this is disruptive. Does anyone else? I'll also point out that this particular page is subject to a probation, and so that he would engage in this behavior is especially disturbing.

Please also note that I'm not the only one who has noticed Martin's disruptive tendencies at homeopathy.

ScienceApologist (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Editors were rejecting the National Institutes of Health the American Medical Association and the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education as being POV sources for Homeopathy. They were doing this because "A government agency is a political creature." and because "Generalisations are generally bogus" and "Organizations that use the scientific method to evaluate claims all reject homeopathy," the last as if the NIH, American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, and AMA don't use the scientific method. Looks like just their POV to me, and under such circumstances not a harsh criticism. I have recieved no complaints from said editors, but certainly intended no personal offense. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Is that all? Thatcher 00:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Tu quoque

Please consider that just minutes earlier, ScienceApologist - who is under similar restrictions as MartinPhi - called another editor a "POV Pusher". Thus, he's probably not the best person to be reporting anyone for behavioral issues, especially MartinPhi. -- Levine2112 02:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I am under civility restrictions, not disruptive editing restrictions. Secondly, I was reverting creationist POV-pushing. I have no reason to believe that the editor in question is a POV-pusher. Regardless, I cannot refactor edit summaries and so apologize. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And when you accused me of POV-pushing what, exactly, was the point of view that you believed me to be pushing with this edit? Dlabtot (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

 Note: Edit warring on the enforcement page is a really really bad idea. I will look at this report tonight at home. Thatcher 20:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have reported User:Dlabtot here: WP:ANI#Continued harassment; User:Levine2112 is also wearing down my patience, but one thing at a time. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Is that all? I find myself unmoved to take action on either complaint. More hangnails. On the content question which prompted Martin's outburst, both he and the other editors are partly right. The AMA and NIH do say some nice-ish things about homeopathy, and web sites written for consumer use are rarely scientifically rigorous. There is nothing particularly disruptive about the quoted comment. And ScienceApologist did not say "POV pusher" as quoted above, he said "rv creationist POV pushing" which is a slight but subtle difference (although avoidance of the word "pushing" would have helped. Dlabtot and Levine2112 parachuting into the middle of this was thoroughly unhelpful, as was Dlabtot and ScienceApologist edit warring on this page. The admins who cover this page are not potted plants and do a pretty good job of separating the wheat from the chaff. The block of Dlabtot and ScienceApologist seems well-deserved, no action on these hangnails. Thatcher 00:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Gilabrand

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

both warned, see Eleland thread

Could an uninvolved admin please notify this user of the potential sanctions specified by Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles? He/she appears to be reverting in the POV that areas in East Jerusalem are parts of Israel, a POV adopted by (part of) Israel's government but essentially nobody else. I noticed this on Tomb of Samuel but it also seems to be happening at Gilo. No drastic action needed, I just want to be sure he's aware of the special sensitivity which applies to Isr-Pal articles since that decision. <eleland/talkedits> 18:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

See related thread above on Eleland, both sides are pushing it. Both warned. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

TTN

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

An arbitrator has clarified that this is only limited to episode-related articles, and shouldn't be taken to implicitly apply to other areas. Dmcdevit·t 19:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction.

TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has begun to unilaterally blank entire sections and paragraphs of other articles in an apparent attempt to thwart the purpose of the injunction -- see and , for example. John254 04:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

He did not violate the injunction, as the injunction only prohibits (un)redirection/(un)deletion. The various loopholes and problems with the injunction were brought up in the talk page, but as it was never amended, apparently the arbitrators were happy with the specific wording, which TTN did not violate. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

An injunction which forbids any editor to "redirect or delete any currently existing article" necessary includes a prohibition on attempting to achieve the same effect by unilateral blanking of large portions of article content -- otherwise, TTN could simply stub all episode and character articles. Pursuant to the policy that Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy, the injunction should be enforced for its intended purpose of preventing edit warring over the inclusion of episode and character content -- TTN should hardly be rewarded for inventing a method to (possibly) adhere to the letter of the injunction while circumventing it. John254 05:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I love the good faith going on here. It's called cleanup. Removing cruft from game related articles is something that is done all of the time, and I'm sure if you ask WP:CVG, not one person there would disagree with the removal of the information on that list. If you look at the edit history, you can see that I was already in the middle of it anyways. The other two are also basic cleanup/information rearrangement. That has nothing to do with trying to bypass the injunction. TTN (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Calling material "cruft" is not assuming good faith about the editors who added the material. If the article really needs to be cleaned up, someone who is not an involved party in an ongoing arbitration case can do it. --Pixelface (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the removals of content are contentious -- the blanking of most of the content from List of Wario characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was partially reversed, for example. Now, I imagine that if there's a serious dispute as to whether individual characters deserve their own articles, many editors are going to be rather displeased with the unilateral removal of a large number of entries from List of Wario characters. John254 05:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you explain how any of this involves a episode of a television show or a character from a television show? That's all the injunction pertains to. Different kinds of behaviour with respect to a different class of article.Kww (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a rather hairsplitting distinction, since TTN has recently been edit warring over the redirection of articles related to video games -- see . The purpose of the injunction is presumably to actually stop the edit warring, not to move it to a slightly different set of closely related articles. John254 06:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Discus.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should protect some of these articles based on basic wiki edit warring rules. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That will be protecting every article on fiction. -- Cat 14:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Page protection is designed as a temporary measure to prevent edit warring on a single article. In cases of persistent edit warring over a large number of articles, page protection is not a viable remedy, since applying full protection to thousands of articles for an extended period of time would be extremely disruptive. If TTN (talk · contribs)'s response to an injunction forbidding him to edit war over the inclusion of television episode characters by means of redirection is to start edit warring over the inclusion of video game characters by blanking large portions of articles -- see and as additional examples of unilateral blankings of content -- believing his activities to be sufficiently removed from the letter of the injunction that he can circumvent its purpose, then the only remedy available to prevent TTN from engaging in further edit warring over a large number of articles is to block TTN's account. John254 15:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Possibly the solution is to interpret the episode redirection injunction as general, and to interpret it broadly for those who aren't parties to the case, but to interpret it strictly for those who are parties to the case. ie. To have TTN and other parties to the case to be asked to stop redirecting/unredirecting on any articles. There is plenty of other work that can be done while they wait for the case to finish. Carcharoth (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Which again brings up my point - even in the face of an arbcom injunction, he continues to behave as usual. Hence my concern about being a single-purpose account with no interest apart from removing content. QED cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

John254, will you stop at nothing to try to get a good and valued contributor blocked? He clearly hasn't violated any arbcom injunction. -- Ned Scott 07:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni33

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

In this case, assuming good faith, I don't see the removal of the tag as being a reversion and necessitating any action. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni33 has broken his 1 revert a week parole on the Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States article.

He made the following reversions:

02:33, 24 January 2008

21:00, 29 January 2008

As far as I know removing a tag added by another user does count as a reversion. Even if he was justified in removing the latter two, he had no reason to remove the "long" tag as I had only recently added it myself. John Smith's (talk) 11:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

John for future reference be sure to notify the user you are reporting that you have reported them (I mentioned this report to Giovanni on his talk page so you don't have to worry about it now). There might be a technical violation here but I don't view this report as particularly helpful (the last edit was four days ago and was certainly not disruptive which was why no one reported it at the time). John and Gio are in a long-standing dispute and I view reports by either of them on the behavior of the other as rather non-constructive (indeed I view any instances of Wiki-tattling - particularly over what is at most an extremely trivial violation of an ArbCom restriction - with some disdain). Their original Jung Chang dispute has now migrated to Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States - which Giovanni has edited for a very long time and which John recently found his way to - but neither editor has been engaging in problematic editing on that article in my opinion which is what really matters here (I would never even have noticed that Giovanni made two reverts in a week and John apparently had to make a point to track down these two edits four and ten days after they were originally made). If an admin finds it necessary to block Giovanni I would also suggest a pointed note that both of these users should avoid efforts to "get" the other one via AN/I posts, notes to admins, Arb Enforcement reports, etc. It only serves to escalate a really pointless dispute.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conflict). This is an extremely petty case of a POINT by JS, and more of the same of his seeking further conflict with me by trying to get my in trouble. Please note that the edit in question took place on Tuesday, and JohnSmith's reverted me right away Tues., 5 days ago:, and the matter was dropped, done and over with. There was no edit warring, and I did not oppose him. Yet that he feels he need to report me here 5 days AFTER it's even relevant to anything, right after he was given a "final warning" by an admin for his constant attempt at provocating and seeking conflicts with me, wikstalking, etc: is what is relevant here. Apparently JohnSmith was not happy at that since he failed to get me in trouble by reporting me to that admin (it backfired on him), so now he is admin/board shopping with this petty reporting here.
• The fact is that I raised my concern of his wikistalking and conflict seeking on ANI, and then JohnSmiths report me to an admin with a false report (and said Admin then warns both of us to knock it off)--yet now he reports me for what is best a trivial infraction 5 days ago, about a tag and other edit that are over 5 days apart as well? Clearly JohnSmiths has not "knocked it off" yet, and is ignoring his "final warning."
• For him to report this here to seek a block is further proof of him seeking conflict and bad will. As most admins know, its the spirit of our revert restrictions what matter, just like it is for the 3RR rule. Those who go after and report something that is a week old, that they didnt care to do at the time, and appear to be motivated only to get the other editor in trouble, even though there is no issue anymore, is frowned upon. This is what JohnSmith is doing here. I'm sure if I bothered to look through all of his edits I can find something way back a week or two ago where I could report him, too. But that would be infantile, petty, and quite frankly, deserving of a block for POINT. But JohnSmith's does this and out all things it was just a removal of a tag?! (which I did not revert since I did not replace it back, when I learned that there was apparently an editor who objected to it (JohnSmith himself) Extremely petty.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't asked for a block - I've made a report. If the removal of a tag doesn't count as a revert, no problem. If it does then at the least you should acknowledge you shouldn't have removed it - the point is I placed it there and you removed it. And I would have raised the issue earlier if I had realised you made the other revert.

As for previous warnings, I don't think you can use them to stop me making a report over a potential violation of an arb-comm ruling. John Smith's (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, if you want me to be direct I will go so far as to say I do not want a block - just a reference made on the arbitration log list that Giovanni did break his revert parole (if that was the case). John Smith's (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)