This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thatcher (talk | contribs) at 13:44, 27 January 2008 (→Highways 2 - again: reverted and notified). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Highways 2

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2: Does this violate the temporary injunction? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It just looks to me like the editor created subpages for the project for things like participants. I don't see how this is a change in scope or approach; please explain further if you think so. Dmcdevit·t 03:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the page move - is that a scope change? --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the page move. In the first Highways case, the issue was a dispute over preferred terminology between "Roads" and "Highways." Is that also an issue in the current case? If so, then the move should be reverted. If you can point to a section of the evidence page or parties' statements showing that terminology is once again part of the dispute, that would help. If no other admin picks up on this, I will come back to it tonight. Thatcher 13:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeesh that's a lot of moves. The moves definitely expands the scope of the Pennsylvania Wikiproject, (as does this series of edits, as "roads" is a larger set that includes "State highways" as a subset. If you want to get technical about the language, the injunction prohibits change the scope of USRD or of adding disputed cases to USRD or its subprojects, but does not prohibit changing the scope of the subprojects. This seems nonsensical to me. If there is a dispute about whether a certain stretch of pavement should be included in a "Highways" project, surely renaming the project to "Roads" completely changing the playing field of the dispute. On the other hand, no one else has edited the PASH in almost 3 months, so there is hardly an active dispute about the scope of the PA project. Does this intersect in some way with USRD so that the moves have a more significant impact than it appears? Thatcher 04:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Highways 2 - again

violated the injunction. --NE2 05:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Reverted and notified. Thatcher 13:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved requests

These issues have been resolved, and will be automatically archived after three days. Do not post in this section. Add new reports to the top section of the page. If you wish to continue a discussion that has been marked as resolved, please contact the administrator who marked it closed.

Andranikpasha

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

There is no need for further discussion. Moreschi is correct, but I would still ask Andranikpasha to try being mindful of these things. Grandmaster extending an informal (i.e. outside this board) reminder and a chance to self-revert is, also, recommended. El_C 17:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Andranikpasha (talk · contribs) has been placed on revert parole in accordance with the ruling of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, please see: , which limits him to 1 rv per article per week. However on Khojaly massacre he made 2 rvs today, first by adding the POV tag: , which is a revert to his previous attempt to attach undiscussed tags: and then reverting once again: This is violation of his parole. Grandmaster (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Technically a violation, yes, but I really doubt Andranikpasha could have realised the first edit was technically a revert. So, no block. Moreschi 16:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering that he tried to attach tags to the article many times, such as here: , I have a reason to assume that he was aware of consequences. Grandmaster (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Back in September, Grandmaster! It's a bit much to expect people to remember their edits that far back. Moreschi 16:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for reviewing. Grandmaster (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sarah777

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

As noted below, Sarah is "banned from editing or participating at British Isles, Talk:British Isles, or any of its subpages for 7 days." El_C 17:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine#Sarah777 restricted says "Sarah777 may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks." Unfortunately, I think she's crossed that line again at Talk:British Isles/name debate#Time to change the name?, particularly with this edit. (In fact, as you'll see from the page history, she added those comments in a series of edits over 15 minutes, indicating that this wasn't a flash-in-the-pan show of emotion but a thought-out personal attack). While Sarah's a great editor when it comes to the non controversial issues, she seems to have great difficulty in discussing matters calmly with anyone whose opinion differs from hers. We could really do without that kind of behaviour on Misplaced Pages. Waggers (talk) 08:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sarah777 has been banned from editing or participating at British Isles, Talk:British Isles, or any of its subpages for 7 days. Notice here; logged here. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 13:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to object to this. While I'm no fan of Sarah777's, a comment such as "The British Isles ceased to exist when Ireland won Independence" is certainly not anti-British. As I described below Sarah's comment, this assertion is supported by both British, Irish and international literature on the subject. It is a perfectly valid view, supported by published sources - and certainly not anti-British. Oddly, Wagger's agrees with this. (See here for both my comments and Waggers'.)

The real issue, I believe, is this dispute between Waggers and Sarah777. That dispute might be hot headed, on both sides, but again I don't see where Sarah777 expresses any anti-British remarks. Anti-British remarks of the kind covered by the ArbCom were things such as comparing British history with the history of the Nazis or calling British editors things such as imperialist jingoes etc. This is not a breach of that ruling. --sony-youth 14:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Striked that on scrolling down and saw the personal attack thanks to User:One Night In Hackney's comments on my page. Though would like to note that it was a breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:ATTACK and not a breach of the ArbCom decision (i.e. the attack was anti-Waggers not anti-British). --sony-youth 15:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a WP:CIVIL and WP:ATTACK breach, but the restriction, to me, is worded in such a way that her remarks need not be anti-British for them to qualify as "aggressive biased editing". Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Eupator

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

Breaches of a user's civility supervision demand evidence of incivility, which the links (there is no specific quoted passage) fall short of demonstrating. The AA restriction do cover this topic in so far as related issues are immediately raised, but I'm pressed to find any problems in that regard here. In short, much stronger, more direct evidence is needed. El_C 04:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I requested Thatcher to double check this closure since I have already recently argued that the filer of this notice failed to substantiate breaches of arbitration supervised civility with respect to another arbitration-restricted user. El_C 18:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

From Thatcher via El C: I do think that if Eupator is going to keep a page of historical evidence proving his point, it would be in the best interests of all involved that it not directly reference one particular admin who questioned it. "Here is evidence summarizing my position" is more compatible with an open editing environment than "Here is why admin:Smith got it wrong." And I disagree with User:Pocopocopocopoco that the article is not subject to the ruling; Eupator admits to editing from the Armenian point of view and the ruling is meant to be broadly interpreted. It's not really enforceable at this time but I would like it to go away by itself, please. Thatcher 02:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

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

I am requesting that an uninvolved administrator review the recent activities of Eupator ( Ευπάτωρ ), who is currently under ArbCom restrictions from Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, specifically, Civility supervision (formerly civility parole). If you make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then you may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses." He is also subject to supervised editing and "... may be banned by any administrator from editing any or all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues"

For the last few weeks, Eupator has been engaging in a dispute at the Franco-Mongol alliance article, specifically as regards the definition of Armenia's involvement in relations with the Mongols. As part of this, he has made what I regard as assumptions of bad faith. On December 21, he accused me of "bullying" at ANI. More recently, he has created a subpage in his userspace with negative comments about me: User:Eupator/Mongol historians. There is absolutely no need for this personal commentary about other editors. If he wishes to make his points, he should comment solely on article content. This is true of any editor, but particularly of an editor under such a stringent civility parole. --Elonka 22:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• On 14th of October Elonka left the following message on my talk page after I had awarded another user with a barnstar. . The purpose of her message was not quite clear but the entire message was a comment on another editor. I found that quite odd. As a result of Elonka's message on my userspace I started reading the dispute that she had initiated regarding the aforementioned article. My comment in December was in response to user PHG's request: "I am asking you (Elonka) to apologize for your bullying." Elonka responded nicely on the article talk page but left a seemingly threatening message on my talk page:. I did not respond back as I did not wish to escalate the matter any further. Most recently, once again she left another message on my talk page with yet even more inaccurate assumptions . I think I have remained quite civil in all of this but I do acknowledge commenting on user Elonka in my userspace here and not just on content. This was an honest attempt at displaying background info regarding my involvement, not some sort of a rant against Elonka though I do acknowledge that the last sentence is not really necessary. If you take a look at the talk page for Franco-Mongol alliance you will immediately notice how much of the discussion is regarding editors. A good portion of user Elonka's comments there are regarding other user(s) and not content. It is often necessary to discuss a users actions, if it's done civilly it should not be a cause for stress so I fail to see why she is applying double standards here. Also please note the following edit by Elonka on a recent AFD:. She's not commenting on content or my vote, she's making a bad faith assumption instead. -- Ευπάτωρ 23:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)