Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cirt (talk | contribs) at 16:48, 16 May 2010 (→Request concerning Sciologos: fmt fix). 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.

Sciologos

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

Request concerning Sciologos

User requesting enforcement

-- Cirt (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Article_probation

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

1. 19:17, 11 May 2010 -- Failure to WP:AGF, refusal to communicate with editor in good standing, at Talk:Xenu.
2. 08:09, 11 May 2010 -- Lack of WP:CIVIL, violations of WP:NPA, comments directed at two specific editors as "half-Nazis".
3. 17:58, 10 May 2010 -- Repeated failure to focus on content, instead directing comments at individual contributors.
4. 17:34, 10 May 2010 -- Violation of Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Editors_instructed, editing through multiple different IPs and non-conventional ISPs, proxy configuration, open ports, etc. More info of other IPs listed at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sciologos.
5. 20:36, 9 May 2010 -- Use of talkpage as WP:NOTFORUM, to propose violation of site policy, in order to add "advanced speculation" (user's own words, repeatedly posted to talk page despite being informed of site policies regarding WP:NOR.)
6. 20:33, 9 May 2010 -- Repeated disruption and waste of talk page, in order to propose to violate WP:RS.

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

1. 18:03, 10 May 2010 -- Notice of prior ArbCom cases, WP:COFS and WP:ARBSCI, by Cirt (talk · contribs)

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

Request topic ban from subject matter, Scientology and related articles - per violation of multiple policies in edits to area of ongoing Article Probation. -- Cirt (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Admin discretion may apply topic ban due to disruption at area under Article Probation from ArbCom per, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Article_probation. However, of course, remedies from WP:ARBSCI could also apply here, especially with regard to the WP:SPA nature involved. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• 00:41, 12 May 2010. -- Cirt (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Sciologos

Statement by Sciologos

Comments by others about the request concerning Sciologos

Result concerning Sciologos

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

• The COFS article probation doesn't appear to apply in this instance as the user's only contributions are to talk pages and an SPI. WP:ARBSCI remedies 4 and 5.1 could be applicable, particularly the latter. I will wait a reasonable time to hear Sciologos's response before taking action against them; the action would be likely to constitute a topic ban from the Scientology area. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• The reasonable time will end when I log on tomorrow morning (which is likely to be between 09:00 and 11:00 UTC), so Scilogos is advised to place any statement they wishes to make in the prescribed location above today. Failure to do so may result in adverse consequences being drawn. Stifle (talk) 07:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Whereas:
  • WP:ARBSCI remedy 5.1 vests in uninvolved administrators the power to topic-ban users who is focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda, and
  • User:Sciologos has edited only Talk:Xenu and an SPI case, and has the agenda of having "scientific support for the OT III story" written up on Misplaced Pages,
• Now, therefore,
  • User:Sciologos is topic-banned from Xenu and related pages for three months
  • Violation of this topic ban will result in a block of up to one month for a first infraction (up to one year thereafter) and the topic-ban being reset, as well as the possibility of further sanctions.
• Sciologos will be informed of this on his talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Nipsonanomhmata

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Nipsonanomhmata

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Nipsonanomhmata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

<http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nipsonanomhmata>

Administrator imposing the sanction

Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

I have been notified.  Sandstein  21:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Nipsonanomhmata

The severity of the penalty is over zealous. I have been given a one year restriction on editing articles in a region called the Balkans (that's several countries) for an alleged 3RR (for 3 reverts well outside a 24 hour period) and I have hardly edited in the Balkans over the last 3 months. I have also been accused of being "aggressive". Where exactly have I been aggressive? Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein is right. It's 3 months instead of a year. But why have restrictions been placed for several countries for 3 months for one half baked 3RR? 3 months is still a severe penalty. Moreover, I have been banned for 1 year from a page that I was not editing on when this dispute was raised. Personally, I don't mind the ban on the Ali Pasha article because I had no intention of ever going back to that article again because everything that I had ever contributed to that article has been indiscriminately napalmed and nuked by Fut Perf. It's still not fair to put a blanket restriction on me for the Balkans though. Not even for 1 day. How did that happen? Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Stifle, it should be the other way around. Innocent before proven guilty. Not guilty before being proven innocent. This isn't Guantanamo. I am being penalised for Fut Perf's badger baiting. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

Nipsonanomhmata is mistaken: his 1R/week restriction lasts three months, not a year. Only his topic ban from the subject Ali Pasha lasts a year. See the sanction in the section above. I recommend that this appeal be declined and refer to my rationale for the sanction under appeal.  Sandstein  21:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Nipsonanomhmata

While I am mindful of an echo chamber effect among the few admins who frequent here, I don't think the sanctions issued by Sandstein were unduly onerous. My suggestion would be to appeal them again in a month or so having demonstrated good behaviour in the meantime. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by <Nipsonanomhmata>-Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Nipsonanomhmata">

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Aregakn

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Aregakn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Aregakn (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Ban on referals to any editors' edits as "Possible Vandalism", "Vandalism" etc. (if not 3RR violation or other obvious cases); imposed at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Hittit; Log: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

Administrator imposing the sanction

Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

Administrator notified: User talk:Stifle#Please be notified of an AE Appeal Aregakn (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Aregakn

The appeal is for the sanction lift. Introduction:

• In the AE for the editor Hittit, that was failing to comply with Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 according to the request, I found valuable to present references to additional multiple violations. This decision was based on the will to be constructively contributing to articles of Misplaced Pages, rather than uselessly spending time to prevent violations of rules and/or the integrity of articles and so Misplaced Pages as a whole. In the last (#7) of the violations I thought relevant to the case, I wanted to bring to the attention of the ruling administrator, that a deletion of a cover-page of the NewYork Times paper , stating "Million Armenians Killed or in Exile" and other similar, was deleted in only one of the multiple identical edits , , , of the heavily biased editor. Bringing it to the attention for the authorised person's consideration, as a reason for it I mentioned a "Possible vandalism", meaning a possibility of Sneaky Vandalism. The latter was clarified in the appeal to the sanction on my talk-page. Unfortunately the appeal for lift was denied and only reduced to 1 month from 1 year.

The reasons for the appeal:

• Considering my will to preserve valuable time of mine and other editors to engage in value-adding activities to Misplaced Pages, rather than "warring" in one way or another, to preserve Wiki-integrity, with editors that are here most possibly for other purposes, I was, in good faith, bringing the very many evidences on how our work is disrupted on Misplaced Pages. I cannot consider any rational reason (or recall an existing rule) to sanction somebody for trying to bring violations into consideration, with quite a possible reasoning of why (s)he does it. I consider the sanction as irrelevant, lacking rational bases (and personally disappointing for a constructive editor). Aregakn (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The link to the AE was given in the "Sanction being appealed" section: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Hittit, until it was removed/archived by MiszaBot II after that. Now it is in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive62#Hittit.

1) Though the purpose of why Stifle considered this sanction is clear to me, as I have stated, I see no bases and reasons for why it would be issuing (to put it very roughly "corpus delicti").

2) Once again, there was no direct accusation of the editor! The AE was about the conduct of the editor and there were very many cases that showed his conduct is disruptive for the work of Misplaced Pages. That was the place where those edits should have been considered, wasn't it? So this is where I brought to the attention one of many I suspected in Sneaky vandalism. That very edit (deletion of content in a sneaky way) could not have been made neither in accordance with Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 restrictions nor in good faith or in any way appropriate for the article The Armenian Genocide. In addition, if anybody thinks that somebody would make Sneaky Vandalism by blanking whole pages or paragraphs, I do not. Neither this edit could anyhow be viewed as quote: "...an effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism". Deleting a factual newspaper page just to hide the title of it is in no way a desire to improve the encyclopedia, is it?

3) With the above in mind, I don't consider that bringing this very case to the attention of the admin for his/her consideration, with no direct accusation, as "throwing about the word "vandalism"" as Stifle calls it.

4) I would not justify in either way A sanction against an editor that are based or referred to as "I rather doubt that this small sanction will have any serious impact on Aregakn's editing of the encyclopedia." This isn't the way Admins are intitled to act, as I know.

5)If I have to comment the below "This appeal is ridiculous..... That isn't even a restriction." I want to be asked so by an uninvolved admin once again. Aregakn (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I can see, that Sandstein has made a vote for a decline with reasoning, that shows he has not familirised himself with the case. For isntance: . I could mention others but think this is enough. An appaling action from an Administrator, when considering cases, I think. I hope that other rulings/votes/comments of his have not been made in this manner! Aregakn (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Stifle

One of the main issues related to this arbitration enforcement request was users throwing about the word "vandalism" to refer to edits with which they disagreed, rather than genuine damage to the encyclopedia. I rather doubt that this small sanction will have any serious impact on Aregakn's editing of the encyclopedia. Nevertheless, if there is a consensus that even the greatly reduced sanction I imposed after the appeal was excessive, then let it be lifted. Stifle (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

To Sandstein: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive62#Hittit. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Point of information: Aregakn is not subject to edit summary parole; that's Hittit. Stifle (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Aregakn

Although I have edited on the "Armenian Genocide" in the past I have not been involved in this particular issue. I just wanted to say that Aregakn has done a lot of good work on Armenian issues in an impossible environment where he is outnumbered by people with extreme right-wing opinions. I just wanted to say that he deserves that you go easy on him. He is doing a great job in an impossible environment. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Aregakn, please link to the request or discussion that led to your sanction, or we cannot review your appeal.  Sandstein  07:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This appeal is ridiculous. So, he has been told not to refer to other people's edits as "vandalism" when they aren't? That isn't even a restriction. Nobody is allowed to refer to other people's edits as vandalism when they aren't. This sanction is merely a reminder of a behavioral norm that goes for everybody; it doesn't restrict his editing in any way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Offtopic personal attacks by Nipsonanomhmata (talk · contribs) and ensuing discussion removed. Continued attacks of this sort will be sanctioned as disruption.  Sandstein  15:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It was neither offtopic nor a personal attack. I feel like I am communicating with aliens. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Decline appeal. The appealed sanctions are a reasonable exercise of administrator discretion. The edit summary parole forbidding Aregakn from using misleading edit summaries is justified by the evidence given in the decision, and the editing restriction forbidding Aregakn from referring to non-vandalism edits by others as "vandalism" is within the scope of the normal rules of etiquette that every user must follow anyway.  Sandstein  15:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Aregakn

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

Sciologos

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

Request concerning Sciologos

User requesting enforcement

-- Cirt (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Single_purpose_accounts_with_agendas

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

1. 12:56, 16 May 2010 Violation of sanctions imposed by admin Stifle (talk · contribs) at 09:23, 15 May 2010.

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

1. 09:24, 15 May 2010 Warning by Stifle (talk · contribs)

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

The administrator that imposed the original sanction stated, "Violation of this topic ban will result in a block of up to one month for a first infraction (up to one year thereafter) and the topic-ban being reset, as well as the possibility of further sanctions." The account Sciologos (talk · contribs) has violated the original sanction.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• 16:47, 16 May 2010. -- Cirt (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Sciologos

Statement by Sciologos

Comments by others about the request concerning Sciologos

Result concerning Sciologos

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