This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Piotrus (talk | contribs) at 01:26, 30 December 2008 (→{{anchor|toptoc}}Edit this section for new requests). 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

SPA on Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family

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

Digwuren arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

User Exxess, a single-purpose account, is engaging in much incivility at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family (2nd nomination) (now at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family (2nd nomination - voided)). This is just the first of many rambling, uncivil post against me and other editors he has made there. Per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions, I ask that he is placed on restriction, and if he continues with violating WP:NPA and turning this AfD into a battleground, appropriate sanctions are taken. It is also possible that he had and is engaging in sock puppeting and vote stacking (both AfDs he took part in saw votes from IPs and other SPAs), see Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Exxess. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

De-azerbaboonifier

De-azerbaboonifier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

New user De-azerbaboonifier has created St. Sargis of Gag in relation to a dispute over at Qazakh Rayon. This is very likely to be the same person as Azerbaboon (talk · contribs) as raised recently at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive501#Azad_chai. Whoever this is, it is an inappropriate username and when used to create articles, I think they should be deleted and recreated by someone with a touch more class.

I am raising it here as the last time it was raised on ANI (see link above) there were suggestions it was a straw-puppet, i.e. a pro-Azeri person doing this to cast the Armenians in a negative light by way of Fear, uncertainty and doubt, which is a brave new twist and a new level of gaming - it is getting quite messy and the stakes are rising. If possible, this needs to be stopped. John Vandenberg 06:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Article deleted and account blocked. Jehochman 14:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

User:Russavia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Digwuren arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

This user has re-created an attack page User:Russavia/eSStonia which was speedy deleted under G10. Now edit warring speedy template while making uncivil comments. This is a breach of the Digwuren remedy against using Misplaced Pages as a battleground. Martintg (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Martintg is WP:STALKing my edits, placing Speedy tags on an article which is under development in my userspace. User:Orangemike deleted the article, and after I approached him, he has reinstated it, so that I can work on it with the sources which I have at hand. Martintg, is aware of this, and keeps placing speedy tags on an article which is in userspace, and which an admin has deleted and re-instated. And to think, I am still writing this actual piece. --Russavia 00:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

As to the uncivil comments, I have asked Martintg to stop WP:STALKing my edits around WP. As this article is under construction in my userspace, the only way to find it would have been by stalking. And he is not the only one, as can be evidenced here. A whole bunch of editors find themselves on another user's talk page, which none of them would have had reason to watch, but yet they all find their way there. It's stalking plain and simple, and I've had a gutful of it. My own editing history demonstrates that I am capable of building NPOV and V articles, but now this editor, via WP:STALKing has found something he doesn't like, and is being WP:DISRUPTive. Xasha's talk page demonstrates what is really happening with this group. --Russavia 00:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't throw out baseless accusations of stalking willy-nilly. Real stalking is serious business; it will do more harm than good to call everybody a stalker who points out your missteps. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 12:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Baseless accusations? Ok, I will prepare the official complaint now. --Russavia 14:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

And furthermore, I will also point people's attention to terms such as Evil Empire, a pejorative term. Yet that has its place on WP. So does Great Satan. So does Axis of Evil. And then we come to Putinjugend, a derogatory pejorative which compares pro-Kremlin youth groups in Russia to those in Nazi Germany...and Martintg (and others) voted to keep that at AfD on the flimsiest of reasons, and by using the flimsiest of sources. As one of those who voted to keep said, WP is not censored. And furthermore, again, it is under development in my userspace, and has not yet been placed in mainspace due to it not being ready. And he is rushing to delete it, but actively WP:GAMEd the system to help keep Putinjugend. Tell me why is there hypocrisy here? --Russavia 00:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we should give Russavia some time to improve the article to see if it matches our notability criteria. As it stayes now it certainly not a speedy delete material (much less then e.g. Putinjugend article that was recently !voted to be kept). I think after the article moved in the mainspace we can have an AfD discussion or if the development stalls we can have an MfD on the page. Russavia somehow himself provokes stalking him by having Stalk me in his signature, still I do not think stalking of users is a good practice Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Alex: it hardly qualifies for speedy. However this seems to be a case of WP:POINT: "eSStonia" has been created to "retaliate" for redirect page "Putinjugend", as Russavia just admitted himself. This reminds me creation of an inflammatory article Georgia for Georgians by Russavia after he had an argument about the Russian-Georgian war. Not surprisingly, that was followed by creation of Russia for Russians. Biophys (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Having investigated this further, it does seem to be a case of WP:POINT over a failed AfD, with Russavia suggesting to the closing admin as well as to his compatriot Xasha his intention to create this article, while making sweeping generalisations of bad faith in saying a group of users "are yet to voice an opinion that is not anti-Russian in nature, nor are they ever to voice a delete opinion on something that is an attack on Russia" while incorrectly citing AfDs I and others have never voted on, such as Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Putinisms_(2nd_nomination), as evidence of this alleged "anti-Russian bias". Martintg (talk) 07:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

So if the first reason doesn't work, we try again on another reason Martintg? Perhaps my saying that the article could be created is demonstration that it may not be WP:POINT as you say. What I have thus far provided in my userspace is sourced to WP:RS, and will demonstrate it is a well-used term backed up by those sources, and everything I said on Xasha's talk page (whom I believe is Moldovan, which is not Antipodean) I stand by. As to Georgia for Georgians, that was created by myself, not for any non-existent argument, but because reading Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in Abkhazia, one gets the feeling that the Abkhazians woke up one morning and decided to massacre all Georgians, and all but mentioned in passing Gamsakhurdia's ethno-nationalist doctrine which was one of the major catalysts for the ethnic cleansing (needless to say, the ethnic cleansing article is near on impossible to edit, if you look at the talk-page, one can see that there is entrenched POV ideas on how this article should be presented). Unfortunately, as I speak English as my native language, I am more than capable of reading and understanding policies, and getting rid of me is going to take a lot more than fishing for sanctions by blockshopping. Will you admit you have stalked my edits Martin? Because that's the only way you would have found what I am working on in my userspace, and will continue to work on within the confines of WP policy. And I will ask here that you stop harrassing myself by stalking. --Russavia 23:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I have also expanded on Martintg's talk page here, that if stalking of my edits continues by any editor, I will present this evidence and ask for sanctions to be brought against those who are doing the stalking, under WP:STALK. I've had a gutful of the bullshit in this area of WP, and will no longer put up with having my edits followed by other editors (the fact this article is in my userspace is evidence of stalking!!!) and will not be put in the position that I am being harrassed by other editors. Now, people can call me a Putinista for all I give a damn, I have clearly and succinctly stated my reasons for even being involved on WP (are others so open to state their reasons??), and so long as I abide by policies and the spirit of those policies, then I will not be stopped from editing by being harrassed by others. Consider this a friendly notice to all of you. --Russavia 01:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe if Misplaced Pages allows such bullshits like Putinjugend, Putinism, etc. (which are surely neologisms, WP:OR; WP:SYN, etc. To clarify: I AM NOT PUTIN'S ADMIRER), why not to allow eSStonia? Think about the root of the problem. For me, it is clear that some CONCRETE editors (Russiavia only answered them) fill Wiki with all this dirt not related to encyclopedic knowledge. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This post was about Russavia, and he indeed does a number of questionable edits at this very moment, including reverts made without any discussion. He just labeled Ukrainian president Yushenko as a "KGB officer", although he only served in the border guards... I corrected some of that, but an uninvolved admin. should probably look at his recent edits.Biophys (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Biophys, I really don't understand what are you talking about. Russavia, my suggestion for you is to create the article "demshizoid". The term is fairly referenced, at least not less than Putinjugend or eSStonia. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Please state which edits? You are talking about those which were introduced by a banned sockpuppet? It is will within the confines of policy that I am able to revert any information, sourced or not, introduced by a banned user and their sockpuppets. An admin has reverted them, and so have I. Read WP:BAN and even WP:3RR. Be careful with re-including Hanzo's edits Biophys, because as WP:BAN, it could be construed, rightly or wrongly, as WP:MEAT. The information that the banned users sockpuppet has introduced needs to be gone over to check, and until such time as that is done, there is nothing wrong with removing their edits from WP. --Russavia 23:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No, this is certainly not "within the confines of policy" to remove good and sourced content from WP articles, without even discussing it. As about your WP:MEAT accusation ... are you kidding?Biophys (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

When introduced by a banner user using a sockpuppet, most definitely it is. There is a reason that they have been indef banned, and that means that they are banned from editing WP in any way, shape or form. I would suggest that you bring User:Khoikhoi in on this, because he also too reverted edits by the sockpuppet of a banned user. As to WP:MEAT, it's not an accusation, I said it could be construed as, rightly or wrongly. --Russavia 02:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Editors, this is not a chatroom. Please take discussions to the relevant article page. I do not see what sort of arbitration enforcement is possible here. Jehochman 14:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Goodcallclear

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Editing dispute isn't covered by The Troubles ArbCom restrictions. PhilKnight (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Goodcallclear (talk · contribs) is repeatedly adding untrue statements to the Letterkenny article. He has broken the three-revert rule. See here, here, here, here, here and here. --Balloholic (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

What does this have to do with arbcom enforcement? Shouldn't this be at WP:3RR? If there is an arbcase this relates to, pls always provide a link in your report. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles relating to The Troubles are under ArbCom restrictions, however this specific editing dispute doesn't appear to be covered. If the user continues edit warring then, as Rlevse suggests, post on WP:AN3. PhilKnight (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Keverich1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No action taken. PhilKnight (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Keverich1 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly edit-warring on Israel–United States military relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article currently under arbitration sanctions, to remove a sourced statement that he doesn't like. The statement is a line which I contributed over a year ago, sourced to Jane's Sentinel, an impeccable source of military information. The editor has asserted that the line is original research, even though it directly reflects the wording of the original source, as I've explained on the article's talk page. He is clearly unwilling to assume good faith or to accept sourced statements that conflict with his personal views. This is a pretty-clear cut violation of the arbitration sanctions, given the violation of the expected standards of behavior (WP:AGF) and the normal editorial process (WP:DR). Given the edit-warring in particular, I recommend a block. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If I'm allowed to speak in my defence, I do assume good faith, but I also assume a Misplaced Pages rule, which requires that statements should be properly sourced. The statement in question was not sourced when introduced to the article, and has never been properly sourced ever since. The statement is this

Israel-United States military relations have been extremely close, reflecting both shared security interests in the unstable Middle East and the influence of a strong pro-Israel lobby in the United States.

Check this link see that the statement about the lobby was not referenced whatsoever . Take a look at this version from mid 2007. . Clearly the claim in question has remained unreferenced for over a year. The user ChrisO (talk · contribs) now asserts the claim "directly reflects the wording of the original source", altough he failed to provide the source when he introduced the statement more than a year ago. The user ChrisO (talk · contribs) also refused to provide the exact quote from Jane's Sentinel, which would support the statement in question. Lastly, I do not think my edits in Israel–United States military relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are disruptive. I belive my edits in this article help to ensure all the statements are properly sourcedKeverich1 (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

As I've said on the talk page, the copy of Jane's Sentinel that I used is not currently accessible to me (it may have escaped your notice that it's Christmas). I've said that I will check it after Christmas. You plainly don't have a copy of the publication, so you have no reasonable grounds to assume bad faith. You've falsely described it as "original research" when it's sourced, it's been sourced for a long time and the source is impeccable. You've effectively accused me of lying, and rather than assuming good faith and pursuing proper dispute resolution, you've edit-warred to repeatedly remove a sourced statement that you don't like. That isn't acceptable behaviour and it's a blatant violation of the arbitration sanctions. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you check the history of the article to see that the claim was unreferenced when I described it as original research. Futhermore, this is the version of the page as it existed since mid 2007 to december 2008

Israel-United States military relations have been extremely close, reflecting both shared security interests in the unstable Middle East and the influence of a strong pro-Israel lobby in the United States.
Israel has been the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance from the United States since 1976, and the largest total recipient since World War II. A major purchaser and user of US military equipment, Israel is also involved in the joint development of military technology and regularly engages in joint military exercises involving United States and other friendly forces.

as you see the claim is unsourced whatsoever. Let me make this clear, I'm not deleting this statement for the sake of POV-push. I do think this statement can be present in the article, provided it is sourced properly. Currently, it is not.Keverich1 (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• I've rolled back the edit in question. I'll leave it to someone else to determine the sanction. Frankly, removing this statement strikes me as denying the bleeding obvious for no very good reason, which can really only be done out of a desire to POV-push. Ergo, I recommend either a block or a page-ban: the choice is in the hands of whoever turns up next to this thread...Moreschi (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sanctions should be imposed; it is your job, do it. Personally, I did not appreciate getting unjustly shouted at concerning his first revert-type edit, discussed here starting Dec9. I maintained wiki-etiquette and feel no collaboration was intended from the start. My comments in that section state my case. It is already Christmas here, peace. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure CasualObserver'48 is entitled to comment in this section. For the record, please note he is an activist, who has personal interst in the Palestine-Israeli conflict as explained on his page. on talk page numerous users (but not me) have consistently accused him of trying to promote anti-Israel bias by his editsKeverich1 (talk) 07:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• Without wanting to address the merits of the edit in question, I see no possibility of arbitration enforcement here: Keverich1 does not appear to have had specific sanctions imposed on him (as per Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions). Accordingly, there is nothing to enforce here. Of course, such sanctions may now be imposed, or he may be blocked normally for editwarring if he continues in the same vein.  Sandstein  12:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • No, procedurally, this is wrong. Requests for application of arbcom discretionary sanctions, even if for the first time, do belong on this page. Moreschi (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Moreschi, obviously what you're saying is correct. However, the article edits were prior to his notification of the I-P restrictions. PhilKnight (talk) 19:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Complaint against User:Domer48 for disruptive editing, etc.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No action taken. PhilKnight (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I wish to make a complaint about User:Domer48 as a disruptive editor , based on varied evidence. Each piece of evidence in its own right may perhaps be within the letter of Misplaced Pages guidelines but – taken together – I believe they can be construed as a pattern of disruptive editing. The various elements include – edit-warring, breach of NPOV, tag-teaming, bullying.

I admit that I have personally been in edit wars and personal conflict with this editor on many occasions on many articles over many months, and have been sanctioned for this (as has Domer48, although he has removed the notices from his talk page). I have also been the subject of complaints by Domer48, who has also left messages on my talk page, e.g. here, here, here and here, which generally I choose to ignore. I consider these to be a form of harassment. I have not posted such "warnings" on his user page, despite having equally valid reasons so to do. On 24th December he followed me to various pages to make complaints about me here, here and here.

The cumulation of these edit-wars, personal conflict and reporting has, on some occasions, caused me great frustration and I have considered leaving Misplaced Pages as a result. Up until now, I have not had the patience to attempt to put together a case against this user, which is a dfficult task, given his adeptness at staying within (just about) the letter, if not the spirit, of the law.

• I don’t have the time to provide evidence of all the edit wars which Domer48 has been involved in, but rather I will draw attention to one particular article – Sinn Féin – in respect of which I was banned for edit-warring, yet Domer48 was not. This article is a good example, as I think it encapsulates many of the disruptive characteristics of this editor:
  • POV – as you will see from this editor’s user page and political slogan on his talk page, he has strong political views in support of Irish republicanism. You can see from his edit history that much of his time is spent editing articles which are relevant to Irish republicanism. One of these articles is Sinn Féin, in which his behaviour indicates that he feels he has ownership of the article.
  • A content dispute arose in this article – before my involvement, and including several editors – in which many editors believed that the content of the article was skewed towards a “Provisional” SF (i.e. that part of SF which split in 1970 and which is now known simply as “Sinn Féin”) POV, by including pre-1970 history of SF, thus giving the impression that the current SF party was the sole legitimate inheritor of the pre-1970 history of the party: something which is disputed and which most of the editors believed should be rectified by removing the pre-1970 material to History of Sinn Fein.
  • Domer48 was opposed to the proposed changes.
  • Thus far, there has been failure to make any changes due to the persistent opposition of Domer48. Most other editors have given up attempting to change it, presumably through frustration or boredom.
  • This wider dispute also included a dispute about the actual term “Provisional”, which Domer48 resisted being included in the article. You can see the discussion about this particular dispute, which began on 29 September 2008 – here, and you will note that – true to the spirit of Misplaced Pages – consensus was achieved on 7 October 2008.
  • However, at 21:21 on 7 December, User:Gailimh reverted the consensus text, which was then restored at 21:32 by User:Valenciano.
  • At 21:47 on the same day, Domer48 – having previously agreed to the consensus text – now reverted it. This appears to demonstrate that Domer48’s commitment to consensus was merely expedient, and that once he detected an allied editor, he preferred instead to edit-war in order to restore the previously-disputed text.
  • There followed an edit-war, including myself, User:Gailimh and User:Big Dunc (a regular ally of Domer48) on 8 and 9 December, when each of my two attempts to restore the consensus text were reverted.
  • At 20:06 on 11 December, I restored the consensus text again, and a one-on-one edit-war resulted with Domer48, who “won” the war after three reverts at 10:37 on 16 December, after which I gave up.
  • During this time – Domer48 refused to engage properly in discussion – he simply accepted and then defended the Gailimh without acknowledging that the previous text was the result of consensus-building – see here.
  • This appears to me to be a case of edit-warring in order to impose a particular POV on the article. I was punished for my part in the edit-war, but Domer48 was not.
  • You will note that Domer48 has most recently been involved in an edit war in relation to the translation of Sinn Féin.

• I see from here that “disruptive editing is a pattern of edits, which may extend over a considerable period of time or number of articles, that has the effect of disrupting progress towards improving an article, or effects that are contrary to the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia” – I also think Domer48’s behaviour on Sinn Féin is caught by this definition.

• Other articles/tag-teaming/other editors/bullying
• I have come across Domer48’s edit wars on other articles, but, not being able to muster the patience, have not become involved in particularly nasty ones at Ulster Special Constabulary and Ulster Defence Regiment – note that these are articles relevant to the POV noted on his user page, and have also involved User:BigDunc. He engaged – along with erstwhile ally User:BigDunc in a long series of edit wars with User:The Thunderer, which frustrated the latter user so much that he was eventually driven off Misplaced Pages – see here. The Thunderer had put in a lot of work and made significant contributions to these articles – and is a major loss. You will see from the edit histories that, having driven the Thunderer away, Domer48 has proceeded to set about editing the article freely, with no other editors having the patience to intervene. A mediation case was also closed when the Thunderer left. I don’t have the time to go into the actual content disputes on these article, but you can see from the edit history that, now that the Thunderer has left, Domer48 has been free to edit the article as he pleases, with no opposition from other editors. Personally, I lack the patience even to get involved in either of those articles.
• Behaviour with Big Dunc on http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Olympic_Council_of_Ireland#RfC:_Olympic_Council_of_Ireland looks a bit like tag-teaming. Also here.

• User:The Thunderer felt that he was the subject of bullying on these articles.

Some of this editor's behaviour appears to fit in with the descriptions on the Misplaced Pages guidelines about disruptive editing:

• tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
• Does not engage in consensus building (As can be seen from Sinn Féin, once an allied editor appears on the scene, he is quick to ditch previous consensus
• Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act in spite of policies and guidelines such as Misplaced Pages:Civility,Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.

Signs that may point to tag-teaming include:

• Working together to circumvent the three revert rule
• Consensus-blocking, continually challenging outside opinions, and acting as if they own an article.

Mooretwin (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

This is arbitration enforcement, not a general complaints noticeboard. Please specify which arbitration sanctions were violated by which edits, or this thread may be closed without action.  Sandstein  12:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)