This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Middle 8 (talk | contribs) at 18:23, 3 March 2009 (→Please enforce the pseudoscience arbitration: agree, disagree). 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

Breech of sanctions

Mooretwin was advised at 10:31, 2 March 2009 here that they breeched the WP:1RR outlined on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles in the section titled Final remedies for AE case which state “All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.” By removing the notification here they acknowledged they read it.

The two reverts are:

• 1st revert 00:06, 2 March 2009
• 2nd revert 00:07, 2 March 2009

with an additional revert on *09:15, 3 March 2009

When I replaced the information here without being ask, I provided quotes from the references used here with an additional reference and added the reference here and book title here. Which now numbers six references and footnotes.

The text has been removed on a number of occasions including: .

The relevant discussions can be found here, here and here. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The two reverts in question were - fairly obviously - in reality part of a single revert, i.e. I removed the contentious text as per the discussions. Then I realised I hadn't removed the relevant reference and removed it immediately. You might notice that the two edits were within a minute of each other! This complaint is petty to say the least, and, in my view, part of this particular editor's strategy of demolarising editors who dare to challenge his perceived ownership of various articles. He's a serial complainant: a regular visitor to this page and AN/I with complaints. All rather tedious.

The rest of the complainant's post relates to a content dispute in which I and another editor are involved. As content disputes are not relevant here, and hence I won't comment unless asked by an Admin. Mooretwin (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment Domer, I'm concerned that you're still so much more interested in getting opponents punished than collaborative editing, and that you didn't heed the concerns made by myself, Black Kite and Jehochman about frivolous forum-shopping little over a day ago. See WP:3RR: .A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Is that so Deacon could you explain my block for breaching 1 RR seen as you know all about reverts as I still can't figure it out and considering you said The restriction in an electric fence... so explain please or is just because Domer has made the report. Also Mooretwin you say Domer is a serial complainant does that make you a serial offender? BigDunc 14:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Deacon, please show me were I’ve looked to get opponents punished? The last report I made here pacifically did not ask for any sanctions. Both Jehochman and Tznkai will both attest to the fact that I have in fact asked for Admin intervention to prevents sanctions and have done so for quite some time now. Now as to your interpretation of 1RR, please read this here. The revert restriction refers to any reversions on the same page within 24 hours - regardless of the particular content...--Tznkai (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC) This discussion also shows Deacon you defending Moortwin, and attacking Dunc, the exact same thing you did in this discussion here. Now please explain your comments and your consistent attacks on both myself and Dun. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment This is very simple. Taking two edits to revert is not the same as two reverts. The difference is clear, per the passage from WP:3RR above. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you not just say that instead of your diatribe about Domer? Is he not allowed to bring what he feels is a breach here? Or was it you intention to muddy the water for any other admin who might come across this thread? I accept Mooretwin's explanation of what he did regarding the reverts and I'm sure Domer does too but I can't speak for him.BigDunc 14:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This is all extremely petty. Domer48 would be better served investing his energies into collaborative editing rather than constantly running to AN/E and AN/I. Maybe he might like to reflect on why he finds himself in conflict with other editors so often. Mooretwin (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Mooretwin could you please not pull up another editor over a spelling mistake Domer has Dyslexia and spelling mistakes are common with people diagnosed with it. BigDunc 14:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I'll take that on board and overlook the poor spelling in future, unless, of course, it appears in an actual article. You know him, then? Mooretwin (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

From wikipedia thats all. I know him aswell as I know you. BigDunc 15:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

So how do you know he has dyslexia? You don't know about my disabilities. Mooretwin (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

So Deacon, Tznkai was wrong here The revert restriction refers to any reversions on the same page within 24 hours - regardless of the particular content...--Tznkai (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC). If Admin's who I've emailed privitaly to prevent edit-wars and sanctions wish to say so I've no problem with that. And like Dunc, I can accept Mooretwins explanation of what he did, having been blocked for the exact same thing myself. Deacon you have again created a drama, based on your unfounded accusations, strike you personal attacks and stop trying to muddy the waters. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Domer, Misplaced Pages is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. Therefore, there are certain things that Misplaced Pages is not.: e.g. it is NOT a Battleground. Your persistent revert-warn-forum shop pattern, (as evidenced alone by the two threads in this page, targetting two different editors) is against policy as well as the spirit of good collaboration, and you are stretching patiences here (including mine). I want to see you spending more effort in relationship building and constructive dialogue than the opposite, the constant (usually unfounded) forum-shopping against ideologically opposing editors. PS, I believe you need to reread the definition of revert in WP:3RR. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Please enforce the pseudoscience arbitration

Two users User:Colonel Warden and User:John Gohde are making false claims of (non)consensus and generally POV-pushing for greater coverage of orthomolecular psychiatry than what is permissable according to the work of a number of other editors. Their actions are blatantly obstructionist and petulant. User:ImperfectlyInformed is behaving in a way that can only be described as blind and mute tagteaming. We need an administrator willing to start enforcing this arbitration decision. Misplaced Pages should not be held hostage to roving bands of credulous alternative medicine promoters who instead of discussing content Wikilawyer arguments regarding what "consensus" means and "proper process for discussion". ScienceApologist (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi ScienceApologist, I've notified the editors of the ArbCom case. PhilKnight (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. You might consider warning the third editor mentioned as well. Hopefully that stems the tide. If it does not, I will be back with more. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Fairly ironic. I was thinking about starting a thread on ANI about this last night, since we have 4 editors at orthomolecular psychiatry (Orangemarlin, Verbal, Keepcalm, and SA) who, in a forum-like thread entitled "This article was a POV-fork", decided that since they agree to a merge, there is therefore consensus. Despite the forum-like tone and title of the thread, Colonel Warden and Coppertwig objected. I didn't (I avoid these types of threads). Since there is currently a 4-5 yes-no opinion on the merge, and there was no straw poll, there's clearly no consensus. Despite this, the group has has edit-warred to keep doing the merge, inserting statements like "per consensus" ... against "POV pushing". The bad faith, personal attacks, and view that people who don't share your opinions don't count is shocking. II | (t - c) 18:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

ImperfectlyInformed, after commenting here, you started a thread on WP:AN, which certainly appears to be forum shopping. Anyway, I've notified you of the ArbCom sanctions. PhilKnight (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not up on the details of these things, but while OMM is certainly fringe science, it is not pseudoscience under WP:PSCI -- it was founded by Linus Pauling and probably falls between questionable science and alternative scientific views. Anyway, considering that those opposing the merge (see talk:orthomolecular medicine) outnumber those supporting, an admin should probably restore the orthomolecular psychiatry page. II | (t - c) 07:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the pseudoscience ArbCom case includes discretionary sanctions, however the fringe science case doesn't. Secondly, the merge discussion could probably be left open a little longer - at the moment it has been open for less than 24 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 08:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Looks some people are trying to do a RfC for independent views (there are a few so far -- opposes from DGG and Phil153). It can hang out for a few more days. II | (t - c) 17:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I support SA's call for the arbcom decision to be enforced. This is not about numbers that cruft supporters can muster to defend cruft. This is about enforcing an arbcom decision. It would be a simple matter for arbcom to make the sanctions the same for both fringe science and pseudoscience. Cruft is cruft and arbcom shouldn't fluff it. There's a new catchcry. Don't fluff cruft! Kevin McCready (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment on thread starter - User:John Gohde is enjoying the expiration of, what, his third year-long ban? He is an inveterate troll and should be indef-site-banned immediately, full stop. However, I have to agree with User:ImperfectlyInformed's assessment of affairs. Whether to merge or not merge is a fair question and doesn't need to be rushed. Gohde is a bad actor, but don't conflate him with other editors and their views on the article. Coppertwig and Colonel Warden are expressing valid objections; SA and OM are charging in two aggressively. Misplaced Pages isn't fucking paintball, gentlemen; it is possible to make your points with a softer touch. (Could the ArbCom have made that point to you with any firmer a touch, SA? Time to beat your swords into plowshares.) regards, Middle 8 (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Dabomb87 delinking dates

I noticed Dabomb87 had mass-delinked dates in four articles recently, in contravention of the injunction in the date delinking case. I've returned them to their prior state where I could (three of four) and left him a note asking him to refrain from doing so again before the injunction is listed. I don't think it requires any action, but felt it should be noted here. -- Earle Martin 06:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Four articles in all of this time is hardly "mass" delinking. Featured-content nominators are using the script all the time for their nominations. I believe the injunction concerns a concerted, ongoing strategy. Nevertheless, dabomb would be well-advised to wait. Tony (talk) 10:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If Dabomb87 would be "well-advised" to wait, then so would Ohconfucius. See this edit. One of the primary differences between the "featured content nominators" and Dabomb87 + Ohconfucius is that the latter are parties to the ongoing arbitration. And their actions are a part of a "concerted, ongoing strategy", as the evidence clearly shows. Tennis expert (talk) 10:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It was four articles. I did not make mass edits in a mass, multiple-edit-per-minute manner. I will not delink any dates if even this is not permitted. Please accept my apologies. Note that I asked Newyorkbrad to provide clarification on these type of edits in the injunction, but he refused, saying that they were close to a decision. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Yamanam provocative non-neutral, non-discussed, inflammatory page move in WP:ARBPIA article

Template:Archive tip 2009 Hamas reprisal attacks has been named so after consensus discussion in the talk page.

User:Yamanam started to change the name unilaterally:

Began here:, ended here .

His talk page comment, when questioned at first: . It is patently obvious to anyone that 2009 Hamas reprisal attacks is a much more neutral, balanced and encyclopedic title than the current one, which as pointed out by another user, is mangled english to boot.

I attempted revert to the original name, but a bot had fixed the double-redirect, so move-over-redirect is not possible. It requires admin intervention.

Besides immediate return of the article to the original title, I leave it to admins as to how to address the behavior.

But I must say that in the entire time I have edited WP:ARBPIA articles I have not seen a more crass example of POV pushing and provocative, destructive behavior. This is why I am takign it straight to AE. I cannot assume good faith in these circumstances, so I ask for uninvolved admin intervention.--Cerejota (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, u r ignoring a lot of rules by taking this to the ArbCom, first, I was bold, second my reply to you in the article's talk page (which came before u posted this comment) shows my good faith, moreover, there is ignore all rules although it was not in my mind, and finally why didn't you discuss it with me, it is no the end of the world! you could have discuss it with me.

Now concerning the topic I chose:

• • The used sources refers to the victims here as collaborators which is another word for spies that I used in the title.
  • All of us acknowledge that Hamas is has full authority over Gaza, which means what they were doing is terminating, which is, more or less, an equivalent word for reprisals.
  • Most importantly, when I read the title, the first thing that came to my mind, reprisal against israel, but the actual thing that the article doesn't discusses reprisal attacks against israel, rather against spies or informants.

I can't see what is wrong with the current title, u should have informed me what is wrong with my title and u might be able to convince me.

And plesae take this in good faith: if there is a room at wiki for such a title: Antisemitic incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict then I thought there would be a room for this title: Hamas’ termination of spies active during the 2008-2009 Gazan-Israeli conflict I am serious, I can't see a difference between both titles! Yamanam (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

THis is WP:ARBPIA. As I said, I currently find it hard to AGF with you, so rather than go thermonuclear, I am here to get an admin to revert you. If they want to sanction you, their call. But this page must be reverted ASAP. We can have a discussion once this issue is resolved. I must point out however, that you just admitted to WP:POINT.--Cerejota (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, my post here came after your response, but not before I declared my intent in the talk page. I had already made up my mind.--Cerejota (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to keep on discussing you, now at least, I'll leave it to the admins, I had stated my point. Seems you are already pissed off and I don't want you to say something that you might regret. My whole point is summarized here assume good faith, which you are ignoring. One last thing, why would I be sanctioned? I didn't do anything wrong, just assume good faith. --Yamanam (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Yamanam, I suggest that in future you use the talk page to develop consensus for major changes. At this stage, you aren't going to be sanctioned, merely notified of the ArbCom discretionary sanctions in relation to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. However, if you continue to be disruptive, then you could be topic banned. PhilKnight (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've also moved the page back, following a rough consensus on the talk page. I think it would be preferable to use Misplaced Pages:Requested moves for any future contentious page moves. PhilKnight (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Cerejota for leaving me a vandalism warning. PhilKnight (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It was a mistake of the automated tools, since you appeared as the creator of the redirect. I am sorry.--Cerejota (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk. Tool junkie. Jehochman 15:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Breech of AE Sanctions

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.

I advised Colin4C on their talk page that the article was subject to AE sanctions here and outlined what areas were covered by the sanctions which they chose to ignore. I removed the chronology here and went to the talk page to state why here although they knew this from previous discussions as can be seen here in addition to here. I also pointed out that they removed the link to the article created by Rockpocket here and ignored the advice of both Angusmclellan which was offered here and by Rockpocket here.

Colin4C then made their first revert here and their second revert here both within a 24hr period.

The article already has an article on the chronological summary and is linked to article, which resulted from a discussion here, with advice offered here. It was acted upon here by Rockpocket, who answered questions on it here during a discussion on it here.

What I’d like to see happen is Colin4C self revert, that Admin’s tell Colin4C that the article does fall under the AE sanctions and they breeched them, and that if they want to add a Chronology they get consensus on the article talk page. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Asking for sanctions against Reporting a user who reverted twice in 15 hours when you yourself also reverted twice, albeit in 25 hours, sounds a little too much like gaming the system to me. Also, I am unconvinced that the article should fall under the Troubles purview. Black Kite 12:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Per AE Sanctions: All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related. I think that is pretty clear User talk:Black Kite don't you? As to "sounds a little too much like gaming the system" is a matter of opinion, does not change the fact that the sanctions were breeched. Or is this just more of the double standerds we've come to expect. Now do me a favour, tell me what sanctions I asked for here? Oh that's right, none. I think I'm being reasonable don't you? --Domer48_'fenian' 13:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Refactored above. I think you're being reasonable, I just don't believe there's much to do here. If an edit-war develops or a single user is breaching 1RR repeatedly then I'd be more inclined to take action. Black Kite 13:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it difficult to view this post positively given that the reporter, Domer, has reverted twice too, and unlike (AGF) the reportee, is well experienced with ( gaming) the rules and knows that All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related. Moreover, Domer48, unlike Colin, has previously been placed already been placed on "indefinite" probation here, and got this removed after a being conditionally released from a later indefinite block. See also his record on Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Great_Hunger#Enforcement_2. Admining by the book, this is a 72 hour to 1 week block for Domer (if we discount the extra hour), and 12—24 hours for Colin. I'd suggest talking to each other in good faith is something both parties might want to give a wee try for a change. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts too. However, no problems with blocking either editor. Perhaps increasing blocks are the only way of making a point in this tiresome saga. Black Kite 13:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I left a note on his talk explaining to Colin he has to follow the rule. Domer, though possibly trying to game an editor not as clued up on AE matters into a block, didn't technically break the rule. I wouldn't disapprove of blocks here, but I'm also happy to let this go and see how both parties respond. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that User talk:Black Kite for striking you comments above it’s very much appreciated. Now Deacon of Pndapetzim the facts are that I did not breech the 1RR! That's it! Anything else is a matter of opinion. Now that’s going by the book. There is however the other book, the arbitrary powers book which has nothing to do with policies and which you are now citing from. No point asking for cites from it, since it’s made up as we go along. What happened to that indef probation on me? Oh ye it was thrown out for the joke that it was. And the Famine ArbCom, oh ye the other editor was banned as a sock abusing editor. Why not mention the block for 3RR on me were the blocking Admin lost their tools, and I only reverted twice on that occasion. We could mention the block for calling an editor a liar, along with countless diff’s to support it, the problem is it’s not against the rules to call someone a liar when we apply the double standard . So the question I have is, is the Famine covered by AE Sanctions. Deacon of Pndapetzim letting an editor know about the sanctions before they breech them is not game an editor, want to strike the comments like User talk:Black Kite or stick with the accusation. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• No sanctions are needed here, yet. When you bring a report to this board, say what case has been violated and specifically which provision(s) of the final decision. Then provide a concise summary with diffs. The initial report fails, and looks to me like the continuance of a content dispute on the WP:AE page. Please, don't use this page in an effort to get leverage in a dispute. Use dispute resolution instead. Further instances of this sort of behavior by the involved parties may result in blocks on the parties as needed (including the filing party). That is the consensus of this thread. Jehochman 17:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

User:MeteorMaker appeals for unbanning

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.

Apologies for taking up your time with such a minor thing, but in the upcoming Judea/Samaria terminology ArbCom case, I'm worried the limited topic ban Elonka placed on me will be used again to cast undue doubt on my conduct. Upon finding it had been placed erroneously, Elonka promised to lift or at least reduce it after one week , then forgot about it and went on a Wikibreak. In her absence, I have been advised by PhilKnight to take the appeal here.

Details: On 15 February 2009, Elonka wrote:

MeteorMaker, you have been cautioned before about removing citations to reliable sources. Since you have started up again, I am going to make this formal: You are banned from

• Making Samaria-related reverts to any article in the Israel/Palestine topic area
• Removing reliable citations from any article in the topic area.

This ban is in place for 90 days.

Upon finding that I had in fact not removed any sources, the reason for the ban was changed:

MeteorMaker, you have been cautioned before about removing citations to reliable sources. Since you have started up again, I am going to make this formal: based on the recent pattern of reverts, and working your way through several Israel-Palestine articles and making Samaria-related reverts, I am therefore instituting a formal ban

I had not been cautioned about making Samaria-related reverts before the ban, and the number of Samaria-related reverts I had made in the preceding week was exactly two — hardly enough to discern a "pattern" . Both were in order to fix problems with claims that were either unsourced or sourced exclusively with highly partisan refs . Elonka confirms I had not done what I was originally banned for:

You are correct about the citation thing. I saw the edit summary, and that citations had been removed, but missed the part about you moving the citations to a different part of the article. I am amending my statement accordingly, and apologize for my error.

Elonka continues:

Regardless of the citation issue though, I am still concerned by the recent history that you've been showing of working your way through multiple articles and removing the "Samaria" term. This is provocative behavior, especially when done rapid-fire through multiple articles in a topic area that's already very difficult to keep stable. In some cases, I see that your change has already been reverted. It's good that you did not re-revert, but it's also a concern that these controversial changes were being made, without any attempt at discussion on the related talkpages.

I had not been cautioned that substituting universally accepted, neutral terminology ("West Bank") for minority partisan terminology ("Samaria"/"Judea") constitutes "controversial changes" and "provocative behavior" that may result in a ban. The "without any attempt at discussion" charge is not entirely applicable, as this topic is among the most well-discussed and well-sourced in the I/P field, and I've generally put a link in the edit summaries to a special page with a summary of this multi-talkpage discussion and the sources it has generated. , rather than repeating the same arguments over and over. Other editors have also stated that this discussion is best kept centralized; currently, most of the relevant terminology debate has taken place on TALK:Israeli_settlement and its archive pages.

Elonka concludes:

In terms of the ban, I'm open to reducing it, but let's see how things go for a week, and then we can re-examine the situation and see about reducing (or even lifting) the ban.

One week later, she announced she's taking a wikibreak, and I cannot reach her. Given that she has stated that she intended to shorten/lift the band, and that the ban was based on extremely loose ground in the first place, I hereby appeal to have it lifted. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Elonka said she would re-examine in a week, not lift/reduce it in a week (which were given as options rather). At any rate, as Elonka is on wikibreak and the Arbitration Committee are about to have a fresh evaluation of such matters, I don't see any harm lifting it. That is, without prejudice to reimposing such a ban should it seem necessary to Elonka or another uninvolved administrator. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)