This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 13:42, 6 June 2009 (→Tom harrison: closed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AE

Requests for enforcement

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.

Domer48

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request concerning Domer48

User requesting enforcement

SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

Sanction or remedy that has been violated

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ireland&diff=293728520&oldid=291895789

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue

Changed the "Ireland" article from an article about the island to an article about the Irish state, in violation of "no moves" -- which he clearly knew about, having supplied a statement at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyDomer48

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

Temporary block at minimum

Additional comments

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Domer48&diff=293744985&oldid=292273667

Discussion concerning Domer48

• I dont consider that a breach of the ruling. Play on!--Vintagekits (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to user:roux; Says the Anglophile monarchist! Mabye a just tab overeactionary and hypocritical imo.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have never to my knowledge edited a single article dealing with the whole Ireland mess (I believe I have made some minor edits to Chief Herald of Ireland--that would be Republic Of, not Northern), I left all monarchy-related articles due to a particularly tenacious tendentious editor driving me away, and I would support a topicban for anyone pushing a nationalistic POV on either side--were he pushing a RULE BRITANNIA! position, I would be saying the exact same thing. In addition, thank you for proving my point, because if I were an admin you would have received a timeout for that 'Anglophile monarchist' comment, as it is using an ethnicity or ethnic affiliation in a pejorative manner. //roux   17:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Nominate yerself fer adminje an I'll be shur ta support ya laddie!--Vintagekits (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Your comment here is enough for me!--Domer48_'fenian' 17:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh good, so you'll stop wikilawyering then. Excellent! This is good for everyone. //roux   17:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• I move for immediate topicban of Domer from any Ireland-related editing for one year, based on my thoughts outlined here. It is past time to eradicate nationalistic bullshit from Misplaced Pages. //roux   16:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Domer48 knows full well that there is an ongoing debate about the Ireland naming dispute supported by Arbcom at - Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration. It is amazing that he and others made such radical changes without even informing people there or the moderators appointed by ARBCOM to resolve this dispute. Domer48, doesnt seem to think hes done anything wrong if he is unpunished it hardly sets a good example for others who will think they can simply rename articles over and over again without consensus and dispite very clear ARBCOM rulings on the matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• First off, I was not informed of this discussion! Second, I've not broken any ArbCom ruling. Third, I did not move any Article. So show me were I have done any thing to go against our policies. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • You know, claiming that you weren't informed of the discussion doesn't work very well when the diff above shows you were notified 20 minutes before you made that claim.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Check out the link you gave, saying you gave one doesn't work very well when the diff you did give did not come here. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Even if he didnt think he was doing anything wrong he is clearly lying to people here. "Third, I did not move any Article" How can he say that when the evidence clearly shows hes been up to no good. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Really? Then how did I just click on it and wind up at this section?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"lying" ohh now that's a bit strong. I didnt do anything wrong! The "evidence clearly shows hes been up to no good" what evidence? Now who is telling pork pies. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You are a liar, that fact is very clear. Perhaps you should check ur contributions page to refresh your memory. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

References talk BS walks! --Domer48_'fenian' 17:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Although the edits by Domer48 weren't using the move function, they were against the spirit of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names. In this context, a short topic ban, of perhaps a week, could be appropriate. PhilKnight (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

He seems to be threatening to move the articles again on the Republic of Ireland talk . Can nobody stop him?? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"Can nobody stop him??" - that genuinely made laugh, I expected to hear a "dun, dun, duuuuun!" after that. Talk about trying to create a bit of drama. Relax, chill out and stop trying to make a mountain out of a molehill!--Vintagekits (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well this started a couple of hours ago and yet less than 10 minutes ago he again threatened to move the article again despite being advised not to and knowing there is this on going discussion. Im not creating a drama, i popped on to wiki a couple of hours ago and found the world had gone mad, several editors along with him kept moving the articles all around, even though they all knew about the on going dispute.. Yet still Domer thinks hes done nothing wrong and nobody has punished him for his sins. This sets a very bad example, we will end up with nationalists and separatists running wild all across wikipedia.. they need rules. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

My edits were not against the spirit of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names. Just saying something does not make it so. I've not violated any policy or gone against any ArbCom ruling. Please provide diff's. In addition comment on the RoI article, and explain how I was incorrect with the edit. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh you admit youve been making some edits then? Awhile ago you claimed you had not moved any articles, is that still the case or were you lying? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

PhilKnight the text currently on RoI is a POV Fork. It is POV inspired, so do you support this violation of our policies. How are our readers to know that RoI is not the name of the Irish State, if the text which explains it keeps getting removed? The current text is against the spirit and violates a whole host of our policies. Misinforming our readers is a major no no. So comment on that before you start to talk about blocks in such a casual manner. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The introduction on Republic of Ireland says ". The name of the state is Ireland, while the description the Republic of Ireland is sometimes used when there is a need to differentiate the state from the island" How are people being misled and how the hell is it a POV fork??? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll support any solution the Ireland Collaboration produces. PhilKnight (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You agree that no solution which involves misleading our readers would be agreed by anyone? Now, please explain how I went against the spirit of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names, since your the one suggesting blocks. Do you agree that the current text on the RoI article is misleading, and removing the text I added prevents informing our readers on RoI? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Domer48

With his edit , Domer48 performed what amounted to a cut-and-paste move of Republic of Ireland to Ireland, in violation of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion which forbids such moves. Since he appears intent on repeating this violation of an arbitral decision, I have blocked him for a week. I will lift the block, and I consent to another administrator lifting it, as soon as Domer48 gives credible assurances that he will not repeat such moves, whether by means of the "move" function or by cut and paste.

Whether a topic ban or other sanction is also required is for the community to decide. I suggest that any further discussion takes place at WP:ANI.  Sandstein  20:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Shutterbug

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Request concerning Shutterbug

User requesting enforcement

Antaeus Feldspar (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

Sanction or remedy that has been violated

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Shutterbug topic-banned and restricted, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Scope of Scientology topic ban

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:David_Miscavige&diff=next&oldid=292796506

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue

The remedy "Scope of Scientology topic ban" clearly states that "Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages" (emphasis added.) The remedy "Shutterbug topic-banned and restricted" clearly states that "User:Shutterbug is topic-banned from Scientology" (emphasis added.) This edit to Talk:David Miscavige, made on May 30, 2009, is thus a violation of Shutterbug's topic-ban. It was made after Shutterbug indicated awareness that he was among the topic-banned.

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

block, as called for in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Enforcement by block

Additional comments

Shutterbug may claim that he was not aware that he was prohibited to edit the talk pages of Scientology articles, despite this being stated in plain language in the section "Scope of Scientology topic ban". Even if this claim of ignorance were accepted as truthful, it would not mean that the penalty for violating the topic ban should be withheld. In the arbitration that led to Shutterbug's topic ban, many editors were punished for behaviors that were not specifically prohibited anywhere (such as "over half ... of most edited articles Scientology topics") but which arbitrators chose to constitute as offenses against Misplaced Pages and to apply penalties for. If the Arbitration Committee, after examining this instance of Shutterbug violating a prohibition that was very clearly spelled-out, does not apply the penalty of a block, it will invite questions of why Shutterbug is getting more lenient treatment than other editors.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Shutterbug&diff=293835727&oldid=293637490

Discussion concerning Shutterbug

Comment to Feldspar: tl;dr.. I am not interested. Shutterbug (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Shutterbug

This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.

• Shutterbug was properly notified, it is incumbent on him to ask the clerk or Arbitrators for clarification (assuming he was confused) before editing. Blocked 24 hours. Thatcher 03:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Smith2006

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request concerning Smith2006

User requesting enforcement

radek (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Smith2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

Sanction or remedy that has been violated

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy

edit summary:"Polish Nationalist POV"

same diff, in talk: "In order to pop up territorial annexations.", "to Polonize him is to justify the massacring of German citizens", "to justify Polish crimes after the war."

same diff, in talk, different comment, unnecessary and offensive use of sarcasm: "Eternally Polish City of Gdansk stolen by Teutons, Reactionaries, Prussian imperialists, Hitlerite Germans and Fascists from the Greater Polish Empire from Ural to the Atlantic Ocean", "of course Hamburg will be annexed then by Greater Poland", "all will know that Berlin is "Angela Merkela Zdrój" in the Central provinces of Poland in the voivodeship Barlinski.", "All who deny the Polish identity of Berlin are Nazis and Polonophobes who will be expelled or decapitated in the KZ Lamsdorf"

on talk:"Thank you, Polish Propagandists, for falsifying", "Annexing him as a Pole", "collectively orchestrated Polish Chauvinist propaganda piece", "All lies' brigades for Poland and Annexated Polish Greater Polish History", also unnecessary and offensive use of sarcasm and accusing other editors of "lies"

on talk:"nationalist annexationist POV" "I think we must falsify the wikipedia article on Miroslav Klose also" (offensive use of sarcasm), "Polish publications from a politicized and censoring era", "these falsifications of history, but I am insulted that wikipedia is mutilated in this way"

taunting:"You can report me.", more incivility: "in order to legitimize the annexation and expulsion of Germans", "It is uncivil to falsify history", "Your dirty People's Republic of Poland", "irritated by this arrogant one-sided"

same diff, different comment: "pure falsification", "annexationist attempts", "nationalist POV must be banned from wikipedia"

on talk: "Polonized extremely Slavic-Polish name is based on nothing"

edit summary:"Polish is therefore POV"

edit summary:"Severe Polish chauvinist POV article"

edit summary:"Stalinist 1954 Polish Annexationist "history" is unscientific, like Nazi sources"

additionally, this attitude and incivility isn't confined to Poland/Germany related articles:

edit summary:"This article is not a propaganda article for the Yugoslav Communist Party Partisans or the Partisan views. Stop POV"

edit summary:"Stop POV words"

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue

Personal attacks directed at individual editors and whole groups (Polish and other editors). Creating a battleground atmosphere. Severe incivility. Offensive use of sarcasm which suggest extreme bad faith in others. Increasing the extent of these offenses after being warned repeatedly on talk , and on his talk page and especially after the notification of sanctions was given by User:PhilKnight

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

I think even without the restrictions notification and the previous case on this board this kind of behavior would result in a substantial block for incivility alone. The fact that this user chose to amplify his attacks after being notified of the editing restriction suggests a much more serious problem. Please note the time stamp on User:PhilKnight's notification and that all of the above violations occurred well after it was placed on the user's talk page. So topic ban and a block long enough to send the appropriate message seems in order.

Additional comments

Note how soon this user pops up again. Notification diff. Also I apologize for any formatting errors ahead of time - first time filing one of these.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Discussion concerning Smith2006

Result concerning Smith2006

Thank you for the detailed report. I certainly agree with Smith2006 that "nationalist POV must be banned from wikipedia". That includes attempts to turn Misplaced Pages into a nationalist battleground, as he does here.

In view of the previous case above and pursuant to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions, I am topic-banning Smith2006 from all Eastern Europe-related subjects for six months. The ban extends to all Misplaced Pages pages, including talk and other discussion pages, and especially to the subject of Polish/German identity. Any violations of this ban can be reported to me or to WP:ANI and will result in blocks.  Sandstein  18:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Baku87

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

Request concerning Baku87

User requesting enforcement

Gazifikator (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Baku87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2

Sanction or remedy that has been violated

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy

BLP violation , nearly all of his reverts are done without discussion, see those for example , , , , , , removes sourced info like here for exemple. Other disruptions include, misuse of sub template for developped articles so that the word 'Azeri' is highlined. See those: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . uncivil comments like

Being reverted for his adding of those stub, Baku87 has gone to create the template Historical regions of Caucasian Albania. It is too much disruptive, Caucasian Albania itself is a historical region and on top of it he add Azerbaijan republic's map on the template and go on to add them in those with the template on Historical regions of Armenia , , , , .

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue

Baku87 is techincally under restriction even though noone reported him. He has a block logged here, and while Moreschi blocked him for jumping out of nowhere and reverting without participation in the talkpage, he continue doing that.

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

Misuse of templates, creation of templates for POV pushing and reverting out of nowhere without participation in talkpage is more than some 1RR non compliance, this user should at the very least be blocked for a week.

Additional comments

{{{Additional comments}}}

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Baku87

This report seems to be a retaliation for the report concerning Gazifikator for edit warring at Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan, where Baku87 tried to restore the reliable sources, deleted by Gazifikator without any consensus with other editors. Grandmaster 11:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I disagree with his edits at Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan, but we already discussed it at the relevant report . This report is about a large number of possible disruptive edits in different articles, many of these articles I never edited or edited only one time, while his activities there need to be checked. Gazifikator (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking over at your diffs, I see no BLP violation here: It was a reliable info from Associated Press that a sock account Onlyoneanswer (talk · contribs) was trying to delete: And in articles like Varoujan Garabedian, Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan, Armenian National Committee of America Baku87 restored sourced information that you were trying to delete. If he was edit warring, then so were you. And I do not understand how creating a template about the historical kingdom of Caucasian Albania could be disruptive. We have such templates for other states. And placement of stub templates was a good faith mistake which Baku87 stopped doing after he was explained that they were not appropriate. Grandmaster 04:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This place is not for arguing, check WP:BLP section about criticism and praise, there on sure was a clear cut violation, members were blocked or even banned for such violation. The addition on the Armenian National Committee of America was a reinsertion of a SPA account, of over half of the lead against rules. The template historical region of Caucasian Albania fails any editorial guidelines. Caucasian Albania is a historic region itself, it's an oxymoron. And I notice that you have nothing to say about the fact that he added Azerbaijan's map. Your claim that adding the template about Azeri sub was a misunderstanding from his part is innacurate, he did not stop after being explained in his talk and even despite being reverted by yourself, he even reverted you, he only stopped when he had the idea of creating that disruptive template and placing Azerbaijan's map on it. On Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan, he had no idea what he was reverting, as seen in the diff, he added a duplicate material, one following the other (see by yourself), and never discussed his edits except of this one time "justification" of obvious POV-pushing . Enough please leave admins to make the decision, this is becoming soapboxing. In any case, he violated 1RR numerous times. Gazifikator (talk) 08:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The diffs provided are not obviously problematic, at least not to the point of requiring discretionary sanctions. If the diffs represent a pattern of misconduct, the request fails to show this adequately. For instance, it is unhelpful to talk about 1RR without explaining why 1RR even applies to these edits, and by which sequence of edits exactly it was violated. I currently consider this request to be non-actionable.  Sandstein  20:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Baku87

This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.

Tom harrison

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request concerning Tom harrison

User requesting enforcement

Unomi (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Tom harrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/September_11_conspiracy_theories

Sanction or remedy that has been violated

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/September_11_conspiracy_theories#Discretionary_sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy

Introducing 9/11 deniers

Relabeling to conspiracy theorists incite to deletion on what he must know are specious grounds further incitement ignoring discussion inexplicable removal of link misrepresenting article

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue

fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

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

Topic ban

Additional comments

Tom harrison is well aware of the sanctions and restrictions surrounding this topic, as an admin he should be setting an example and follow the spirit of the guidelines and policies of wikipedia. There are 3 editors, Tom harrison, Verbal and Quack Guru who seem to fail to engage in constructive debate, instead resorting to low grade edit warring and starting multiple issues all at one time without trying to resolve them amicably or acknowledge when an issue has been resolved.

I am here singling out Tom harrison as I feel that he should be acting much more responsibly than what I have seen so far and seems to set a bad example for the 2 other editors. Considering the tendentious nature of his edits and his willingness to depart from NPOV as dictated by sources and collegial discussion I believe that a topic ban is in order.

Initially there was a merger discussion starting here which questioned the notability of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, I provided 9 sources on the 30th of may (which became 7, but never mind) to establish separate notability of the group. But they have so far not been commented on, and Tom Harrison seems to actively ignore them and pushing ahead for a merge.

There was also a discussion when the term 9/11 deniers was introduced. So far analysis of RS show an almost 3 to 1 prevalence of 9/11 Truth movement opposed to 9/11 deniers. These sources or the logical consequence have not been disputed. Yet Tom Harrison and Quack Guru continue to change article text so as to not reflect common usage patterns.

Tom Harrison, user Verbal,verbal also continue to link A&E for truth to 9/11 conspiracy theories rather than the more precise and correct World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. When asked to discuss the replies were less than illuminating.

Even though he was aware of the discussion and the nature of the change he forged ahead. note the ES.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Tom harrison

I don't see a single bit of disruption on the part of Tom. This enforcement request is a complete joke. The user bringing the request can't even name a single policy or guideline that Tom has broken. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There does seem to be something a little bit wrong with ] edit. I had a look at the source, and the changes lower down made by Tom Harrison do seem to misrepresent the source. But I agree it seems excessive to call for enforcement. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

While I would probably tweak the edit, it's hardly evidence of disruption. It's pretty clear that this request is forum shopping. Unomi (talk · contribs) is trying to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. I suggest that Unomi refrains from waisting the community's time in the future. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment Ice Cold Beer is an involved editor, see my message on his talk page. Also note his bringing user Wowest here for notifying users of a merger discussion. Ignoring arguments in a discussion IS disruption. His actions are quite disruptive Unomi (talk) 03:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you please list a policy or guideline he has broken, and how he has broken it? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see my response to mastcell below, I believe that he has amongst other things, failed to follow the basic principles regarding RS, V and NPOV. Unomi (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually took the trouble of clicking on the diffs provided, and Unomi owes me 5 minutes of my life back. I would strongly encourage anyone reviewing this request to look at the diffs, and then look at how Unomi presents them. Some are edits that I wouldn't have made, but are not abusive (e.g. ). Others are completely ordinary, everyday edits. Take a look at what Unomi calls "incite to deletion on what he must know are specious grounds". Horrifying, isn't it? Then there's "further incitement" (curious, since Tom explicitly says in the diff that he "sees no grounds to justify" deletion, but who bothers to read diffs)? The WTF capper is probably this diff, which Unomi captions "ignoring discussion". If this is the worst that can be dug up on Tom, then he deserves a barnstar for remaining constructive despite this sort of vexatious litigation, and Unomi should probably receive some gentle guidance on appropriate use of dispute resolution. MastCell  03:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Intriguing, "further incitement" (curious that you should read I see grounds to justify it as explicitly says in the diff that he "sees no grounds to justify" deletion). The point is that he as an experienced admin should be decidedly better behaved. Consider the text of the discretionary sanctions regarding these articles :

I believe he has not only personally crossed the threshold but more importantly, that by virtue of his status he has enabled the continuation of improper behavior by editors who might have felt that as an admin he was setting an example to follow. I believe that if you took the time to see how the events unfolded you would be moved to agree. Unomi (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment I will respond in full in a few hours Unomi (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Most of Tom's edits cited by Unomi do not seem too far out of line to me. The particular edits cited do not seem to contribute much to a case against Tom. However, there have been other edits which I have found disturbing, and seemingly contradictory to WP:NPOV. One edit which I found particularly disturbing was this one. In my extensive readings about the 9/11 issue, I have yet to encounter a single instance of someone in a scientific capacity rejecting the claim that there are live explosives present in the dust of the WTC. So claiming that demolition is "widely rejected" seems a stretch, at least when examining the statements of scientifically qualified individuals who have evaluated the evidence in depth. Perhaps this claim is supported by the given reference. It's not easy for the typical reader to find out; as the article is (apparently) not available online. Unless one has a well-equipped library available (I do not), the article may only be available by subscribing to the journal or paying $18 to purchase the article. If it would help resolve the matter of whether or not Tom's edits are NPOV, I'll pay the $18 and find out what the article says. Wildbear (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

As with the report above, the diffs provided are not obviously problematic, at least not to the point of requiring discretionary sanctions. If the diffs represent a pattern of misconduct, the request fails to show this adequately. Indeed, the report is unhelpful by labeling what we must assume to be good faith talk page comments "incitements to deletion", as though deletion of a page were a crime, which it is not, and much less proposals to do so. Making talk page comments that others think are mistaken is not sanctionable. The content diffs provided seem to reflect mostly content disagreements and are, again, not sanctionable per se.

I've now seen many non-actionable 9/11-related requests on this board – both by those who seem to want to present the subject favourably and by those who seem to want to present it unfavourably. All editors in this area, please remember that just disagreeing with you is not sanctionable, and do not report editors who merely disagree with you here. Please make reports only in cases where you can provide diffs that show a manifest pattern of disruption. WP:AE is not a substitute for dispute resolution.  Sandstein  06:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to apologize if it seems like I am bringing this here because of a content dispute, that is not the case. I believe I am bringing to your attention behavioral issues which are disrupting efforts to improve an article. I am rather new to this sphere of articles and being faced with an environment that is utterly devoid of efforts of consensus building or plain You know, you were right about this one, whats your take on this then.. is quite depressing. From what I can see there is a small group of editors who consistently stonewall discussions, forcing it into a battleground scenario with low grade edit wars. Unomi (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• This has to be taken in the context of the wider discussion, are they blatant violations? No. But they do represent a disruption and an incitement for stonewalling and further waste of time and resources. Consider that there has not been *any* discussion regarding sources showing quite clearly a lack of preference for 9/11 deniers, consider that there has been zero discussion regarding the sources showing notability for keeping a stand alone article for AE for truth, although there has been slight movement on the latter today. I do not need to report Tom Harrison or anyone here to 'get an upper hand'; the arguments stand on their own quite well. The problem is that instead of arguing the case a small scale edit war has been started to force these patently partisan and unsupported terms and POVs through. While I agree that Tom harrisons edits taken on their own do not by themselves seem obviously disruptive, they are part a streak of tendentious editing untethered by engaging in discussion with coeditors.

Consider the edit war regarding linking to [[September 11 conspiracy theories rather than World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories.

• Verbal 2009-06-05 06:38
• Tom harrison 2009-06-04 12:26
• Verbal 2009-06-3 20:30
• A Quest For Knowledge 2009-06-02 03:22
• dougweller 2009-05-31 18:59
• verbal 2009-05-31 16:57

.

• Tom harris 2009-05-24 12:26 adds as an rs an opinion piece in the form of a review of a bbc documentary, the opinion piece itself has one (1) line regarding AE for truth.

.

• 2009-05-23 23:42 jehochman retains] link to World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories
• initial edit by jehochman 2009-05-23 23:41 linking to September 11 conspiracy theories
• somewhat contentious and unreferenced edit by jehochman

Since 2009-05-24 Sources have been requested : Please provide a URL for a "reliable source" which states that AE922truth is a "fringe group promoting a conspiracy theory." The response has simply been to try to make the case that non English sources are not admissible, clearly false.

There should *not* be an edit war over this, it is to call a spade a spade, beyond lame. Tom Harrison and the other editors and especially admins, who have been watching from the sidelines should have stepped in here. Unomi (talk) 09:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Should people who post such requests, ones that fail to show any disruption at all, be sanctioned? Verbal chat 09:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Consider the edit war over the term 9/11 deniers, First introduced by verbal A Quest For Knowledge I reverted his Verbals edit and started discussion on the talk page 2009-05-29. Please excuse the terse nature of my replies but I was at that point quite unimpressed. The answer was prompt but oblique.

• 2009-05-27 11:27 AQFK introduces 9/11 deniers to the article based at that point on 1 source with no prior discussion. It is hard to imagine that he would not foresee that this edit would be contested.
• 2009-05-27 23:22 I revert please note the argument in the ES.
• 2009-05-28 9:02 Verbal reintroduces 9/11 deniers, no mention in ES
• 2009-05-29 16:46 I revert, note again short explanation in ES, at this point I also start thread on talk page.
• 2009-05-29 17:11 Verbal reinserts 9/11 deniers *after* acknowledging talk thread.
• 2009-05-29 18:22 I revert and give warning that 3rd revert is reached and explain that I sense a lack of sources.
• 2009-05-29 18:25 AQFK reinstates 9/11 deniers.
• 2009-05-29 20:49 Wowest reverts and gives explanation in ES
• 2009-05-29 21:41 Tom Harrison reinserts 9/11 deniers, ignoring previous arguments and relies on specious reasoning.
• 2009-05-30 19:25 cs32en reverts
• 2009-05-30 20:09 Verbal reinserts 9/11 deniers

2009-05-30 20:17 IP 76. reverts

• 2009-05-30 20:23 Verbal reinserts 9/11 deniers
• 2009-05-30 20:25 IP 76. reverts

This was also a rather lame edit war, the end I believe came when confronted with the unsurprising fact that sources overwhelmingly show a lack of preference for 9/11 deniers over 9/11 Truth movement, regardless of their stance on the 9/11 truth movement in general. It is true that Tom harrison made only 1 reinsertion of 9/11 deniers, but considering the circumstance it is appalling that he would do so.

There are is another ongoing edit war regarding the interpretation of the following quote:

as well as the rather WP:IDHT nature of the merge 'discussion', but quite frankly I am tired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unomi (talk • contribs) 11:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Unomi (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I notice that you have named several people above without notifying them. I see that my contribution to this 'edit war' (which seems to be you against virtually everyone else) was a revert with the edit summary "no reason given for removal of cited text." I'm not convinced at all that it is Tom Harrison that should be sanctioned here, if anyone should be. Dougweller (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not mean to be this case be about anyone else directly, I believe that as an admin he should have stepped in and that he should have a particular clear sense of proper decorum. Unomi (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

To correct one of Unomi's many mistakes, I did not introduce the language 9/11 deniers, and the source was introduced by a pro"9/11 truth" editor (for want of a better term), not in order to denigrate their view as claimed by Unomi. I have not edit warred, and my edits have been supported by talk page discussion and sources. Unomi seems to have problems with consensus and civil discussion. Verbal chat 12:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You are quite right, you did not initially introduce the term 9/11 deniers, I have edited my comment above to reflect the timeline shown by the diffs immediately following. I am a fairly recent arrival at the article and I honestly do not know who first introduced the source to the article or why. The fact remains that the source was used initially as the sole supporting 'evidence' for why 9/11 deniers should be used. I would rather avoid entering into a content discussion here, but.. either '9/11 deniers' and '9/11 truth movement' refer to the same thing or they do not. If they do refer to the same, then, I believe, that wikipedia chooses the most prevalent name as a rule. If they do not refer to the same then it would be folly to use it as a moniker for 9/11 truth movement. If you have not edit warred then you managed an artful job of convincing me that you did. I would appreciate if you would point out further mistakes of mine. Regards, Unomi (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment Tom harrison (talk · contribs) has tried to introduce "9/11 deniers" in the lead of 9/11 Truth movement at 22:17, June 5, 2009 (aka Truthers, 9/11 deniers, citations), although he must have been aware at that point that multiple reliable sources not only call the movement "9/11 Truth movement", but actually say that the movement is being called "9/11 Truth movement" (list of sources given at the talk page). No reliable sources have been found so far that would say the movement, or adherents of the movement, are being called "9/11 deniers".
The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Vanity Fair and Skeptic say that the movement is known as the "9/11 Truth movement", the Financial Times, the Daily Telegraph, the National Post and KSL TV say that is is being described as or being called the "9/11 Truth movement".
I have corrected this edit for now, and I hope that Tom harrison (talk · contribs) will refrain from similar edits in the future.  Cs32en  12:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

What's happening is you are persistently reverting to remove the words "9/11 denier", in spite of the citations to the term, and in spite of my changes to accomodate your concerns - "referred to as "Truthers" and occasionally as "9/11 deniers"." Of the two citations I added, one is Farhad Manjoo's article in Salon, titled "The 9/11 deniers". The other citation (and it's one of several others, as you know very well because I put them all on the talk page several days ago) also mentioning the term is to The Sunday Times. So you revert again, removing the references, and then come here to complain? Amazing. I'm inclined to support a topic ban of myself just to get away from it all. Tom Harrison 13:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Tom harrison

Content dispute, not actionable. Unomi is cautioned against using WP:AE in lieu of dispute resolution.  Sandstein  13:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)