This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nableezy (talk | contribs) at 14:25, 15 December 2009 (→Statement by Nableezy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Termer

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

Request concerning Termer

User requesting enforcement

Fifelfoo (talk) 04:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions : disruptive conduct on an Eastern European topic

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

1. Termer cherry picks quotes, mischaracterising what the sources say
2. Termer's mischaracterisation of sources caught by Fifelfoo
3. Anderssl intervenes in discussion
4. Termer mischaracterises article consensus
5. Anderssl requests Termer slows down
6. Termer misquotes Anderssl, mischaracterises Anderssl, causing disruption
7. Prior conduct in relation to mischaracterisation of sources is also recent, and mentionted at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive Conduct at Mass killings under Communist regimes
8. Misrepresentative conduct has continued at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive Conduct at Mass killings under Communist regimes
9. And continues to disrupt by misrepresentation and mischaracterisation. I had reverted the removals Termer requests me to restore over 24 hours ago, in order to proceed with an RFC.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy)

Requests for discretionary action by administrators at WP:ANI failed for lack of administrator interest. The requested sanctions there were initial warning and counselling regarding conduct under this remedy.

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

I would most prefer formal warning and counselling at this stage. However, Termer's inability to recognise their own conduct at WP:ANI is worrying.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Mass killings under Communist regimes is a difficult article. As explained at WP:ANI, it is highly reliant on the honest discussion of sources. Termer's claims that sources say one thing, when they do not, is disrupting the development of the encyclopedia. Termer's claims that other editors have said one thing, when they have not, is disrupting the development of the encyclopedia. I will be notifying the WP:ANI, Termer, Anderssl, and the article, of course. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

In relation to Martintg, AmateurEditor admitted they had a limited access to the text, and I quoted at length in response, directly from the source.

In relation to Digwuren's scope, do you understand the words Broadly interpreted?

I was not aware that stating an opinion in relation to an AFD was "trying to get an article deleted." If its worth noting opinions, Vercrumba voted to keep it, and Martintg lobbied very strongly in favour of it by densely discussing his opinion with editors voting to decline. However, I don't think this really indicates anything about Termer's conduct at all.

In relation to Vecrumba, if you have been watching my edits closely since we had last talked with each other, I suppose you have an intense dislike for citation style, or feel that it is otherwise non-constructive behaviour. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Diff of Termer being notified

Discussion concerning Termer

Statement by Termer

I probably have made many mistakes on Misplaced Pages but at the moment I'm compleatly lost what exactly am I accuesed of. So I'm not even sure should I respond to this. In case yes, unfortunately I don't have much more to add to this than what I've already said at ANI., , , . And perhaps I should spell this out once more: In case anything in those diffs that Fifelfoo has provided is considered disruptive indeed by any uninvolved administrator, he/she is most welcome to take action against my editing privileges as deemed necessary. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 06:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

RE:Anderssl, I'm most puzzled with your accusations. you now think that the article is a "POV bait" despite you have never mentioned it before, despite the fact that article has been supported , at AfD-s with well spelled out arguments by some of the most respected members of wikpedia community like for example DGG!

And now Anderssl you end up accusing me of "POV pushing", while I've clearly spelled out several times at the talk page that all possible viewpoints that have been published on the subject should be part of the article. In case you think it's disruptive me arguing against the removals of sourced material from the article by the editors who have wanted to delete everything all together in the first place than... Sorry if I disappoint you but I intend argue against such not discussed massive blankings , , , , also in the future. And again, in case my behavior is considered disruptive indeed, I'm open to have my editing privileges cut back since I intend to disrupt anybody who thinks the best way to go about it is simply ediwarring over the articles at the same time ignoring what has been said in the discussion. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 03:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

RE:Martin I'm not sure on what exactly you base your assumption that I've been under discussion here by Fifelfoo. There is nothing in it suggesting that I've been under the discussion as far as I can tell.--Termer (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

RE: Collect thanks for a fair and clear statement!--Termer (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Termer

Comment by Vecrumba

I am not sure what campaign Fifelfoo is on. I first became aware of him when he posted his magnum opus pushing his agenda at FA article Hungarian Revolution of 1956, for example, see his mind-numbing POV-laden litany on "problems" with sources. There is little I have seen that is constructive in Fifelfoo's edits since, and I regret he has decided to pursue this attempt to control content by attacking editors.
P.S. When editors contend that what reputable sources state is "deceptive" per Fifelfoo's own diffs, that raises red flags that those sources are about to be completely misrepresented.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  05:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate Four Deuces (below) refraining from EEML ad hominem attacks.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  07:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me add that I was involved at the article before Fifelfoo's arrival; upon said arrival my advice was solicited by someone completely not involved with any of the EEML proceedings; most recently I was asked about Fifelfoo's activities by someone not on the EEML list, and so I took a recent look and found out Fifelfoo has been busy. I am weary of conspiracy being touted as the likeliest reason I show up somewhere. Let's stick to the conduct of the parties, no? PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  15:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, Fifelfoo contends per one of their own diffs that what a source means is not what a reader would take it to obviously mean. We are not here to interpret sources, we are here to relate what they say in a fair and accurate manner. If a source is so unclear as to require interpretation or to be readily open to interpretation, then perhaps it is not suitable for our use on WP. I would ask Four Deuces to cease and desist playing the EEML card and address the diffs Fifelfoo has presented. What I think of or say regarding WP to people off-Wiki has nothing to do with anything here.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  03:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. To Four Deuces, as I recall, everyone was arguing over the original article and all I stated (repeatedly) was that an article titled "Communist genocide" should have as its content whatever it is that reputable sources write regarding "communist genocide", no more no less. As I recall you were one of the ones arguing article content or attempting to quash the whole topic based on WP:OR endless debating. You wish to make accusations against me, let's have at it, just not here.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  03:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

To Anderssl, regarding his full question (not misquoted) "should offer some explanation as to why Fifelfoo is taking these steps only against Termer, and not against all the other editors who disagree with Fifelfoo", Termer is merely the latest to disagree and apparently has stuck in Fifelfoo's raw as Fifelfoo failed to get satisfaction at the AN/I and responded by escalating the conflict—speaking to the issue of "conduct." I regret that, again, what I mostly see is an attempt to control content through a request for administrative intervention.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  03:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, to Four Deuces, this is not about EEML here. My editorial POV is well-supported by contemporary post-Cold War sources (Hiden et al.), I only relate reputable sources fairly and accurately. Because reputable sources are less than complimentary regarding the Soviet legacy in Eastern Europe does not make it "POV" or me a POV pusher. Deal with sources, not with meaningless accusations (re: Fifelfoo's request here) about my opinions or attempt to stick me in some box of your crafting. Of course you are playing the EEML card, you brought it up in the first place.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  05:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

To Four Deuces, "critical point", so what? There were > 100 books that contain the term "communist genocide" yet people were contending to delete the article for the lack of sources, lack of definition, blah blah blah. Second, you have an accusation, make it at the EEML proceedings. Third, you categorically have NO PERMISSION TO POST ANY OF MY ALLEGED PERSONAL CORRESPONDENCE. I request the Email posted be permanently deleted. I am tired of having my privacy violated and individuals who wish to attack me attempting to crawl inside my head and the heads of others to make accusations.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  15:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: the observation "Well, this article is POV bait. Someone use AfD or RfC to get some more eyes on it so we can decide if the article is sustainable." That will not work, as the arguments over the article are all based on those who wish to quash it or morph it into something it is not versus their opposition. As I indicated, the original article was "Communist genocide." It should have simply represented what reputable sources say about "communist genocide", and then the introduction regarding what "communist genocide" is simply summarizes the article. But no, those up in arms over communists commiting genocide had to take the discussion elsewhere, demanding definitions, synthesizing definitions, etc. What a gawdawful mess that was.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  00:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by The Four Deuces

I concur with Fifelfoo. I note that Vercrumba is mentioned in the Eastern European Mailing List (EEML) arbitration and note that this specific article was mentioned in the arbitration. Numerous EEML emails concerning the editing of this article have been posted on Wikileaks. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Vecrumba, I believe that it is relevant that a group of people (10+) with a similar POV appear to have been canvassed off-wiki to edit this article. My point is that when you and other members of the list comment here or at the article that it does not represent the normal way that consensus should be achieved. I note that Termer also appears to have been discussed in the EEML as someone who had a similar point of view and therefore should be supported in Misplaced Pages discussions/editing. While I believe this is relevant, if an administrator disagrees with me then I will stand corrected. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Martintg was also a member of the EEML and I am willing to produce the EEML correspondence concerning Termer if required. As a recipient of the e-mails, Martintg should be familiar with their contents. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Vecrumba, it is more than coincidental that beside you and Martintg, Biruitoral, Radeksz, Poeticbent, Biophys, Sander Saeda, and Jacurek also edited the article, while Hillock65 voted in an AfD and Piotrus commented on the talk page. (That is 10 members of the EEML.) There are numerous purported EEML e-mails about this article which discussed how to defend it against charges of synthesis, changing the name and speculation about the existence of a cabal dedicated to deleting the article and even discussion about infiltrating them. If you do not remember the e-mails I can provide copies for you. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Vecrumba, no one is "playing the EEML card". I am merely stating that you and others attempted to create articles and control content in order to present a Cold War point of view that is contrary to the Misplaced Pages policy of neutral point of view. Anyone can see this by looking at the edits made by you and your colleagues. My opinion is that by relying on distortion and falsehoods in articles about Communism that you are actually promoting Communism by implying that the only argument against them is dishonesty. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Dan, could you please elaborate on your comments. I notice that you have made numerous comments on the EEML case and edit many of the same articles, so your comments may be helpful. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Vecrumba (and Martintg), do you not remember all the EEML e-mails about the article including this one:

From: Martin

Date: August 6, 2009 12:26 AM

To: Misplaced Pages statistics

Subject: AfD Communist genocide

This AfD appears to be coming to a critical point. Those who haven't

checked it out, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Communist_genocide#Communist_genocide

--

Regards,

Martin

The Four Deuces (talk) 06:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Martin, I am not insinuating anything about Termer, merely replying to the various statements that you and Vecrumba have made. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Anderssl

Not much to add here, except I support Fifelfoo's request fully. The details are given clearly above. Termer's behaviour seems to be the Misplaced Pages equivalent of a filibuster: constantly creating confusion and expanding debate to the effect of making progress impossible (it is irrelevant whether this is intentional or not). If there is any case where counselling would be called for, this is it! --Anderssl (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone claiming that this is merely a content dispute should offer some explanation as to why Fifelfoo is taking these steps only against Termer, and not against all the other editors who disagree with Fifelfoo. This is not a question of Termer's opinions, but his conduct.--Anderssl (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd be willing, though, to admit that Termer is not the only one engaging in this kind of conduct - see Martintg's comment below, where he misquotes both me and Fifelfoo in the same sentence. Well done! --Anderssl (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai, we know this article is POV bait. It's been through three AfDs and countless RfCs in just a few months, with little improvements. Termer has been among the strongest supporters of the "POV bait" article, and his conduct fits nearly every symptom of disruptive editing. Please have a second look at this case, before all constructive-minded editors give up and leave this article to the POV pushers! --Anderssl (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Martintg

I wasn't going to comment here, until The Four Deuces attempted to spin some kind of association between Termer and the EEML (which is total BS of course) but illustrates a new Godwin's law style adage: "As an wikipedia discussion grows longer, the probability of claiming an association with the EEML approaches". A couple of points:

1. This is a content dispute which really should go to mediation. Fifelfoo is proceeding on the basis that his interpretation is the only correct one, therefore Termer must be "misrepresenting" the sources. Note however that other editors, for example here dispute Fifelfoo's own representation of the sources.
2. Fifelfoo lodged an unsuccessful ANI report against Termer here, with a neutral admin Ricky81682 taking no action against Termer, but instead said of Fifelfoo's arguments: "Most of these arguments are essentially repeats of the AFD discussion. As such, they are irrelevant to the article itself. People can dispute the AFD debate at DRV or somewhere else in my opinion", which is essentially true since Fifefoo had attempted to have the article deleted in three AfDs in as many months. Note that Fifelfoo was also reported for edit warring the article, removing huge sections of sourced text.
3. I'm not sure that Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions is really applicable in any case, since this topic Mass killings under Communist regimes also covers Cambodia and China, and the content dispute seems to have evolved to whether the author Valentino treats Communist mass killings as a minor sub-category of his main types or not, rather than anything being specifically related to the topic of Eastern Europe per se.

If Fifelfoo is really sincere in resolving this, then I suggest formal mediation, rather than engaging in wikiviolence against Termer. --Martin (talk) 11:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Anderssl asks "Why is Fifelfoo taking these steps?" Evidently Fifelfoo, who regards himself as an expert "humanities specialist", has an issue with "non-humanities twonk....cookie-cutter anti-communists with no more than a high school grade humanities education" (which in my view crosses the boundary into gross incivility and massive assumption of bad faith), all because some people disagree with Fifelfoo's opinion. Mediation is the route to solving disagreements, not seeking sanctions.

The Four Deuces has made many outlandish claims, including "this article was largely written and defended by members of the EEML", one only needs to look at who has contributed to the article to see that this claim is also BS. Evidently he wants to litigate on the basis of the EEML, in which case he can post his "evidence" to the Arbitration case evidence page, this is not the venue for such litigation.

• This AE report is about Termer, I'm not sure what The Four Deuces is attempting to achieve by posting a four month old email that has no relevance to Termer, (or in fact any relevance to this article, since it has had a rename and two AfD's since), other than continue his attempt to insinuate that Termer is some how associated with the EEML? --Martin (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• To Termer and Fifelfoo, was there some other editor that Fifelfoo was referring to when he said" "unless WP:ANI actually grows cahones, or a particular editor continues baldly in the past conduct and makes me to to Arbitration's sanction request page"? In any case I have refactored my statement. --Martin (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Collect

Content disputes are seldom solved in this manner. Clearly some editors have had opinions about "truth" when placing the article on AfD, and it is similarly clear that those who opposed deletion feel that the article should be retained. The article clearly is not more than tangentially related to Eastern Europe, and using Digwuren as a bed of Procrustes is singularly ill-suited. Termer has been acting in good faith, and the use of comments such as "cherry picks" "intervenes" and citing as evidence that fact that the same editor complained on another board (which may be WP:Forum shopping in any event) makes me more sure than ever that this request is ill-formed at best. Collect (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Dr. Dan

The EEML case has nothing, zero, zilch, to do with this case, or any parties concerning it. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Termer

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

Well, this article is POV bait. Someone use AfD or RfC to get some more eyes on it so we can decide if the article is sustainable. Also, not sufficiently within the intended range of discretionary sanctions for me to go any further than the strong recommendation that everyone take a deep breath and think very carefully about whether this article is a good idea.

Also, I may start censuring people for throwing around EEML like Colonial Americans used to use the word "witch"--Tznkai (talk) 06:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I am still unconvinced that discretionary sanctions are the best way to take care of this, but I am considering various options.--Tznkai (talk) 03:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Denotational semantics

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

Request concerning Carl Hewitt

User requesting enforcement

Pcap ping 02:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

CarlHewitt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Carl Hewitt)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt#Post-case clarification

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

#

For the past six months or so Carl has been promoting his latest paper drafts on Denotational semantics. Consequently he has attempted to rewrite the article several times from the perspective of his work, and while he has engaged in initially reasonable discussion on the talk page, he later turned to trolling. He used a large number of IP addresses and at least one registered account. Some of the IP addresses have been blocked by User:Sandstein and the talk page recently semi-protected for two weeks.

1. Talk:Denotational semantics It should be obvious that the only person promoting a yet-to-be-published (or self-published if counting arxiv) papers by Carl Hewitt is Carl himself, so all IP addresses and users supporting it seem to be him. Moreover, some of these exhibit(ed) the typical editing interests of Hewitt and have been blocked already for engaging in behavior prohibited by the ArbCom decision linked above.
2. Special:Contributions/71.198.220.76 blocked by User:Sandstein
3. Special:Contributions/76.254.235.105 blocked by User:Sandstein
4. Special:Contributions/68.170.176.166 blocked by User:Sandstein
5. Talk page was eventually semi-protected by User:Tedder.
6. Immediately after the talk page was semi-protected Special:Contributions/Madmediamaven, who had edited the talk page only once before showed up again.
7. See also Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/CarlHewitt/Archive, which lists other IP addresses involved on that talk page.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy)

# Not applicable.

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

Bock Special:Contributions/Madmediamaven, Special:Contributions/99.29.247.230. Semi-protect for longer if necessary.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User:Tedder recommended that I file a WP:LTA report (in my user space?), but given that this is all stemming from a rather complex arbitration case (Carl Hewitt only appears to have been banned from engaging in specific edits, not from Misplaced Pages in general), and that further action seems needed, I thought this might be a better place. Also, User:Sandstein has been doing more than his fair share of enforcement, so perhaps the effort should be more distributed.

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 Carl Hewitt

Statement by Carl Hewitt

Comments by others about the request concerning Carl Hewitt

I don't know enough about the details of the case, but this appears to be better suited to SPI.--Tznkai (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Carl Hewitt

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

I-P Topic Ban Violation by User:Nableezy

Nableezy

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

Request concerning Nableezy

User requesting enforcement

Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions

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

#

1. Quds Day Nableezy is banned from editing such articles, regardless of the reason.
2. PLO Nableezy is banned from editing such articles, regardless of the reason.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy)

#

1. Nableezy recently had his ban clarified.

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

Extended block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Regardless of how egregious the edit was, Nableezy is still banned from the topic and could have informed another editor. Furthermore, his argument on the PLO article does not apply to his revert on the Quds Day article. Nableezy is not the only editor present that is able to revert others.Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

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 Nableezy

Statement by Nableezy

Im so sorry, I suppose I should have left an "encyclopedia" article saying that the PLO was founded on Mars to liberate Palestine by wearing festive hats. An "extended block" for reverting vandalism would be so very fitting. nableezy - 02:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The edit combined with the edit summary on the Quds Day edit I reverted constituted vandalism in my opinion. Every editor has an obligation to remove vandalism. But like I said, it would be fitting to be blocked for removing vandalism. It would almost be as funny as initiating this request. Almost. nableezy - 03:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

@Tznaki, I wont, but perhaps User:Plot Spoiler, previously named ShamWow, could use formal notification of the ARBPIA case. nableezy - 03:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, the only ridiculous thing here is that somebody actually requested a block for removing vandalism. Piss off. nableezy - 14:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezy

This comes after Tznkai's call. nableezy has without a doubt circumvented sanctions a minimum of 5 times. A couple were files. One was an AfD a day before being unblocked. One of them was blatant vandalism. Another had a pretty crappy edit summary but was not necessarily a bad edit. Others (4 maybe?) were only "broadly" interpreted as being related. A couple were simply edit wars on talk pages that were only related to the topic. This does not excuse it. Harmless enough at first glance but they are still violations and a couple of them caused serious discussion. They even caused edit warring, requests for clarification, and requests for enforcement. A sanction is a sanction. He was not sanctioned to "not edit Arab-Israel when it might hurt feelings" He was sanctioned not to edit them at all. To punctuate this ridiculousness, Tznkai disregarded edit warring a few days ago (literally a few days!). How can you work on this project that has a disclaimer on potential long term blocks and not be concerned about edit warring? Edit warring is edit warring. As I called out Nableezy to get my sanction I will call out Tznkai: How can you clerk here and not see a concern? Wikiphilosiphy aside, there is an obvious problem and you bring your position into question. I feel that you have proven that you do not deserve/can handle/want the responsibility. If you aren't going to block (which is honestly OK by me) at least clearly say KNOCK IT OFF. You haven't done that twice now.Cptnono (talk) 11:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Nableezy

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

Declined. Blocking here would simply be too silly for words, but Nableezy would be well suited to take the article off his watchlist.--Tznkai (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me expand a little more. Silly vandalism and editors who say things like "No one believes in your Jewish B.S" are more unwelcome than any editor still around. I hope however, Nableezy does not take this as an invitation to look for other cases where he will get a pass. --Tznkai (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Tenmei

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

Request concerning Tenmei

User requesting enforcement

- Penwhale | 04:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty#Tenmei mentored

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

3. and others at Misplaced Pages:Mentorship. He does not currently have a mentor and as such is not allowed to contribute except to seek out mentors. This means that he's banned from non-user talk pages until he has an approved mentor.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy)

Not applicable.

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

Block according to the enforcement

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Would enforce myself, except I recused during both the original case and the amendment request.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Tenmei

Statement by Tenmei

Who's kidding who?

What wholesome or constructive rationale informs this new development? The continuing monogatari of needless folly just gets worse and worse -- and to what end?

It becomes reasonable to ask a meaningful and timely question: How does any part of this complaint enhance prospects for Misplaced Pages's future or for the community of volunteer contributors?

The answer needs to be stated bluntly: This helps no one. It confuses and discourages me.

In this investigative process, four crucial elements establish a context:

FACT #1: A prirori, ArbCom refused to answer explicit questions about what was and what was not encompassed with the ambit of ArbCom's decision-making in June and thereafter.

Fact #2: A posteriori, ArbCom then ratcheted up penalties because something not clearly identified was deemed to have failed to comply with what I couldn't have known was problematic before November, during November or thereafter.

Fact #3: Although ArbCom may have intended who-knows-what, the only words available to me in December were these:

"Tenmei is banned from all editing except for the express purpose of locating a mentor"

And, if I'm understanding the complaint adequately, the one and only article I'm accused of wrongly editing was Misplaced Pages:Mentorship?

Fact #4: The narrowly-focused text which I researched and then added to Misplaced Pages:Mentorship does advance the "express purpose of locating a mentor"; but I don't understand why that isn't so obvious that it does not require further explanation. This reasonable assertion and belief is confirmed by Tenmei's contribution history which lists postings on pages of those who participated in the development of the article and its accompanying talk page:

• Contributors at Misplaced Pages:Mentorship
  

• 1 21:10, 14 December 2009 Andrevan ‎ (→Mentorship: new section)
• 2 21:12, 14 December 2009 Szyslak ‎ (→Mentorship: new section)
• 3 21:14, 14 December 2009 Redwolf24 ‎ (→Mentorship: new section)
• 4 21:18, 14 December 2009 BlankVerse ‎ (→mentorship: new section)
• 5 21:22, 14 December 2009 Gareth Aus ‎ (→Mentorship: new section)
• 6 21:24, 14 December 2009 Leon2323 (→Mentorship: new section)
• 7 21:29, 14 December 2009 MartinHarper ‎ (Mentorship -- new section)
• 8 21:31, 14 December 2009 Роман Беккер ‎ (→Mentorship: new section)
• 9 21:34, 14 December 2009 Kingboyk ‎ (→Mentorship: new section)
• 10 21:38, 14 December 2009 Giggy (→Mentorship: new section)
• 11 21:49, 14 December 2009 ColdFusion650 (→Mentorship: new section)
• 12 21:50, 14 December 2009 NonvocalScream (Mentorship -- new section)
• 13 21:54, 14 December 2009 (MaxSem ‎ (→Mentorship: new section)
• 14 21:57, 14 December 2009 Ashanda ‎ (→Mentorship: new section)
• 15 22:00, 14 December 2009 MBisanz ‎ (→Mentorship: new section)
• 16 22:02, 14 December 2009 Stmrlbs ‎ (→Mentorship: new section)
• 17 22:03, 14 December 2009 Coppertwig ‎ (→Mentorship: new section)
• 18 22:05, 14 December 2009 Kotra ‎ (→Mentorship: new section)
• 19 22:07, 14 December 2009 WhatamIdoing ‎ (→Mentorship: new section)
• 20 22:13, 14 December 2009 AGK ‎ (→Mentorship: new section)

• Contributors at Misplaced Pages talk:Mentorship
  

• 21 02:39, 15 December 2009 Pleasantville ‎ (→Mentorship: new section)
• 22 02:49, 15 December 2009 Friday ‎ (→Mentorship: new section)
• 23 02:55, 15 December 2009 PalestineRemembered ‎ (→Mentorship: new section)
• 24 03:03, 15 December 2009 FT2 ‎ (→Mentorship: new section)
• 25 03:09, 15 December 2009 Jehochman ‎ (→Mentorship: new section)
• 26 03:25, 15 December 2009 Fasten ‎ (→Mentorship: new section)

In addition, further edits of this practical text are likely to contrive both (a) a shared-opportunity to work constructively with prospective mentors, thus creating a plausibly meaningful and persuasive working relationship which grows in an unforced way; and (b) a rhetorical foundation from which an unofficial mentorship committee may evolve naturally in a step-by-step fashion. This prospect encompasses those who are tentatively willing to try to help me, but who remain unwilling to enter into a formal ArbCom-endorsed relationship with its unknowable range of unanticipated pitfalls.

My limited, but unhappy experience with ArbCom's imprecise language is underscored by Penwhale's untimely and unmerited complaint.

In the context Penwhale contrives, any reluctance to help me officially seems both justified and prudent. What else is anyone to make of this newly contrived tempest in a teapot?

Anyone would be justifiably reluctant to thrust himself or herself into this problem-prone rhetorical maw or quagmire. The fact that I did so only serves to illustrate my ignorance, my innocence, my naivité and my sincere search for answers to questions which could be addressed in no other way -- none of which cause me to feel embarrassed.

Based solely on this newest "event", who can doubt that ArbCom was unable to recruit anyone to serve as a mentor at this stage of Misplaced Pages's development? But in passing the buck to me, did ArbCom truly want to contrive impossiblilty of performance as well?

In my view, this six-month history of ArbCom failure should be construed to argue in favor of giving me a realistic chance to try to comply with ArbCom's flawed decision. Instead, Penwhale's heedless complaint serves only to make my recruiting task more difficult.

Again, it is incumbent on me to ask, "Who's kidding who?"

While I presume no impropriety in Penwhale's complaint, it becomes impossible not to contemplate a range searching questions which need to be addressed in an effort to bring a better sense of balance to ArbCom's flawed presumptions, flawed procedures and flawed process.

In other words, I create a timely opportunity by asking this question: Given the inescapable fact that this newest sham is afflicting my patience and my efforts and also the view-point of any prospective ArbCom-endorsed "mentor", I have no choice but to assume that ArbCom's flaws devolve into an even more bizarre spectacle for those who are less confident, less innocent, less careful or less attentive to detail.

On my behalf and theirs, I must ask now: Why is this happening?

I would hope that the following will help enhance ArbCom to comprehend broad extent to which the phrase "Who's kidding who?" conveys a meaning that is idiomatic and clear at the same time.

Broadly, what purpose does this "enforcement" inquiry serve?

Narrowly, what purpose does an "enforcement" investigation serve?

Explicitly: (a) How is this congruent with the adduced principles and findings of the ArbCom case? (b) What am I to make of this? (c) What is any prospective mentor to make of this?

What other questions does this implicate?

What do I still fail to understand about what is going on here? And why isn't ArbCom doing more to help me understand? --Tenmei (talk) 10:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Tenmei

For information, I have just blocked Tenmei for one week for breaching his editing restrictions, disabled his talk page, and asked him to contact the committee by email (he has our address). My apologies for sidestepping this noticebaord's processes on this particular occasion.  Roger Davies 12:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Tenmei

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

• Moot, in light of the above. henrik•talk 12:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)