Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs) at 20:47, 8 March 2010 (→Comment by Sandstein: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:47, 8 March 2010 by ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs) (→Comment by Sandstein: reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

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

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.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346

Formal request for removal of unauthorized personal information to be deleted from your website as outlined under U.S. laws.

Resolved – Wrong forum, no action required

Dear Misplaced Pages editors, This is a formal request to have my personal information removed from your website. The information posted by user 'Jtir', is an infringement of my privacy rights. The user who posted them did so without my authority. I have persistently asked him to remove this information without any success or comment from him/her. I am having problems relating to the posting of my private, personal information.

Please attend to this matter at your earliest possible convenience, so that I can refrain from taking further action. Regards, Gerry McLoughlin Naples Florida

P.S. My Naples based information and name are posted 3/4 of the way down the page link below. His Username: Jtir The page in question: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/Wikipedia:Talk:Cellulosic_ethanol\ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.2.232 (talk • contribs)

Mr McLoughlin, this is not the proper forum for such requests; that would be WP:OVERSIGHT. However, to save you the trouble of making an oversight request: The information at issue appears to be publicly available WHOIS information (, ). As such, there is no basis, legal or otherwise, on which to request its removal from this site. Please be advised of our policy regarding legal threats. Sandstein 15:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Abd

No action after Abd (talk · contribs) has agreed to abide by the restriction as clarified to him.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Abd

User requesting enforcement: -- samj _in 16:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley#Abd_editing_restriction_.28existing_disputes.29

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: Context: This started with me cleaning up after User:LirazSiri (who had created a problematic article under WP:COI for his company/project, TurnKey_Linux_Virtual_Appliance_Library, uploaded a bunch of problematic images and repeatedly spammed both into various articles, templates and categories).

Abd removes tags later found to have been appropriately placed on TurnKey_Linux_Virtual_Appliance_Library (then WP:HOUNDs me by reverting other cleanup edits)
Abd enters existing dispute about WP:COI edits leading to WP:N, WP:V, WP:NPOV etc. on article talk page.
Abd not only restores the User:LirazSiri's category spam that I had reverted, but also reverts the {{Non-free logo}} and {{di-no fair use rationale}} tags that I had added because various registered trademarks had been uploaded as "own work" under a liberal CC-BY-SA license.
I asked Abd to stop WP:HOUNDing me and they dived head first into the debate, turning it from someone cleaning up after blatant WP:COI-induced vandalism and spamming into an all-out multi-editor dispute (a dozen or so editors have now been involved in some way).
Further inflaming the debate, Abd templates the regulars.
Abd is now fully engaged in, and central to the debate (which, critically, would almost certainly not have happened without their involvement).
Abd follows the debate to WP:ANI where I have requested assistance, claiming that while cleaning up spam & vandalism I am "carrying out a vendetta" (I said I would nominate their article at AfD if they didn't calm down), blaming me for a successful CSD A7 from an anon IP in Spain(!?!) and ultimately calling for me to be blocked. User:Enric Naval agrees that "this is just escalating and drama".
User:JzG confirms the validity of my original complaint against User:LirazSiri (adding that "This looks like another of Abd's crusades on behalf of people "oppressed" for abusing Misplaced Pages for their own ends.") and summarises the situation as follows:

It's not clear this even would be a dispute without Abd's involvement. We have one WP:SPA making blatantly promotional COI edits, and one user making comments about it. We have a way of handling that...

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): # Not applicable.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Block (Note that Abd is just off a 3 month ban for similar behaviour and was already admonished for failing to substantiate allegations)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Abd's behaviour, albeit unusual, is particularly disruptive to the operation of Misplaced Pages. By joining a conflicted editor and egging them on in a "debate" with an experienced editor about obvious and persistent policy violations, Abd has not only wasted a huge amount of everyones' time but encouraged the problematic editor to go on thinking they have done no wrong (and thus continuing with the same problematic behaviour). What would usually have resulted in a harmless, short (and quite probably effective) block for the problematic editor has now resulted in not one but two WP:ANIs (in which Abd is inexplicably "considering self an originating party") and the revisiting of a surprisingly recent arbitration decision.

Abd has since admitted to willfully violating the editing restrictions and claims "originating party" status, apparently because they were "about to file a report"(!?!?): "I considered requesting special permission from ArbComm to intervene, but decided that the welfare of the project required immediate action, and my restriction allowed me to file as an "originating party." -- samj _in 16:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I also ote that Abd was admonished at the same time for "engaging in personal attacks" and "failing even to attempt to substantiate allegations of misconduct levelled at other editors". Here's a sample of his contributions to the most recent ANI: "revert warring rampage", "gratuitous incivility", "motive to harass", "calculated to cause maximum disruption", "trolled", "quite improper", "vindictive", "drastically exaggerated", "deliberately inflamed", "vendetta", "obsessive and touchy", "much worse than that", "COI", "strong personal opinions", "behavioural issues", "extortion", "harassment", " clearly neutral", "highly biased", "even more inflammatory", "characteristic of harassment", etc. above). -- samj _in 18:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Abd

Statement by Abd

In lieu of presenting extensive evidence, I'll point to this statement by JzG, cited above by SamJohnston: It's not clear this even would be a dispute without Abd's involvement. We have one WP:SPA making blatantly promotional COI edits, and one user making comments about it. We have a way of handling that... This is an opinion supporting my position that I'm an "originating party" within the apparent intention of the sanction. I was an involved editor with TurnKey Linux and began simply by making a few edits that reverted apparent aggressive edits by User:SamJohnston, and I did this to encourage discussion instead of revert warring, which was SamJohnston's approach. I warned LirazSiri about his mistakes, and he seems to have stopped. If not, he can be and should be blocked. Warnings from sympathetic editors are much more effective than tirades and cries of "spam" and "vandalism" and threats to AfD an editor's favorite topic if the editor doesn't "chill" with regard to a different article.

The whole TurnKey Linux affair was an example of successful intervention by me in a dispute, however, resulting in the cessation of disruption and eventually a return of a sufficiently notable article to mainspace, confirmed unanimously at DRV (and, what is possibly relevant, undoing what JzG had done, though certainly the approved article was better than what JzG deleted).

As to the second part of the JzG statement, the "one user" did not merely make "comments about it." That user threatened the COI/SPA off-wiki with retaliatory AfD on a different article, then, when asked to chill, himself, proceeded to retaliate on-wiki, with massive disruption, seeking every possible issue to raise, all at once. Some of the issue have a legitimate basis, others don't. But the intention has become clear: "Don't mess with me!"

I will be requesting clarification from ArbComm over the application of my sanction to this. However, had I waited for approval from ArbComm (I considered requesting it -- ArbComm removed the mentorship provision, which would have allowed much more rapid approval), my expectation was that serious damage would be done, difficult to remediate. This is not a content issue, it is a behavioral issue. The content issues can be and will be resolved normally, if the behavioral issues are addressed. --Abd (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

@Sandstein: Thanks, I understand the position. However, I was preparing to file an AN/I request over this, as SamJ's disruption had continued, when I saw that SamJ had himself filed. When I reverted some edits of SamJ, that's when he escalated to actual deletion filings. I don't think that ArbComm in the santion intended the "originating party" to be a mere literal allowance, i.e., that I could file an AN/I report over an incident ("originating party"), but am prohibited from commenting on that same incident if I'm not personally mentioned by the filing party. The intention of the sanction would be that I stay out of what is not my own business, and this was very much my business, from prior history, as mentioned, in fact, by JzG (but he's not correct about this having to do with some supposed agenda by me with regard to him -- I only discovered JzG's involvement during my work rescuing TurnKey Linux, a year ago, it could just as well have been another admin, and I've made no recent criticism of JzG's action). However, Sandstein, you are welcome to clarify the meaning of the sanction on my Talk page, and I will respect that pending clarification by ArbComm that would supercede it. I do not consider you "involved" for the purposes of this sanction.--Abd (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

@JzG: how about a 'back off" to Abd? As invited, Sandstein enjoined me from further comment on this case, and I acknowledged and accepted that. Now, how about a 'back off' to JzG, who is not exactly disinterested here? While Sandstein remains free to act further as chosen, the injunction should satisfy any concern about further possible disruption from me on this, and I've requested clarification on the sanction, supported by Sandstein, so that this won't happen again. Let's get back to the project here. That was my point in the first place.

@Sandstein: As stated, I don't agree with your interpretation, which is why I filed an RfAr/Clarification, to encourage ArbComm to make it very clear. I will say that if the sanction is interpreted by ArbComm as it is being claimed it should be, I expect to respect it, as I attempted to respect the sanction already, but also to retire as an editor, and move all of my work off-wiki, where I cannot be interdicted, and where I will not be tempted to intervene if I see someone kicking someone who is down, which is not a "dispute," it's abuse, and abuse harms the project, and I'd stop the kicking, which has very little to do with the dispute behind it. The only loss for me will be some wikignoming, article work. The process work will not only not suffer, it will probably become more effective. However, my understanding of process is such that I'm obligated to accept your interpretation, and, as promised, I will respect it pending clarification by ArbComm. --Abd (talk) 06:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Thanks. Unfortunately, I don't "accept the verdict here," this isn't a court and it only decides ad-hoc implementation, subject to review by ArbComm if needed, and I don't see sufficient comment (showing understanding of the issues or even otherwise) for me to consider the interpretation permanently authoritative. What I've done is to agree to respect the ban interpretation as proposed (and then enforced) by Sandstein, even though this creates certain problems, pending clarification by ArbComm. I will interpret the ban quite strictly, unless permitted otherwise by Sandstein. Note, however, what it seems that this interpretation would allow me to do: If I have a problem with the behavior of an editor, and I warn that editor, and the editor blows it off, and I believe that the editor's actions are damaging the project, this is a dispute between me and that editor, and I'd be allowed to take that through DR or a noticeboard. I'd be an "originating party." Correct? I do not suggest debating this here, it should be moot for enforcement because of my agreement, and because this is the question that I hope ArbComm will be resolving. --Abd (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

~~Three~~Two editors who are not "uninvolved administrators" have commented in the section reserved for such regarding Result, below, ~~two~~one of them are not administrators at all (~~SamJohnston and~~ JzG), and one is (Stephan Schulz) but is quite involved in prior dispute with me. --Abd (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

SamJohnston removed his edit, and also struck the above words out. That was not proper, but no harm. The other two still have comments in the section for "uninvolved administrators." I presented evidence at the subject arbitration about Stephan Schulz, I will not repeat it here, but it should be enough that it is not a mere assertion, and, of course, the other editor is JzG, about whom there should be utterly no doubt as to involvement, besides not being an admin any more.

Request close of this enforcement request. While it's open, it will continue to collect coats. The underlying issue is the topic of an RfAr/Clarification, the alleged violation here has been addressed and cannot recur (without me being immediately blocked, I can't exactly fly under the radar), I'm under a voluntarily accepted restriction that exceeds the ArbComm restriction, pending, there is an immediate means of further clarification if necessary (consulting with Sandstein), Sandstein has determined no (further) action at this time, and is irrelevant to this request. --Abd (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Abd

Comment by JzG

My heart sinks when I see Abd weighing in to a dispute on behalf of someone who is being "oppressed" for abusing Misplaced Pages for their own ends (as with Pcarbonn, Jed Rothwell of LENR-CANR.org and so on). I have a nasty suspicion that Abd is mainly interested in this because I was involved in the original deletion and/or deletion review of LirazSiri's article at TurnKey Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

It is unambiguously the case that LirazSiri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account whose purpose is, and always has been, the promotion of TurnKey Linux, a minor Linux project of which he is co-founder. The most recent set of abuses includes adding TurnKey into the high level {{Cloud computing}} template: .

I noted in a comment that I am professionally involved in cloud computing, and Abd turned this round to assert that I have a potential COI. WTF? That is so wide of the mark it would be funny if it weren't for the fact that past experience indicates it will be tenaciously asserted until Abd is forcibly removed from this dispute. He asserts that he did not seek permission to violate his probation by becoming involved in the dispute because "the welfare of the project required immediate action" - to stop someone pushing back against a spammer promoting his own commercial interests. Riiiiight. He also describes another editor's actions as extortion. This is a criminal offence. Abd also uses misdirection, for example noting that I was admonished in a case not to use my administrative tools in a dispute where I am involved - I'd be really interested to see diffs showing abuse of tools here, that would be fascinating - while simultaneously, and as noted at the later Abd/WMC case, ignoring the instructions he was given in the same case.

Abd is, to put it bluntly, a monumental time sink in every single dispute in which he's involved, as originator or not. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Echoing Guy here and noting that I am no longer an admin and have a history with Abd but this is a classic case of Abd inflaming disputes by involving themselves and that they are specifically enjoined from doing this by the committee. The wikilawyering to try and wriggle of the hook by the pseudo clarification is a good sign they do not take the restrictions from the committee seriously and are determined to ignore them and not blocking them will only encourage them to do it again and again and again. Spartaz 02:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears Abd has filed a request for clarification regarding this enforcement request, and Sandstein has also welcomed any guidance from arbitrators about enforcement on the matter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Some more history

This does indeed go back a way, as I thought it did. ; Abd sets the scene for an exposition of "what Misplaced Pages did to you that was wrong" (which was: deleting an article on his company that he created and then immediately moved back to mainspace when it was userfied). Abd recruits LirazSiri as a partisan to his dispute with me. You can see most of this from the history of user talk:LirazSiri and Special:Whatlinkshere/TurnKey Linux. This is not a new example of Abd escalating a dispute, it's an old example of Abd pursuing a crusade based on an action by someone he doesn't like. Whether that makes it more or less actionable is hard to say, really.

Separately, I have requested a topic ban for LirazSiri - after an explicit warning nearly a year ago he is still making promotional edits and feigning innocent surprise when told that this is a problem. I think the community can probably handle that. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Re the comment that a request to Abd to back off won't do any good: yes, it will, if it's decided it's appropriate: see here (involved) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm extremely sorry for my poor choice of words. I meant, of course, that Abd, as he has stated a number of times, is willing to follow instructions from wiki-authority provided the instructions are sufficiently clear. I did not mean that restricting Abd is "good". Abd has done a lot of good work on this project, reducing disruption – yes, reducing disruption!! including, but by no means limited to, when he "tiptoed in" to my talk page and catalysed the rapid amicable resolution of a dispute about misquotation which had been taking up large amounts of bandwidth and emotion on my talk page and the Judea-Samaria case pages. JzG's statement about a "time sink" is therefore false. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That kind of intervention, by the way, is what I've interpreted the sanction as preventing. Was that a correct interpretation? --Abd (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

What Abd would hope for

What I'd hope for, in fact, is that ArbComm would reconsider the sanction itself, not confine itself to providing crisper definitions of the terms. What, exactly, was the problem that the sanction addressed? I have not demonstrated how ineffective the sanction is, because I don't violate WP:POINT. However, there is a situation where it's becoming clear to me that I need to go to ArbComm again. As an "originating party." And there will be no doubt that I'm an originating party. It actually should be simple, the facts are clear, but ... the facts were also clear with the two adverse parties on which I filed RfArs before. The filings were simple, not complicated. They became complicated when hosts of previously involved editors piled in with accusations about me that were actually irrelevant to the narrow point of both cases. Lost in all this is that in both arbitrations, ArbComm confirmed my complaint, but then reprimanded me for how I pursued it. Both situations were long-standing problems, admins had thrown their hands up in despair over them. And I brought them closer to resolution with community consensus, and both administrators no longer have the tools as a consequence, though that is not what I asked for. In other words, I tackled two difficult problems. The claim seems to be that I should have done better, and I'd certainly agree that I could have. But for years, nobody had both "done better" and been effective. Is ArbComm irritated that it finally had to bite the bullet and face the situations? It would seem so! Therefore it does not want to see more of that kind of nuisance. Therefore it attempts to cut off what is seen as the root of the problem (me) without being too obvious. So it orders me to MYOB. Apparently, the wiki is not "my business." It's theirs and everyone else's, eh? The problems will continue, and it is not actually about me or the other editors. It's about abusive structure. And that structure abuses everyone, including the arbitrators. --Abd (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Abd

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

After an initial review, the case appears to have merit. Unfortunately, the submitter has presented too many diffs as evidence, most of which do not appear to be violations of the cited remedy. (It is only these that are of interest here.) But at least this and subsequent edits to WP:ANI by Abd seem to violate his restriction from "discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party." This is because the ANI request was framed by SamJohnston as a dispute between him and LirazSiri, and did not mention Abd. Although Abd appears to have been involved in the dispute, he was therefore not an originating party in the sense of the remedy, and, not being named in the ANI request against LirazSiri, had no legitimate need to reply to it. In view of this, I am of a mind to block Abd in enforcement of the remedy, but before doing so invite the comment of fellow admins as to whether or not they agree with this assessment. Sandstein 18:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

So how about a "back off" to Abd? Defending spammers is not a great way to build your reputation. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that Abd has, so far, managed to rationalize any sanction away as an endorsement of his position, and that he rejects inconvenient communication, I don't think a "back off" will do any good. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Since Abd evidently thinks the sanction is in need of clarification, I have offered this piece of clarification to him . If he accepts that, that's fine with me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Any block of Abd would be intended to deter his future involvement in cases where he is not a party. If he will accept the verdict that his participation here was against the restriction, then no block would be necessary. Unclear whether he will accept that. EdJohnston (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I've asked him to confirm his acceptance here. Sandstein 20:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No action. Abd has agreed to abide by the meaning of the restriction as explained above by Future Perfect at Sunrise, "pending some other decision by ArbComm" (which may or may not be issued in the concurrent clarification request). It is therefore not necessary to take enforcement action at this point. Sandstein 06:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

He may have agreed, but he is up to his old Wikilawyering and "subtle" threatening again, see and . This should be nipped in the bud. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not the subject of this request, though. Any new problems should be addressed by a new request as appropriate. Closing for now. Sandstein 20:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Interfase

Interfase (talk · contribs) placed under supervision for 3 months.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Interfase User requesting enforcement Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Interfase (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, violation of 1RR/3RR Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it # , first revert on the Kochari article. , second revert on the Kochari article. , third revert on the Kochari article. , fourth revert on the Kochari article. , fifth revert on the Kochari article. , sixth revert on the Kochari article. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) # Warning by MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs) Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Left to the discretion of administrator. Additional comments by editor filing complaint The edit war, without so much as an attempt to discuss the edits, on the Kochari article is rather symptomatic of all of Interfase's edits, really. On the Azerbaijani-language Misplaced Pages, he has been busy distorting articles related to Armenian geography by declaring them parts of "Western Azerbaijan". A number of editors have expressed concern that these articles on the Azeri Misplaced Pages do not correspond at all with those found on the other language Wikipedias. The article on khachkars, for example, on the Azerbaijani Misplaced Pages have been rechristened as "alban xaçkarları" (Caucasian Albanian khachkars), something which is not supported by any source except those published by the government of Azerbaijan. Articles on Armenian churches have similarly been deprived of their identity, and have, once more, been rechristened as "Albanian temples" (see for example the entry on the Saint Sargis Monastery, which is dubbed Avey məbədi. Attempts to remove these erroneous interwikis have been unsuccessful, since the stupid bots keep re-adding them, but also because the above edit wars show how desperate some are to fudge the facts so one cannot tell what's truth, what's fiction. I think we can save that for another conversation but I think it's necessary that the administrators know these facts as well.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Discussion concerning Interfase Statement by Interfase On Kochari I reverted edits which I identifited as a vandalism. They removed interwikis to azwiki's article which also talks about Kochari dance. I returned them. --Interfase (talk) 11:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC) This is not true. In the Russian Misplaced Pages, there are several articles about different national versions of Kochari and disambig (ru:Кочари). There is an article about the Azeri dance (ru:Кочари (азербайджанский танец)). Article in Azeri Misplaced Pages (az:Köçəri) only about Azeri dance (Köçəri — Azərbaycanın milli rəqslərindən biri == Kochari - Azeri folk dance). User Interfase himself confessed that on his user talk page - ru:Обсуждение участника:Interfase#Кочари. --hayk (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Interfase Looking at the history of the article, I see that it is just about the removal of interwikis. Interfase adds Azeri and other interwikis to the article, which is quite in line with the rules, and other users keep on removing it. In particular, Hayk (talk · contribs) made as many rvs as Interfase, but he is not mentioned in this report. I don't really understand why those interwikis should be removed, and why the person who inserts them is being reported, even if he does nothing wrong by adding them, while those who remove it are clearly wrong, and they are the ones who should be reported. Grandmaster 06:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC) I am wondering why is it that any new account which is suspicious from one side is directly blocked while nothing is done when the exact same thing is done from the other side? Also, Grandmaster has some explaining to do because some of the reports he files are reverts back to content that was reached by a consensus; basically the consensus version that he himself also supported. Here for instance. Reverting under the cover of reverting sockpuppetry is not a valid justification for reverting a wording agreed by all sides. - Fedayee (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Both Hayk and Interfase need a slap on the wrist - I concur with Grandmaster regarding Hayk (talk · contribs). I don't really understand whether the iwiki is appropriate here, but judging from the page history, both Hayk and Interfase are responsible for the edit war. Neither of them are really making any attempt to explain themselves on the article's talk page. @Fedayee - Not sure I understand your comment re "Grandmaster has some explaining to do ". NickCT (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Interfase This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I've placed Interfase under supervision for 3 months, which restricts him to 1RR/week. PhilKnight (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Interfase (talk · contribs) placed under supervision for 3 months.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Interfase

User requesting enforcement: Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Interfase (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, violation of 1RR/3RR

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: # , first revert on the Kochari article.

, second revert on the Kochari article.
, third revert on the Kochari article.
, fourth revert on the Kochari article.
, fifth revert on the Kochari article.
, sixth revert on the Kochari article.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): # Warning by MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Left to the discretion of administrator.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: The edit war, without so much as an attempt to discuss the edits, on the Kochari article is rather symptomatic of all of Interfase's edits, really. On the Azerbaijani-language Misplaced Pages, he has been busy distorting articles related to Armenian geography by declaring them parts of "Western Azerbaijan". A number of editors have expressed concern that these articles on the Azeri Misplaced Pages do not correspond at all with those found on the other language Wikipedias. The article on khachkars, for example, on the Azerbaijani Misplaced Pages have been rechristened as "alban xaçkarları" (Caucasian Albanian khachkars), something which is not supported by any source except those published by the government of Azerbaijan. Articles on Armenian churches have similarly been deprived of their identity, and have, once more, been rechristened as "Albanian temples" (see for example the entry on the Saint Sargis Monastery, which is dubbed Avey məbədi. Attempts to remove these erroneous interwikis have been unsuccessful, since the stupid bots keep re-adding them, but also because the above edit wars show how desperate some are to fudge the facts so one cannot tell what's truth, what's fiction.

I think we can save that for another conversation but I think it's necessary that the administrators know these facts as well.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Interfase

Statement by Interfase

On Kochari I reverted edits which I identifited as a vandalism. They removed interwikis to azwiki's article which also talks about Kochari dance. I returned them. --Interfase (talk) 11:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not true. In the Russian Misplaced Pages, there are several articles about different national versions of Kochari and disambig (ru:Кочари). There is an article about the Azeri dance (ru:Кочари (азербайджанский танец)). Article in Azeri Misplaced Pages (az:Köçəri) only about Azeri dance (Köçəri — Azərbaycanın milli rəqslərindən biri == Kochari - Azeri folk dance). User Interfase himself confessed that on his user talk page - ru:Обсуждение участника:Interfase#Кочари. --hayk (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Interfase

Looking at the history of the article, I see that it is just about the removal of interwikis. Interfase adds Azeri and other interwikis to the article, which is quite in line with the rules, and other users keep on removing it. In particular, Hayk (talk · contribs) made as many rvs as Interfase, but he is not mentioned in this report. I don't really understand why those interwikis should be removed, and why the person who inserts them is being reported, even if he does nothing wrong by adding them, while those who remove it are clearly wrong, and they are the ones who should be reported. Grandmaster 06:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I am wondering why is it that any new account which is suspicious from one side is directly blocked while nothing is done when the exact same thing is done from the other side? Also, Grandmaster has some explaining to do because some of the reports he files are reverts back to content that was reached by a consensus; basically the consensus version that he himself also supported. Here for instance. Reverting under the cover of reverting sockpuppetry is not a valid justification for reverting a wording agreed by all sides. - Fedayee (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Both Hayk and Interfase need a slap on the wrist - I concur with Grandmaster regarding Hayk (talk · contribs). I don't really understand whether the iwiki is appropriate here, but judging from the page history, both Hayk and Interfase are responsible for the edit war. Neither of them are really making any attempt to explain themselves on the article's talk page. @Fedayee - Not sure I understand your comment re "Grandmaster has some explaining to do ". NickCT (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Interfase

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

I've placed Interfase under supervision for 3 months, which restricts him to 1RR/week. PhilKnight (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Tothwolf

Tothwolf (talk · contribs) blocked for 72 hours.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Tothwolf User requesting enforcement Theserialcomma (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Tothwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated - Should Tothwolf make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Tothwolf may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it # ] "not one of these three individuals (Theserialcomma, JBSupreme, and Miami33139) has ever made a single positive contribution to an article in this subject area and are clearly not here to build Misplaced Pages (I never really was able to find anything constructive in these three contribution histories). Based solely on their contribution histories, these three individuals clearly much prefer to attack others (not just myself) and bulk remove content instead of improving Misplaced Pages." Explanation: In Tothwolf's arbcom case, 3 main editors (JBsupreme, Miami33139, Theserialcomma) filed evidence of tothwolf's long term uncivil behavior and paranoid/unsubstantiated allegations. as a result, the arbcom case closed with the result of tothwolf being admonished and restricted from making any future uncivil comments against us or any other editors - or he shall be blocked. tothwolf's behavior has remained unchanged. the diff posted shows he is still engaging in uncivil accusations against the same users from whom he's restricted. diff 2: ] Don't email me, don't contact me, don't bloody show up in IRC channels where you know I visit and brag "I'm gonna get Tothwolf banned!" Explanation: i've never contacted him off-wiki (and he's contacted me twice - i forwarded each to Arbcom's mailing list), nor have i been on irc with him (ridiculous). per tothwolf's restrictions, he is not to make unsubstantiated allegations without evidence. he just left a message on my talk page - against my requests for him to stay away - claiming i've 'emailed, contacted' and 'showed up on IRC' channels. he's paranoid, delusional, and arbcom has restricted him from making these uncivil allegations. he needs to be stopped. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) {{{Diffs of prior warnings}}} Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) block ; i further request that tothwolf is topic banned from making any allegations about me, or contacting me, or discussing me. . either way, he's restricted from this behavior, and so these restrictions should be enforced and tightened. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Tothwolf has been gaming the system since his arbcom restrictions, testing the waters to see how uncivil he can be without repercussions. i hope that an uninvolved admin will scrutinize his restrictions and his behavior and come to the conclusion that the sanctions that resulted from this 2 month arbcom case are worth enforcing. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested i haven't contacted tothwolf's talk page, but he's aware of this, since he just posted on my talk page That section reads that Tothwolf does not want you editing his talk page, so I've notified him. Sandstein 20:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Discussion concerning Tothwolf Statement by Tothwolf Sigh. Why am I not surprised Theserialcomma? How many times do you have to be told by myself and others (including multiple administrators) to leave me alone? I'm quite tired of you misquoting me and editing my words to suit your personal "desires" as you did above, and as you did repeatedly during the ArbCom case (my responses to which were unfortunately moved to the talk page by MBisanz which appears to have led to those misquotes/false statements flying under the radar during the ArbCom case). While I did not mention you by name in my comments, Theserialcomma, I certainly did link to diffs to back up what I said (otherwise you would simply run to an admin, AN/I, or AE here and link to as you've done before). Theserialcomma, you also made some very misleading statements above... JBsupreme presented no evidence in the ArbCom case and both you and Miami33139 didn't want any part of the ArbCom case when it was still in the RFAR stage as "Hounding of Tothwolf". To summarise part of this AN/I discussion: "Unfortunately, due to the case name, the material I presented was apparently thrown out and ignored by the person who wrote the draft decision. The original RFAR working name was "Hounding of Tothwolf" but Manning Bartlett attempted to go with a more neutral name of "Tothwolf" when he moved it from the RFAR stage to an open case. The case name discussion from Manning Bartlett's talk page can be found here." Theserialcomma, the personal attacks you continue to throw around while continuing to make statements such as "he's paranoid, delusional", etc. need to stop right now. This already came up in the last AN/I discussion here where I replied to your last attacks: "You also need to stop referring to me as "paranoid", "delusional", "deviant", etc. That is a personal attack. You began attacking me with such statements after Miami33139 began making them. It's also quite obvious that you are not even medically qualified to make such claims; one of the very first things you are taught is: Don't diagnose unless you have a treatment plan." Theserialcomma: I'm tired of your on-wiki and off-wiki attacks. This has been going on for nearly a year (full discussion) (full report) (contribs) and clearly you simply being told to leave me alone (repeatedly, by multiple administrators and other editors, no less) isn't going to be effective. I've now emailed ArbCom, and while they obviously can't really stop your off-wiki actions, perhaps this time your on-wiki behaviours will finally be addressed. You've done this sort of thing to many other editors in the past, eventually leading to some of them finally blowing up at your harassment or baiting and getting blocked, or in the case of most, simply leaving Misplaced Pages. You apparently seem to enjoy being disruptive and causing strife for others and to be quite honest I'm not sure why someone didn't catch on to you much, much earlier. Misplaced Pages is not a game where you "win!" when you attempt to get someone "indef'd". Theserialcomma: Let me be quite blunt with you, continuing to try to get me "banned from Misplaced Pages" isn't going to stop me from calling you out on your disruptive behaviours and harassment of other editors. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Tothwolf Result concerning Tothwolf This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Blocked for 72 hours, escalating from the previous 48, for the reply above alone. It is not a good idea to reply to an enforcement request for personal attacks with ... yet more personal attacks. Sandstein 22:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Tothwolf (talk · contribs) blocked for 72 hours.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Tothwolf

User requesting enforcement: Theserialcomma (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Tothwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: - Should Tothwolf make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Tothwolf may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: # ] "not one of these three individuals (Theserialcomma, JBSupreme, and Miami33139) has ever made a single positive contribution to an article in this subject area and are clearly not here to build Misplaced Pages (I never really was able to find anything constructive in these three contribution histories). Based solely on their contribution histories, these three individuals clearly much prefer to attack others (not just myself) and bulk remove content instead of improving Misplaced Pages."

Explanation: In Tothwolf's arbcom case, 3 main editors (JBsupreme, Miami33139, Theserialcomma) filed evidence of tothwolf's long term uncivil behavior and paranoid/unsubstantiated allegations. as a result, the arbcom case closed with the result of tothwolf being admonished and restricted from making any future uncivil comments against us or any other editors - or he shall be blocked. tothwolf's behavior has remained unchanged. the diff posted shows he is still engaging in uncivil accusations against the same users from whom he's restricted.

diff 2: ] Don't email me, don't contact me, don't bloody show up in IRC channels where you know I visit and brag "I'm gonna get Tothwolf banned!"

Explanation: i've never contacted him off-wiki (and he's contacted me twice - i forwarded each to Arbcom's mailing list), nor have i been on irc with him (ridiculous). per tothwolf's restrictions, he is not to make unsubstantiated allegations without evidence. he just left a message on my talk page - against my requests for him to stay away - claiming i've 'emailed, contacted' and 'showed up on IRC' channels. he's paranoid, delusional, and arbcom has restricted him from making these uncivil allegations. he needs to be stopped.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): {{{Diffs of prior warnings}}}
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): block ; i further request that tothwolf is topic banned from making any allegations about me, or contacting me, or discussing me. . either way, he's restricted from this behavior, and so these restrictions should be enforced and tightened.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Tothwolf has been gaming the system since his arbcom restrictions, testing the waters to see how uncivil he can be without repercussions. i hope that an uninvolved admin will scrutinize his restrictions and his behavior and come to the conclusion that the sanctions that resulted from this 2 month arbcom case are worth enforcing.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: i haven't contacted tothwolf's talk page, but he's aware of this, since he just posted on my talk page

That section reads that Tothwolf does not want you editing his talk page, so I've notified him. Sandstein 20:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Tothwolf

Statement by Tothwolf

Sigh. Why am I not surprised Theserialcomma? How many times do you have to be told by myself and others (including multiple administrators) to leave me alone?

I'm quite tired of you misquoting me and editing my words to suit your personal "desires" as you did above, and as you did repeatedly during the ArbCom case (my responses to which were unfortunately moved to the talk page by MBisanz which appears to have led to those misquotes/false statements flying under the radar during the ArbCom case). While I did not mention you by name in my comments, Theserialcomma, I certainly did link to diffs to back up what I said (otherwise you would simply run to an admin, AN/I, or AE here and link to as you've done before).

Theserialcomma, you also made some very misleading statements above... JBsupreme presented no evidence in the ArbCom case and both you and Miami33139 didn't want any part of the ArbCom case when it was still in the RFAR stage as "Hounding of Tothwolf".

To summarise part of this AN/I discussion: "Unfortunately, due to the case name, the material I presented was apparently thrown out and ignored by the person who wrote the draft decision. The original RFAR working name was "Hounding of Tothwolf" but Manning Bartlett attempted to go with a more neutral name of "Tothwolf" when he moved it from the RFAR stage to an open case. The case name discussion from Manning Bartlett's talk page can be found here."

Theserialcomma, the personal attacks you continue to throw around while continuing to make statements such as "he's paranoid, delusional", etc. need to stop right now. This already came up in the last AN/I discussion here where I replied to your last attacks: "You also need to stop referring to me as "paranoid", "delusional", "deviant", etc. That is a personal attack. You began attacking me with such statements after Miami33139 began making them. It's also quite obvious that you are not even medically qualified to make such claims; one of the very first things you are taught is: Don't diagnose unless you have a treatment plan."

Theserialcomma: I'm tired of your on-wiki and off-wiki attacks. This has been going on for nearly a year (full discussion) (full report) (contribs) and clearly you simply being told to leave me alone (repeatedly, by multiple administrators and other editors, no less) isn't going to be effective. I've now emailed ArbCom, and while they obviously can't really stop your off-wiki actions, perhaps this time your on-wiki behaviours will finally be addressed.

You've done this sort of thing to many other editors in the past, eventually leading to some of them finally blowing up at your harassment or baiting and getting blocked, or in the case of most, simply leaving Misplaced Pages. You apparently seem to enjoy being disruptive and causing strife for others and to be quite honest I'm not sure why someone didn't catch on to you much, much earlier. Misplaced Pages is not a game where you "win!" when you attempt to get someone "indef'd".

Theserialcomma: Let me be quite blunt with you, continuing to try to get me "banned from Misplaced Pages" isn't going to stop me from calling you out on your disruptive behaviours and harassment of other editors.

--Tothwolf (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Tothwolf

Result concerning Tothwolf

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

Blocked for 72 hours, escalating from the previous 48, for the reply above alone. It is not a good idea to reply to an enforcement request for personal attacks with ... yet more personal attacks. Sandstein 22:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Gilabrand

Gilabrand (talk · contribs) blocked for 48 hours.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Gilabrand User requesting enforcement Supreme Deliciousness 10:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Gilabrand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it , , She was topic banned from "Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the duration of three months. (For the avoidance of doubts, this includes all pages or discussions related to the topic, broadly construed." The comment she made here is clearly a discussion comment related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, broadly construed. In the article she had also added stuff related to the Palestinian-Israel conflict so its a part of it: Note, this is info added later, so admins should take a second look: She also discussed the controversial I-P article Sheikh Jarrah on Nsaum's talk page in a manner that suggested she was trying to use Nsaum as a meatpuppet to circumvent her topic ban. It can also be argued that her edits to the Israeli art student scam AFD contravene the topic ban. Particularly considering that the reason Gilabrand got topic banned in the first place was spamming I-P related hate material into that very article. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) Not applicable Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Block or ban. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Discussion concerning Gilabrand Statement by Gilabrand Comments by others about the request concerning Gilabrand Palestine is not mentioned once on the article in question. The only argument that could be made is that similar editors are involved. The only thing left to say is: BOOOOOOO Cptnono (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Her comment in the edit summary touches the Israel-Palestinian conflict by her questioning Factsonthegrounds edit, she was banned from all pages or discussions related to the topic, broadly construed, therefor she violated it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Oh bummer. I see what you are getting at but it really wasn't against the spirit of the sanction. An argument could also be made that she was baited. From my understanding AE frowns upon and seldomly takes action against offenses like this. I guess we'll see though.Cptnono (talk) 11:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC) How was she baited into this edit? Yes, Gilabrand was blocked for this by Sandstein, but clearly Gilabrand saw and made a connection. ~~Going over the details of edits such as this and this seems to indicate an unwillingness to abide by the restrictions imposed.~~ Unomi (talk) 12:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC) I struck out my comments above as they were made while I was under the impression that the I/P restrictions had been in place for a while. Unomi (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC) (outdent) Gilabrand was topic-banned from I-P articles for the edits she made to Israeli art student scam. Participating in the AfD discussion for that article is clearly a violation of her topic ban. Insisting, as she did, that this article has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (except in the mind of the person who created it), when she has made edits like this to the article, is not only an assumption of bad faith, but is richly ironic. How she or anyone can argue that her edits to the AfD fall outside the scope of her topic ban is bewildering, to say the least. Tiamut 12:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC) It could be argued that voting on that AfD was a violation of the topic ban, but that does not appear to be the argument that Supreme Deliciousness made above. Evil saltine (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC) I don't see how it could but it looks like there are other diffs on other articles. If she screwed up somewhere else she screwed up. I can't full on retract my BOOO for the report presented (more diffs needed on other articles for it to matter) but other stuff is other stuff. A better prepared report would be easier to assess since we all know it is coming up for a few of us. Happy editing.Cptnono (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Gilabrand was topic banned for her edits to the article that is up at AfD, in which she herself inserted material on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In other words, her disruptive and pointy edits there made it part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To now claim that it has nothing to do with it, is pure hypocrisy. Its the fact that she made an edit at all that is at issue here, and not the contents of those edits. If I am topic-banned from all science articles due to disruptive edits I made at Global warming, and then Global warming is up for an AfD and I comment inn that AfD, its quite a stretch for me to argue that the article in question doesn't fall under the scope of my topic ban. Capisce? Tiamut 12:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Come on, Tiamut. you should now better than that. It is (present tense) not I/P conflict article. Please kindly let her be.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Sorry Mbz1, but I'm not the only one who sees it as an I-P related article, even without Gilabrand's having made it so, by her edits there. User:Avraham seems to as well , as he listed it at both the Israel and Palestine wikiprojects to alert their project members to its being at AfD. Tiamut 22:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Sorry Tiamut, it does not work this way. It is one of the rare cases, when 1+1 is not equal 2. Palestine and Israel in separate lists do not add to I/P conflict.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Off-shoot possible breach? Please note this ANI where Gilabrand has edited an article on Zimbabwe Israeli relations, removing information on Zimbabwe's take on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Please advise on the enforcement decision regarding this, will this require a new entry? SGGH 15:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC) User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has blocked for 48, see below. SGGH 17:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Statement by Mbz1 The word "Palestine" is never mentioned in the article in question The article has absolutely nothing to do with I/P conflict I suggest: Speedy close this request Block Supreme Deliciousness for harassing the user with this request--Mbz1 (talk) 12:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Statement by Factsontheground Aside from the link Supremedelicious provided, Gilabrand also discussed a controversial I-P article (Sheikh Jarrah) on Nsaum's talk page: . She also never responded to the original ANI about posting hate material into Israeli art student scam, which suggests she doesn't accept that she did anything wrong. Factsontheground (talk) 12:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC) A talk page of a user cannot be considered a page that is related to I/P conflict article. She was sanctioned for what she's done to your article. What other responses you need to hear. Kindly leave her alone, better safe your time to come up with a new conspiracy theory.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC) I would love to leave her alone, but I find it difficult with her deleting my comments, posting on my talk page, posting on other people's talk pages about my edits, etc. Also I-P topic bans also cover discussing I-P topics on talk pages. Factsontheground (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC) @Factsontheground, Do you know that you started editing the section that states: "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators." I hope you do not consider yourself to be " uninvolved administrator". She has the right to post at your page, and talk to other editors about her concerns over your edits. It is not a part of her ban.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Statement by Nsaum75 Since an "incident" on my talk page is mentioned above, I feel the need to comment: This whole situation appears to be turning into some sort of witch hunt, with several users trying to find an angle that will "stick" in order to "punish" an editor they may have an issue with. Remember: "anything can be 'revealed' if you go over it enough with a fine-tooth-comb." --nsaum75 15:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Gilabrand This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. In the cited edit (), Gilabrand stated in the edit summary "this article has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (except in the mind of the person who created it)". For the sake of argument I am ignoring the inappropriate deletion of Factsontheground's comment and taking this as if she had replied to his comment with what she said in the edit summary. With that we have this exchange: This user is topic banned from Israeli-Palestinian conflict topics. Factsontheground (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC) This article has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (except in the mind of the person who created it) - Gilabrand Gilabrand here clearly mentioned the Israeli-Palestinian conflict solely for the purpose of defending herself against Factsontheground's implied allegation that she violated the topic ban. If Factsontheground had not accused her of a violation, she would likely not have mentioned the conflict. This is not meant to say that Factsontheground did anything wrong. I think it is not in the best interest of Misplaced Pages to say that this violates the topic ban. It is clearly necessary for the accused to mention the topic in order to mount a defense against an alleged topic ban violation. The argument presented by Supreme Deliciousness appears to be that that necessary mention in itself constitutes discussion of the topic, which itself is a violation of the topic ban. Enforcement in this case would effectively deny an editor accused of violating a topic ban the ability to defend themselves against the accusation. I do not believe that is the intention of the discretionary sanction as specified by Arbcom. Making a reasonable statement rebutting an accusation does not fall under "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." Also, Gilabrand would have to mention the topic on this page in order to make a statement, thus violating the topic ban. Therefore, I recommend against a block/ban. Evil saltine (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Note: The above applies to this version of the enforcement request. Evil saltine (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Without commenting on the merits of the original complaint, I have now blocked Gilabrand for this edit, which was brought up today in an ANI thread and clearly constitutes a breach of the ban. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC) That renders moot the discussion about the previous edits. Closing. Sandstein 18:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Gilabrand (talk · contribs) blocked for 48 hours.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Gilabrand

User requesting enforcement: Supreme Deliciousness 10:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Gilabrand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

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

, ,

She was topic banned from "Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the duration of three months. (For the avoidance of doubts, this includes all pages or discussions related to the topic, broadly construed."

The comment she made here is clearly a discussion comment related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, broadly construed. In the article she had also added stuff related to the Palestinian-Israel conflict so its a part of it:

Note, this is info added later, so admins should take a second look: She also discussed the controversial I-P article Sheikh Jarrah on Nsaum's talk page in a manner that suggested she was trying to use Nsaum as a meatpuppet to circumvent her topic ban.

It can also be argued that her edits to the Israeli art student scam AFD contravene the topic ban. Particularly considering that the reason Gilabrand got topic banned in the first place was spamming I-P related hate material into that very article.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): Not applicable
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Block or ban.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Gilabrand

Statement by Gilabrand

Comments by others about the request concerning Gilabrand

Palestine is not mentioned once on the article in question. The only argument that could be made is that similar editors are involved. The only thing left to say is: BOOOOOOO Cptnono (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Her comment in the edit summary touches the Israel-Palestinian conflict by her questioning Factsonthegrounds edit, she was banned from all pages or discussions related to the topic, broadly construed, therefor she violated it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh bummer. I see what you are getting at but it really wasn't against the spirit of the sanction. An argument could also be made that she was baited. From my understanding AE frowns upon and seldomly takes action against offenses like this. I guess we'll see though.Cptnono (talk) 11:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

How was she baited into this edit? Yes, Gilabrand was blocked for this by Sandstein, but clearly Gilabrand saw and made a connection. ~~Going over the details of edits such as this and this seems to indicate an unwillingness to abide by the restrictions imposed.~~ Unomi (talk) 12:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I struck out my comments above as they were made while I was under the impression that the I/P restrictions had been in place for a while. Unomi (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Gilabrand was topic-banned from I-P articles for the edits she made to Israeli art student scam. Participating in the AfD discussion for that article is clearly a violation of her topic ban. Insisting, as she did, that this article has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (except in the mind of the person who created it), when she has made edits like this to the article, is not only an assumption of bad faith, but is richly ironic. How she or anyone can argue that her edits to the AfD fall outside the scope of her topic ban is bewildering, to say the least. Tiamut 12:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It could be argued that voting on that AfD was a violation of the topic ban, but that does not appear to be the argument that Supreme Deliciousness made above. Evil saltine (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it could but it looks like there are other diffs on other articles. If she screwed up somewhere else she screwed up. I can't full on retract my BOOO for the report presented (more diffs needed on other articles for it to matter) but other stuff is other stuff. A better prepared report would be easier to assess since we all know it is coming up for a few of us. Happy editing.Cptnono (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Gilabrand was topic banned for her edits to the article that is up at AfD, in which she herself inserted material on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In other words, her disruptive and pointy edits there made it part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To now claim that it has nothing to do with it, is pure hypocrisy. Its the fact that she made an edit at all that is at issue here, and not the contents of those edits. If I am topic-banned from all science articles due to disruptive edits I made at Global warming, and then Global warming is up for an AfD and I comment inn that AfD, its quite a stretch for me to argue that the article in question doesn't fall under the scope of my topic ban. Capisce? Tiamut 12:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Come on, Tiamut. you should now better than that. It is (present tense) not I/P conflict article. Please kindly let her be.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Mbz1, but I'm not the only one who sees it as an I-P related article, even without Gilabrand's having made it so, by her edits there. User:Avraham seems to as well , as he listed it at both the Israel and Palestine wikiprojects to alert their project members to its being at AfD. Tiamut 22:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Tiamut, it does not work this way. It is one of the rare cases, when 1+1 is not equal 2. Palestine and Israel in separate lists do not add to I/P conflict.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Off-shoot possible breach?

Please note this ANI where Gilabrand has edited an article on Zimbabwe Israeli relations, removing information on Zimbabwe's take on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Please advise on the enforcement decision regarding this, will this require a new entry? SGGH 15:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has blocked for 48, see below. SGGH 17:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Mbz1

The word "Palestine" is never mentioned in the article in question
The article has absolutely nothing to do with I/P conflict

I suggest:

Speedy close this request
Block Supreme Deliciousness for harassing the user with this request--Mbz1 (talk) 12:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Factsontheground

Aside from the link Supremedelicious provided, Gilabrand also discussed a controversial I-P article (Sheikh Jarrah) on Nsaum's talk page: .

She also never responded to the original ANI about posting hate material into Israeli art student scam, which suggests she doesn't accept that she did anything wrong. Factsontheground (talk) 12:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

A talk page of a user cannot be considered a page that is related to I/P conflict article.

She was sanctioned for what she's done to your article. What other responses you need to hear.

Kindly leave her alone, better safe your time to come up with a new conspiracy theory.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I would love to leave her alone, but I find it difficult with her deleting my comments, posting on my talk page, posting on other people's talk pages about my edits, etc.

Also I-P topic bans also cover discussing I-P topics on talk pages. Factsontheground (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

@Factsontheground, Do you know that you started editing the section that states: "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators." I hope you do not consider yourself to be " uninvolved administrator". She has the right to post at your page, and talk to other editors about her concerns over your edits. It is not a part of her ban.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Nsaum75

Since an "incident" on my talk page is mentioned above, I feel the need to comment: This whole situation appears to be turning into some sort of witch hunt, with several users trying to find an angle that will "stick" in order to "punish" an editor they may have an issue with. Remember: "anything can be 'revealed' if you go over it enough with a fine-tooth-comb." --nsaum75 15:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Gilabrand

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

In the cited edit (), Gilabrand stated in the edit summary "this article has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (except in the mind of the person who created it)". For the sake of argument I am ignoring the inappropriate deletion of Factsontheground's comment and taking this as if she had replied to his comment with what she said in the edit summary. With that we have this exchange:

This user is topic banned from Israeli-Palestinian conflict topics. Factsontheground (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This article has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (except in the mind of the person who created it) - Gilabrand

Gilabrand here clearly mentioned the Israeli-Palestinian conflict solely for the purpose of defending herself against Factsontheground's implied allegation that she violated the topic ban. If Factsontheground had not accused her of a violation, she would likely not have mentioned the conflict. This is not meant to say that Factsontheground did anything wrong.

I think it is not in the best interest of Misplaced Pages to say that this violates the topic ban. It is clearly necessary for the accused to mention the topic in order to mount a defense against an alleged topic ban violation. The argument presented by Supreme Deliciousness appears to be that that necessary mention in itself constitutes discussion of the topic, which itself is a violation of the topic ban. Enforcement in this case would effectively deny an editor accused of violating a topic ban the ability to defend themselves against the accusation. I do not believe that is the intention of the discretionary sanction as specified by Arbcom. Making a reasonable statement rebutting an accusation does not fall under "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." Also, Gilabrand would have to mention the topic on this page in order to make a statement, thus violating the topic ban. Therefore, I recommend against a block/ban. Evil saltine (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: The above applies to this version of the enforcement request. Evil saltine (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merits of the original complaint, I have now blocked Gilabrand for this edit, which was brought up today in an ANI thread and clearly constitutes a breach of the ban. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That renders moot the discussion about the previous edits. Closing. Sandstein 18:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Wispanow

User requesting enforcement: Jayen466

User against whom enforcement is requested: Wispanow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Misplaced Pages:ARBSCI#Editing_environment_.28editors_cautioned.29 Misplaced Pages:ARBSCI#Editors_instructed (User has edit-warred, deleted sourced material, and made repeated accusations of anti-German "racism")

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

Wispanow reverts User:Cirt, edit summary: "Undid revision 347913307 by Cirt (talk) This article is based on racism. And Scientology-Believers can source every racism. Removing this improves." Uncivil. Deleting sourced material. Inserting unsourced material. Cirt's edit was marked a "vandalism revert".
Wispanow reverts User:Jayen466, edit summary: "Jayen466 is accused of writing an aggressive, highly biased text leading to a racist viewpoint. I therefore claimed to block him from any Scientology-text with relation to Germany. And stop reverting." As before.
Personal accusation of racism: "The whole article is racism. There is nearly nothing giving a neutral point of view. And User:Jayen466 is by far the main reason ... US and British citizens and even newspapers easily believe and publish any mendacious Germany-Harassment." Wispanow includes this "Barack Obama is an asshole" link in his post to make his point. Uncivil.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to

Warned by User:Moni3
Comments by User:Moni3 and User:John Carter.
Previously blocked for disruption at Scientology in Germany by User:Moni3, unblocked by User:Sandstein.

Enforcement action requested

Topic ban per Misplaced Pages:ARBSCI#Discretionary_topic_ban. No evidence of any desire to contribute constructively.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It recently underwent lengthy Peer Review in preparation for FA candidacy. Three reviewers commented.
Feedback at Peer Review was that the article is, if anything, slanted in Germany's favor. See Misplaced Pages:Peer_review/Scientology_in_Germany/archive1. I have not done any significant work on the article since the Peer Review.
Following Wispanow's reverts of two different editors, deleting sourced material, the article is now locked for two weeks. (Wispanow made two reverts, Cirt and I made one revert each. The first edit that Cirt reverted was made by a German IP.)

For reference, Wispanow has made similar and equally far-fetched accusations of anti-German racism in other contexts:

Claims that a reliable source, an article in the German Law Journal, should not be believed because it contains "a lot of unproven, aggressive, prejudicing and even racist statements" (emphasis in original). "The main thing i personally worry about is that such an unreal, unscientific, racist text could be believed by americans. Imho Jimbo had founded Misplaced Pages to aid in that." Note that the German Law Journal has been honored by the German Minister of Justice, Brigitte Zypries, for being an "ambassador of German law".
Claims the Human Rights Reports issued by the United States Department of State represent "racist truth".

Note: This thread has been moved here from ANI. --JN466 19:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User notified. --JN466 19:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Wispanow

Statement by Wispanow

Comments by others about the request concerning Wispanow

Comment by Sandstein

Could you please format this request in the standard format ({{Sanction enforcement request}})? Sandstein 19:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll add the relevant subheadings. --JN466 19:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, the remedy you cite, "Editing environment (editors cautioned)", appears to be a caution and as such not directly enforceable; it has no corresponding enforcement provision. Could you please cite an enforceable remedy that you think might apply here? Sandstein 19:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The remedy is cited under "action requested", i.e. Misplaced Pages:ARBSCI#Discretionary_topic_ban: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, ban any editor from editing within the Scientology topic". I know you unblocked him once before, but do you see any desire on his part to contribute meaningfully? And do you endorse his accusations of racism levelled at the US State Department, the German Law Journal, and me personally? I am German myself. --JN466 20:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added Misplaced Pages:ARBSCI#Editors_instructed. Point C applies. --JN466 20:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not amused, however, that you accuse me of endorsing racism of any sort and will not continue evaluating this request. Sandstein 20:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You haven't been accused of endorsing racism. Please refactor your uncivil accusation and exercise better judgment in future. Your behavior is unacceptable and quite nasty. Please cease these uncivil, antagonistic and belligerent statements and actions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Wispanow

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

Cs32en

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

Request concerning Cs32en

User requesting enforcement: –Turian (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Cs32en (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

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

"Cinnamon Stillwell is a neo-conservative political activist, not an independent observer, and the text is an opinion piece." More anti-conservative push (reverting for the sake of reverting a conservative).
"Her writing is not based on journalistic independence, but on a political agenda." More disagreements with conservative views. (Hell, I'm as liberal as they come and I see no issue with her.)
"This article is not the place to promote the agenda of neo-conservative activists"... clear intentions provided here. Beliefs do not constitute verifiability nor does it disparage them.
More defending of conspiracies.
"The reaction of "some" Palestinians and Serbians in not notable in the context of this article." Anything that differs from his opinion goes, apparently.
See above.
See above.
"Therefore, arguing that Ahmadinejad does not know anything about 9/11, and for this reason we don't include his statement in the article, misses the point." Eh, weak argument.

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

A previous enforcement case
Warning by Turian (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): A one week block alongside an indefinite topic ban on anything related to September 11th.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: He has been given multiple chances to adhere to the ruling of the arbitration case, yet has not followed through with the ruling or the ruling of the enforcement case. He is one of the problems in the constant push for NPOV fringe theories relating to 9/11. –Turian (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Cs32en

Statement by Cs32en

Comments by others about the request concerning Cs32en

Comment by Sandstein

Could the requesting editor please annotate the request so as to explain how, specifically, each of the diffs provided violates "the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process" (WP:ARB911#Discretionary sanctions)? Sandstein 20:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. –Turian (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Cs32en

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