Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Khirurg (talk | contribs) at 01:12, 31 August 2011 (→Comments by others about the request concerning Jingiby). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

• WP:AE
• WP:ARE

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important informationShortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Miradre

Vecrumba

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

Request concerning Vecrumba

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Russavia 13:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:EEML#Editors_restricted

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

1. 24 August 2011 Vecrumba's words are clearly commenting directly on myself as an editor, rather than focusing on content. His words all but accuse me of being antagonistic in Baltic topics (as opposed to often presenting a POV which others neglect to add at the beginning); his words also all but accuse me of being a troll (rather than a long-term editor in good standing); his words also all but accuse me of being petty; his words also assume bad faith on my part (although he states he AGF); his words also paint a negative appearance of myself, rather than focusing on content.

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

As per Misplaced Pages:EEML#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions Vecrumba has been blocked 3 times for breaching this interaction ban.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Vecrumba's breach of the topic ban is somewhat inflammatory, as it has nothing to do with content, but rather it is a direct personal attack on myself. The comments by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise at Vecrumba's last personal attack on myself are still current it appears (and he was blocked for 3 weeks for that attack).

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Response to Canens

In light of the fact that the article in question was started in 2008, and was seen by way of being a "see also" on Occupation of the Baltic States, there is no interaction breach by my nominating for AfD an article which in good faith I believe is not notable enough for inclusion on WP. Note in everything I have written about the article in question, I have not made a single comment about the editor, but have concentrated purely on content, as per advice given by an arbiter at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision#Potential_problem_with_restrictions -- at no stage was my nomination driven by who created it, but it is concentrated purely upon content. I have even stated on the record that any editor under an interaction ban with myself is welcome to comment on anything and everything, so long as they concentrate on content only, as per advice of Carcaroth.

Given that you are now suggesting a one-week block for myself due to my taking heed of advice given by an arb at an Arbcom case, I will be heading you off at the pass on this block by seeking clarification from the committee itself as to what is and isn't allowed under these interaction bans, and you are more than welcome to make known your opinion there. If it is the opinion of the committee that my nominating an article which doesn't comply with many WP policies for AfD that this is disruptive, then I will take issue with the committee directly due to the interaction bans not being intended to stop editors from editing articles in good faith (as per the committee members own words). --Russavia 17:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Response to both admins (Canens and Ed)

I would like you to note that the AfD has seen involvement from other editors who are banned from interacting with me (Vecrumba and Volunteer Marek), so going by your own words they should also be blocked for their involvement in the AfD, seeing as it was started by myself. However, I would not go to AE just for their involvement, so long as content is the only thing being discussed. I don't take the view of issues regarding content being a violation of the interaction ban but if they are, then Volunteer Marek would also be in a more obvious violation with his involvement. However, Vecrumba's involvement was not based on content; instead he chose from the outset to delve into personal attacks on myself, and that is the only reason I have come here. --Russavia 01:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Vecrumba

Statement by Vecrumba

My words have nothing to do with TFD or Russavia individually, but who are symptomatic in this case. If civility and good faith are ever going to reign on Misplaced Pages in the Baltic and Eastern European article space, we can't have editors who misrepresent sources making out Baltic individuals to be Nazis or editors who fulminate over propagandic foreign ministries being the first ones who line up to nominate content for deletion which refers to the Soviet Union occupying the Baltic states. In my view, that is outright WP:HARASSMENT of the editor(s) who created that content. It's not an article deletion nomination in good faith when we all know that it's going to provoke another fist-fight. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. My comments at the AfD can apply only to TFD (Lia Looveer supporting Nazis article content) without the involvement of Russavia. But as Russavia has seen fit to assault me here, I am now applying to both. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

@TFD, I regret my personal perception is that your support of the AfD is partisan as you would know very well given past conflicts that we would eventually end up in some sort of dispute resolution. Whatever the spat Russavia has with another editor is not my concern. To avoid such unfortunate perceptions on my part and I suspect that of others in the future, we would all do well not to piss on the content of editors we consider to be our editorial opposition. I don't piss on anyone's Russophile content as I get no satisfaction from stomping on the good efforts of other individuals—I applaud and support all those whose love of their culture and heritage brings them to contribute to Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately, it seems that not all share my sentiments. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

@Nanobear, I regret your venom over what you believe are personal attacks by myself against other editors. Russavia's historically anti-Baltic biased editorial position (I can provide diffs) and provocative timing of removing content which is not complimentary to Russia (recent activities) and seeming tit-for-tat leaps into AE requests (and, I ask you, when is the last time I originated one of these to pour gasoline on the fire?) present, to me, an activism which runs counter to our collegial cooperation. We should all consider going to bed early tonight and wake up on a less stressful side of the bed. That you've been completely inactive in the Soviet-Baltic Russian-Baltic sphere of topics but show up in short order to denounce me along the line of your past attacks on my character do not bode well for our moving on from past conflict. As for your diffs of me "attacking" you, I will simply start filing arbitration enforcement requests instead of simply complaining, as this seems to be a contest about who can eliminate who for how long having nothing to do with any postive aspect of Misplaced Pages. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Vecrumba

Vecrumba implies that Russavia initiated an AfD for partisan reasons. The comments are unhelpful and disruptive to the AfD. TFD (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Nanobear

Starting an AfD about an article falls into the article space, not interaction space. Neither Russavia nor Tammsalu are subjects of the AfD. It is no personalization in itself and not covered by an interaction ban. Please see Misplaced Pages:Interaction_ban#Interaction_ban. Nanobear (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

According to arbitrator Carcharoth, commenting on content is allowed: please see here. And that's exactly what Russavia did when he initiated the AfD. Nanobear (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This should probably be sent to ArbCom for a clear clarification (ha!), because I've seen two admins disagree here on what an IBAN should or shouldn't allow. The core issue is how much AGF should go into "I didn't know I was reverting/AfDing stuff added by someone with whom interaction is prohibited", and what should be done in the inevitable cases when it does happen: revert or allow content discussion between the ibanned parties? FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

So talking about content previously edited by Tammsalu is a violation of interaction ban? This seems to be a completely different opinion that what we currently have in our policy. The policy specifically allows content edits. Russavia was only discussing content - which is allowed - until Vecrumba launched an extremely offensive personal attack against him (not the first time Vecrumba has made such attacks). The only correct thing to do is to then report the attacker on this noticeboard, which is what Russavia did. It seems that you wish to ban Russavia for doing everything correctly. This seems to be completely at odds with current policy. Nanobear (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

History of Vecrumba's incivility and personal attacks against editors

After Vecrumba's last personal attack on Russavia (for which he was blocked for 3 weeks), and because Vecrumba is now continuing such attacks, it seems clear that a longer block is now in order for him. This is especially the case since Vecrumba's defence of his attack (see his section above) is an attempt to deflect from the fact that the personal attacks were clearly directed against Russavia.

If the personal attack really wasn't directed against Russavia, but against TFD (which seems unlikely), like Vecrumba claims, then this only demonstrates that Vecrumba has a major problem staying civil in the EE topic area. It looks like Vecrumba deems it necessary to attack all editors instead of commenting on content only, as Russavia notes above. In this case, discretionary sanctions of WP:DIGWUREN apply, and given Vecrumba's battlefield mentality a complete block from the EE area seems now warranted.

I too have been the target of Vecrumba's attacks on many occasions. Two recent examples are: . In Vecrumba launches an attack against a respected admin (Future Perfect at Sunrise), because the admin dared to block an EEML member. Nanobear (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Tammsalu

On the general issue of what constitutes a personal attack, a review of WP:NPA#WHATIS may be helpful, particularly the fourth bullet point "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". On an abstract level, if a party subject to such an accusation is also under an interaction ban or banned in the past, then such evidence must demonstrably exist. For example if someone said to me something like "I regret you have chosen to revert to your former belligerent conduct." given my block log I really can't claim it was a personal attack, can I. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Vecrumba

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

• I'm of the view that Russavia's initiation of that AfD violated their interaction ban with Tammsalu - see my comment here - and Vecrumba's comment violated their interaction ban with Russavia - which is plain. Proposing 1 week blocks for both. T. Canens (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant sidenote: Every time I see myself being referred to as Canens I chuckle a little. It's the present active participle of the Latin verb cano, -ere, meaning "singing". No, it's not a surname. T. Canens (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with T. Canens that one-week blocks of both Russavia and Vecrumba are justified for violating the respective interaction bans: Russavia's with Tammsalu, and Vecrumba's interaction ban with Russavia. The feud between the EEML people and Russavia is not over, and the only restriction still in place which can limit the effects of this feud is the set of interaction bans. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• I've been discussing the future of these interaction bans with some users. If I can find support for doing something different I'll propose it back here. Please consider keeping the thread open for a couple more days. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Someone35

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Someone35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Someone35 (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Banned from editing for 72 hours

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&action=historysubmit&diff=446424381&oldid=446415984

Administrator imposing the sanction

EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

• I have seen this appeal, so I don't have to be notified. EdJohnston (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Someone35

2 different people reverted my edits without finish the discussion topic I started inTalk:Qula (it's 3 people now, OhioStandard also reverted it after I was blocked). I asked them not to turn it into an edit war and reply to the topic in Talk:Qula but they refused. In the arbitration request I couldn't say what was my side since I was blocked before I could respond there (the request was written about at 23:00 gmt +2 and I had to go to sleep, I asked the administrator to wait but he didn't wait).

You appear to have called Nableezy an anti-Semite in a Hebrew remark you added at the bottom of this talk page. (See Nableezy's objection here). Your statement is considered to be a personal attack. I suggest that you remove your comment. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

that's what i did, although there's a reason i written this in hebrew, it was not intended for him but for hebrew speakers. if he chooses to stalk me then it's his problem. can you please add this explanation for me in the block appeal request? for some reason i don't have the right to comment there-- Someone35 (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

At least you have the courage to tell the truth. -asad (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't speak Hebrew but I knew the meaning of what Someone35 wrote within 60 seconds of seeing it. Frankly I think Someone35's block should be extended. He/she simply doesn't seem to get it. Zero 00:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course he does not get it. The guy has only received demands to self-revert and templates. Maybe the admins sanctioning here should go read ARBPIA: "...Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. Where else is more appropriate to a relatively new editor new to the topic area? A template is not sufficient. Furthermore, we should understand why the guy is upset. He feels that he is getting mobbed by a bunch of edit warring POV pushers. I am not going to comment on if I agree or not. He then got a block that was 2-2.5 days longer than needed to stop the disruption. A 12hr block under the conditions of the 1/rr amendment (no help words of advice or warnings required) would have done the trick. So how about an admin actually goes and starts a discussion with the guy instead of promoting an atmosphere that a new editor can easily assume is wikilawyering?Cptnono (talk) 02:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I have tried for you guys. There are a couple admins who would have worded it much better. Obviously they are not around. Cptnono (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If you can get him to behave properly, good for you. Meanwhile, the fact remains that he explicitly refused to obey policy after it was pointed out to him, and then he went on to libel another editor. Neither action is excused by inexperience. Zero 10:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. But the banhammer laid down by T.C is, IMO, rather draconian considering the nature of his violations. I have never seen such a punishment before - an indefinite ban that can only be petitioned once every three months? COMPETENCE is not a policy or guideline. Wikifan 22:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't have happened if he acknowledged fault and undertook to behave better. But to this date he has only claimed to have done nothing wrong and that the rules are stupid. IMO that left TC with no option and I agree with his rationale. Zero 23:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand that. But I don't understand the petition process. Is there a precedent for this? I get the time-out process but this seems overtly humiliating, especially for such a young editor and first time offender. Wikifan 23:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

The original block which is being appealed was imposed per WP:AE#Someone35. That thread is still visible above. The other page you might want to look at when reviewing this is User talk:Someone35. This editor seems to have made a plain 1RR violation on an I/P article. Generally these can be closed quickly with no action if the user agrees to self-revert. In this case, the user refused to self-revert as shown by the diffs supplied in the report. It is generally not persuasive to blame others if you find yourself committing a 1RR. The nature of a 1RR is that it's easy to recognize a violation, and a long discussion at AE should not be needed. Those who disagree with the block argue that Someone35 is a newcomer and ought to be counselled. I did not find this argument convincing. One appropriate final warning ought to be sufficient. EdJohnston (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

At the bottom of his talk page, Someone35 has added a new section in which he asks Nableezy, 'Who pays you and where do you live?' EdJohnston (talk) 01:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy

In the last section on Someone35's talk page, there is a conversation between Chesdovi and the user about another article, Palestinian rabbis. Included in that exchange is the following Hebrew from the user: Template:Rtl-lang. The translation of that last question is "who calls it that except for anti-Semites like Nableezy?" I dont appreciate such an outrageous charge being leveled against me, in any language, and as such I request that the block not be rescinded but instead extended. nableezy - 16:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Malik Shabazz

"I'll call other editors antisemites in languages I don't think they can read, and in places I don't expect them to read." That's certainly a novel interpretation of WP:NPA. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 20:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

@Wikifan: This sort of open-ended topic ban, which may be appealed every few months, has been meted out in disputes related to Eastern and Central Europe. The admins who have been adjudicating ARBPIA enforcement have been warning for months that it was coming to this area too. Someone35 just happens to be the first editor (as far as I know) to get these sanctions in the Israel–Palestine topic area. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 23:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh I didn't know that. I've just never seen this before. Maybe someone could mentor Someone? I hope this community ban doesn't deter young editors from contributing. Wikifan 00:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Someone35

Ed, as this is the editor's first block, would it be within your own discretion to lessen the block to a lesser time---3 days does seem a bit too long for a first offence---perhaps make it 24 hours, albeit with a warning that future infractions will lead to longer blocks as per admin discretion. --Russavia 14:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

In light of Nableezy's information, perhaps Canens is correct, a topic ban is quite possibly in order here. --Russavia 16:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A topic ban for a personal attack (first offense again)?

I think editors need to take a step back, let Someone finish out his 72 hour block and request he strike out his statements about Nableezy. This AE would be Nableezy's 3rd for the month of August. AE should be used as a last resort, and IMO the charges are not damning enough to go here. Wikifan 00:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

He deleted that sentence, but immediately added this and , which don't look much more friendly. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. But users have more rights over their talk pages than on Misplaced Pages articles. Not sure on the validity of the userbox but edits like these shouldn't lead to topic bans. If Someone starts hounding Nableezy then I could understand. But Nableezy is a a veteran at AE and knows policy so I can understand how a young immature editor might feel victimized. Plenty of more appropriate noticeboards to handle these sorts of behavioral issues. Wikifan 04:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The user was brought to AE because he violated the 1RR and refused to self-revert. He was subsequently blocked. Whether or not you consider that "damning enough" for a block really does not concern me, it very clearly merits a block. Calling another user an anti-Semite is a straightforward personal attack. There are a large number of users I would like to call racists (or much harsher things), but I dont, because we have a policy that forbids such actions. AE is for enforcing arbitration decisions. The Arab-Israeli conflict area is subject to discretionary sanctions as a result of an arbitration decision. This is exactly the place where this belongs. nableezy - 06:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

He violated 1rr and was hit with IMO a heavy block (72 hours?) especially long for a first offense, and yes in spite of warnings. As far as civility goes, independent of arbitration rules. This is a trivial matter Nableezy, suggestions of a topic ban of any length are totally out of proportion to what Someone has said. Wikifan 07:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This isnt an issue of civility. The user was complaining that another user used the words "Palestinian Talmud" in reference to Jerusalem Talmud, a topic that I have both no knowledge of and no interest in. But to underline his or her point, this user thinks it is somehow acceptable to say that only "anti-Semites like Nableezy" refer to it as the "Palestinian Talmud", forgetting that the person who actually referred to it as the Palestinian Talmud is a Jewish Zionist who, while not the most diametrically opposed user to me in terms of political views, has never, as far as I can tell, been accused of antisemitism by anybody. This isnt an issue of civility, this child thinks it is acceptable to write on the internet that a person is an anti-Semite without any evidence at all, in fact, with what appears to be the exact opposite of evidence. You think thats cool? You want to ask me "u mad bro?" But the user did remove the comment, I cant say that there is presently an issue. A fourteen year old child said something stupid, it has been removed, end of story as far as I am concerned. Should this child be allowed to continue editing such topics? Not my decision, and not really sure if that is a question to decide here. nableezy - 08:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There is an issue of civility here in the overall scheme of things. Any editor who attacks another editor using either nationality, race, religion, etc as the underlying basis of the attack should be shown the door immediately. if this editor is only 14 years old perhaps also contact their guardian as well, so that they can have their arse smacked and sent to their room with no dinner lol. --Russavia 09:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me Nableezy, is it my problem that you choose to Google translate things I was telling Chesdovi? Do you really think there was no reason I wrote that in HEBREW? If you choose to read what you're not supposed to read (like other people's talk pages in other languages...) you have no right to complain about what you find there. If I wanted to personally offend you then I would just write you in English/Arabic on YOUR talk page and call you an anti semite-- Someone35 (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you get it. Personal attacks are not allowed in any language, and they are considered to be personal attacks even if you are not intending for the one you are attacking to read it. I didn't make the policies for WP, but I chose to abide by them to the best of my ability. If you don't want to abide by them, you are free to edit else where (like your website). -asad (talk) 07:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't a personal attack. Again, if I wanted to insult him then I could just tell him that on his talk page-- Someone35 (talk) 08:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"Personal attacks are not allowed in any language, and they are considered to be personal attacks even if you are not intending for the one you are attacking to read it." -asad (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Someone35

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

• I find no merit in this appeal. The violation is plain and the sanction is well within admin discretion. If the translation posted by Nableezy is correct, moreover, I think a topic ban is in order. T. Canens (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• Concur with T. Canens on the first count; neutral on the second. I should mention that Google translate confirms the translation (although of course with some grammar differences.) KillerChihuahuaAdvice 01:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Closing this. The block has expired, so the matter is now moot, but in any event the appeal clearly did not succeed. Further, I find that Someone35 has demonstrated a clear inability to comply with the fundamental behavioral guidelines of Misplaced Pages. As the Arbitration Committee recently explained:

Misplaced Pages is a serious educational and scholarly project founded on the principles of collaboration and consensus. All participants are expected to conduct themselves according to the standards of collegiality and professionalism appropriate to such a setting.

The standards of collegiality expected of all contributors to Wikimedia projects are set forth in the Wikimedia Foundation Resolution on Openness, which urges editors to "promote openness and collaboration", "treat new editors with patience, kindness, and respect", "work with colleagues to reduce contention and promote a friendlier, more collaborative culture", and "work with colleagues to discourage disruptive and hostile behavior".

The Misplaced Pages community has outlined similar standards in the "fourth pillar" of community policy, which asks that editors "interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner", "be polite to fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree", and "be open and welcoming".

Misplaced Pages's core behavioral policies outline certain minimal standards for acceptable user conduct by explicitly prohibiting a number of disruptive activities, such as personal attacks and edit-warring. The expectation of collegiality among participants goes beyond compliance with these minimal standards. The fact that a particular activity or attitude is not explicitly prohibited does not make it appropriate in a collaborative environment or conducive to maintaining a welcoming atmosphere.

I find it particularly disturbing that, despite multiple editors and administrators pointing out to them that calling a fellow editor an anti-Semite is an unacceptable personal attack, and despite the knowledge that a topic ban is being considered for this conduct, Someone35 continues to insist that it was not a personal attack, and indeed that it was the attacked editor's fault for noticing it in the first place.

Not so. As WP:NPA points out, "insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done". That the attack was written in a language other than English is irrelevant.

Reviewing the behavior of Someone35 in this thread and elsewhere leaves me convinced that they will not be a constructive presence in this topic area, which is already rife with interpersonal conflicts. To the extent that Someone35's conduct is due to simple inexperience rather than knowing violations of the standards of behavior, I am of the view that competence is required for editing in this topic area. As the Committee noted in the discretionary sanctions provision for this topic area:

Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Misplaced Pages's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions. (emphasis added)

My conclusion is that until Someone35 can demonstrate that they are willing and able to "conduct themselves according to the standards of collegiality and professionalism" expected of editors, they should not be allowed to edit in this topic area or its closely related topics. Accordingly, under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, Someone35 (talk · contribs) is banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Middle East, broadly construed across all namespaces, for a period of no less than 3 months. After 3 months, and every 3 months thereafter, they may apply to have the ban reviewed at WP:AE. Further, Someone35 may make one appeal to AE at any time within the next 3 months challenging this decision. They may also appeal to the Arbitration Committee at any time. The ban will stay in place until it is lifted on appeal at AE or by the Arbitration Committee. T. Canens (talk) 09:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi

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

Request concerning Chesdovi

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

asad (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:Topic_ban#Enforcement

Chesdovi has started a talk page section at Joseph's Tomb reopening the controversial matter of of the Tomb's name in Arabic

1. Recent history of Joseph's Tomb's talk page

Chesdovi received a one-year topic ban for articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict under WP:ARBPIA

1. Topic Banned on 29 June 2011 by Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

For people not familiar with the subject, I will try to lay it down as clearly and neutrally as possible- Joseph's Tomb is venerated by Israelis as being the burial site of the prophet Joseph and by Palestinians as being the tomb of a local Muslim cleric. Chesdovi proposing to insert the term of "en-Nabi" (which is the Arabic word for prophet) would be pushing the POV of Israelis who believe it is the site of their prophet and suppressing the Palestinian POV that it is a burial site of a local Muslim cleric. Chesdovi is familiar with the conflict as is noted by this topic he opened on my talk page a while back. He is also well aware of the BBC source that asserts the Muslim belief it is the burial site of a local cleric.

Regardless of who is right or wrong in the matter, it is clear that there is enough conflict on the matter (see an earlier topic on the article's talk page) that it would fall under Chesdovi's topic ban of being restricted to articles "broadly construed" as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

I also requested that Chesdovi strikethrough his comments on the talk page, but he declined. I went on to further elaborate on why I feel it is a topic ban violation and he felt he was not in violation of his topic ban and therefore was not obliged to strikethrough his comments.

On a sub-note, Chesdovi was also clearly informed on the scope of his topic ban here. -asad (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course Chesdovi thinks he hasn't violated any sort of topic ban when it seems the only sources he thinks exists on the matter play to his POV regarding the Arabic naming. It would be hard to see a conflict of the nature of this one with that kind of tunnel vision. The fact of the matter remains (which is backed up by numerous sources) - Israelis believe that it is the tomb of the their prophet, Palestinians believe it is the tomb of a local Muslim cleric -- Chesdovi would therefore be pushing the Israeli POV into the Arabic name, which is obviously suppose to represent the Palestinian POV. I can in no way determine what the intentions of Chesdovi are, but all I know is that there is a I-P conflict and Chesdovi's proposals play to one side of it. -asad (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Upon further thought to the matter, I would like to withdrawal my complaint. I am from the same school of understanding as Chesdovi, that the content is not related to the conflict so it would not fall under the scope of his topic ban. My original thoughts as to filing the complaint was that Chesdovi was trying to insert an Israeli POV into the Arabic translation of the article's name. But seeing Chesdovi's dedication to the subject, and by his recent comments here and on the article's talk page, I see that my original understanding was ill-founded and that he was not intending to net this into the conflict, rather try to explain what he thinks is the proper work (how ever much I bitterly disagree with it. I know the subject may have now become whether or not topic-banned editors are allowed to be involved with any article that even barely relates to the conflict, but, again my original thoughts on the matter was that Chesdovi was trying to bring an Israeli POV into the matter, not that he was just simply commenting on an article that is related to the conflict in some way shape or form. -asad (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Chesdovi

Statement by Chesdovi

I did not edit on the conflict. Asad is shrewdly making the leap, linking an innocent attempt to provide the original authentic name, to the conflict area. Please note that it was myself who brought Joseph’s Tomb up to GA status and I know which parts of that article are related to the conflict. Discussing the Arabic name for the tomb does not violate my ban. My banning Admin has made it clear that I am within my rights to make such edits. It is so wrong of Asad to accuse me of stoking passions on the A/I conflict by trying to whitewash the claims by some that it is the tomb of the sheikh! This point is clearly mentioned in the lead. Further I added a whole section about the confusion over competing shrine. Further, the en-Nabi name is already used and sourced in the article itself: ”By the mid 19th-century, Muslims had recognised the site as housing the tomb of the biblical Joseph and called it "Qabr en-Nabi Yūsuf"”. This term produced over 250,000 search results! Asad says he will "try to lay it down as clearly and neutrally." From what I can see, he has not clarified my position on the matter at all. He in fact is only asserting erroneously that I am intent on inserting an Israeli POV which is not my position at all. Yet he fails to mention this. I can back this up by the fact that I have not tried to remove the word “Ḥā'iṭ Al-Burāq” from Wailing Wall, which translates into Arabic as el-Mabka. Asad has made it clear that he has an issue with this (Note User:Nableezy did not as he himself changed the Arabic ). Note further that User:Nableezy is also of the opinion that such a discussion does not violate my ban: , but retracted after Asad made know his supposed link. In light of this I have made crystal clear I am willing to work together to sort this out. But of course he is having none of this. Also note that in the AE report he mentioned above, Asad used a false date in his attempt to get me banned. When mentioning this issue he falsely claim the relevant edit took place on 28/6/2011, when it in fact took place 2 months before that. Further, the banning Admin stated that "I will not evaluate the third diff as I'm unfamiliar with Arabic." So there we have it: Asad alone has concocted this Arabic naming edit to be associated with the conflict and therefore the ban. I have not violated my ban. Chesdovi (talk) 10:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Debresser's post is littered with untruths and I am not going to revist that dispute here. Chesdovi (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I have made it so clear I cannot understand why Asad continues to think I do not accept that some Palestinians think a sheikh is buried there. Asad is trying to frame my edit as relating to the conflict. He can repeat as many times as he likes his views on the matter, it will make no difference. I have already explained that his take on the full Arabic name is his alone and I am willing to reach a compromise about how to present both names. Why he continues to assert otherwise escapes me. This article contains numerous sources affirming that some Moslems believe the biblical prophet lies buried there. There is therefore no reason whatsoever to reject the Arabic name for this. It is as simple as that. Chesdovi (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Cptnono: If Cptnono’s view has any merits in the eyes of others, this issue needs to be clarified. So many articles can be linked to the conflict, what would the limit be? Are all Holocaust articles banned because some are of the view it lead to the creation of Israel? Are article on medieval Jews such as Nathan of Gaza also out, as edits there could bolster the Israeli claim to Gaza? What about 9/11 – Israel is mentioned in the lead? Do mere naming conventions, such as at Joseph’s Tomb, also contravene such a ban as it can be seen as a political ploy? The wording of the ban does not say "banned from articles which "include" the topic area", but rather says "banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict," i.e. the actual articles themselves have to be related to the conflict, e.g. Hebron massacre and Deir Yassin massacre which only exist because of the conflict. Joseph's tomb was around long before the A/I conflict, as was Jerusalem, Hebron, etc. That these articles now include content related to the conflict, that is covered when the ban states: "and other "content related" to the Arab-Israeli conflict", so I stand with User:T. Canens who stated that if "your edits do not relate to the conflict in any way" then articles such as those that deal with Israel/Arab but not related directly to the Arab-Israeli conflict, such as cities, elections, internal affairs, can be edited under the ban. The issue here was that my edit was seen to be under "content related" in a permissable article, while I, and others, did not accept that connection, even though I was aware that Asad did. I will not however be held to account when the concern is that of a sole sensitive editor I feel is making a leap to connect edits to the conflict when it does not necesarrily relate to it. Chesdovi (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• EdJohnston: If the ARBPIA template his to have any value in regard to topic bans (which it does not currently mention on the template), it has to be administered in an authoritative fashion, not just randomly, by whim. Non-Admin’s, such as SD, have added the template to many pages she thought were related. They may be, but who is she to decide? What may be obvious to some, may not be so to others. Chesdovi (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Debresser continues unabated with his edit-warring, now the subject of DRN. He has removed a sourced classification that Isaac ben Samuel of Acre was Palestinian, claiming that it is POV and non-consensus, when in fact the term is a widely used in RS from all political camps and has gained consensus at Afd! Chesdovi (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Chesdovi

Comment by Debresser (talk · contribs)

Chesdovi has recently created categories like Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis and several other "Palestinian" categories. When these categories were challenged by two authors, I one of them, on his talkpage, he continued adding them to articles rather than first gain consensus for their use. When opposition became fierce, he opened an Rfc on that category's talkpage, which showed that many editors oppose his categories, for various reasons. The main reason mentioned by many is the ambiguity of the word "Palestinian", which in our days first and foremost refers to the Palestinian nationality or ethnicity. Which is also how all of this connects to WP:ARBPIA. In the end the category was deleted at Cfd, with a closing commentary that said "I could not find one editor that took up the position that User:Chesdovi embraces". He then took it unsuccessfully to Drv. Then he created the article Palestinian rabbis, which has survived the Afd I opened, even though the closing commentary left room for discussion about a more proper name. He has tried upon several occasions to add the epithet "Palestinian rabbi" to many articles about rabbis, being reverted mainly by me, and sometimes by other editors. He has also been posting many times on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Judaism with proposals related to pushing the term "Palestinian". All of this interspersed with WP:ANI posts, and recurring incivility (for just a few instances see User_talk:Chesdovi#Nerve). Although I initially was of the opinion that these edits were not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict perse, Chesdovi's patter of massive amounts of edits throughout all namespaces including the word "Palestinian" has changed my opinion in this regard. I am now convinced that Chesdovi has a personal agenda, which drives him to disregard consensus and push the word "Palestinian" with all possible means. Debresser (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding the proposed results, as stated by EdJohnston and T. Canens. If the months long patter of tens and hundreds of edits through all namespaces and all possible discussion venues I mentioned above is not an indication of "closely related" POV pushing, then I wonder what would constitute such behavior. Debresser (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Just now Cheswdovi created an article, and called it Tachlifa the Palestinian, although the article gave no indication why that should be his name. How can ArbCom deny the obvious POV pushing inherent in such actions. And if ArbCom doesn't agree with me that this fall within the scope of WP:ARBPIA, where should I take all of this? Debresser (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Hasteur (talk · contribs)

A posting on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard was filed by Chesdovi and was closed because it appeared to violate the terms of the Arbitration Remedy. We have left the possibility of opening a discussion on this once the issue of their ARBPIA sanctions is resolved. Hasteur (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Cptnono

In regards ot the admin's comment: A precedent being set for being allowed to make edits as long as they are not controversial is ridiculous. I appreciate that the editor was not trying to be political but he knew politics were involved and it is even in the diffs of that history. An ongoing problem in the topic area is that editors will edit something related to Israel or Palestine but not make it overtly controversial while still making one side look better the the other. I would like to argue that Chesdovi should get a pass on this since he has worked hard on the article and it was for the better good. However, that is not always the case for similar incidents and the remedies in the topic area have been circumvented at every possible opportunity by others. Topic banned is topic banned and if there is any chance that politics could take part (which it did) then it highlights why the remedies were initiated. Of course, there is no precedents anywhere in the topic area when it comes to enforcing restrictions so let this one slide like everything else. And the edits were not meant to be problematic even if drama was caused (no edit means no drama) so that makes it an easy out to again not enforce anything. Cptnono (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Chesdovi

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

• There is now a school of thought that people under an I/P topic ban like Chesdovi are allowed to edit articles with the ARBPIA template on them so long as they don't modify anything related to the conflict. User:T. Canens who issued the topic ban thinks this is OK. The present dispute over the wording of Joseph's name is not directly related to the I/P conflict, so I would not want to apply a sanction. Since the submitter Asad112 is OK with closing this, I suggest we do so. Note that articles carrying the ARBPIA template are still under a 1RR restriction for all editors, regardless of whether topic bans cover them. The Palestinian rabbis mentioned by Debresser do not seem to have anything to do with this AE request. Whether the rabbis of 400 years ago should be referred to as Palestinian is not covered by ARBPIA restrictions. On the original issue about Joseph's name, a WP:Request for comment might be opened to gather opinions. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• I concur with Ed, with a caveat: if the exportation of disputes from Arab-Israeli conflict becomes a substantial problem, then it may be appropriate to invoke the provision of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions that authorizes "bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics" and do full Middle East topic bans instead of the more limited ones we are handing out now. T. Canens (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Jonchapple

Question regarding the TM case

In the TM case we passed a number of previsions including one pertaining to WP:COI It states that editor which "have only an indirect relationship" may continue to edit. What about editors who are members of the public relations department of the Transcendental Meditation movement? Are they too allowed to continue editing or should their editing ability be restricted? Would stipulate the specifics off Wiki due concerns of releasing peoples identify if this is indeed a concern. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This is better addressed to the Committee directly via WP:A/R/CL. T. Canens (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks will bring it their.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Quote per TM arbitration for reference:(olive (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC))

...Editors who have or may be perceived as having a conflict of interest should review and comply with the applicable policies. These does not prohibit editors from working on articles about entities to which they have only an indirect relationship, but urges editors to be mindful of editing pitfalls that may result from such a relationship. For example, an editor who is a member of a particular organisation or holds a particular set of religious or other beliefs is not prohibited from editing articles about that organisation or those beliefs but should take care that his or her editing on that topic adheres to the neutrality policy and other key policies.

Vecrumba 2

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

Request concerning Vecrumba 2

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nanobear (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:EEML#Editors_restricted

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

1. 28 August 2011

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

1. Vecrumba has been blocked many times for violating this ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

1. Vecrumba has done a wholesale revert of Russavia on an article which subject is directly within Russavia's editing interests. Vecrumba states that it is a good faith revert, yet he also reverts the bypassing of a redirect by Russavia, demonstrating that it is not a selective revert, but an outright revert. Vecrumba is obviously attempting harrass Russavia, and is breaching his interaction ban in a very provocative manner. Given the other issue of Vecrumba's personal attacks on Russavia (see above thread), a topic ban at the very least seems to be warranted for Vecrumba.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Vecrumba 2

Statement by Vecrumba

This filing is nothing but a personal attack by Nanobear, who has been absent from the topic area or proceedings other than to attack me or to make out my complaints about his attacks as being attacks originated by myself. If you want to stop the madness, ban everyone who has participated in any of these from ever filing arbitration enforcement requests against each other. What, I undo a POV delete of content, and that is editorial interaction which is banned, yet the same editor can attack me at will at arbitration enforcement? Am I the only one who sees how ludicrous this is? Don't make me out to be the villain when I undo the deletion of reputable content by an editor inimical to the Baltics—a deletion which was accompanied a edit justification which was a personal characterization of a reputable source as unsubstantiated allegations. As requested, I undid my revert of that deletion, although that does set the precedent that in any set of editors who are banned from interacting, whoever gets there first automatically gets to have their content win with no recourse for the other editor(s). Given that Baltic topics are down to two or three editors who haven't been run off, this filing by Nanobear to get me blocked is, effectively, a cynical and overt bid for topic control. And as long as Nanobear and Russavia engage in provocative behavior gaming the system to eliminate editors, the atmosphere will remain poisoned. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Vecrumba 2

Comment by Volunteer Marek

So much for the idea that AE reconciles warring parties or actually manages to solve problems. As this retaliatory AE request clearly demonstrates, AE makes battlegrounds WORSE, by providing dedicated warriors a venue to pursue their grudges. And yes, you AE admins are to blame for this - discussing some esoteric nuances of what an interaction ban is or arguing over whether a series of reverts/AfD nominations/drive-by-tagging by a user under an interaction ban actually constitutes a violation of an interaction ban or are content edits not included (seriously? The whole freakin' point of these bans is to get users separated from content they perennial fight over! How hard is it to see that?) is exactly the kind of thing that pours gasoline on these fires (where the hell is Sandstein? I miss him - he got things wrong sometimes but at least he didn't make things worse).

Enjoy:

You want to end this, it's simple:

1. Topic-ban Martin and Vecrumba from editing anything related to Aviation or Embassies (which is mostly where Russavia edits) as well as the Russian space program (which is where Nanobear edits)
2. Topic-ban Russavia and Nanobear from editing anything related to Estonia, Latvia, Poland or Ukraine (for good measure throw in Hungary and Romania, where there's been trouble in the past). For the most part the aviation/embassy/space program articles for these countries have already been written, can be written by someone else or don't need to be written. This way both of them can do the good they do on Misplaced Pages - contribute content - without the bad they do - keep fucking with Estonian/Baltic/Polish/Ukrainian editors for no reason except some kind of way old grudge.
3. Prohibit all of these parties from filing any AE/AN-I/similar drama board requests against each other (hell, throw me in there too) or from commenting on AE/AN-I/similar drama board requests related to each other.

If you're feeling nice then include some kind of provision to the effect that any of the above can be appealed after three years or so (note that this latest round is a rehash of two year old edit wars! Apparently people here have a long memory in this topic area. That needs to be taken into consideration). And if you're feeling wary of potential gaming then make scary faces and wag your fingers and say in a deep baritone that any potential gaming of these sanctions will be severely punished (I'm being a bit facetious, but I'm serious at the same time - this whole thing started because of gaming of interaction bans).

Otherwise prepare to loose more good contributors, deal with a whole bunch of nonsense and look forward to playing a role in escalating the conflict further. But hey, at least then that will give WP:AE a justification for its existence.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Vecrumba 2

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

• At my request Vecrumba has undone his edit at Latvia–Russia_relations. The overall problem of how to keep Russavia and the EEML editors out of each others' hair is still being considered above, in a previous report which is still open. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Someone35 (2)

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Someone35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Someone35 (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Topic banned for 3 months

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_Someone35

Administrator imposing the sanction

T. Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

here

Statement by Someone35

I got banned less than half a day after my first ban ended. I haven't edited anything that is not a talk page or my userpage since then. The admin who banned me said I'm banned for breaking these rules, but they explicitly state that " impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages". And I wasn't warned (which is also required, "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision". I wasn't given any warning before he banned me.) and I didn't edit any page since before my first ban. This ban is really unnecessary. If you think that my interactions with Nableezy are problematic then give me an interaction ban with him and not a 3 months long topic ban. I removed the sentence that I was banned for in the moment I saw that other users complained about it (and the userboxes on my talk page). I have only made about 3 edits that count as "disruptive" (2 at Qula and one at Palestinian rabbis), all in the same day and I already got banned for it and won't do this kind of edits again.-- Someone35 (talk) 05:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000 (somewhat involved)

As far as I know, Someone35 is yet to acknowledge that he did anything wrong at all. On the contrary, he thinks the 1RR rule is "stupid". Is that attitude conducive to a reprieve? Where can we see a clear statement that he respects the rules and undertakes to abide by them? Zero 11:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I meant that this rule is easy to bypass not that it's stupid that people can't revert other people's edits for an infinite amount of time. Also according to this I was supposed to get a warning before the ban, and I didn't. If T. Canens gave me a warning that I'll get another ban I would have stopped immediately doing whatever I did.-- Someone35 (talk) 12:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Demiurge1000 (uninvolved)

I'm going to use this section to note the deep and presumably unintentional irony of what Russavia said in the now-closed Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Someone35 (i.e. his first appeal, above). "Any editor who attacks another editor using either nationality, race, religion, etc as the underlying basis of the attack should be shown the door immediately." Does etc include age? If so, it seems odd to follow that sentence immediately with a disrespectful comment based on Someone35's age. (I'll assume that the threat to contact someone in a position of authority over Someone35 was made entirely in jest; people have received lengthy bans from Misplaced Pages, never mind the topic area, for that sort of thing.)

I think Someone35 should immediately retract any suggestion (anywhere) that Nableezy or others are "stalking" him, and apologise for the "anti-Semite" remark (I note he removed it some time ago anyway, but I think he needs to accept that his reasons for thinking it was justifiable were incorrect). Then I think some consideration should be given to shortening or otherwise ameliorating this topic ban. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Just a note that Someone35 won't be able to act promptly on the first half of my suggestions as, according to his talkpage, he's offline until sometime on 30th August. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm back, I was away for only 1.5 days and there were no traffic jams so I came back fast. I already removed the userboxes on my talk page and the problematic sentence in Hebrew about Nableezy and the Jerusalem Talmud. According to ], I was supposed to get a warning before being banned (like Nableezy told me to revert my edits at Qula before the first time I was banned), and I didn't. If T. Canens would have given a warning to me then I would have stopped immediately whatever wrong I did-- Someone35 (talk) 12:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Russavia (totally uninvolved)

The editor chose to engage in personal attacks against another editor, and then when caught out they say that the editor has no right to complain because it was written in Hebrew. This, in my opinion, is more egregious, as he has not only chosen to engage in personal attacks (which is already enough to be shown the door), but has done so in another language in an attempt to avoid being caught, and then when challenged on it he doesn't see any problem with it. And he only got a topic ban? I'd say he got off light, as if I were the subject of a personal attack, I'd be pushing for a complete block for at least that period of time, given that the editor in question sees nothing wrong with making personal attacks on other editors. --Russavia 20:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC}

If I wanted to curse him or something like that I would have written it on his talk page in English. I removed that sentence in the moment I saw he complained about it (in order to prevent situations like this). If you think there's a problem with my interactions with Nableezy then why didn't I get an interaction ban instead? I should have got a warning before being banned, and I didn't. Why? I haven't done anything offensive and didn't edit any pages that are not talk pages or my userpage in the past week, then why did I get a ban without a warning?-- Someone35 (talk) 05:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Wikifan12345 (involved in topic area)

@Russ-Civility is totally independent of the area in conflict. A topic ban would not be the appropriate punishment for personal attacks - a comprehensive block (typically 24 hours first offense) would be fair. The problem I have is this kid has zero record, no prior blocks, and no accusations since he started an account however many months ago. I don't understand how a 72 hour block can mutate into a 3-month topic ban pending appeal (not even a timed ban). Nableezy himself said the conflict was ended after Someone removed his statement:

I cant say that there is presently an issue. A fourteen year old child said something stupid, it has been removed, end of story as far as I am concerned. Should this child be allowed to continue editing such topics? Not my decision, and not really sure if that is a question to decide here.

Someone removed the comment when he was able to (blocked for 72 hours) and that seemed to settle things. Editors aren't expected to humiliate themselves to prove their ability to edit productivity. He violated basic civility rules by accusing one editor of being anti-semitic. He has stricken the statements, thus admitting the comments were unacceptable. Beyond that I don't see any other behavioral problems. Nableezy filed the original AE, does he/she believe this Someone "child" deserves such a long topic ban? Wikifan 23:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

In light of this edit, I find myself struggling to defend Someone's behavior. As an obviously young editor I would hope administrators would be more forgiving in situations like these. An editor with a vested interest in a crucial area of Misplaced Pages must understand the dynamic process of collaboration and contribution. I'd say many editors start out with a very SOAPY/opinionated mentality, but eventually normalize themselves with typical procedure and policy.

Someone35 meets this definition. The topic ban imposed on Someone is punitive in nature and will not alter his behavior. How else will he learn the rules if he can't experience the environment? If admins wish to alter Someone's behavior, a whole-sale topic ban is futile. Throwing out users like Someone only deters potential editors from joining the very saturated and almost clan-like pool of I/P users. Someone's original 72 hour block was justified, but the 3 month ban is - ultimately - very hard to support when looking at the evidence independent of commentary from involved users. A personal attack, one edit-war (and barely one), and obvious civility problems. These can be rectified through mentorship, and punished with short blocks. It might be hard for educated admins to understand the brain chemistry of a young editor. Perhaps a user who is closer to his age (openly of course) could weigh in? Wikifan 06:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to be nicer to him by talking with him about a subject that he seems to be interested in (israeli palestinian conflict), but it went nowhere so I deleted that section-- Someone35 (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Cptnono (involved and biased)

The original block was longer than precedent would point to being acceptable. The ban was without any admin actually attempting to counsel the guy. The disruption of edit warring was handled with the block. The incivility was much less than many in the community have gotten away with or received shorter bans for (name calling, legal threats, and so on). Although I would not blame it on him being a kid (if he wants to hang out on the internet he will learn to not divulge information others can use against him) I would blame it on inexperience. I do think he needs to grovel a bit. That is what the admins are looking for. It is wrong of them but that is what they want.

His offenses are worthy of a strong warning and a good mentoring. Not a long block based off of one editor running into trouble with several others on an opposing side. But if he refuses to admit wrong I don't care what happens to him.

You are involved and biased Zero. Cptnono (talk) 05:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Malik Shabazz (involved)

Having spoken with Someone35 earlier today, I believe he is a very young editor who needs to learn quite a bit about how Misplaced Pages operates. I don't know whether a complete overturn of his topic ban is appropriate, but if it stands I think it should be narrowed to the Arab–Israeli conflict (and not the whole Middle East) so Someone35 can contribute constructively to articles on non-controversial subjects related to Israel (nature, geography, etc.). I think he would benefit tremendously from mentorship; if nobody else steps forward to mentor him, I will do it myself. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 21:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Someone35

Result of the appeal by Someone35

Jingiby

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

Request concerning Jingiby

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBMAC

Dscretionary sanctions

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

• 3RR violation at Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia, edit-warring against two other users on two distinct issues:

1. 28 Aug, 04:17
2. 28 Aug, 13:24
3. 28 Aug, 17:05
4. 28 Aug, 18:06. Attempt at discussion proved utterly futile and was met with complete stonewalling

• Several other slow edit-wars on other articles, mostly against Lunch for Two (talk · contribs)

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

• Has extensive history of prior ARBMAC sanctions, most recently a full-year ban from 2009 to 2010
• Recent warning by myself see above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The current conduct is a return to an old and very constant pattern of stubborn agenda editing; see block log. Jingiby's current opponent, Lunch for Two (talk · contribs), is not much better in terms of edit-warring and is certainly just as opinionatetd and tendentious, but appears to be slightly more sensible in discussion. He would also be in for a sanction, but it seems he hasn't had an ARBMAC warning yet. Unless, that is, he is in fact a returning sock; I have a suspicion he is Mactruth (talk · contribs), who is permanently banned from the topic area. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: Struck out the bit above about the sock suspicion; having interacted a bit more with Lunch now I can confidently say he behaves far more reasonably in discussion than Mactruth ever did. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Jingiby

Statement by Jingiby

My position is as follows: without to boast, I am one of the most informed editors on the Macedonian issue on English Misplaced Pages. With one too long, formal block, the accuracy of the most of the articles connected with the Macedonian question will deteriorate, due to the persistent nationalism implemented there by numerous socks from a blocked users, as well as by different IP-vandals. They never will be blocked really or banned formally unlike me. My last block for a year was without serious reason and done more spontaneous then reasonable.

The supercilious bureaucracy looks sometimes quaint and should be restricted as ineffective instrument. Jingby (talk) 08:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Jingiby

As the editor clearly does not get it, a one-year block is clearly justified, and I would be somewhat inclined to WP:CBAN the editor as having exhausted the community's patience. --Russavia 20:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no account but I would like to share my opinion here. I don't know where the user exhausted the community's parience, but if you see his contribs you will see that if he wasn't in this site, the most Balkan pages would have become blatant POVs and propaganda, and the activity of manipulative POV-pushing in some of these pages is still extremely high and in some of them no one reverts it except him. Soon POV-pushing there was in Bulgarians in Albania, Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia and Gorani for example, where some editors were removing mass of reliable sources and information, separetely placing POV manipulation, which free editors with disruptive character who only delete information should be blocked much more than a user who only broke the 3rr, in the case surely provoked by POV-pushing. These editors are surely trying to make him nationalistic edit-warrior when he broke the 3rr, but if you check his contribs you will see that the user has not disruptive character neither tendencous editing, one of the best examples for neutrality. I don't know what are the standarts for four reverts, but if he is blocked for a year some editors are going to have fun with some pages in the site, seriously. 213.226.17.10 (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Athenean

Lunch for Two reminds me very much of User:PMK1, who recently had his account deleted and even went around removing signatures because he felt his user name revealed too much personal information. The accounts are virtually identical in terms of interest (essentially single-purpose "Aegean Macedonian" publicity), level of English, and general behavior. It is no coincidence that Lunch for Two appeared soon after PMK1 disappeared. From the very beginning it was clear that Lunch for Two was not a new user by any stretch. Athenean (talk) 01:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Jingiby

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

• This user is a named party of the original WP:ARBMAC decision (2007), so he's been involved in ethnic wars for a long time. He has been blocked 15 times, for as long as one year. He's been placed under a lot of bans and revert limits, then he gets repeatedly sanctioned for breaking those. Due to the difficulties he finds in staying on the straight and narrow, I think a further block for one year is probably the best way to go. A further attempt at a regular topic ban is probably futile. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Cerejota

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

Request concerning Cerejota

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

  Cs32en Talk to me  19:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Remedies

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

Cerejotas recent edits are disruptive and exhibit a battleground mentality. As the editor has quickly removed notifications and warnings from his talk page, without changing his editing behaviour, a change in his current approach to editing appears to be unlikely.

1. Cerejota boldly adds multiple tags to the article.
2. After Cerejota's edits have been reverted by another editor, Cerejota again inserts the tags.
3. Cerejota boldly removes large parts of the article.
4. After a sysop removes the tags added by Cerejota, as an administrative action , and after I have reverted Cerejota's bold changes to the article , Cerejota re-reverts to his preferred version , without having achieved consensus for his change, and contrary to the WP:BRD guideline.
5. After I reverted again to the status quo ante , and explained to Cerejota why he needs to obtain consensus for his bold changes (see the somewhat unfriendly discussion on my talk page ) and my warning to Cerejota on his talk page, Cerejota again reverts to his preferred version .
6. After another editor advised Cerejota not to re-make his changes , Cerejota claims that he does not need to obtain consensus for his changes. In particular, he asserts that restoring the previous version, which leaves open to him to add a reasonable amount of tags, would grant him the right to make bold changes without consensus, instead of adding appropriate tags.

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

1. Notified of the administrative remedies in the 9/11 topic area by Cs32en (talk · contribs).
2. Warned by Cs32en (talk · contribs).

(Cerejota has removed both the notification and the warning from his talk page.)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Cerejota has stated some more detailed reasons for his edits on Talk:Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth some minutes ago. I will take part in the discussion there. However, per WP:BRD, this discussion should proceed with the status quo ante restored (possibly with tags added to the article, of course.) Despite the fact that there now appears to be an opportunity to discuss the merits of Cerejotas changes (a content issue), his behaviour should not be allowed to stand, and the status quo ante of the article should be restored pending the discussion on the talk page.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Miradre

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Miradre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Miradre (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

One month block. See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_Miradre, logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions

Administrator imposing the sanction

Atama (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Miradre

1. It is dubious that Atama is uninvolved since he has been involved in a complaint against me started by the person (Mathsci) who also started the AE case: See .
2. That Atama states that someone asked him to look at this case raises the question who did this? Someone already involved who knew that I had had a dispute with Atama?
3. That there has been a long period without agreement regarding AE indicates that there is uncertainly regarding the situation. So there should preferable be some discussion and consensus by uninvolved editors and not an unilateral decision. Atama stated his intention to block and allowed no time for discussion by uninvolved administrators regarding his justification and the length of the block but blocked and closed the case immediately after stating his justification.
4. The block seems very long for such an uncertain case.
5. Finally, the justification for the block is wrong. There is no mention of IQ anywhere in Criticism of evolutionary psychology. Atama states that there is a section regarding ethnocentrism in the article. But that section states that evolutionary psychology does NOT look at ethnic differences but rather about universal human behavior. As such the article and evolutionary psychology is explicitly NOT about either racial or ethnical differences. So to me it seemed that article was safe to edit just because of this section... Note also that no else has argued that the article as a whole are under the ArbCom sanctions. The arguments has been regarding specific statements. No one except Atama has argued that the sanctions apply to everything in the article regardless of contents of the edits. This is a new accusation that I have therefore not replied to. As such it seems to me that Atama should have made this new accusation as an involved party and allowed an uninvolved adminstrator judge its merit after I had had a chance to defend myself against this new accusation. Miradre (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for you reply Atama. But regardless of the merit of point 1-4, you made no reply regarding the last point. I think the article makes it clear that it is not about race or ethnicity. Which is why I felt safe editing it so long as I avoided statements about race or ethnicity. Would you therefore consider reverting the block? If you still think that you have a valid accusation, would you consider instead entering the case as an interested party making a new accusation and thus allow me defend myself against the new accusation and allow an uninvolved administrator judge your new accusation? Miradre (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I had no reply for the last point because I explained my reasons for the decision I made at the arbitration enforcement request before I closed it and didn't feel the need to repeat myself. I have no interest in the articles covered by the arbitration and don't care to become involved in any of those articles. The only reason why I took on the request was because I'm uninvolved, and could close it. I honestly don't like Arbitration Enforcement because (no offense to you) administrators who choose to get involved there have a tendency to be harassed. I closed it in a way that seemed right after looking over the arbitration case, the topic ban, the article, and the actions you took. I have nothing against you and no friends on the other side of the argument (even today I was criticized for being too hard on Mathsci at the COI noticeboard). -- Atama頭 23:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Atama

I was asked to close the AE request here, by Captain Occam. I was only asked to make a decision because the request had been open so long, I wasn't asked to do anything in particular.

I commented in a COI noticeboard thread that Miradre's COI accusation against Mathsci and another editor were unfounded, and later warned Miradre that continuing to make allegations could be considered harassment, but that I had no intention of imposing any sanctions at the time. I don't see how that could in any way make me involved. Miradre withdrew the accusations, and the issue ended peacefully (or I thought so at least).

The block is no longer than what the arbitration discussion suggested as an initial block length. I also don't see that arbitration enforcement requires asking for a consensus from other administrators before making a decision. -- Atama頭 20:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Miradre

Result of the appeal by Miradre

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

• Administrative backlog