Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:10, 5 October 2009

Requests for enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

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,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Hetoum I

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

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

Request concerning Hetoum I

User requesting enforcement:
Grandmaster 07:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

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

[1] Edit warring without logging in
[2] Edit warring without logging in
[3] Edit warring without logging in
[4] Edit warring without logging in
[5] Edit warring without logging in

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

[6] Hetoum I was placed on supervised editing, including revert limitation, by Seraphimblade (talk · contribs)

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

Additional comments by Grandmaster:
Hetoum I was repeatedly blocked for edit warring, as he was reverting the articles under various IPs. See his block log. This time we have an IP 216.165.33.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which goes around and reverts the articles for the blocked users, namely for Kazanciyan (talk · contribs) and Tamamtamamtamam (talk · contribs) (sock of Meowy (talk · contribs)). Previously 216.165.12.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 216.165.12.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), similar IP addresses from NY University, were blocked as socks of Hetoum I (talk · contribs) for similar edit warring on AA articles: [7] [8], which leaves no doubt that 216.165.33.9 is also Hetoum I. Since Hetoum I is not willing to abide by his editing restriction and continues edit warring under various IPs despite numerous blocks, I think that the admins should consider the indefinite ban for this user. Grandmaster 07:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And this is from the talk of his previous user account: [9] [10] Grandmaster 10:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Today 216.165.33.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) continued edit warring by removing Azerbaijani spellings and other info from the articles about locations in Armenia. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. Grandmaster 06:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another rv by 216.165.33.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), with an ethnic attack edit summary in the style of banned user Azad chai (talk · contribs): [17]. They could be the same person. Note that "khojalized" in the edit summary is a reference to a mass killing of Azeris in Khojaly massacre. Grandmaster 06:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's back as 128.122.90.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This IP also points to NY University. It's already been blocked for 1 week, shortened to 31 hours for incivility. But the blocking admin was probably not aware of prehistory. Grandmaster 05:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence available suggests that the banned user Azad chai (talk · contribs) is the same person as Hetoum. Another IP from NY University, 128.122.195.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), was blocked for 1 year for vandalism. Note that the blocking admin wrote:

10:37, May 11, 2009 Khoikhoi (talk|contribs) blocked 128.122.195.18 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 1 year ‎ (static IP of Hetoum I and/or Azad chai) [18]

So it is the same person or a group of people, who have been disrupting AA articles for years. This edit summary [19] is identical to the one that got 216.165.33.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also blocked for 1 year a few days ago. Note the words "khojalizing" and "babun" in the edit summary, which he uses to refer to Azerbaijani people. Also check the Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hetoum I. Almost identical IPs, pointing to the same university, same ethnic slurs, same type vandalism across multiple AA pages leave no doubt that the IPs, Hetoum and Azad chai are the same person. I hope that the admins will investigate this issue, and put an end to this disruption that's been going on for so long. Grandmaster 10:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will file a SPI request first, and then post the results here, if they are positive. Thanks. Grandmaster 08:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I. Let's wait for the results. In the meantime, the edit warring across multiple articles is continued by 216.165.33.90 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), also from NY University. Grandmaster 08:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[20]

Discussion concerning Hetoum I

Statement by Hetoum I

Comments by other editors

Result concerning Hetoum I

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

I've blocked 216.165.33.9 for a year for the "khojalized" edit. I haven't yet had time to look at the other evidence. Sandstein 07:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am missing something here, but if the editor in question is not accused of doing anything wrong under the Hetoum I account, should we not require some evidence that Hetoum I is the same editor as the misbehaving IPs? "Suspected sockpuppets" won't cut it. This would appear to be an issue for WP:SPI first and foremost; if it turns out the same editor is responsible, then enforcement can be considered. Skomorokh 08:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hetoum I has been blocked 6 months for engaging in sock puppetry to violate Arbitration restrictions (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I). The IP range 216.165.33.0/25 has also been discovered to have been used by Hetoum I and has been rangeblocked for 2 weeks as a result. All other accounts listed in that SPI case have either already been indefinitely blocked or are otherwise stale for CheckUser purposes. This is, to date, Hetoum I's tenth block as a result of this Arbitration case, so I felt a block length of 6 months hopefully is sufficient. MuZemike 05:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gazifikator

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

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

Request concerning Gazifikator

User requesting enforcement:
Brand[t] 19:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

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

[21] 1st revert
[22] 2nd revert
[23] 3rd revert
[24] 4th revert with an edit summary contrary to exisitng decision 3 vs. 4 in favour of merge

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

[25] Warning by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

Additional comments by Brand[t]:

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[26]

Discussion concerning Gazifikator

Statement by Gazifikator

After the article was created, it was disliked by a group of users (f.e. one of the voters was noticed for inflammatory language at the talk [27]). Several times the content was deleted per their own decision on merge. The users like Brand and grandmaster are engaged on this merge process despite they were obviously parts of merge proposal and for sure they support article's merge with another (irrelevant, as all the uninvolved voters and me believe [28]) article. This goes against the rule that says:

To provide clarity that the merger discussion is over and that a consensus has been reached, it may be important to close and then archive the proposal discussion. To close a merger proposal discussion, indicate the outcome at the top. If the merger is particularly controversial, one may take the optional step of requesting closure by an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. See Help:Merge

I'd like also to mention, that the text of article was already 'corrected' by the same users and included to second article's text with very controversial wording, which differs from current version of deleted article. Gazifikator (talk) 06:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors

This is a clear and repeated deliberate violation of the editing restriction by Gazifikator. He was blocked for violating the editing restriction on the same article on 14 September: [29] Back from the block, he resumed edit warring on the same article, and made another 2 rvs in defiance of his parole. It should be noted that the article was merged neither by me or Brand, unlike what Gazifikator claims. It was merged by a completely uninvolved editor: [30] whom Gazifikator reverted without ever trying to get the problem resolved via the prescribed procedure. Grandmaster 07:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This 'uninvolved' user, who calls himself a deletionist [31], even didn't try to leave few words for justification of the deletion at the talk. He just decided that there is a consensus, while if you look at the talk [32], you will be sure there isn't! Grandmaster, read Help:Merge: "If the merger is controversial, however, you may find your merger reverted, and as with all other edits, edit wars should be avoided. If you are uncertain of the merger's appropriateness, or believe it might be controversial, or your merger ends up reverted, you can propose it on either or both of the affected pages.". Gazifikator (talk) 08:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does that excuse your repeated violations of 1rv per week restriction? There are procedures to resolve the disputes, edit warring is not one of them. Grandmaster 07:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could the requester please specify the sanction or remedy supposedly violated, and how specifically it has been violated, like the nice template asks? Administrators are not mind-readers. Skomorokh 08:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the link to the remedy that was violated. And here's the link to 1rr restriction imposed by Nishkid64: [33]. Grandmaster 08:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's helpful. Skomorokh 08:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Gazifikator

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

Gazifikator returned from a weeklong block for violating Nishkid64's restriction on Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan to commit the exact same offence. I judge that they ought to be blocked for an escalated period. Skomorokh 09:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 weeks. Moreschi (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I've done the merge too. Potentially that might some day be a valid WP:SS spin-off, but the main article isn't close to that yet and the attempted spinoff was really sucky. Moreschi (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine by me; I appreciate your looking into it Moreschi. Skomorokh 01:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Grundle2600

I withdraw this request. I'm taking Grundle's self-imposed 96 hour topic ban in good faith, proving he is willing to take a step back when needed. That said, he needs to understand what was done wrong here and that those actions will not be ignored in the future. Hopefully he will be more open to dicussion (legitimate discussion, not saying "Hey, this is what I'm doing), and hopefully other editors will be more cooperative as well. He is well aware that he is being watched by several editors, and I believe he can cooperate. Grsz¹¹ 13:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Grundle2600

User requesting enforcement:
Grsz¹¹ 23:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Grundle2600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#Grundle2600 admonished and restricted

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

[34] Immediately after his topic ban on political articles expired (and we're talking minutes), Grundle added a bit about medicial marijuana to Political positions of Barack Obama.
[35] He reverted the removal of that text.
[36] Grundle then added an example of a different event from a different source but about the exact same thing, an attempt to game the system.

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

Not applicable, but [37] Warning by Bigtimepeace (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Administrators discretion per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#Enforcement by block

Additional comments by Grsz¹¹:
Additionally, Grundle's restrictions require him to discuss content reversions on the talk page. It really depends on how we define "discussion" as to whether or not that is an issue as well. All he has done at the talk page is point fingers and argue, despite several editors telling him why he is in the wrong. Same issues at Presidency of Barack Obama.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[38]

Discussion concerning Grundle2600

Statement by Grundle2600

I did not violate the 1 RR restriction, because the information that I added the second time was about a completely different story, about a completely different person, from a completely different source.

User:PhGustaf, the editor who removed my first addition, commented that the source, Reason magazine, was not a reliable source.

So I found a different story about a different person, from a much better source - Associated Press. So I added it. This was not a revert, as this story about this person had never been in the article before.

But then the same editor, User:PhGustaf, who removed my first entry, also removed my second entry. This time, they commended that the information was undue weight.

I have made plenty of comments on the talk page about this to justify my actions. I said that when a politician says he takes one side on an issue, but his behavior is the exact opposite, NPOV requires that the article should cite both of those things.

In this particular example, during the election campaign, Obama's spokesperson said that Obama would end the DEA raids on medical marijuana in states where it's legal.

But then after the raids were still happening more than half a year into his presidency, I updated the article, to reflect Obama's new position.

Since Obama has changed his position, I updated the article accordingly.

I did what I did because I was following NPOV, and I wanted to make the article better.

Grundle2600 (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PhGustaf, you stated, ".... he's quite aware that at least WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTNEWS may apply here..."

Before I added that information to the article, readers would have been wrongly left with the false impression that Obama had stopped the DEA raids against medical marijuana in states where it's legal. I added the correct, updated information to fix that problem.

Information changes over time. These changes are often reported in the news. When adding new information to the article makes it more accurate, that makes the article better. And that's what I did.

Grundle2600 (talk) 01:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starting right now, I am taking a voluntary break from editing all political articles for the next 96 hours. I am doing this as a gesture of good will. I did not mean to ignore the advice that people gave me on my talk page. I am sorry for going overboard. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors

Comment by Unitanode

I attempted to engage Grundle about this issue just before he came off his topic ban regarding this very issue. At the time, I was (a bit) sympathetic to his viewpoint. I no longer am. He didn't respond to my overtures. Now, his "discussion" of his edits is basically just posting a note to the talkpage saying "this is what I'm doing." I also agree that he gamed the 1RR restriction. Unit Anode 00:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by PhGustaf

Several editors, including myself engaged Grundle in this[39] thread on his talkpage. The thread is telling: several editors gave more or less kindhearted advice, Grundle thanked each with apparent sincerity, but pressed on with his plans regardless.

That said, I am not convinced that he violated his 1RR restriction. My first reversion of his edit did specify bad sourcing as my reason, and Grundle did address that before restoring his edit. On the other hand, he's quite aware that at least WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTNEWS may apply here, and chose to not address those issues. A close call.

That said, unless someone does something, Grundle is going to crash and burn again, and maybe ArbCom is that someone. PhGustaf (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Squicks

This is a straightforward content dispute, and to say that Grundle took a position that is blatantly violating the WP:NOTNEWS and WP:WEIGHT clauses is a matter of opinion. Other editors on the talk page, such as Schrandit and Dr.enh, have stated that the Obama administration's decision to go ahead with raids despite his promises can be sourced and is worth including. They made valid arguments in Talk:Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama#DEA_Raid (as did Grundle). Although personally I would not support inclusion of the information, I find it absurd that a simple content dispute is treated like a mortal sin. The Squicks (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See The Atlantic, which notes=

"Attorney General Eric Holder's cessation of medical marijuana raids, in keeping with Obama's opposition to them, despite some Drug Enforcement Agency raids that were conducted soon after Obama transitioned into office."

The Squicks (talk) 03:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

If you are bringing up the discussion part of a restriction (even in additional comments), then diffs are absolutely needed. If Grundle2600 raises a content reversion on the talk page (which is one legitimate way of interpreting his restriction), then editors who have involved themselves are expected to respond to the concerns and discuss the matter also - if editors treat it as optional, enforcement will neither be simple, nor can the project function smoothly. For example, this edit-summary is insufficient to substitute responding to this on the talk page. I too am not convinced by the actual 1RR. In light of this, I see no good cause to action this report. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Grundle2600

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ChrisO on Muhammad al-Durrah

Withdrawal notes:

I'm withdrawing the case following this comment by ChrisO. In short, ChrisO notes that he will tone down the language.
I also note that I will try to be more attentive while explaining my points; in hopes for a better collaboration with ChrisO, whom I respect as a contributor. We usually work well even in disagreement.
I can't help but mention George for suggesting to ban two long-contributing editors, whom he is in discussion with, without any justification. I hope that this will not become a pattern.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the editors can maintain some level of civility, and work towards consensus without constant bickering, then I'm hopeful that no bans will be necessary. ← George^talk 21:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Request concerning ChrisO

User requesting enforcement:
Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Principles

A while back, there was a fuss involving User:ChrisO on the article Muhammad al-Durrah and he was officially barred from the article for a while. Since then he has gone to lengths to repeat similar behavior. He first kept using terms like "nuts" and "insane" next to the term conspiracy theorists while suggesting one of the sources, an Israeli hand surgeon, was a liar. I and another editor asked him to tone it down. (The Squicks on 04:34, 24 September 2009, and Jaakobou on 12:20, 24 September 2009)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad_al-Durrah&action=history

Then, he repeated it again and I had noted to him that this type of behavior was extremely unappreciated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AChrisO&diff=316119001&oldid=314620392

After a reminder/request to "Focus on content and not on name calling."[40] He has followed up with a personal attack against me: "Jaakobou is acting like a 9/11 truther here"[41]

ChrisO was banned in the past from the Muhammad al-Durrah page after he was edit warring and being abusive to another editor. I would appreciate some action here since he's experienced enough to not be so violent in tone after being noted of this at least 3 times in the past couple days by more than one user.

Here is an administrator's notice to him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ChrisO&diff=219404605&oldid=219399413

Here's the relevant ARBCOM case and his contribs page:

Apparently... he has been blocked as well, but I don't know if it was for the same article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AChrisO

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
<Your text>

Additional comments by Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk}:

We were all (SlimVirgin, George, Jaakobou, IronDuke, The Squeaks) able to discuss the content with civility and without personal attacks except for one editor.
I asked him specifically to tone down his rhetorics and in response he made a violation of WP:NPA.
ChrisO's history on this article, would mean that he should know better already rather than that he should push the envelope further.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [42].

Discussion concerning ChrisO

Statement by ChrisO

To put it simply, Jaakobou is trying to promote a theory that posits a huge nine-year long international conspiracy behind the matter documented in this article. In doing so, he has accused other editors of pursuing "original research" (by which he means taking the trouble to review what reliable published sources actually say), attempted to impeach reliably published sources based on his personal views, accused others of trying to pursue "a smear campaign against material we might not like" (while trying to do exactly the same thing himself!) [43]. Jaakobou's comments were in reaction to my posting a detailed summary of media coverage of the issue at Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Coverage timeline; note that his reaction was simply to attack and dismiss it, apparently because it does not support his personal interpretation of events. He has simultaneously pushed to include fringe sources and exceptional claims, as other editors have noted.[44] He openly states that he is "in complete disagreement" with how reliable media present the events reported in the article, evidently putting his personal views ahead of what the sources actually say.[45] This is not constructive behaviour but represents overt and unapologetic POV-pushing as well as a refusal to engage with sources that he disagrees with.

In relation to describing Jaakobou as "acting like a 9/11 truther", that is literally true: he has sought to dismiss contemporary eyewitness testimony from multiple journalists in favour of a flaky recent conspiracy theory, in exactly the same way as 9/11 truthers dismiss eyewitness reports of the WTC attacks in favour of their pet conspiracy theories but with the additional element of trying to smear eyewitnesses as liars - see comments in [46]. I don't think it's unreasonable to describe off-wiki conspiracy theorists as nuts when the claims they promote are, well, nutty (note that I have never applied this description to Jaakobou, whom I have attempted to counsel - evidently unsuccessfully - about dealing with conspiracy theorist sources [47].) This has been going on for some time, with Jaakobou increasingly exhibiting tendentious editing and "I don't hear you" type behaviour. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand where you are coming from (feeling not listened to). Still, attacking me as a "truther" after repeated specific notes to tone down the language is poor form. There are better ways of resolving disputes (sample). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you can see where I'm coming from. In the interests of getting back to more productive things and in the light of your request [48], I'm willing to apologise for the truther comparison. I will continue to criticise the conspiracy theories/theorists, but I won't call them "nuts". In return, it would be helpful if you could commit to dealing more positively with the contributions of others and being more willing to engage with reliable sources rather than trying to impeach them. Your first reaction to the analysis I posted was to attack the sources. I think you need to acknowledge that was not a helpful response. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[49] -- on hold. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors

Statement by George

Before I comment on ChrisO, his edits, or his behavior, could you please clean up this request Jaakobou? Your first link is just a link to the talk page's edit history, but I think you meant to link to some diff showing The Squicks warning ChrisO. Also, I think it would be helpful if you could provide diffs of what ChrisO wrote prior to you and The Squicks warning him, rather than just diffs of your warnings. I would remove the links to his contributions and block log as well - both of those are generated already by the template at the top of your request.

To clarify, it appears ChrisO was banned from this article for a week in June 2008 for violating 3RR and incivility. Correct?

Regarding the Arbitration Committee case you linked to, what should we be focusing on? I see that ChrisO was banned from that article for a week, as mentioned, but that you yourself were banned from Israel-Palestine related articles for the same time period for disruptive conduct. I don't see anyone mentioning ChrisO on that page, outside that one week ban, while I see several complaints about your own behavior (Ryan Postlethwaite wrote "Jaakobou has basically been trying to label Erekat a liar"; Pedro Gonnet wrote "My main problem is with Jaakobou, with whom I have locked horns on several occasions. I have yet to see him end an edit-war, accept a compromise or back down from any of his positions or edits"; RolandR wrote "I do think that there should be a specific inquiry into the behaviour of Jaakobou, identified by several editors above and elsewhere as a particularly problematic and uncooperative editor... Jaakobou so thoroughly angered other editors... that he was extremely lucky to avoid a lengthy community block."). Obviously you're not the topic of this request for enforcement, but I'm just trying to figure out why you linked to that arbitration case. What am I supposed to see there? I'll hold off on commenting on ChrisO's edits and behavior for now, to give you a chance to better present your evidence. ← George^talk 06:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made mistakes in the past and learned and corrected myself where I was wrong. ChrisO, on the other hand, decided that it is proper to (a) tag all recent publications in reliable sources as "nuts", and (b) respond to requests/reminders to tone his language down ([50],[51], [52], [53]) by attacking me as a "9/11 truther". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(a) is flatly untrue, and the first diff you present is a shameful smear by another editor. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone makes mistakes, but the point I was trying to make was that I just don't understand why you linked to that case. I've been a party to most of the discussions on this article involving you and ChrisO, and have a few thoughts on his behavior:

I have no problem with ChrisO describing any source he wants as "nuts". He's commenting about a source, not an editor, and he's entitled to his opinion. He can also call a doctor a "liar" if he so chooses, however I never saw him do so - I only saw you warn him about it.
ChrisO got noticeably hot under the collar when trying to discuss things with you.
ChrisO comparing you to a "9/11 truther" was a violation of WP:CIVIL, albeit a minor one. However, his language in general was quite aggressive towards you.

I also have a few thoughts on your own behavior, however:

You were, at the very least, instigating the issue. Your language towards him was, at times, equally aggressive as his language towards you. I don't know who started it, and I don't care - neither is acceptable.
I'm concerned that in both your arbitration request, and in your reply to me immediately above, you've linked to your warnings to ChrisO, but failed to link to what ChrisO actually did to warrant those warnings. It takes more than warnings to convince others that someone violated policies.
In regards to the complaints about ChrisO's comment about the sources, I noted that I found little basis for the accusations made against him. The Squicks described his comment as "bigoted and prejudiced" (labels which them self may violate WP:CIVIL),[54] to which I replied, noting that I saw nothing in ChrisO's comment that targeted either Israeli or Jewish sources specifically (the specific terms he used were Western and right-wing, if I remember correctly). You replied, stating that my view was "not entirely accurate", to which I again replied, saying that I didn't see the connection that you and The Squicks were drawing. At this point you warned ChrisO, saying that he is "experianced enough to know when he's crossed the line and he should be experianced enough to take a step back when this is requested of him". I'm still unclear on what basis either of you was making the claims of antisemitism against him.
There is also something to be said for ChrisO's comment of you engaging in "I don't hear you" type behavior. When asked for sources to support your claims, you often seem to skirt the issue while repeating your initial claim. I'm also a bit perplexed that you can't find time to identify sources to support your case on the article talk page, but can find time to open an arbitration request in this matter.

My general take on this issue, and the article in general, is that neither of you has shown much interest in achieving consensus. I wasn't aware of the past the two of you had on this article, but you both seem quite set in your opinions on what's true and what's not, and which sources are reliable and which aren't. Having two polar-opposite opinions in the discussion makes it nigh-impossible to reach any consensus. With all due respect to both of you as constructive editors with numerous contributions, I would suggest that both of you agree to not edit this article, for a set period or time, or permanently. I suspect that SlimVirgin and I (along with other interested editors) could reach consensus on a fairly neutral, accurate wording for the article. ← George^talk 23:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have not at any time called the doctor a liar. If you look at the talk page, the person talking about people being "liars" or "lying" is Jaakobou in reply to your own comments: "the only people who were put to question were the ones who appear to be blatently lying. i.e. the cameraman", "The ballistics expert's credibility (not Shahaf), the biometrics guy or the Israeli doctor for that matter. Bad liars all of them", "the Israeli doctor is a liar". I have no idea why he is putting his words into my mouth.
I accept that I got a bit testy with Jaakobou, and I've said that I'm willing to apologise for it - but the reason for the testiness is the "I don't hear you" behaviour and the way he has responded to source-based research by attacking and ignoring sources that don't support his POV.
It's ridiculous and offensive that my pointing out the uncontroversial fact that WP:RS requires us to treat op-eds differently from factual reporting should be turned into a smear of "anti-semitism". The discussion at Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Commentary vs reporting was derailed at the start by The Squicks's shameful and unfounded accusations of bigotry. It's disappointing that Jaakobou should be endorsing that smear by quoting it via a diff.
My opinion of what is reliable is no more than what policy requires and from what you and SlimVirgin have said on the talk page, is no different to yours. You yourself agreed with my comments about how to treat op-ed columns. The outlier here is Jaakobou, not the three of us. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I don't think that either editor needs to be formally banned from this article, but I would like to see a gentlemen's agreement that lays the groundwork for more constructive editing. Whether you both agree to lay off the article for a while, or permanently, or both agree to tone it down and follow the proper dispute resolution process, something needs to change in both of your approaches to the issue. ← George^talk 00:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said to Tznkai below, I have been trying to work out something exactly along the lines of a gentlemen's agreement with Jaakobou, on his talk page. He has indicated his willingness to agree to the proposal and withdraw the complaint, but has not yet responded fully (he did say he would be busy elsewhere today). Let's give him time to come through. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SlimVirgin

Jaakabou's editing has been problematic at Muhammad al-Durrah since he started editing it in 2006. He evidently has strong feelings about it, and wants us to highlight a theory about the boy's death that it was a hoax, in whole or in part. While I agree that we need to highlight the issues that reliable sources have raised, the proposition that the boy's death was faked is a minority one, not such a tiny minority that we shouldn't mention it, but we certainly shouldn't give it much prominence either.

Jaakobou has mentioned the problems ChrisO previously encountered at that article. These were the result of Chris being targeted by a CAMERA editor (User:Dajudem), who was angry with Chris because he was one of the admins involved in taking action against the CAMERA accounts. That editor created a sock, User:Tundrabuggy, and followed Chris to Muhammad al-Durrah, reverting him and arguing against him. There is a previous AE report about it here, filed by me.

There is also a previous AE report about Jaakabou's editing of another Israel-Palestine article here, also filed by me. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin and I actually agreed on a conservatively written descriptive, per reliable sources. SlimVirgin: "the lead must include notable controversies, and given the mainstream coverage the hoax allegations have had (Daily Telegraph, Columbia Journalism Review, LA Times, and similar), it's fine to summarize them in one sentence like that."[55] I'm not buddy-buddy with SlimVirgin like ChrisO, but the didn't think she'd dub my saying the same thing as she did[[56]] as "problematic". Maybe I'm missing something but it seems to be because I've raised a complaint against her friend's conduct. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Squicks

Three facts in this case are clear. (a) Both ChrisO and Jaakobou have a long record of highly positive contributions to Wikipedia. (b) Both of them have raised valid points in how to improve this article on the talk page. (c) Both of them appear willing to reach an agreement about editing at this point.

Thus, it seems to me that this is something all interested parties can leave from with no administrative action taking place. I'm encouraged by ChrisO's statements below. The Squicks (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning ChrisO

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

This looks fairly complex, so it will take some time to work through.--Tznkai (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Jaakobou has asked to put this "on hold" while he considers my offer to resolve the matter and has said that he is minded to withdraw the case. [57][58] I'm optimistic that this can be worked out between us without further difficulties. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jmh649

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

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

Request concerning Jmh649

User requesting enforcement:
scuro (talk) 05:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Jmh649 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Jmh649 restricted (Jmh649 is limited to one revert per page per week within the topic area (except for undisputable vandalism and biographies of living persons violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page). [59]

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

[60] original material reverted
[61] first revert by Doc James on Sept. 16th. 2009. I also don't believe he posted in talk that he made this revert.

[62] original material reverted (part a)
[63] original material reverted (part b)
[64] second revert (part a and b) by Doc James on Sept 18th/2009. I also don't believe he posted in talk that he made this revert.

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

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

Additional comments by scuro (talk):
this would be his second violation

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
"new enforcement action requested for breaking two revertrestriction - you will find the request here" [65]

Discussion concerning Jmh649

Statement by Jmh649

Diff [61] and [64] are the same rather than two separate reverts. The revert for Sept 18th is not listed. I was reverting an obvious case of vandalism by an anonymous IP if any one care to look at the scientific literature. I have not made any edits to the ADHD page since Sept 18th and am no longer actively editing Wikipedia due to reasons I am not yet free to disclose. Also I reverted my revert of the vandalism as another user thought that it was a good change on Sept 17th [66] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay now that we have the proper diff listed for the 18th. This was not a revert but a dealing with the issues for which the tags were added.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors

This revert was on an IP address which changed symptoms into signs. Doc James was correct in his revert. Signs are what are observed by a clinician when making a diagnosis. Symptoms are what are experienced by the sufferer. As wikipedia is not a diagnostic manual aimed at clinicians but is aimed at a general audience symptoms is the appropriate terminology and is the term used in almost all medical articles. The policy arbcom ruling says "may be blocked", not "should be blocked". I think that the fact that an ip address was reverted has little to do with the drama on the article that the enforcement was meant to stop. I also think blocking for a revert of an ip address when the revert was correct would not be fair in this instance.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

16th and 18th is well over a week ago - simple, but stale vio. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply

True, but I've had what appears to be a bogus arbitration request amendment filed against me right after the second violation. I didn't have a chance to check the diffs till now. As was explained to me previously, there is no excuse for breaking rules.--scuro (talk) 06:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this while examining the background to a current arbitration request for amendment (the one scuro refers to above). Can I ask what is done with stale reports of violations of the arbitration case remedies? Is it possible to record them at the "logs" section of the case pages? This would give arbitrators and others reviewing the subsequent history of the case a better picture of what has been going on. More generally, has any thought ever been giving to logging AE requests in a section at the case pages? A set of links to the archived AE requests? I know people can search the AE archives, but it would be convenient to have the history and logs all in one place. Carcharoth (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I very vaguely recall insisting that a violation be recorded in the case logs when this situation arose last year for some case, but not sure whether that system has changed. Should I continue responding here, or should we move the more general points to another venue? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- In filling out this request, I saw no mention of time limits in filling the request, nor did I see what that time limit is. Could someone point these criteria out to me?--scuro (talk) 11:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's more of a standard interpretation of blocking policy than it is a time limit. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't see where one could interpret any part of "the blocking" policy to come to the conclusion that the violation is "stale" because it happened over a week ago. What we have here is an enforcement request for a long standing problem. This is the second clear violation of an arbitration remedy. Both qualifiers of the remedy were violated, in that Doc James edited twice within a week and he did so without communicating this on the talk page. Edit waring has been an issue for over a year now, and edit waring has been very disruptive to the ADHD article. Both a med cab and rfc were filled then to deal with this issue. Edit waring was the main focus of arbitration. There has been a number of times where Doc James has had the opportunity to reflect, to have "second chances". Many olive branches have extended to Doc James and he has rejected every offer made by others and myself for a meeting of the minds between us. This unwillingness to resolve differences happened as recently as this month when he rejected a med cab proposal by a third party who is sympathetic to him. One of the four stated goals of the blocking policy is to encourage, "a rapid understanding that the present behavior cannot continue and will not be tolerated". No other solution presents itself to us. The violation demonstrates that he continues to work outside of the system. By no means is this violation "stale" to the issues at hand. --scuro (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Mediation was rejected because you were actively sabotaging intervention by Wiki Medicine Project so it was wholly inappropriate and it was I who first rejected mediation as I felt reporting to arbcom was the appropriate venue which has been done. It was not an issue which needed to be "mediated" about. I do not know what you mean by resolving differences scuro, we are talking about reverting an IP editor who wrongly changed all instances of the word "symptoms" to "signs". The ip editor was wrong, he was reverted by Doc James. I don;t see how this is relevant to the arbcom findings or related to "olive branches" etc except on technical grounds. Consensus was obtained anyway on the talk page and I have since changed signs back to symptoms.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am bothered that what went on with regards to Wiki Med Collaboration project, is effectively going without any action taken on scuro but yet Doc James might be getting blocked for correctly reverting inaccurate edits by an ip editor.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It is highly disruptive to continue to make baseless allegations. You've been asked to support these bogus charges at the arb com amendment request, and to date you haven't supported these statements. Let me recommend that you do so before action is taken against you. The focus here isn't my behaviour, it's Doc James's behaviour, so can we please focus on that?
        
        The remedy states that the criteria to revert without restriction is, "undisputable vandalism". Simply because an IP address makes an edit doesn't mean that it vandalism. That edit was done in good faith even though one could make a good argument that symptom is a better word then sign. Finally Doc James didn't post on the talk page after the edit. This is a clear cut case of a violation.--scuro (talk) 12:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I provided to the arbcom ammendment diffs and link to med collaboration, so I have no idea what you are talking about and why you keep saying that I have made baseless accusations.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Please talk your beef to arb com amendment request. This is not appropriate forum.--scuro (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, this link you submited is not a revert by the way.[67] I put up a tag requesting that copy and pasted text was summarised, Doc James did this. It was not a revert, no text was reverted or deleted. Copying and pasting chunks from sources is unencylopedic. You are alledging that Doc James reverted me, he removed a tag after he summarised the copied and pasted text. The tag was not part of the article and it is common sense to remove it after it is no longer needed and issue is resolved. So there has been no violation in the evidence that you submitted. Doc James did NOT revert me, there was no revert.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it was Literaturegeek's edit that was reverted (which allegedly violated 1RR), and Literaturegeek has no issue with it (and most likely would have performed a self-revert as his concern in the tags was resolved), this already makes this report problematic. Also, given that the first revert involved reverting an anon whom unilaterally changed the usage of "symptoms" to "signs" throughout the article (which may not be vandalism per se, but would legitimately be considered for reversion if someone was on vandalism patrol), there really is no case here. If scuro still has an issue with no action being taken on this request, he should consult his mentor. I urge an administrator to close this accordingly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The critera of the remedy are clear. Both ciritera have been violated. I assuming that Doc James had no idea who posted the the tags and the fact that he removed them once again is problematic. This has been a long standing issue. The case that the second revert was one of "undisputable" vandalism has not been made. Also, Ncmvocalist you were involved in my topic ban request. The designation of uninvolved party does not hold true.--scuro (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is the risk you take on when making assumptions, scuro. By the way, can you please provide diffs/links to establish how I was involved? Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see how it was a revert. It would be a revert if Doc James removed the tag and did not summarise the copy and pasted text. Seeing as he addressed the tags concern, all it was was "editing the article". For example, say someone added a tag saying citation needed, then an editor provides a citation and removes the citation needed tag, that is not reverting a tag but addressing the tag. My tag/banner removal by Doc James was just part of addressing the tag editing the article. I hope this clarifies this. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Jmh649

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

I am currently leaning towards declining this as a stale report. --Tznkai (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeclinedThis is going nowhere, and appears to be pointless. Remedies are not games of gotcha, and the report is stale. Come back if there is a more recent violation. --Tznkai (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lapsed Pacifist

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

Request concerning Lapsed Pacifist

User requesting enforcement:
G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 11:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist Remedies - Lapsed Pacifist is banned indefinitely from articles which relate to the conflict in Northern Ireland

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

[68] This edit is on murals relating to the Conflict in Northern Ireland, a topic that the user is topic banned from editing on and more so this particular edit changes the context of the the picture.

[69] Again an edit in an area (Irish republicanism and the conflict in Northern Ireland) that the user is banned from. While there is no content change, the user is pushing the limit of what may or may not be acceptable in the ban and is gaming the injunction.

[70] continues to push the bounds of what is or isn't acceptable here, even after this RfE being brought up.

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

[71] Warning by Falcon9x5 (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Review if these actions fall under the scope of the remedy and whatever sanction deemed appropriate.

Additional comments by G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥:
Lapsed Pacifist is currently subject to a second RfAR arising from conduct relating to editing in another area.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
Notification of enforcement request on Lapsed Pacifists talk page

Discussion concerning Lapsed Pacifist

Statement by Lapsed Pacifist

Comments by other editors

Result concerning Lapsed Pacifist

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

First edit listed was a definite problem, second one less so, but still not a great idea. I would be content with a very stern warning this time unless there was trouble caused. Am I missing any procedural history here?--Tznkai (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts. LP is restricted from this area. He also will have another topic ban in another area in the ongoing ArbCom case when it closes. I am fine with a warning.. a LAST warning. If the line is crossed again, in any way shape or form, drop the heavy end of the hammer. SirFozzie (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected return of banned user on Sathya Sai Baba

Sbs108

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

Request concerning Sbs108

User requesting enforcement:
*** Crotalus *** 14:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Sbs108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#SSS108_2

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

[72]
[73]
[74]
numerous others - see notes below

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

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
The previous topic ban on this user should be enforced.

Additional comments by *** Crotalus ***:
Based on WP:DUCK, it seems clear that User:SSS108 has returned as User:Sbs108. The user names are only one letter apart, and both accounts focus almost exclusively on Sathya Sai Baba and closely related topics. Both also exhibit similar grammatical flaws. Since User:SSS108 was indefinitely banned from this article, I request enforcement of this remedy on that individual's current account, User:Sbs108.

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

Discussion concerning Sbs108

Statement by Sbs108

Comments by other editors

Result concerning Sbs108

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

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] 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.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 459: / Line 459: @@
 ::First edit listed was a definite problem, second one less so, but still not a great idea. I would be content with a very stern warning this time unless there was trouble caused. Am I missing any procedural history here?--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] ([[User talk:Tznkai|talk]]) 19:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 :::My thoughts. LP is restricted from this area. He also will have another topic ban in another area in the ongoing ArbCom case when it closes. I am fine with a warning.. a LAST warning. If the line is crossed again, in any way shape or form, drop the heavy end of the hammer. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 19:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
+<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.-->
+== Suspected return of banned user on [[Sathya Sai Baba]] ==
+==Sbs108==
+''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''
+===Request concerning Sbs108===
+'''User requesting enforcement:'''<br>
+[[User talk:Crotalus horridus|<font color="#11A"><b><tt>***&nbsp;Crotalus&nbsp;***</tt></b></font>]] 14:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
+'''User against whom enforcement is requested:'''<br>
+{{userlinks|Sbs108}}
+'''Sanction or remedy that this user violated:'''<br>
+[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#SSS108_2]]
+'''[[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it:'''<br>
+# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=prev&oldid=317412077]
+# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=prev&oldid=317378648]
+# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=prev&oldid=317294775]
+# numerous others - see notes below
+'''Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):'''<br>
+{{{Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy)}}}
+'''Enforcement action requested ([[WP:BP|block]], [[WP:BAN|topic ban]] or [[WP:SANCTION|other sanction]]):'''<br>
+The previous topic ban on this user should be enforced.
+'''Additional comments by [[User talk:Crotalus horridus|<font color="#11A"><b><tt>***&nbsp;Crotalus&nbsp;***</tt></b></font>]]:'''<br>
+Based on [[WP:DUCK]], it seems clear that [[User:SSS108]] has returned as [[User:Sbs108]]. The user names are only one letter apart, and both accounts focus almost exclusively on [[Sathya Sai Baba]] and closely related topics. Both also exhibit similar grammatical flaws. Since [[User:SSS108]] was indefinitely banned from this article, I request enforcement of this remedy on that individual's current account, [[User:Sbs108]].
+'''Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:'''<br>
+''The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a [[WP:DIFF|diff]] of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.''
+===Discussion concerning Sbs108===
+====Statement by Sbs108====
+====Comments by other editors====
+===Result concerning Sbs108===
+:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
 <!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.-->