Important information Shortcuts 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,[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.

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

User requesting enforcement:
Grandmaster 06:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Lida Vorig (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. [1] This is a new account, and was used for the most part for edit warring and voting at AFD.

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

1. none

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Official warning about the existence of arbitration restrictions.

Additional comments by Grandmaster:
Per discussion with another admin: [2], the official warning about the editing restrictions needs to be considered. Grandmaster 06:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[3]

What "edit warring"? There is none! Since when did voting at a deletion request become a banning offense? The only slightly questionable edit was the removal of the link to a propaganda website from another editor's user page. Maybe Lida Vorig didn't understand that removing content from a user's page is considered to be unacceptable (as well as being pointless because that user can simply re-insert the content and protect the page). Meowy 15:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is my recommendation as a checkuser that Lida Vorig be officially notified of the case restrictions. I'm sorry but I can't say more. It does very little harm to place someone on formal notice in any case, as someone who edits according to policies (civility, edit warring, etc) will never trigger any of the restrictions. Thatcher 23:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

User requesting enforcement:
_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes#Editors_reminded, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions

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

Anti-Polish comments and some personal attacks:

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]
4. [14]
5. [15]

Personal attacks:

1. [16]
2. [17]
3. (post ending)
4. [18]

Other ethic-based comments:

1. [19]
2. [20]

Refusal to back down and behave in a civil fashion:

1. [21]

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

1. [22] Warning by PasswordUsername (talk · contribs)
2. [23] Warning by AdjustShift (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Since it seems that comments on his talk page and in discussion asking him to tone it down and be more civil are failing to be effective, something else needs to be done. This user is creating much bad blood between Polish and Ukrainian editors, adding him to Digwuren's sanction list and a stern warning from AE admins may, hopefully, give him a pause. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [24]

• I just hope that whichever admin reads this protest actually looks at the links posted above and realizes how minor they are, and that Piotrus is just grasping at straws. This is just another attempt by a pro-Polish editor with an agenda to censor editors from trying to improve the article in question, and provide a NPOV.--Львівське (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also the other disputant at #Poeticbent. Sciurinæ (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

User requesting enforcement:
Cinéma C 01:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo#Probation

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

1. [25] Listed Kosovo as a disputed country, despite Wikipedia consensus to call Kosovo a 'disputed region'. Both 'disputed country' and 'disputed province' are Albanian and Serb POV respectively.
2. [26] Listed Kosovo as a country, despite Wikipedia consensus to call Kosovo a 'disputed region'. Both 'disputed country' and 'disputed province' are Albanian and Serb POV respectively.

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

1. [27] Warning by Cinéma C (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Block for a while or topic ban from Kosovo related articles for a while

Additional comments by Cinéma C:
also reporting other Albanian nationalist users below

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[28]

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

Blocked indefinitely as a single-purpose account. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User requesting enforcement:
Cinéma C 01:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo#Probation

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

1. [29] Removed "disputed" from the lead, enforcing the disputed country version, despite Wikipedia consensus to call Kosovo a 'disputed region'. Both 'disputed country' and 'disputed province' are Albanian and Serb POV respectively.

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

1. [30] Warning by Cinéma C (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Block for a while or topic ban from Kosovo related articles for a while

Additional comments by Cinéma C:
also reporting other Albanian nationalist users below

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[31]

I think that reporting me is unjust. I made two very reasonable changes and I argumented them in the discussion page:

1) I changed Kosovo from region to country. There are many reasons for this and they are in the discussion page. First of all if Scotland is a country so should be Kosovo. Second, Kosovo has been a sovereign state. Third, I reverted from "state" to "country", whereas Cinema C (who banned me) changed that back to "region". There has been enough discussion to not call Kosovo merely a "region": we are trying to split between Kosovo-country and Kosovo-region, but a consensus has not been found yet.

2) I took away "disputed" and I well argumented it in the discussion page: "Disputed" would mean that the counterpart of Serbia should be another country that disputes Kosovo, because Serbia IS a country. So what is this "country" that disputes Kosovo? Is it Albania? No! Is it the USA? No! If it's Kosovo itself, then either one should accept that Kosovo IS also a country, or there is no need to say that Kosovo is "disputed". Furthermore, in the same sentence, we have "partially recognized" so "disputed" becomes redundant.

Thank you!

02:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)-- 02:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"I changed Kosovo from region to country. There are many reasons for this and they are in the discussion page."

Sulmues is ignoring Wikipedia consensus on the issue. Albanian editors consider Kosovo a country, Serb editors a province. The majority of UN states see Kosovo as a part of Serbia, a minority recognize it as a separate state. UN Security Council Resolution 1244 explicitly describes Kosovo as a part of FR Yugoslavia, of which Serbia is the recognized successor state. Therefore, it is impossible to take one side and completely ignore everything else.

"First of all if Scotland is a country so should be Kosovo."

Scotland is recognized as such and it is not disputed by anyone.

"Second, Kosovo has been a sovereign state."

Never in it's history. Even today it is disputed, unrecognized by 2 permanent UNSC members and the majority of UN states.

"Cinema C (who banned me) changed that back to "region""

I cannot ban anyone, I'm not an administrator.

"There has been enough discussion to not call Kosovo merely a "region""

Purely by Albanian nationalists, characterized as such on the talk page by well established users.

"but a consensus has not been found yet"

It has, after marathon discussions with User:Interestedinfairness, who kept pushing his POV, but was forced to stop when he realized that the consensus is to lean towards neither side and call Kosovo a "disputed region". We should not have to repeat this discussion every time a new POV-pusher appears on the stage.

The arguments under "2)" make no sense to me and I will not comment on them. However, I would like to add that those who believe that adding "disputed" in front of "country" makes everything OK should think twice. It could go both ways - "disputed province"... and then we just open up another Pandora's box. Therefore, the best way to keep the calm is to reject all nationalist POV-pushers, whether they be Albanians or Serbs, and use completely neutral wording, as per Wikipedia consensus on the Kosovo talk page. --Cinéma C 02:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I changed Kosovo from region to country. There are many reasons for this and they are in the discussion page."

Sulmues is ignoring Wikipedia consensus on the issue. Albanian editors consider Kosovo a country, Serb editors a province. The majority of UN states see Kosovo as a part of Serbia, a minority recognize it as a separate state. UN Security Council Resolution 1244 explicitly describes Kosovo as a part of FR Yugoslavia, of which Serbia is the recognized successor state. Therefore, it is impossible to take one side and completely ignore everything else.

We're not ignoring everthing. We are saying that Kosovo is a country because it is de facto independent. We are saying that it is partially recognized. Why should we say more? Why should you insist in claiming Kosovo simply a region while it is not merely a region? A region is a geographical notion, not a political one. It is a very incorrect way of calling Kosoovo. The fact that the UN recognizes Kosovo as part of Serbia doesn't make it a good point to be blind in calling things with their own name in Wikipedia. Besides there still has to be made a decision on it in an International Court. For now Vuk Jeremic is saying that he doesn't exlude that Serbia also might recognize Kosovo.

Cinéma C reply: Kosovo is not a country because the Kosovo government claims sovereignty and some other states recognize it. The Kosovo government claims control over the region of Kosovo, while it de facto does not have control over all of it. The international community has control over Kosovo. Sulmues or any other user simply can not ignore these facts just because they don't like them. --Cinéma C 06:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"First of all if Scotland is a country so should be Kosovo."

Scotland is recognized as such and it is not disputed by anyone.

Recognized by whom? You should point me to the seat that Scotland has in the UN. Since you claimed earlier UN, you should be consistent and show me that the UN recognizes Scotland as a "country". So why in Wikipedia we have Scotland country and Kosovo region???

Cinéma C reply: London recognizes Scotland as a country, within the territory of the United Kingdom, and so does every other state in the world. There isn't a majority of UN states that consider Scotland to be a province, or a part of England perhaps. Your analogy makes no sense, every case is unique (as the West likes to say). --Cinéma C 06:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Second, Kosovo has been a sovereign state."

Never in it's history. Even today it is disputed, unrecognized by 2 permanent UNSC members and the majority of UN states.

It has been a sovereign state in the last 10 years. Recognized by 3 permanent UNSC members and the majority of the Balkan states, EU states, and Europe states, where it exists.

Cinéma C reply: No factual accuracy - even the Kosovo government has not claimed sovereignty for the last 10 years, only since 2008. Yes, it is recognized by 3 permanent UNSC members and the majority of the Balkan states, EU states, and Europe states, but it is also not recognized by the majority of world states. No one can ignore this fact, just because they don't like it. --Cinéma C 06:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Cinema C (who banned me) changed that back to "region""

I cannot ban anyone, I'm not an administrator.

I'll correct myself: "reported", not "banned". I am polite enough to not make any edits until I am cleared from this unjust reporting.

Cinéma C reply: If you were so polite, you wouldn't vandalize an article under probation. --Cinéma C 06:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"There has been enough discussion to not call Kosovo merely a "region""

Purely by Albanian nationalists, characterized as such on the talk page by well established users.

Excuse me? I don't think 62 countries who recognized Kosovo, think Kosovo is merely a region. I'm afraid those 62 countries are not Albanian nationalists.

Cinéma C reply: We're talking about Wikipedia consensus, which is disrupted purely by Albanian nationalists. Wikipedia is not here to present the views of the minority of countries which do recognize Kosovo and then just mention how the majority disputes that. It's not anybody's Wikipedia, it's a free encyclopedia that has to be neutral.

"but a consensus has not been found yet"

It has, after marathon discussions with User:Interestedinfairness, who kept pushing his POV, but was forced to stop when he realized that the consensus is to lean towards neither side and call Kosovo a "disputed region". We should not have to repeat this discussion every time a new POV-pusher appears on the stage.

I am referring to the consensus on dividing between Kosovo region and Kosovo country. Show me where the consensus was reached.

Cinéma C reply: Look at previous discussions on the talk page. There is no division, Kosovo is Kosovo - a region that some call a province, and some call a country. Nobody can take the general article and claim it for their own POV. --Cinéma C 06:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments under "2)" make no sense to me and I will not comment on them. However, I would like to add that those who believe that adding "disputed" in front of "country" makes everything OK should think twice. It could go both ways - "disputed province"... and then we just open up another Pandora's box. Therefore, the best way to keep the calm is to reject all nationalist POV-pushers, whether they be Albanians or Serbs, and use completely neutral wording, as per Wikipedia consensus on the Kosovo talk page.

I think you should read more carefully 2) and you will understand. sulmues 04:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

User requesting enforcement:
Cinéma C 01:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Spanishboy2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo#Probation

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

1. [32] Listed Kosovo as a disputed state, despite Wikipedia consensus to call Kosovo a 'disputed region'. Both 'disputed country' (or 'state') and 'disputed province' are Albanian and Serb POV respectively.
2. [33] Listed Kosovo as bordering Serbia, pushing POV by claiming that Kosovo's independence is not disputed.

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

1. [34] Warning by Cinéma C (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Indefinite block or topic ban from Kosovo related articles

Additional comments by Cinéma C:

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[35]

A possible sockpuppet of Sinbad Barron (ie. the Mr.Neutral gang). This user has constantly pushed for Kosovo to be presented as a "country" despite a heavy range of issues raised by a wide number of users asides Cinema C. This "block of users" seems to carry with it an unhealthy obsession with using Noel Malcolm sources and basing the articles according to the publisher's opinion. Compare this edit by Spanishboy[36] to the following on a non-Kosovo article but where the Kosovo topic is instrumental: [37] (which was traced by following the trail of a user who had already taken an interest on Kosovo here[38]). Malcolm is not credited on his Kosovo piece but is so in his South Ossetia speech, as well as on the article[39]. The evidence which blocked these users also resulted in the block of another terrible user called User:Metrospex. There had been similarities between these users but only when Noel Malcolm was raised after a period of silence did it strike me that this may be the case. The only other user who has insisted on using Malcolm is Aigest who I have to say, does so more cautiously and on other pages. So I'd check the IPs on this one, and carry out whichever other methods are used to established puppetry. Evlekis (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: Editor was blocked for 2 weeks under WP:ARBMAC by User:J.delanoy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User requesting enforcement:
Sciurinæ (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes#Editors_reminded and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs demonstrating personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, battleground creation and edit warring:

1. [40]
2. [41]
3. [42]
4. [43]
5. [44] (edit summary)
6. [45] (edit summary)
7. [46]
8. [47] (edit summary)
9. [48]
10. [49] (edit summary)
11. [50]
12. [51]
13. [52] (edit summary)
14. edit warring in violation of 3RR: revert 1, 2, 3, 4

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

1. [53] Warning by Gamaliel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. [54] Caution issued by AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
3. [55] A list of previous misconduct presented by M.K (talk · contribs)
4. [56] FoF by the Arbitration Committee
5. [57] Proposed block by Tznkai (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Poeticbent's persistent uncivil behaviour and edit warring finally need attention. A placement on the Eastern European topic discretionary list (Template:Digwuren enforcement) would be the first step.

Additional comments by Sciurinæ (talk):
Even to the accusation of personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, Poeticbent replied with yet another personal attack coupled with assumptions of bad faith, only this time against me. Sciurinæ (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Piotrus' claims, reporting a user for policy violations is neither stalking nor harassment. In fact, "the contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioural oversight. Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly."([58]) I can only remember one other time I reported Poeticbent, and that was for a 3RR violation resulting in a block for him. There is nothing wrong with reporting an editor who has a long history of incivility, ABF and edit warring for continuing just that. It is incredible to get abuse hurled at for the act of reporting abuse, with now Piotrus apparently making an implication below of me belonging to a "very small group of extremists trying to out other editors who enforce NPOV" and also accusing me of bad faith motives (by the way, when is someone finally cracking down on Piotrus's personal attacks and ABF?).

While Piotrus says that the users in the relevant dispute didn't need sanctions and that it was detrimental to the mediation effort, in actuality a disputant from the other side is currently up at this board #Lvivske, reported even before I did by no other than Piotrus himself. Shall I now also accuse Piotrus of trying to get an editor of the opposite party sanctioned and defending his compatriot against sanctions or much better: how about we refrain from ad hominem personal attacks and accusations of bad faith and instead address the content of my report or would you please just acknowledge it is indisputable? Sciurinæ (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[59]

It’s been a long time since I came into contact with the user, who filed this report, and so I am understandably puzzled by it. User Sciurinæ (talk · contribs) mounted groundless attacks on me before (see:Tag team 3: German - Matthead, Stor stark7, Sciurinæ), the attacks which went on till finally everyone who ever spoke out was exhausted; but now, I think Sciurinæ wants to get back at me for taking a stance against yet another one of his fellow German editors, reported by another Polish editor for edit warring at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Skäpperöd reported by Radeksz, so this report is obviously tainted by our past history.

Going back to the merits of this report. It is based entirely on my recent interaction with another user with whom Sciurinæ has nothing in common. In fact, Sciurinæ never participated in the development of the article in question, called Massacres of Poles in Volhynia, and has no interest in its subject. – Why he is getting involved here again (other than to harass me), I wouldn’t know? There were some heated exchanges at the article talk page due to the fact that my elaborate and well balanced edit which took hours to prepare, was being blanket reverted several times. I was understandably upset by having my work erased, especially, that I did not delete anything from that article in the process, and did not rephrase anything added by my content opponent earlier. For me, the blanket revert of everything I did felt like an insult, that’s why I filed a request for assistance from the community here at WP:RFC. Under the circumstances, Sciurinæ’s surprise attack on me here at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement can be perceived only as a payback time as well as his attempt at disruption of the usual editing process involving most controversial articles. It is inspired by a desire for revenge. --Poeticbent talk 18:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Piotrus

I think it should be made clear that this is not a conflict between German editors and Polish, but a very small group of extremists trying to out other editors who enforce NPOV. I think it is very telling that Sciurinæ is filling a request to investigate an issue in articles he has never shown any interest in; it seems obvious that his intent is to harass Poeticbent. Most of the diffs he cites are from a recent dispute at Massacres of Poles in Volhynia; I've recently warned both parties there to calm down, as indeed edit warring and bad-faith fueled personal attacks have occurred from several editors. Since Poeticbent and Faustian (who are primary disputants there) are otherwise calm, good and civil editors, prone to neither edit warring nor incivility, I (and several other editors) are now trying to mediate their conflict, and I don't see the need to smack them with arbcom restriction (it was not suggested by anybody on article's talk, and such an escalation is akin to a storm in a teapot). What Sciurinæ is doing - taking a potshot at an editor he had previous disagreements with and fueling the battleground - is IMHO an example of wikistalking/harassment, and further it is detrimental to dispute resolution already ongoing in the article, and he should be warned not to use AE in such a fashion again. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

User requesting enforcement:
Ohconfucius (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Date delinking#Pmanderson_topic_banned "31.1) Pmanderson is topic banned for 12 month from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions."

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
The user has edited the policy page 6 times since the case closed (1 2 3 4 5 6) In the fifth edit, he remove a link to the WP:Manual of Style and replaced it by a link to an article, with a possibly deceptive edit summary. This undiscussed change may well have been contentious (it has since been reverted) and appears to involve just the scope that Remedy 31.1 refers to

addendum

Since I opened the request for clarification, PMA has made 1, 2, 3 edits to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) as well as 1, 2 edits to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names).

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

1. Not applicable

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
I am seeking clarification as to what was covered by the restraining order – I am under similar editing restraint and would gladly like to know whether same freedom applies to me. If he has been in breach, a brief spell on the benches or a strongly worded warning would be in order.

Additional comments by Ohconfucius (talk):
moved here from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification following advice from clerk.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

• diff of notification

To reuse my statement, when Ohconfucius made the same appeal to ArbCom, here:

This is the result of the quarrel over date-delinking, once brought to ArbCom, and settled at WP:ARBDATE. So far, the appeal to ArbCom has been ignored, except for Mbisanz recusing himself from clerking it; understandable, since Ohconfucius made a big deal about his commenting on the original case, when he wasn't clerking on it.

What does any of this evidence have to do with date-delinking? Why am I being dragged back into the date-delinking case?

Ohconfucious appears to have missed has now inserted this edit (which should, by the "logic" here, be the most outrageous), in which I inserted a space between two paragraphs.

As for the edit summary complained of, it says, in full: refer to article, with sources; there are advantages to working on an encyclopedia. There are; these include access to articles on English grammar when we want to indicate what that grammar actually is; they have citations and sources; MOS doesn't.

As Roger Davies wrote, now on the talk page of WP:ARBDATE, topic bans are intended to give severely disrupted topics a break from disruption and to give topic-banned editors an opportunity to get used to working in less contested areas. The naming conventions are in fact much less contentious; it was with relief that I returned to discussing them, as I have been doing for years. Applying them is less so, as the recently concluded Macedonia case will show; I have been discussing that also, and its consequences, with several admins and some arbitrators. Nobody suggested that this topic ban applied in any way.

It may indeed be possible to apply this decision mechanically, so that it will amount to a site ban; did ArbCom mean that? (And if so, did they mean it, somehow, just for me, or does it apply to all parties alike?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Greek patriot Xenovatis, or (as he now calls himself) Anothroskon, is one of the participants in the Macedonia ArbCom case, who deeply and emotionally believes in the use of FYROM and several other -er- debatable points of Greek history. As I said, the application of naming guidelines can be controversial. The use of procedural complaints to settle points of content is commonplace among such editors; this case, however, appears to have been largely touchiness on his part. Observe one of his last edits under his old username, which shows a calmer spirit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also see that Ohconfucius protests that this effort to get me blocked, in two different forums now, is not about me. The gentleman doth protest too much; if what he wanted to know was whether he could edit the Naming Conventions, he could simply have asked. I also object to his persistent assumption of bad faith. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I have assumed this ban (as the others of the same wording) was limited to {{style-guideline}}s (this would include other templates transcluded into such guidelines, which was what I did wrong), because the express reason for not limiting them to discussion of date-delinking was that the actual wording would be easier to administer. The interpretation Ohconfucius suggests is not.

In addition, my restriction was suggested in the last days of the case, on limited evidence, and passed by a close vote. It never occurred to me that it was meant as a ban from most of Wikipedia space; if ArbCom had meant that, wouldn't they have been clearer?

(And, as said above, I have edited and discussed the new naming convention on Macedonia, in company with clerks and Arbs; surely one of them would have warned me if I had been in violation of a just-passed arbitration?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Sandstein: Please go to ArbCom instead; I have left messages with two Arbs myself. I will appeal any such interpretation immediately, and I have better uses for my time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Sandstein: Can we not simply wait for an Arb to notice one of the (now three) requests for their opinion? If it is as Ohconfucius would like, the Arb may be able to express their collective opinion better than anyone here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Moving the above comment from the admin section and replying) I see no harm in waiting, but it might be a good idea for you to refrain from editing the page at issue until the matter is resolved, to avoid further complications.  Sandstein  21:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I have other things to do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Two Arbs have now commented on the original discussion here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• with regard to the "outrageous edit" which I allegedly missed, please see this correction diff Ohconfucius (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe I have already explained (relative to my first at Clarification) why I am posting this and why it has been moved here. I note that the sniping continues but will not allow PMA to indulge in this style of questioning of my motives. He may be forgiven for believing this is about him, but it's really not. Greg L's participation in the WP:DATEBOT was questioned although I did not see the relevance at the time either, and I was proven wrong. My reason is now highlighted in red above. An official can ignore or dismiss this for all I care, but don't then come after me when I start editing similar editing guidelines, because I will come and say "I did ask" (referring to this query, of course). Ohconfucius (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• On the "much less contentious" guideline which is WP:NAME, PMA appears nevertheless to have created some ripples of his own. His behaviour over the naming of certain articles was the subject of a complaint which graced these very pages only ten days ago; User:Xenovatis has asked for his talk page to be protected against PMA's unwanted attention. Therefore, it is not as "uncontentious" at WP:NAME as PMA would like to suggest. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "The gentleman doth protest too much": WP:NPA; "if what he wanted to know was whether he could edit the Naming Conventions, he could simply have asked.": I did. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, but editors usually only work on specific areas of interest to them, and what they do best is usually in that area they care about the most. Please note that, in the same decision, Lightmouse was banned from using any form of automation - an area he excels in. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC) (Non-admin response to Fut. Perf. moved from admin section.  Sandstein  05:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I see that Ohconfucius has compared me to Lightmouse; there seems to me a clear differentiation: Until this matter arose, I left dates alone, as ArbCom wished; Lightmouse (a sockpuppet of the infamous Bobblewick) refused to. Ohconfucius has indeed spent his time in article space, not only delinking dates (redundantly, a bot is being built to do it) but switching articles from one dating format to another, a violation of MOS and of the Jguk ArbCom decision to which it refers.

• Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolaevich of Russia (1856–1929)
• Nicholas Alexandrovich, Tsarevich of Russia
• Grand Duke Michael Mikhailovich of Russia

This is Date Warring. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<sign> I can't say I wasn't expecting this return of fire.</sigh> Ohconfucius (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You chose to throw stones while sitting in a glass house. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a correction to one thing dragged in falsely by Ohconfucius above: The protection of Xenovatis' talk page had nothing to do with any complaints against Pmanderson, as far as I can tell (and if it had, it would be a breach of protection policy); the talk page was merely abandoned because the editor chose to move to a new name. Also, whatever conflict there was between Xenovatis and Pmanderson, it wasn't over style guideline edits, so what has it to do with anything here? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologise that it may have been a false conclusion, but it is pretty obvious, from the state of said talk page before it was blanked and protected, that some serious accusations were being made by PMA to the displeasure of Xeno. Furthermore, although I am not making any such accusation, it does not preclude a user seeking the upper hand in a content dispute on WP by changing the relevant guideline. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I were them [ArbCom] and didn't want much trouble, I'd state a clear-cut restriction such as "is prohibited from editing pages in Category:Wikipedia style guidelines and talk pages thereof". --A. di M. (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC) (Non-admin comment moved to here from section below.  Sandstein  13:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Agree that precision is clarity. However, my belief is that Arbcom would not have chosen to be so 'vague' if it wanted a narrow interpretation of the remedy. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note There is a request for amendment that may or may not affect this request for enforcement. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Pmanderson topic banned, "Pmanderson is topic banned for 12 month from style and editing guidelines". His edits reported by Ohconfucius were to Wikipedia:Naming conventions, a policy that is not part of WP:MOS (which was the area of conflict in the case). I would appreciate comments by arbitrators or other uninvolved editors whether the naming conventions are "style and editing guidelines" for the purpose of the topic ban. I would tend to agree that they are.  Sandstein  05:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I read that correctly its a ban from "style guidelines" and "editing guidelines". The case (in Styles locked in dispute) found that problematic behavior had spilled out of the MOS which may explain the broad wording of the remedy. I would tend to agree that Naming conventions, though policy, would fall under the remedy (in fact, the way I read it, any policy about editing or style would be covered). Perhaps an clarification from the Arbs about whether they meant things to be that broad or limited to the MOS would be helpful? Shell ^babelfish 13:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was already moved here from the clarification requests page. Unless others disagree, I will close this with a warning to Pmanderson that we understand his ban to also include Wikipedia:Naming conventions, and that he will be blocked should he edit it again.  Sandstein  13:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wordings of arbitration remedies, because of the way they are processed, don't always reflect the spirit and intent behind them very well. Though I might be in the minority, I would be very strongly in favour of interpreting the ArbCom remedy here narrowly, unless instructed otherwise by arbs through a clarification. PMAnderson's work in naming conventions is usually very good and most of it is philosophically and wikipolitically unrelated to the disruption around the date delinking case. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Deacon. It would be a pity to lose Pmanderson's work on what he does best. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is still open under clarfications - since there does seem to be a disagreement about what the remedy was supposed to cover, maybe we should wait and see if an Arb comments? Shell ^babelfish 16:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it appears that I am now in a content disagreement with Pmanderson in a naming conventions-related issue ([60]), I will recuse myself from any further action with respect to this issue if he so requests.  Sandstein  20:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]