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

Radeksz

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 Radeksz

User requesting enforcement: Matthead Discuß 02:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#List of editors placed on notice, was notified on 6 July 2009

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: # "Bullshit ... hell ... engaging in a form of outting."

"stop fucking lying" (removes "fucking" with the summary "temper fix")
"You people are insane. Seriously."

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy): "Not applicable."

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): "Temper fix" block to stop him from spreading more foul language and accusations. How much leeway does this editor get while others have been blocked for lesser incivility?

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Radek, who was placed under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#List_of_editors_placed_under_editing_restriction, has created the article Schieder commission (which relates to Eastern Europe) and listed it for DYK, with a hook that includes "Nazi" not only once, but twice. Radek apparently then made a mistake while copying content from an email to the Schieder commission article. The diffs have since been deleted by an Oversight, and the issue is discussed at the EEML Arbcom case as "Radeksz is proxying for banned User:Molobo".

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [1]

Discussion concerning Radeksz

Statement by Radeksz

Yup I lost my temper due to continued harassment and a very stressful situation which had just occured. I redacted the post. See also here and here. This is just forum shopping.radek (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, the article submitted for DYK includes the word "Nazi" because it's about ... Nazis.radek (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to go on a self imposed "cool down" as soon as people stop starting threads about me and stalking my edits.radek (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Radeksz

Result concerning Radeksz

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

I see no need for any action here, beyond reminding all participants to remain cool when editing, and to assume good faith. Prodego ^talk 02:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the case clerk, I agree with Prodego's analysis of the situation. KnightLago (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defer to clerk's discretion, but for future reference, I will for one will look unkindly on any attempt to use EEML or any other incomplete case's turns to action an AE thread at all, or misuse the case when its complete. We are not here to re litigate arbitration cases, overturn them, or extend them.

In fact, we're not here to litigate at all, but I think that one is beyond this forum's hopes.---Tznkai (talk)

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.

nableezy

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

Request concerning nableezy

User requesting enforcement: Cptnono (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive49#Nableezy

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: Edits by topic banned users at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Cook has caused some confusion. A request for clarification was made by another editor here regarding the Judea and Samaria case but Nableezy was involved and it deals with a subject that is also Israel-Palestine related. Nableezy is not prohibited from editing talk pages as of November 29.* (The AfD has sett off a series of reverts and it looks like he has immediately continued the behavior that got him banned.

[2] Nov 28: Restored material that was removed since it was added by editors who were under a potentially relevant topic ban. Potential violation of previous sanctions.
[3] Nov 29: reverted a revert to the previous restoration
[4] Dec 3: Changed gears and removed content from the page. (It was from a banned user)
[5] Dec 3 reverted (restored) material removed on Nov 29
[6] Dec 3 removed discussion to put it on the talk page (not a bad idea but still another potentially contentious revert)
[7] Dec 3, it was reverted so he reverted
[8] Dec 3, reverted the restoration of the other material

As mentioned in the clarification request above, I was concerned about two reverts to a user's talk page discussing the Arab-Israel conflict that he made during his ban. Multiple reverts are inappropriate especially when there is not a clear line as to where you should or should not be editing. He also broke his topic ban by editing two files. These were actually good edits but since I brought it up at the request for clarification I felt that it is appropriate to bring it up here (it comes across "petty", though).

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy): Not applicable. Already sanctioned and is fully aware of the AE process. He mentioned that editors could take the reverts at the AfD to AE a couple times in his edit summaries.

He also said to take it to AE in his rebuttals to my seconding a request for clarification

[12]
[13]

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): I don't know. Whatever stops the multiple reverts. Anything ranging from a good talking to all the way through a block. Maybe a 1rr sanction would do the trick since that seems to be the biggest concern.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: It looks like I am out to get Nableezy. That sucks but the same troubling pattern is emerging within a week of of his ban on talk pages being lifted. If he would stop edit warring there wouldn't be a problem.

Sometimes it appears that he believes he is doing the right thing. Unfortunately, it turned an AfD (which has consensus to keep it looks like) into a mess for whatever admin handles it. It also looks like there is some stress on the talk pages (he wasn't the only one to edit war, though).

I'm a little concerned about the potential violation of his topic ban, but that is more of the principle than anything else.Cptnono (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I assume this means AfDs as well since that is discussion and not content. My primary concern is the edit warring. The handful of edits before the 29th are bad but I wouldn't have brought them up without the edit warring. I could care less about chit chat going on after that. Just wanted to clear that up.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [14]

Discussion concerning nableezy

Statement by Nableezy

I removed an edit by the sockpuppet of a site-banned user. That is not changing gear, that is something that policy calls for. I restored other edits another editor removed asking that user to go to WP:AE if they felt the editors comments were in violation of their topic-bans. In what way exactly have I violated my topic ban? The other users were out of line in removing peoples edits that were on topic, and I regard those reverts as reversions of vandalism. The moving of information completely off-topic discussing the AfD itself belongs on the talk page of the AfD, it should not be on the AfD page. And the "other editor" who requested clarification has since been blocked as a sockpuppet of the site-banned NoCal100, who had used another sockpuppet to both vote in the AfD and remove Nick and Nishi's edits as those of banned users. In fact one of those sockpuppets was involved in the previous enforcement action against me, I wonder if we will get a chance to see another. nableezy - 06:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epeefleche, how many places are you going to copy and paste the same thing? The 1 month ban did start on the 29th (see here the ban on editing article talk pages is reduced to one. These times are relative to the initial sanction.) And I said I viewed the AfD as an extension of the talk page, not that it is the talk page. nableezy - 08:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admit what? I have said the same thing every time (extension of the talk page, extension of the talk page. I consistently called it an "extension of the talk page". nableezy - 08:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that AGK's words in the amended decision were I am adjusting my initial sanction of Nableezy, after much consideration. The ban on editing article content is reduced from four months to two; and the ban on editing article talk pages is reduced to one. These times are relative to the initial sanction. which suggests that AGK saw two areas, articles and talk. It is my contention that the AfD falls in "talk", space designated for discussing the article. nableezy - 08:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is an incredibly odd reading. You are saying in 1 more month I will be free to edit articles but not AfDs? I find that to be beyond belief, but we can just ask AGK (I just did). nableezy - 08:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be clear on why I restored those edits. The only reason I did so is because I felt it was not the place for two involved users to determine what the topic ban includes and how to enforce that topic ban. I repeatedly asked each user to go to WP:AE. At WP:ANI the issue was raised and closed by LessHeard vanU with the comment that This is an WP:AE issue. I told both users that it is not their place to make the determination of whether or not this page is within the topic ban and that WP:AE is the proper venue to make a complaint. They both refused to do so. My removal of User:Mr. Hicks The III's !vote is one that requires no judgment to do, WP:BAN explicitly says that any user may revert the edit of any banned editor. As Hicks was site-banned as the sock of NoCal100, he was clearly banned from that page, that removal is not comparable to the repeated removals of Nick and Nishi's comments. nableezy - 09:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AGK has clarified that AfD discussions should for the purposes of enforcement of this sanction be treated as article talkpages. nableezy - 02:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning nableezy

nableezy:

Suggests his ban does not apply to the AfD because after one month it no longer applied to article talk pages. However ...
An AfD is clearly not an "article talk page". Even when one performs a search under "Wikipedia talk", AfD pages do not show up. See also this, where Wiki pages (which include AfDs) and Wiki talk pages are two different search categories. Though AfD discussion (or "talk") pages show up. AfD pages fall squarely within his "all pages" prohibition.
As to timing, his ban was first handed down on October 29. In its original form it was for four months, " all pages within subject areas relating to th[e] arbitration case."
Two portions of the "all pages within the subject area" were then shortened on November 3. Article pages to "2 months from all pages within subject areas relating to this arbitration case, except article talk pages, from which he is banned for 1 month."
He was editing the AfD page by November 28. Even if the 1 month ban started on October 29 ~~(and not on November 3, the day it was handed down)~~, and even had the AfD been an "article talk page" (which it clearly isn't), he was editing on a page on the subject before he should have.
But, most importantly, its clear that AfDs are not "article talk pages". That is the only area he has been allowed to edit during the entire time of the AfD--all of his many edits at the AfD, on his talk page, and on the AfD talk page have been in flagrant violation of his ban.

Nableezy seems by his reply to my above comments to now admit that an AfD is not a talk page. But rather, as he calls it, "an extension of a talk page". Whatever that is. But whatever that is--it is not something he has permission to edit. He only has permission to edit talk pages. And yet he has flagrantly violated that ban, editing, voting, commenting, and removing others' comments on the AfD page. Despite many request that he not do so, in light of his ban. He has also edited in tandem with the other two topic-banned editors who nevertheless edited at the AfD; in toto, the three of them accounted for a significant percentage of the AfD discussion to date, and Nableezy even now insists that his comments and vote must remain at the AfD, and has refused to restore to the AfD page my comments that he moved from that page.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy raises an important point. But leaves out the most important part. In his ban, AGK wrote: "I am banning Nableezy for a period of 4 months from all pages (including both article and article talk pages) within those topic areas which relate to the Palestine-Israel articles case. If he violates this topic ban, his account will be blocked for disruption (for any duration less than the time remaining of the topic ban)." So, the ban related to: a) all pages, including b) article pages, and c) article talk pages. AfDs fall into category a, but not categories b and c. AGK only reduced the times in categories b (to 2 months) and c (to 1 month), but did not decrease his four month ban on pages other than article pages and article talk pages.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drama

More drama. See Tempest in a teapot. If only people would simply follow the discretionary sanctions. Imagine, the article certainly wouldn't have been nominated for deletion in the first place, topic banned users wouldn't have felt compelled to say something while openly acknowledging their topic bans (which ironically may be unsound anyway thanks to the actions of yet another of the endless line of activist sockpuppets), highly involved non-admins removing comments wouldn't have confused themselves with uninvolved admins, other users wouldn't have felt compelled to reverse the removal (and that wasn't just Nableezy), other users wouldn't have escalated the situation by using dramatic terms like 'poisoned', 'I'm appalled', 'gross disregard'. I thought the sanctions were there to help us 'aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict.' rather than a way to produce more drama. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deja vu

I suppose 1rr is the way to go from here, but i can't guarantee that there won't be another 3rr thread in two weeks where editors will be hairsplitting this thread, deating whether 1rr applies to removing banned editors' comments, arguing whether the blp-3rr exemption applies to 1rr restrictions, or wikilawyering whether the talk page of a template which has 63.4% blp's falls under the blp exemption. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Agree with Tznkai that this seems a bit technical for enforcement. An AfD is a discussion, like a talk page. Perhaps an editor under such a topic ban should only be allowed to comment and not to vote, I don't know. Or maybe they should participate only on the talk page of the AfD (logical, but a bit tedious). Several editors were reverting these comments, including at least one banned sock (plus one anon IP). But, the dispute is the kind you have on a talk page, not the kind you have on an article. Agree with Tznkai also that editors should not be revert warring, ever. User:Jeppiz did the right thing by relaying the important information that needed to be relayed himself, rather than just replacing Nishidani's comment. He recently removed that comment, though I'm not sure why.[15] Another option would be to move the comments to the talk page. People on all sides should look for compromises, not just revert back and forth. Mackan79 (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning nableezy

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

I enjoy the game of statutory interpretation as much as anyone else, and Epleefleeche's interpretation is more likley textually correct, but Nableezey's is less absurd. I see actual legitimate confusion, so until AGK comments, I'm going to hold action, but very strongly suggest Nableezey find something not remotely related to I/P to write about, like Southeast Asian cuisine. --Tznkai (talk) 10:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right, this is an important bit: don't edit war. EVER. 3RR is a signal you've already gone too far, not the first sign of trouble. I'll look into the history of the AfD tomorrow.--Tznkai (talk) 10:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After clarification from AGK on his user talk page, I'm going to have to decline enforcement. I think I've said enough on proper behavior here in general, but if I can help out in a non enforcement medium, any one is welcome to drop me a line on my talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning QuackGuru

User requesting enforcement: QuackGuru (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log of blocks and bans & QuackGuru was commenting to much on the talk page but not doing enough listening to other editors.

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

[16] - relevant discussion
[17] - QuackGuru made reverts to the Aspartame controversy page.
[18] - involved editor concerned about QuackGuru

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy): Not applicable

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): QuackGuru wishes to learn from this experience and be more productive in any future content disputes.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: QuackGuru made too many comments on the talk page and should of gave more time for other editors to comment. When other editors disagree with QuackGuru, QuackGuru needs to address the discussion instead of simply restating QuackGuru's viewpoint.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: QuackGuru filed this report.

Discussion regarding QuackGuru

A recent discussion which may provide an overview here. I commend QG for bringing the case before AE of own volition. Unomi (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To state the obvious: This request is obviously defective insofar as it doesn't point to a violated sanction or remedy. I think WP:ARBPS#Discretionary sanctions is applicable here. A topic ban for all health related articles has been suggested by BullRangifer and Unomi (on Shell Kinney's talkpage, see Unomi's link), but I am not sure that this would help. QuackGuru has behaved in a similar way on Talk:Citizendium, where he insisted against everybody else that in "the project had 12,590 articles [...] of which 120 (1%) had achieved editorial approval" the "1%" was original research. It seems likely that the behavioral problems will occur whereever QuackGuru edits. Hans Adler 19:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This request is a little too Bob Dole for me.--Tznkai (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking him at his word would be the easiest and would save a lot of time and trouble. We'd avoid RfC and ArbCom cases. If he can't avoid disruption on topics outside the topic ban area, then it can be widened to a total ban.

A general topic ban would be best. That would apply to the subjects of health, medicine, alternative medicine, pseudoscience, fringe science, quackery, etc., whether in articles, talk pages, or even in his own talk page. Best to avoid the topics completely for awhile. This behavior is exactly, to a T, the same as the behavior exhibited by the indef banned KrishnaVindaloo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (KV), so much so that I have always suspected that QG was a sock of that disruptive user. A CU should be performed:

KV stopped editing on 12-05-2006
QG started editing on 12-31-2006

Coincidence? I think not. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just in response to the technical issue above, logs available for checkuser review only go back about three months, and there is no data available from 2006. Further, even if the data was available, it would be unreliable, given the passage of time. Risker (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's not get bogged down in that detail and get on with a topic ban. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair Haines

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

Request concerning Alastair Haines

User requesting enforcement: Kaldari (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: [19] - "topic-banned from editing patriarchy and all related pages (including discussions), broadly interpreted, for a year." (starting June 2009)

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: [20] - Restored an article related to patriarchy (Universality of patriarchy) that had been merged by consensus

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy): Not applicable.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Indefinitely topic-banned from all articles related to gender or patriarchy.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [21]

Discussion concerning Alastair Haines

Statement by Alastair Haines

Before anything else, it needs to be noted that this thread is past its used-by date. Although I welcome this discussion, it has the potential to lead to protracted and unhelpful interactions. One wise course may be to toss it out on a point of order, and leave things to the proper process of reliable sources cited on talk pages. But if Kaldari's typical behaviour of circumventing talk page discussion, triggering controversy and disharmony, by appealing to a defunct and regretable ArbCom decision must occur, here is my first response.

Kaldari demonstrates his ongoing attempts to circumvent accumulation of reliable sources regarding the biology of gender, by repeated actions to:

remove reliable sources related to said topic;
edit war when challenged; and,
attempt to discredit an editor whose reliability and neutrality have never been in doubt.

It should also be noted that Kaldari's involvement with both the systematic bias project and the Feminism task force provides an obvious conflict of interest. Is it any surprise that someone whose personal convictions include the belief that sexual dimorphism in Homo sapiens is completely uncorrelated with our behavioural preferences wants to censor reliable sources that speak to the contrary? But should his clever strategy of capitalizing on other users' failed attempts to discredit an editor who provides those reliable sources be rewarded by much discussion, let alone endorsement?

The alleged topic ban is invalid on three counts:

the ArbCom resolution on which it was proposed, constitutes the publication of multiple slanders, which were, to my understanding, settled out of court by a "courtesy blanking" of the page;
even should we permit the validity of the resolved restriction in regard to me, it had a limited date of application which has lapsed; (It was precisely because it was dated that I didn't bother kicking up any fuss over it.)
thirdly, the admin who proposed the topic ban was notified by me that I would be overlooking it, and was alerted by me to the fact that I deliberately breached it by editing at Misogyny some time ago. (He raised no objection, and I glady let the matter die out then and there.)

For Kaldari to bypass discussion of reliable sources by attempting to silence an editor very widely known in the community and in real life for his reliability and neutrality is a bid to gain "unfair advantage" (as Cailil terms it). It obviously leads to disharmony, since too many people at Wiki know of my good work, especially in the subject areas laughably proposed by the topic banner, who showed no evidence of consulting widely with people who work with me, or with edit history (let alone reliable source in the subject area).

While I think the appropriate course is to reprimand or even block Kaldari, the more peaceable solution is for responsible parties to refuse to countenance bids by editors to silence other editors who provide reliable sources contrary to their personal points of view.

I would recommend ArbCom avoid sinking to getting involved in editors' personal distaste for other editors, pointing them to nutting out solutions on the basis of reliable sources, documenting their sources on talk pages.

Finally, I am very happy for this matter to come up, because it demonstrates how defamatory the ArbCom publication last year actually was. If discussion shows people think less of me because of that ArbCom publication, then it proves defamation has occurred. As Durova and Cailil have clearly confirmed, but policy and law make clear anyway, although I have, good to my promise, avoided recourse to external resolution of the matter, I have every right to do so, so long as I contact the Foundation first.

So, fellow Wikipedians, Kaldari is forcing us to tell him the truth, which is fair enough. Is there any evidence that Alastair has acted in any way that can be shown, beyond reasonable doubt, not to be aimed at improvement and maintenence of the encyclopedia? The answer is a very clear "no", and the only way to prove otherwise involves looking at evidence, not hearsay or presumptions of bad faith.

I have shown willingness to work with Kaldari, but he appears to continue to be unwilling to work with me. I think he probably needs to be encouraged to attempt to win me to a consensus by well-sourced material, rather than bully me through threats of Wiki-legal action. Or to show willingness to acknowledge the reliability of canonical sources in the literature of the biology of gender (which is absolutely massive). Alastair Haines (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I request NCM reconsider accusing me of Wikilawyering while threatening to propose community sanction yet inviting me to intiate Wikilegal processes I don't understand. I hope others can make that point better than me. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I thank Tznaki for the invitation to make a case against Kaldari, but I decline. It would injure the possibility of us working together in future, which will inevitably be necessary since our areas of interest and reading overlap. I've said more than I want to about Kaldari already. He proposed this, not me. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see I was not clear. Tznaki, the AC, which I encourage you to review, was initiated by the meditor I appealed to when half a dozen people were endlessly "baiting" (Mathsci's word) at an article. The mediator had been denying there was such baiting. The AC actually upheld that the baiting was happening, and that Tim and I were not "colluding" as Cailil had falsely supposed. Since the AC actually upheld most of what I'd claimed (and an amendment conceeded even more) it would be foolish of me to dismiss altogether an AC that largely endorsed my position. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Alastair Haines

Alastair Haines, this disruptive wikilawyering needs to stop.
- ArbCom is not a court, and a courtesy blanking does not invalidate any proposals, except where ArbCom explicitly amend it - see this example of where a restriction was invalidated and replaced with a new one.
- Your restriction applied for one year from September 2008: "Should Alastair make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on his talk page by the administrator. Should he violate this ban, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." In line with this, as of June 2009, you were "topic-banned from editing patriarchy and all related pages (including discussions), broadly interpreted, for a year." That restriction applies until June 2010, and does not become invalidated because the original restriction expired in September 2009.
- That you notified the imposing admin that you will not comply means nothing; it is from the point at which you do not comply that the letter and the spirit of the restriction that it can be enforced.
- Given the continued wikilawyering and skirting around WP:NLT, I'm inclined to either open a community sanction discussion or file a request for amendment with ArbCom to reimpose the original sanctions indefinitely. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've filed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification_AND_amendment:_Alastair_Haines. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sandstein

I've been asked to comment here as the admin who imposed the one year topic ban. Since the relevant remedy of September 2008 reads: "Alastair Haines is subject to a set of editing restrictions for one year", my opinion is that it does not allow for restrictions imposed under that remedy beyond that one year. Regrettably, I did not take that into account when imposing the topic ban. Accordingly, I believe that this request should be declined because the operative remedy has expired, but if the conduct of Alastair Haines continues to be problematic (I've recently had an odd interaction with him that leads me to believe it may well be), either the community or ArbCom may be asked to impose a permanent restriction. Sandstein 07:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Alastair Haines

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

hold

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

As I said in a request above,

...for future reference, I will for one will look unkindly on any attempt to use EEML or any other incomplete case's turns to action an AE thread at all, or misuse the case when its complete. We are not here to re litigate arbitration cases, overturn them, or extend them.

In fact, we're not here to litigate at all, but I think that one is beyond this forum's hopes.---Tznkai (talk)

That should cover the broad attacks on arbitration, arbitration enforcement, and the validity of the topic ban. Some of us still seem to be under the misapprehension that attacking the reporting user is a way to avoid sanctions, and it is not. AH (abbreviation used instead of name out of courtesy), you have, lets call it 3 days to place on your user talk page, showing that Kaladari is acting improperly or in bad faith. In either case, I am blocking AH for 3 weeks for violation of a topic ban.--Tznkai (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, hold. I am not sure if it is within the intent of the AC case for discretionary sanctions to run past the length of the mother restriction.--Tznkai (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified Sandstein, the administrator who decided on the one year topic ban on patriarchy, of this request and discussion. Skomorokh 06:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the cited sanction has been vacated (see Sandstein's comment above), I am declining this request for enforcement. This does not exonerate any misbehaviour described in this request, and action may be taken against the editors involved in another venue or here under a different sanction. Skomorokh 07:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur.--Tznkai (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[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]