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

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

Edit this section for new requests

Add new requests to the top of the page. Old requests will be automatically archived off the bottom three days after the last time stamp.

User:Giano II

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Giano's not getting blocked today - any block would be without consensus, for one thing, and inappropriate anyway, for another. Whether he was baited or not is, for now, not relevant. The most depressing thing about this is the way all the old hatreds and jealousies have sprung out from under the bed, yet again, when potential Giano drama enters the room. Moreschi (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC#Civility:_Giano placed Giano under the following restriction: "Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.".

Denouncing arbcom for setting out to protect its own "errors stupidity"
Giano denouncing admins as "stupid" for enforcing policy against a banned sockpupeteer

Is this compatible with arbcom's ruling? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be the same diff twice. Is that correct? You may want to fix that. In my outside view I don't see this particular edit as falling within the cited definition. The closest to the line I saw was Giano assuming that there are some admins that are unwilling to take Giano's advice about how to handle the matter. I'd suggest that is in fact the case, there are some that aren't. I have no official standing of course, I'm just sharing my view. ++Lar: t/c 13:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the section of Giano's talk page above the one in which the "denouncing admins as stupid" diff is located, it is clear that Giano is talking about reinserting errors because they were removed by a sock of a banned editor. It is also worth noting that BrownHairedGirl and Giano have been exchanging views on Newyorkbrad's talk page. The first diff (which has been changed since Lar posted) was written before the ArbCom case was closed - as is clear from the fact that it talks about it being likely that the civility sanction will pass. This is a pretty weak case for invoking the ArbCom ruling for a block, in my opinion. Jay*Jay (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to a bit of a stretch. I am particularly unimpressed by this comment by BrownHairedGirl to Giano: "Does anyone know what strange quirk of the weather has brought Giano back around here to troll on behalf of Vintagekits?" which is most certainly uncivil, an assumption of bad faith and frankly unbecoming of an administrator. To then file a request for enforcement against Giano is pretty ridiculous. WjBscribe 13:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The first diff is more than a month old. Why bring it up now? The second diff shows Giano making a frank assessment using the word "stupidity". Based on a quick review of the situation, his assessment seems like it might be accurate. "Stupidity" is quite mild compared to what Giano previously said that resulted in the sanction. While not the most diplomatic term, there is nothing in the sanction that forbids Giano from being forthright. I think no action is required here. I hope people will not be running to this noticeboard every time Giano makes a comment they disagree with. Jehochman ^Talk 13:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Lar, I have now fixed the duplicate diff. The second diff invokves Giano saying "we have too many little admins running around without a clue how to handle a situation"], and concludes "Let stupidity reign". It's fine to disagree with a course of action, but is it really compatible with arbcom's restraint to describe those he disagrees with as being "without a clue" and summarising their actions as "stupidity"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you accept that your comment to Giano I cite above was totally unacceptable? Do you not see any irony in so casually calling him a troll and then asking for action to be taken against him for incivility and assumptions of bad faith? WjBscribe 14:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken to assume that I was casually calling Giano a troll. I made that comment after long experience of Giano intervening to object to any sanction against Vintagekits, and of his sneering at the admins who take in the task of dealing with it. Vintagekits has a long history of disruptive editing (set out length in The Troubles arbcom), and after a final last chance he resumed sockpuppeteering, including multiply voting in favour of Giano at the arbcom election, and it was that conduct which led to his recent removal. I have yet to see Giano ever offering support for admin action against Vk. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find the characterisation of someone who has contributed the volume of excellent content to this encyclopedia that Giano has as a "troll" unwarranted and inflammatory. In tense situations, such as the editing around "the troubles" articles, it would be my hope that administrators would act calmly and reasonably with a view to cooling things down. With respect, your input into the discussion should have been to try to extinguish the flames, not pour petrol over them. WjBscribe 14:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that no-one disputes the significance of Giano's excellent contributions to article space, including his writing of a slew of exquisitely-written featured articles. However, that does not excuse his highly provocative sniping in other areas, such as [this one, which prompted me to note that he had resumed trolling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite mistaken BHG, and taling,out of the top of your head, my proposals for dealing with VK from the workshop page to the present time, have been amongst the most draconian and restraining. Had they been adopted you would noyt find yourself in this position that you do now. Frankly, I'm confused as to what your agenda is, if it solving the Troubles problems and less disruption to the encyclopedia, you appear to have an odd way of going about it. Ypur presence on this page being a prime example. Giano (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: at least this sorry and misguided affair has brought Bishonen [1] back to us, even if her rare edit is causing her to be harrassed buy one of BHG's friend. Oh yes regarding BHG's comment about VK voting for me, i was delighted to have his suport, even though I did not realise quite how "supportive" he was being. Or is BHG asserting otherwise? Giano (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration ruling was intended to (and should be interpreted so as to) reduce drama, not cause it. Please let's not get into a silly argument about whether Giano's comments were uncivil or suggest that he should be blocked (having said that I note with thanks to all that this suggestion has not yet been explicitly made). </doc_glasgow> --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ant..(ah I've just seen the connection Anthony/Tony - very good that)this I suspect is exactly what the Arbs anticipated happening everytime someone disagrees with me,and ultimately will lead to immense bad feeling and disruption. curious solution wasn't it. Giano (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All users that work in the area of arbitration enforcement are expected to work collaboratively as they enforce the Committee's rulings. I expect that both BrownhairedGirl and Giano will discussion various approaches to enforcing our ruling in thoughtful and civil manner. Two wrongs do not make a right. Brownhairedgirl, if you have concerns about Giano's approach to dealing with Vintagekits, then state them in a manner that describes the problem without using inflammatory words. Giano, if you have concerns about the approach that administrators are using when dealing with Vintagekits, then state them in a manner that describes the problem without using inflammatory words. This is a caution to both of you. Both of you, please take this advise on board so no further warning or sanctions are needed. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you start warning me! You and your Arbs deliberatly imposed this sanction knowing exactly the problems it would cause. Now accept the blame yourselves and stop trying to pass the buck! Giano (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I assume this is another of your admins [2]. Giano (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flo, I commented after reading this comment by Giano, in reply to Rockpocket, in which Giano described the admins involved as "completely inept" and make a clear assumption of bad faith by accusing them of "trying to make a name for himself". What purpose does that serve except trolling?

At the time I replied, to Giano, I was unaware that he was on civility patrol, or I would have brought the matter here rather than replying directly to him. Is the assumption of bad faith in accusing Rockpocket of simply "trying to make a name for himself" compatible with the arbcom ruling? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet again if BHG bothers to read to the end of the "trying to make a name for himself" quote rather than lifting7 words out of context, it is quite clear I am not referring to those admins already involved. I think BHG is deliberatly not AGFing, is this what the Arbcom considers admorable Admin behaviour? Giano (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, that makes no sense. I cannot see any reasonable way of reading your comments in the way you now claim they were intended to be read, but if you were not referring to those already involved, how exactly was it assuming good faith to pre-emptively denounce anyone else who became involved as "trying to make a name for himself", before those people had even appeared?

You also said "You are completely inept at sorting these matters out for yourselves", and I see no doubt that was aimed at those already involved. That's a straightforward personal attack on the edit to whom you were replying. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using the term "troll" makes some assumptions about the intent of the contributions that are unhelpful. Giano is an established users that needs to be treated with respect even if you do not agree with his approach. Applying derogatory labels is rarely useful if your goal is developing a good working relationship with an user. And that is our goal, right? FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flo, I think that many of us commenting here are established users, and that all deserve to be treated with respect. So please could you address the degree of respect which Giano showed to the established editor Rockpocket in this comment, after he had been specifically injuncted by arbcom to refrain both from accusations of bad faith and personal attacks? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling any editor in good standing a troll is inflammatory, unrequired, and unbecoming. We should simply issue an official warning to Brownhairded girl for violating NPA and being disruptive, and be done with it. Lawrence § t/e 15:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just check that I understand your proposal? You appear to be saying that this comment by Giano is to be regarded as just fine, and no action should be taken about it despite (as I subsequently discovered) the editor concerned already being under civility patrol, but that describing it as trolling merits a warning? Is that really what you are saying?

Also, are you sure that is appropriate to describe an editor already injuncted by arbcom as being "in good standing"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take a very deep offense to any baiting of any editors, unintentional or intentional, especially when others then turn around to use that baiting as a weapon (for good or ill) in dispute resolution. Especially when that weaponized position needs to be heavily defended--stand by your initial statement or conviction, if you feel it's valid. Having to convince, cajole, and work to get it enforced tells that it had no validity. And yes, to me an editor in good standing is anyone who is not blocked. Arbcom enforcements are there alone by the goodwill of the community, and are no scarlet letter. Giano's edit was not exactly wise, but it was not a violation of the terms of his probation by any stretch. Your comment, however, was the classic definition of a disruptive edit. Continued disruptive editing could lead to editing sanctions against yourself, so forewarned. Lawrence § t/e 15:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence, you're off base here. Your suggestions of editing sanctions against BHG are very ill-founded. SirFozzie (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her edit was as much a violation as the thing she's claiming against Giano. Fair is fair, and all rules will be applied equally to all users, is all I'm saying. Lawrence § t/e 15:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look up the part of AGF which says that one should assume good faith to the point where one has a reason not to AGF. I like Giano. Giano is very passionate about what he argues about. but look at those statements he made. Calling administrators "Stupid" for following one of Wikipedia's base policies, that banned users do not have the right to edit, is de facto and de jure trolling. If in Giano's mind, the edits are good, he can certainly reinstate them, and take "ownership" of them, (being careful not to become a proxy for a banned editor to continue editing).. But good, bad, indifferent, WP:BAN states that banned users are not allowed to post on Wikipedia, and posts by socks of banned users should be reverted when ever found. SirFozzie (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foz, I'm not disputing any of that--I said my peace, and I think Giano's comments weren't wise, or the most helpful--but I don't think they were violations in this case of his probation either. But I'm not going to debate that. My only point here was that BHG's statements were actually worse than Giano's, in the civility and NPA department, highlighting the irony of the AE request. Lawrence § t/e 16:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SirFozzie, you might be interested to know that Newyorkbrad does not share your interpretation that posts should be reverted whether good, bad, or indifferent: Policy is that edits from sockpuppets of blocked or banned users may be reverted. "May" is not "must", and common sense should be used in this as in all other wiki-matters. I have not reviewed this particular series of edits but if, for example, a blocked user saw the spelling "teh" and changed it to "the", it would be foolish to revert it for the sake of reverting it. On the other hand, if an individual is rightfully banned, we do not want to encourage him or her to sneak around the ban, and allowing too many substantive edits to stand can have the effect of doing so. Although it is not written down anywhere, the reason for the ban and seriousness of the user's violations that led to it can also be relevant. [3]. If you look at the context within which Giano's comment was made (look at the discussion above the diff that BrownHairedGirl provided, as well as the diff itself), it is pretty clear he was talking about the exercise of good judgment and common sense, rather than the blind and mindless application of policy - This petty damaging of the encyclopedia by reverting good and valuable edits, and in at least one instance re-inserting a mistake seems a curious way of solving a problem. Now, he shouldn't have referred to such actions as "stupidity" because WP:CIVIL is presently the most important WP policy. But, he does have a point. Jay*Jay (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to my eyes, he doesn't. Banned users are banned for a reason. If folks want to re-revert afterwards and take ownership of the content, fine, go ahead. Anything less however, encourages more disruption and delays the banned user getting the hint that their contributions are just plain not welcome. SirFozzie (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SirFozzie, you might not see a difference, but I believe others will:

SirFozzie: But good, bad, indifferent, WP:BAN states that banned users are not allowed to post on Wikipedia, and posts by socks of banned users should be reverted when ever found.

Newyorkbrad: Policy is that edits from sockpuppets of blocked or banned users may be reverted. "May" is not "must", and common sense should be used in this as in all other wiki-matters.

I think the difference here is stark - revert no matter what on the one hand, use judgment and common sense on the other. The idea of reverting a correction of a typo because the correction was made by a sock of a banned editor, and then reverting the reversion - but noting that you are now taking responsibility for the content - is ridiculous. The idea that policy requires that an editor reintroduce errors, and then allows and endorses the right of that editor to walk away, leaving the error behind, is ludicrous. Any such policy needs urgent re-writing, and any editor unwilling to invoke WP:IAR to avoid carrying out such an unnecessary reversion should expect to have their judgment questioned or criticised. Jay*Jay (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the difference is a nuance you are missing - NYB is speaking of reverting past edits by a newly banned editor, whereas I think SirFozzie is referring to edits by a banned user after the ban (please correct me if I am wrong). No edits, constructive or otherwise, are welcome from a banned editor. Some edits by a now banned user made before the user was banned can remain, if they are not controversial and clearly benefit the project. The difference isn't a contradiction - the situations are different, and the point is different. Avruch^T 17:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avruch, you are wrong, because NYB made this comment today on his talk page in part of a discussion with BHG and Giano - and he is not talking about edits made prior to banning. I agree that edits from a banned user aren't welcome, but that does not mean that they must be reverted. I just happen to think that NYB (and also Giano) are correct about this point - and I say this making no claim that Giano should have used the language that he has. Jay*Jay (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, I've copied the relevant section from the policy, that regardless of the merits, that a post by a sock of a banned user may be reverted at any time (it's one of the few things the electric fence of 3RR allows through) to your talk page. SirFozzie (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, if no action is going to be taken on this enforcement request (and it looks like that is the case) then it should be archived. Spreading disputes to multiple forums is part of both underlying issues here, so lets not support prolonging the problem. Avruch^T 16:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence, I quite agree with you about the inappropriateness of baiting: that's precisely what I was commenting on when I described Giano's intervention as trolling and why I lodged compalint here about Giano's continued attcks on those he disagrees with for stupidity. Calling other editors "completely inept" and accusing them of "trying to make a name for himself" is baiting by any reasonable definition.

However, I do note a decided reluctance in some quarters to take action against Giano, which was most clearly articulated by WjBscribe[4], who appears to be suggesting that good contributions to article space mean that an editor cannot also be a toll. I also note Giano's shock and outrage that anyone would warn him about his conduct, even when he launches again into calling other editors "stupid", "inept" and accuses admins of "trying to make a name for himself" without any evidence to substantiate this.

In closing, though, may I suggest that some other admins take over the headache of dealing with Vintagekit's numerous sockpupets? Those who have been doing it are unlikely to continue if they don't get support when trolled by an editor already under civility patrol.

There's not much I can say on this situation, except to suggest a read of WP:TROLL, so this will probably my last contribution to this thread. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano was provocative and uncivil, attacking the people who are trying to deal with a banned user. Troll fits the bill quite nicely. I notice Until(1 == 2) agrees also.[5] Ty 17:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that then ban me! It says any Admin can! Please the Arbs and get on with it then. Giano (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Jehochman, I have temporarily unarchived this, because discussion continnued despite the archiving tags (about somewhat unrealted issues, sure, but stil, I don't want to give others the impression that we're forcing them not to talk about it) SirFozzie (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ZOMG, an admin acted stupid, and Giano called them stupid. Oh, horrors. Zocky | picture popups 20:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Grandy Grandy

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia sets high standards for Decorum and Editorial process for all Balkan related articles. I believe that Grandy Grandy is breaking these by repeatedly making controversial and WP:POV edits on a number of Balkan related articles without any discussion on the relevant Talk pages and, sometimes, despite notices by administrators to respect the editorial process. A number of examples:

Bosnian mujahideen: Despite a specific request by the involved Mediation coordinator (User:Vassyana) to all editors "to stop reverting and/or making significant changes. As Osli73 has done below, please propose any significant changes here on the talk page. If any changes you make are reverted, please do not escalate the matter into a revert war. Instead, raise the issue on the talk page for discussion" Grandy Grandy has made a number of major reverts/controversial edits without attempting to discuss these (see [6], [7] and [8]). It should be noted that this is an article which GG on several occasions has tried to delete alltogether ([9], [10] and [11]).
Mujahideen: here GG has repeatedly reverted or extensively edited ([12], [13] and [14]) the section on Bosnia in line with his POV edits of the Bosnian mujahideen article, again, without seeking any consulation or discussion on the Talk page (despite being encouraged to do so).
Naser Oric: a number of controversial edits/reverts ([15], [16] and [17]) without any attempt to motivate or discuss these on the Talk page, despite encouragement to do so.
Alija Izetbegovic: again, a number of controversial edits/reverts ([18], [19] and [20]) without any attempt to motivate or discuss these on the Talk page.
Bosnian War: again, a number of controversial edits/reverts ([21] and [22]) without any real attempt to motivate or discuss these on the Talk page despite encouragement to do so.
Finally, based on this reply and the fact that the reverts by GG are the same as those by Dragon of Bosnia, currently on one weeks block for similar transgression, I believe that these edits are being done in collusion.

RegardsOsli73 (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

First of all, I don't agree with @OSLI73. He is the one who started to vandalize articles, I am the one among the others (Dragon, HarisM, Dchall1, Live Forever etc) who repaired the damage. And here is the proof:

@OSLI73's log of vandalism:
12:23, 5 December 2007, Stifle blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Three-revert rule violation: Bosnian Mujahideen)

07:45, 24 July 2007 WikiLeon blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month.

07:37, 24 July 2007 WikiLeon blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 months.

02:26, 23 March 2007 Thatcher131 blocked Osli73 (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (violating revert limit on Srebrenica massacre see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo)

01:48, 1 March 2007 Jayjg blocked Osli73 (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (violation of arbcom revert parole on Srebrenica massacre again)

09:48, 18 December 2006 Srikeit blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Sockpuppeteering and directly violating his arbcom probation and revert parole)

00:49, 5 September 2006 Blnguyen blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 96 hours ‎ (did about 10 reverts on Srebrenica massacre in about 2 hours)

Second of all, @OSLI73 is blanking articles (removing sourced parts he doesn't like).

For example @OSLI73 deleted a part from Bosnian War which is clear example of vandalism - blanking WP:Vandalism: "Removing all or significant parts of pages' content without any reason."

He deleted this part:

According to numerous ICTY judgments the conflict involved Bosnia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (later Serbia and Montenegro) as well as Croatia.

Soureces:
Summary of ICTY verdicts I

Summary of ICTY verdicts II

I asked him why, for a few times, got no answer. He just repeats the same old story he wrote above which is not related to his deletions in order to get Arbitration enforcement cause he doesn't like Radio Free Europe source, doens't like ICTY source, doesn't like this and that...I am not willing to support his idea about arbitration cause there are a lof of other users who worked hard to write smth, and now @OSLI73 is trying to undo that cause he doesn't like some sources. Grandy Grandy (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Grandy Grandy comments above:
It would be good if he answered the issues that I raised above, instead of bringing other issues

I don't see what old transgressions of WP:3RR have to do with the issue at hand

Grandy Grandy has not made any attempt to discuss the edits/reverts he has made (at least not prior to me making this complaint) despite encouragement to do so. Please see the relevant talk pages.

Grandy Grandy has made major edits to the Bosnian mujahideen article despite being specifically asked by the admin involved not to do so.

Grandy Grandy seems to be arguing that as long as information is sourced it is not POV or inappropriate and should never be removed. My belief is that appropriate sources is only one condition for inclusion in an article. Sourced information can still be POV.
In conclusion, I would encourage Grandy Grandy to reply to the specific issues I raised above. RegardsOsli73 (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Osli73 comments above:

I answered all the issues on the appropriate talk pages.
Well "old transgressions of WP:3RR" is all but old transgressions of WP:3RR. Sockpuppeteering and directly violating your arbcom probation and revert parole, violating revert limit on Srebrenica massacre, rule violation on Bosnian Mujahidee isn't just the matter of WP:3RR, it's much more.
Grandy Grandy has not made any attempt to discuss the edits... Well, isn't true:[23],[24],[25],the real problem is you never answered my questions about blanking. You just skip it and continue to revert which is obvious vandalism.
Regarding Bosnian Mujahideen, I just improved the article per comments in AfD, cause other users agreed that the name must be changed as you fabricated it (the title isn't present in any of your sources). Most of the users also voted for the deletion of that article: [26] as it's cloned, POV fork or collection of unreliable source (WP:RS).
Please read WP:RS and WP:Vandalism. Persistent removal and blanking of the high-quality and neutral international sources in very sensitive Bosnian War article (Summary of ICTY verdicts I,Summary of ICTY verdicts II) is probably in appliance with ur belief that appropriate sources is only one condition for inclusion in an article and that sourced information can still be POV, but it isn't in appliance with Wikipedia rules, cause the sentence started with According to that source. It wasn't just included as a pure fact, it designated the source (International Tribunal), unlike your edits when you included many other speculation about Al Qaeda etc. without relevant source. Grandy Grandy (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Martinphi

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Not disruptive, no action is appropriate or will be taken. Boldness is subject to reversion. When a long series of edits is made, some of which technically correct earlier parts of the series, the technical corrections don't make the prior edits in the series any more valid than they would have been if the technical correction was part of the original edit. A claim for or against consensus is not self-validating, only the input of other editors can prove or refute it. Retirement is irrelevant. GRBerry 21:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subject to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Martinphi restricted Martin is banned from making disruptive edits. I believe that this edit is disruptive because he

wholesale reverted eighteen intermediate edits of mine. There were a number of not-even-remotely-controversial changes he completely removed including formatting of citations, addition of sources, and grammatical addenda.
accuses me of POV-pushing disruptively without explaining himself on the talkpage.
claims that there is no consensus on the talkpage, when I posted on the talkpage to the effect that I believed there was consensus.
uses the FA status of the article to justify further stonewalling, tendentious behavior (note that editors are welcome to edit FA articles and be bold).
claims to be retired on his user page: User:Martinphi.

ScienceApologist (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re #4, if you want to be bold, then you must accept that WP:BRD allows Martinphi to revert. You bunched together many edits, and with edit summaries like "at best a fringe science... it may be worse than a fringe science", it's not surprising that another editor decided to throw the baby out with the bath water. On a quick close inspection of these 18 changes, they are predominately related to the revert you did. i.e. these formatting, sources and grammatical changes you mention are mostly tweaks to your own additions.

[27] - revert
[28] - augmenting the revert with "at best"
[29] - augmenting the revert
[30] - tweak prior wording replacing "by parapsychology" with "in parapsychology"
[31] - expand on reverted intro
[32] - tweak reverted intro.
[33] - tweak reverted intro.
[34] - improve a cite existing in the prior text -- non-controversial
[35] - add another cite to text that came as part of the revert.
[36] - move a cite
[37] - alter text in reverted text
[38] - fix reverted text
[39] - altering first sentence of section "Organizations and publications"
[40] - adding ref name to a new cite introduced into reverted text
[41] - altering wording in change #13 above
[42] - remove period added by yourself
[43] - move "," in text added by yourself.
[44] - update wording added by yourself in changes #13 and #15 above.

Can you point out which of those 18 changes you consider to be non-controversial changes to the article as it was before your 18 changes? I dont see many, but if there are substantial good edits that were reverted without due consideration, then the revert could be considered WP:DE. John Vandenberg (talk) 06:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect question JV.

As regards SA's point #5 (claims to be retired), this is (a) incorrect (it's "mostly retired" on MartinPhi's page) and (b) monumentally ironic in the context of SA's retirement announcement in January, exercising "right to vanish" upon being blocked, and returning immediately on the expiration of the block, and SA's defending his actions that "make it look like I have exercised the right to vanish". see diff WNDL42 (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:NuclearUmpf

On 19 October 2007, SevenOfDiamonds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was banned as a sockpuppet of the banned NuclearUmpf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).[45] It is my belief that WheezyF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of these banned users.

My suspicions intially arose from this checkuser case:

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Stone put to sky

In that case, there were two accounts named after playing cards TenOfSpades (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and ElevenOfHearts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) that were used to make Ultramarine (talk · contribs) look bad by faking sockpuppetry on his part. Both of those "playing card" accounts were found to be sockpuppets of WheezyF. Note that the two WheezyF sockpuppets and SevenOfDiamonds have very similar usernames.

When comparing the WheezyF and the SevenOfDiamonds accounts, I saw that the WheezyF account was created on and began editing on 19 October 2007.[46][47]

This is the day after SevenOfDiamonds' last edit[48] and the day that account was banned as a result of the arbcom decision.

The two accounts (WheezyF and SevenOfDiamonds/NuclearUmpf) share common interests such as rap music[49][50] and the State terrorism and the United States article. On the aforementioned article, Wheezy F has pushed the same "anti-U.S. foreign policy" POV that was often pushed by SevenOfDiamonds.[51][52][53][54] These last four diffs were chosen at random. There are many, many more.

It would be much appreciated if a checkuser would confirm that WheezyF edits from the New York area, which was where the NuclearUmpf/SevenOfDiamonds accounts edited from.[55] Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there's more than enough checkuser evidence to indefinitely block WheezyF (talk · contribs) as an abusive sockpuppeteer, and I have done so. The issue of whether he's NuclearUmpf may be largely moot, but I'll leave that up to others. MastCell ^Talk 18:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further evidence, uses unbracketed link to policy pages [56], [57], [58]...uses X, Y, Z or combination of such [59]...refers to others as childish or children [60]...all the same as evidence presented by me during the RFAr SevenOfDiamonds case here.--MONGO 06:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues

Waterboarding

70.109.223.188 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
Waterboarding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This IP user seems to be edit warring. [61] Could they be a blocked or banned user returning to cause trouble? Jehochman ^Talk 19:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gets very old very fast, doesn't it? I've blocked the IP user for 24 hours (the second block inside a week, I noticed). -- ChrisO (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the 2nd block within a week? --nyc171 (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that they've been unblocked. For what it's worth, categorization disputes are generally kind of a silly thing to edit-war and better worked out on the talk page, but I think the unblock is fine as long as the IP is not edit-warring further. I'm considering semi-protecting the page temporarily given the volume of unconstructive IP editing over the past few days - any thoughts? MastCell ^Talk 21:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a winner. We've got a repeat socker on the loose, recently banned, who will probably be showing up. If we take the wind out of their sails, they might go home and rethink their life. Jehochman ^Talk 21:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The unblock appears to be a mistake. Here are the diffs for edit warring: [62][63][64][65] When a user makes the same edit over and over and over again, that's edit warring. I like the way the user wikilawyers with ChrisO. It reminds me of Neutral Good (talk · contribs) and BryanFromPalatine (talk · contribs). Jehochman ^Talk 21:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree he was edit-warring. Just not sure how useful replacing the block is going to be vs. semi'ing the target article, which I'm going to do now. MastCell ^Talk 22:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about all the drama here. I was not trying to be disruptive and didn't know this was a "problem" article until I was told so on my talk page. I will try not to revert more than once on this article. The differences above are from 2 days ago before I was warned. Also, I was blocked awhile back when I first came here, not twice in one week. Thank you.--70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Bold text[reply]

Macedonia Moldova

Due to growing risk of an edit war (three reverts by each of the two parties yesterday, and claims by one of which that such a risk is high), I have taken the preventative step of restricting Dpotop (talk · contribs) and Xasha (talk · contribs) to one revert per two days for two weeks on all related articles and zero-tolerance for incivility on the talk pages. I bring this measure to discussion before other uninvolved admins, whom I am asking to help enforce this. Note that I am forgoing the warning this time and thus am not logging it in the arbitration page — let this measure serve as a warning, and let's hope it resonates (if enough uninvolved admins feel that position is in error, the restrictions will be revoked). Thx. El_C 11:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mixed up Moldova with Macedonia? (But no problem, we can easily extend the Balkans up there. :-) I know what you're going to say now: They both start with M, so I can't tell them apart.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! (you remembered the M, to boot: full credits for that!) I copied the wrong template and a comedy of errors ensued. All fixed. El_C 12:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BereTuborg (talk · contribs) added to the restrictions. El_C 18:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ren and Stimpy episode

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Article restored. Looks like we're done here. Thatcher 23:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore Son of Stimpy per the injunction in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2. This article was deleted on March 5. Related discussion at User talk:Seicer. Catchpole (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The injunction doesn't apply to speedy deletion. Will ^(talk) 16:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I just restored the article because the injunction seemed to say not to delete or undelete (change status quo) as of Feb 3. There is not mention in the injunction that speedies are excluded. This article was re-created Jan 27, 2008 and deleted Mar 5, 2008. Jehochman ^Talk 16:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction.
— Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2#Temporary injunction

Can't you admins do anything without wheel-warring? I see someone else has deleted it. Catchpole (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I am out of the loop with recent ArbCom actions. I saw this page at CAT:CSD and took care of it, not knwoing that doing so violated any ArbCom rulings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesse Viviano (talk • contribs) 20:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thanks for notifying me of this. seicer | talk | contribs 00:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I recall discussion of particular episodes having notability. This is one of those landmark episodes I'd have thought. Hopefully finding indep sources won't be too hard. [[::User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[::User talk:Casliber|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 01:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

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.

Encyclopedia Dramatica

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

formal clarification requested by an arb

Please block 91.121.88.13 (talk · contribs) for reverting the removal of a link to ED per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO. Will ^(talk) 15:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above user (User:Sceptre) has broken WP:3RR in attempting to enforce this, and has repeatedly removed the anon's legitimate comments. Chubbles (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are not legitimate. Per the above case, any user who inserts links to ED will be reverted and blocked. This includes the url. You've broken the AC ruling too. Will ^(talk) 15:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that what was removed was the phrase "" in another user's comment - not a url, but the name of the site - and the same embedded in an Alexa search, which is now a broken link. Chubbles (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "x.com" isn't an url is like saying a cup of tea isn't without two sugars. Will ^(talk) 16:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "x.com" is no less legitimate than referring to Amazon as "Amazon.com". Chubbles (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ED? Legitimate? I'm sorry, you missed the party. BJAODN was deleted months ago. Will ^(talk) 16:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the above user is deliberatively trying to sabotage a point I made against him in a civil debate. His actions appear in extremely bad form. There was no link to ED, it was a link to an Alexa graph comparing traffic against two other sites. --Truthseeq (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ruling says "Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it." A debate on the DRV is ongoing here. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested clarification on the ruling itself: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO. Mackensen (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:ScienceApologist

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

No actionable complaints. MastCell ^Talk 22:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may or may not violate the Arbcom rulings at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist; I'll let the readers decide. The links:

Incivility in edit summary: [66]
Incivility at the article's talk:[67]

Additionally, he's edited tendentiously, as well as against consensus. The above article (electronic voice phenomenon) was locked due to editwarring. The edit war occurred between SA and User:LionelStarkweather. See this diff for the last edit before it was locked, showing the content dispute. It was was locked with the Lionel version intact; while locked, there was a discussion on the talk which initially include SA; however, he stopped discussing after a while. Following the article's unlocking, he reverted without any further mention, starting a revert war that led to the article being locked again. He also removed the infobox and a sound file without any talk discussion and vague edit summaries (here and here). He calims WP:V on the second; it is not being used as a source, ergo, WP:V doesn't apply.

Per the arbcom ruling, he's restricted from making disruptive edits. I would argue that these edits are extremely disruptive, especially seeing the (for a while) constructive discussion that was occurring (see Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon sections "Moving on" and "edit request". 130.101.152.155 (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement requests should not be accepted from sock puppet accounts. Jehochman ^Talk 20:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a sock Jehcoman, see your talk. I use public computer terminals where the IP changes with different terminals. I use various IPs in the 130.101 range. See Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Davkal (3rd). You shouldn't have posted that reply before I had a chance to respond to the message you left on my talk. 130.101.152.155 (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the "edit-warring" and "tendentious editing" you cite is from 2 months ago. Additionally, full disclosure would mandate noting that User:LionelStarkweather is a confirmed block-evading abusive sockpuppet of the banned user Davkal. Reverting edits by an abusive, ban-evading sock is generally not considered edit-warring, but rather part of enforcing the ban. No comment on the alleged incivility in the first two diffs; I'll leave that for another admin. MastCell ^Talk 21:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edits in question are from the 8th of March. You can see them at the history. The older edits were showing the pattern- those were pre-article lock. He has engaged in the behavior that caused the block in the first place.

Sorry I left out the sock of Davkal; however, it doesn't take away that SA has reverted without consensus on an article that was locked from revert warring. 130.101.152.155 (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can vouch for this user. I am in contact by email, and the IP is a sock of a Wikipedia user who is in good standing. The IP has, for exceptionally obvious reasons, decided to use only an IP on this article. The EVP article is once again locked, as with so many other articles, because of ScienceApologist's actions. Also, I do not believe that this user knows of the previous claims here against SA on this page, and I did not know of this claim till I saw it now on my talk page, nor did I urge this claim. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find that there is no incivility, and that the IP editor is using multiple IP accounts in a way that prevents scrutiny of their contributions. Such an account should not be used to level accusations at another editor. At this point, I am not going to block the IP, but I suggest that they register a pseudonym account and use it consistently. This will avoid revealing their real life identity and provide a measure of transparency to other editors who have a legitimate interest in tracking the IP editor's contributions. Jehochman ^Talk 21:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Unless Wikipedia changes its policy to only allow registered users to edit, I'm using wikipedia as designed. I have yet to see a policy that requires static IP addresses. Besides, the purpose of this or any AE report is the conduct of the user in question, not the poster. Checkuser me if you think I'm the sock of any of the registered users involved in this debate. As it is, I think you're ignoring the evidence simply because I'm posting anonymously. 130.101.152.155 (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing actionable in your allegations against ScienceApologist. You are an admitted sock puppet account. Please, stop disrupting this message board with frivolous and stale complaints. WP:AE is not a tool to be used for gaining position in an editorial disagreements. Jehochman ^Talk 21:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:ForeverFreeSpeech

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

User blocked indefinitely. MastCell ^Talk 21:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh off a block and right back at it... I'm not going to list specific diffs since pretty much every other edit summary is a case in itself. Check out Special:Contributions/ForeverFreeSpeech.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 07.03.2008 16:46

Before seeing this post, I indef blocked ForeverFreeSpeech for persistent, unrepentant incivility, personal attacks, POV-pushing, and disruption. If the block is also appropriate under Arbcom enforcement, I suppose that is icing on the cake. · jersyko talk 17:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What arbcom case is this from? — Rlevse • Talk • 12:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:RodentofDeath

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Unrelated. Thatcher 20:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banned user appears to have reapeared once again this time as User:weighted Companion Cube. User makes first post on Wikipedia just two days after User:RodentofDeath is referred to ArbCom.

Rodent has already been caught out twice breaching his ban.

User:weighted Companion Cube has posted on same disputed article and seems to follow the same wording and tactics of RodentofDeath.

Then this user posts in deletion request a posting that is an obvious defence of RodentofDeath and seems to taunt User:Edgarde, who had been one of the complainents in the arbitration case.

Edgarde had just previously posted this on my talk page.

Rodent has previously stated in his ArbCom case that he travels and uses multiple IP addresses. A look on this user's talk page also shows the same sort of problems he had as RodentofDeath with other Editors. Susanbryce (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)slight copyediting and link piping by • VigilancePrime • • • 23:01 (UTC) 7 Mar '08 for ease of readability.[reply]

so the record is clear - i am not RodentOfDeath. if i had known there was some arbitration involved, i likely would have stayed away from this entirely. Also, i dont think having problems with SqueakBox is evidence of anything given what ive looked at. contact me if theres further questions. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 14:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WCC is

Unrelated to RodentOfDeath. Thatcher 20:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

[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]