This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Please note that this is a list taking into account previous remedy in a case

1. Estlandia Arbitration case which ended with result Estlandia(formerly editing as Miacek) and Volunteer Marek are warned(...I am closing this with a formal warning to Estlandia, as required per WP:AC/DS#Warnings (which does not exempt users previously sanctioned) as a prerequisite for future sanctions...). Sandstein 07:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)]
2. Please refer to this AE request for details.Notably, you must not make personal attacks on others under any circumstances.Sandstein 07:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Logged into Eastern European sanctions after warning(talk · contribs) (formerly Miacek) warned because of personal attacks per AE request. Sandstein 07:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe#Log_of_blocks_and_bans "Articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning."

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

1. stop whitewashing! 26th October Calling edits by other user whitewashing.
2. taking an english course instead of wasting your time on edit warring might be an idea to consider, too 17 December Saying to other user that he should be "Taking english course" instead of editing is of course a clear personal attack.
3. Please stop whitewashing Polish far-right, As you chose to remove reliably sourced stuff without even offering ANYTHING in return, this can be seen as whitewashing obnoxious political movements and supporting homophobia 17th December Accusing during content dispute other user of whitewashing Polish far right and suggesting that he supports homophobia
4. no one cares what you think it officially is. sources have been provided, you are not allowed to remove them! 23rd December Instead of rationally debating the topic, this edit summary consists of personal attack "no one cares what you think", "you are not allowed to remove them!" are obviously directed personally against another user and aggressive.
5. get lost 23rd December Stating "get lost" in edit summary in regards to other user is a clear case of personal attack.
6. But it's hopeless to explain it to primitive obdurate anti-German fanatics like you 24th December Naming other user "primitive" "anti-German" and fanatic and so on, again a clear case of personal attack. As this was done in regards to comment about use of German nationalist author for history of Poland it would again fall also under Eastern Europe sanctions.

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

Warning:

1. Warned on 4 May 2013 (UTC) by Sandstein (talk · contribs)

Requests by other users to stop personal attacks, after they happened after the warning

1. 27th October request by Dougweller (talk · contribs) to stop personal attack.
2. Request by me to remain civil and not use personal attackson 1st November 2013
3. Asked to remain civil and polite on 23rd December by Darwinek (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User Estlandia has been previously warned not use personal attacks against others in May 2013 and was logged into list of users warned per discretionary sanctions. Unfortunately he continued to use personal attacks and despite my request earlier and by others continues to do so. While I understand that everyone can have different views, I sincerely believe debates should be undertaken in civil manner. As the user was previously warned that the he should cease all personal attacks against others, logged in discretionary sanctions and others have at least three times asked him after this to stop personal attacks, I believe requesting enforcement in view of the above is justified. Based on the above diff's it is clear that he is not following the warning given to him earlier this year to cease personal attacks. Proposed remedy:a short block with further warning to cease personal attacks. In light of recent 36 hour block for edit warning, perhaps 48 hours. It could be then extended in case further personal attacks happen.But this is just a suggestion. Also as these kind of procedures aren't that well known to me, I might have written down some things incorrectly.For example I am not sure if the requests to remain polite and civil should be in the section they are right now.Feel free to correct me. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the below comment by Estlandia, shows that is unwilling to drop personal attacks. The link below is to some bizarre personal attack against me by anon editor combining posts all over the net(not even from Wikipedia) from various users(and posted 5 years ago in 2008!) falsely alleging that I am that person behind all these people from various places on the net, alongside insulting remarks about me. I am afraid that even here Estlandia can't restrain himself from directing accusations and remarks against others or repeating them.

The second link just links to my edit on well known nationalist thinker from 19th century who supported racism(and stated things like But now that the Aryans have become accustomed to the idiosyncrasies of' finance, the Jews are no longer necessary. The international Jew, hidden in tile mask of different nationalities, is a disintegrating influence, and can hardly be justification of any personal attack against me. If Estlandia believes that editing articles about such figure is anti-German and people doing so are fanatics,that justifies personal attacks, that indicates severe POV. If Estlandia believes my or any other user editing history is wrong, he should bring it to dispute resolution or other appropriate channels, instead of using insults and personal attacks.

I can't see any explanation of actions by Estlandia below, just an attempt to deflect this situation by attacking the person who brought up his violation of warning against personal attacks. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified [1]

Discussion concerning Estlandia[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Estlandia[edit]

First thing: Darwinek's warning [2] that Molobo listed here concerned a comment on the subject of the article not any users here, as I explained, so it is clearly wrong to bring this up as evidence against me. Also calling Molobo's editing 'anti-German fanaticism' is - in the light of his whole editing history and recent edits like this - not a personal assault but a truthful characterization of the lamentable situtation. More to come. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Sandstein - if we are not any more dealing with civility issues but with the more general question 'who's being disruptive in which topic' I suggest you consider Molobo's conduct on German related topics, too. Nothing but hate mongering [3], POV [4] and disruption ([5], [6] - note the persistent use of inflammatory language (local Germans as 'colonists') despite being told this is not NPOV), as evident from third party reactions [7]. Was this user's edit summary ('nonsense') also an evil personal assault against Molobo? Has Molobo ever had one good word to write about Germans? This all contrasts with small-scale but constructive editing I perform on Polish topics [8], [9], [10]. If you admins find it unnecessary to consider here, I'll need to open a specific request to that effect. Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Secret Considering Eslandia continued disruption to Polish related topics, including three different edit warring blocks in three different years - First, only the last one of those blocks had anything to do with Poland. Second, the other editor was blocked, too. Third, any user with even superficial knowledge of WP policies would understand that removing OR is not 'disruption', adding it is. Who is being disruptive here, the one who keeps adding patent OR [11] or the one who is removing it? Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Trust Is All You Need[edit]

He is rude, has insulted me on several occasions, and has this view that if you don't agree with him, you're biased, or you're pushing POV onto to WP. Any editor who opposes Estlandia edits, is referred to a POV pusher, wrong and biased. This user insults everytime he has the chance. Thirdly, and lastly, (and this is the worst bit) this user thinks he's always right, and because of that he seems to believe that he has a right to act badly towards other editors. --TIAYN (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Estlandia[edit]

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

I am inviting Trust Is All You Need to back up their accusations with diffs or to retract them, because Wikipedians are not allowed to accuse others of serious misconduct without evidence (see WP:ASPERSIONS).  Sandstein  23:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I totally agree with Sandstein here while ignoring Trust is All You Need extremely broad statement. Considering Eslandia continued disruption to Polish related topics, including three different edit warring blocks in three different years, it seems like he is guilty of Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system#Gaming_sanctions_for_disruptive_behavior. As a result it falls under the previous ArbCom case on Eastern Europe and a topic ban of minimum six months is warrantied, with a further warning concerning his civility, which might escalate to a block if Eslandia continues to act this way. Secret ^account 01:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• After considering Estlandia's additional statement, the accusations leveled in it by Estlandia against MyMoloboaccount appear unfounded. The first reported diff, [12], dates from 2011 and is not "hate-mongering", but an on-topic contribution to the article talk page referencing a reliable source. The other reported diffs seem to reflect content disagreements and are at least not obviously objectionable from a conduct point of view, whatever their merits from a content point of view may be.

  I'm implementing the topic ban at once to prevent further statements of this sort, which continue the personal attacks reported here by using terms such as "hate mongering". In view of these continuing attacks, I am making the topic ban indefinite and am also combining the topic ban with an unilateral interaction ban regarding MyMoloboaccount. I am ready to hear an appeal against these sanctions after six months of problem-free editing by Estlandia.  Sandstein  14:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning MilesMoney[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Darkness Shines (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Talk:Austrian economics/General sanctions

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

1. [13] Edit warring. again
2. [14] Calls an editor a liar
3. [15] Accusations of stalking
4. [16] Accusations of outing

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

1. Warned on First guy sanctioned under these community imposed restrictions.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

No, it can be dealt with here. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning MilesMoney[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by MilesMoney[edit]

Darkness Shines is unhappy because I reverted (once) his attempt to archive an active discussion.[17] In the archive comment, he called us a "shower of cunts" and told us to "grow up". I asked him to self-revert and he insulted me some more. This is a violation of WP:NPA.

I could respond to the diffs, but the fact is that none of them involve Austrian Economics in any way, and all of them are issues that are already being handled (or have been handled) elsewhere. This is therefore the wrong forum and this report appears to be a waste of time. I recommend trouting Darkness Shines (or worse) for both his vulgarity and for wasting everyone's time here. MilesMoney (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong place, and there's nothing to be dealt with except for your anger management issues. MilesMoney (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX[edit]

Umm, I think this was a community imposed sanction, so enforcement requests should be posted to WP:AN.- MrX

Please post in your own sections. DS, please read the banner at the top of this page:

Arbitration Enforcement is not the place for anything other than enforcement of a closed Arbitration Committee ruling. It is not for:... Community or administrator decisions, breach of these should be raised at the administrators' incident noticeboard or in exceptional cases, cited as evidence in a request for arbitration.

Statement by S. Rich[edit]

With regard to the OUTING (#4), please see the following section on my talk page: User talk:Srich32977#Your recent edits to ANI. To recap, a comment on the ANI by MilesMoney included an IP address. I replied to the IP, who appeared to be Miles based on Miles' previous talk page history. Miles came back to the ANI and signed the comment, plus changed the comment I posted to the IP. These changes have been suppressed and I have apologized to Miles for my transgression. – S. Rich (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I wasn't nuts to accuse you of outing, but as you say, the issue has been dealt with. Moreover, it never had anything at all to do with Austrian Economics. I'm sorry you were dragged into this. MilesMoney (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning MilesMoney[edit]

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

I am closing this section because, as MrX points out, this forum is the wrong venue in which to seek the enforcement of community sanctions. This board is for enforcing arbitral decisions only. I recommend making such requests in an administrators' noticeboard.  Sandstein  20:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appealing user

Cihsai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Cihsai (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from the subject of Armenia and Azerbaijan, imposed at here, logged at Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 logs

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

Notification Diff

Statement by Cihsai[edit]

The reason for the ban is: “You’ve once again reverted the lead of Hemshin peoples to remove mention of possible Armenian descent, without ever achieving consensus for your views,”

Background:

Back in 2007- 2008 lengthy discussions took place addressing, among others, the issue of alleged “Armenian roots”. Not only the wording but also its location within the article has been dealt with. The lead paragraph as well as the sections dealing with the history and demographics have undergone numerous changes. That discussion and editing came to a halt by end of 2008 and a fully referenced- and somehow lenghty- lead article became stable. In December 2009, a user Seth Nimbosa reorganized the article, shortening drastically the lead article (Diff). Nobody contested that edit and so that one became the stable version.

In October 2012, JackalLantern introduced a sentence regarding alleged “Armenian roots” into the lead paragraph claiming he is “Restoring crucial and deliberately removed and suppressed sentence”. Looking back until 2008, I could not locate the sentence. That is to say that the claim of “restoration” does not stand. On the contrary JackalLantern has introduced a sentence into the lead paragraph without prior discussion.

Reverts:

Since then, the very same sentence has been removed from the lead paragraph by myself and reinserted back about a dozen times by JackalLantern and MarshallBagramyan, sometimes within hours after my action. They were very recently joined by a third user yerevantsi.

During the "revert period", I have:

• steadily invited JackalLantern and MarshallBagramyan to study the prior discussion on this issue. If that would have happened those users would have seen that there are arguments why the claim regarding “Armenian roots” does not belong to the lead paragraph,

• encouraged them to study the article (and not only the lead paragraph). If that would have happened those users would understand that such a statement in the lead would not be in harmony with the rest of the article.

• (if not convinced) requested those users to at least discuss the sentence they wish to insert prior to the insertion

All the response I got was in my opinion commonplaces, such as “denying or attempting to obscure their Armenian provenance” ,“No serious scholar questions this basic fact about the Hamshens”, “Turkish nationalist propagandists “.

Relevant diffs in chronological order: [18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34],[35].

Admin Involvement:

Messages of the banning Administrator to me in my and his talk pages indicates that he has not noticed :

• My explanations and requests for discussion in the edit summaries.

• That the “reference” of the sentence in question is used on numerous places in the body of the article.Hence it is not removed.

• That I have not claimed that there is consensus to “remove” but on the contrary requested discussion before changing longstanding stable lead.

Conclusions:

Due to above the “Ban” is not fair. It deprives me of using Wikipedia rules to influence the Article I am interested in. Also, Hemshin has no relation to Azerbaijan. This article is presumably considered under the rules of WP:ARBAA2 due to the mere fact that the users inserting the controversial sentence are involved therein.

RESPONSES TO OPINIONS “UNINVOLVED EDITORS”[edit]

• It seems I am considered to start and continue an “edit war” and have not attempted any discussion.

Facts are:

• The insertion into the lead was done by a user in his first appearance ever in the article without any discussion and with a factually false statement in edit summary.
• Following my revert the very same sentence has been reinserted on and on and on by the same user and by two other joining users. And again, the joining users have also not engaged in discussion and are either first time on the article or first time since long.
• I have repeatedly requested those users to discuss before insisting on the insertion to no avail.

The info I present here is detailed in the diffs in my first statement above.

Here,I wish to quote from Wikipedia Guidelines :

...but after a reversion of a bold edit, you might want to be bold in an edit on the talk pages so as not to start an edit war... [36]

...Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante). When the discussion has achieved mutual understanding, attempt a new edit that will be acceptable to all participants in the discussion. ...[37]

In conclusion I feel the party to be criticsed is not me.

• It seems I am criticized of being a “single purpose account

It is true that I use Wikipedia actually to learn and not to edit. This article caught my interest because it concerns my home region in Turkey. I interfere whenever I see a necessity. I do not interfere with all edits in this article. I am not trying to push any opinion.

• It seems this article is considered unquestionably to be under the relevant Arbitration rules.

It is not up to me to build an opinion on that point .The counterparts in the given issue are obviously very active editors and obviously share the single and intense interest namely “Armenians”. Therefore I wonder what article is left out from those rules, once one or more of the Armenian interested users decide to be active on that article.Cihsai (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE TO OPINION “INVOLVED EDITOR"[edit]

User:EatsShootsAndLeaves has not been involved in the relevant article or with me. I guess his involvement is yielded from the “arbitration” to which I was not party. His indication to WP Bold is well on place but the addressee should not be me. Pls. see above Cihsai (talk) 00:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston[edit]

• Cihsai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This saga began when MarshalBagramyan left a note on my talk:

Hi Ed. Can you please take a look at editor Cihsai. Through the course of this year, he has edited no other article besides the Hemshin peoples and has made no other contribution to it beside removing/reverting a crucial part of the lead, which states that the Hemshin people are believed to have an Armenian origin and which is well sourced. He has carried out the same edit time and time again and has obliquely referred to a "discussion on the talk page", which he has never bothered to make a contribution. I, along with other editors, have reverted such disruptive edits but he persists in making the reverts. I think some sort of action is necessary here and I'd appreciate any help in dealing with this matter. Thanks.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]

By checking the article, I verified that Cihsai had been reverting the Hemshin peoples article with no discussion, altogether about 12 times since December 2012. Here is the note I left for User:Cihsai on 6 November. This message was hoping to persuade him to engage in discussion about the possible Armenian origin of the Hemshin peoples before reverting again:

Hello Cihsai. Please see User talk:EdJohnston#Editor Cihsai. You may respond there if you wish. It appears that you have been constantly reverting a mention of Armenians from the lead of this article, for example here. If you have a reason for doing this, one would expect you to present it on the article's talk page. There are no posts by you on the talk page since 2008. The background for this issue is the WP:ARBAA2 arbitration case, which I can explain if you are curious. If you don't choose to respond, you'll probably be getting a formal warning under that case. Trying to force your point of view into the article by reverting is unlikely to work in any article that is subject to arbitration. You need to have reasons and you need to persuade the other editors. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cihsai made a response to my notice which I didn't find convincing. After issuing an ARBAA2 warning, I offered these further suggestions:

You have not participated at Talk:Hemshin since 2008. Yet here you are on 6 November 2013 in this diff where you remove a claim about Armenian origin at the same time as you remove the reference which was intended to support it. If you don't believe that Simonian's book on the Hemshin is a good reference for the claim of Armenian origin, you could try asking for an opinion at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. In the past year you have reverted the lead 12 times. This looks to be a case of long-term edit warring. If anyone agreed with you, you would not be the only one removing this material. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After this exchange, Cihsai did leave a comment on talk on 14 November, but he did not wait to persuade the other editors on the talk page. He just went ahead and reverted the lead again on 24 November, 2013. At that point I decided to topic ban him from WP:ARBAA2. EdJohnston (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved User:EatsShootsAndLeaves[edit]

This is unfortunately a no-brainer. Edit-warring is not permitted anywhere on this project - and this seems to be the major point the appellant is forgetting. You may add or remove something once, as per WP:BOLD. When it's reverted, you may never EVER re-remove or re-add it until you have WP:CONSENSUS to do so. It really doesn't matter the nature or topic area of the article in this case - it's simple process. The fact that virtually identical changes were made again and again and again shows that this basic law of Wikipedia means little to them. As such, I'm not horrified that they're unable to edit their favourite set of topics. It's not a topic ban that's preventing you from enjoying Wikipedia: it's YOUR OWN ACTIONS that are preventing you from enjoying Wikipedia.

As I see no sign of acknowledging that their behaviour was inappropriate on any article, they have shown no positive route forward, and indeed have not show proof of positive/non-problematic behaviour in other areas of the project, there's no grounds whatsoever put forward that could lead to a removal of the topic ban ES&L 16:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Cihsai: the fact that you cannot see how the above applies to you is the scariest part of this entire thing. WP:BRD is not WP:BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRD for a reason. Your change was not accepted by consensus yet, and as such, your change is not acceptable and you have to stop trying to force it. ES&L 15:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Cihsai[edit]

Cihsai, please notify all of the editors you have mentioned by name of this appeal for their comments, and I ask that those comments be brief and on point.--Tznkai (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Their contributions show that Cihsai is a single-purpose account dedicated to promoting a particular point of view about the Hemshin peoples through edit-warring. That is quite sufficient basis for discretionary sanctions (see in particular WP:EW and Wikipedia:ARBAB#Single purpose accounts). The article is within the topic area for which WP:ARBAA2#Standard discretionary sanctions authorizes discretionary sanctions, because the text Cihsai wants to remove concerns the possible Armenian origin of the Hemshin peoples. Although I might have scoped the ban to concern the Hemshin peoples only, its broader scope makes no practical difference because Cihsai has not edited about anything else. For these reasons, I would decline the appeal, but recommend that future sanctions are not explained in such a way that one might think that they were also made because of the content of the problematic edits, which would have been inadmissible under most circumstances.  Sandstein  23:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Sandstein. Cihsai appears to do almost nothing other than revert the same edit on the same page, with no serious attempt to resolve the edit war through discussion. This wouldn't be acceptable conduct in any topic area; that the conduct was in an area where tempers are already frayed and is thus under sanctions is clearly an aggravating factor. I believe the appeal should be dismissed and the topic ban upheld. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • At this point I do not see grounds for an appeal, but I want to wait a reasonable period for Cihsai to notify other editors and make any other statements. Since this is an appeal, the only thing harmed by our taking more time is Chihsai.--Tznkai (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed that this seems to be an appeal with very little chance of success. No attempts to discuss, SPA? The topic ban was the right step here. SirFozzie (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• My view (partially taken from my statement on the talk page of the article in question):

• There has been extensive and detailed discussion (in which I was heavily involved) about the article on its entirety starting 2007. The origin theories (about which the sentence consistently inserted by the involved editors make a bold statement) were covered in detail during these discussions. A stable version has been achieved end of 2008,
• The lead has been stable since then, except for a summary effort by user Seth on Dec. 1, 2009, which has not changed the main idea of the paragraph. No major changes since then until recent insertions of JackalLantern .
• To my understanding, it is up to the inserting users to seek consensus in editing stable version in case there is opposition, instead of Cihsai.
• I observe that the inserting users never responded to the calls for discussion by Cihsai.
• As a side note: I looked up the reference provided for the insertion, and observed that it does not include or indicate the inserted statement. Omer182 (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Cihsai[edit]

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

Hold while Cihsai contacts editors who may wish to say something concerning this request.--Tznkai (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any grounds or support to overturn, lessen, or modify the restrictions placed on Cihsai by EdJohnson so I must deny the appeal at this time. I would be open to reconsidering in several months if Chisai demonstrates knowledge and adherence of the appropriate norms. I do want to note there is a a possible language barrier issue here, and urge any and all users to use a soft touch. Chisai may find it easier to edit a less controversial area in the meantime.--Tznkai (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Phoenix7777[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Lvhis (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Phoenix7777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands

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

1. 20:16, 25 December 2013 Disruptive misbehaviour in talk page. During an ongoing RM/CM Talk:Senkaku_Islands#Requested_move, Phoenix7777 applied a subtitle "Argument against replacing "Senkaku Islands" by moving to other name" listing a number of users (PBS, AjaxSmack, Jonathunde, Blueboar, Qwyrxian, and benlisquare) under this subtitle but arguments of those users were not as this subtitle tells. Using this cheating subtitle he intentionally misled readers and closure admin by violating talk page guideline "Do not misrepresent other people".
2. 20:56, 22 December 2013 Disruptive misbehaviour in talk page. He disruptively changed a format that have been edited by several users without discussing this change before he was allowed to do so, to try to confuse readers and closure admin by violating talk page guideline Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning.
3. 00:27, 21 December 2013 Disruptive misbehaviour in talk page and edit warring. Reverted an edit that properly put his own argument under his argument part. Two days later he moved his such argument to his argument part [38] that meant his previous revert is an edit warring on the talk page.
4. 00:53, 21 December 2013 Disruptive misbehaviour in talk page and edit warring. Within one hour he did 2RR on the talk page.
5. 00:50, 23 December 2013 Disruptive misbehaviour in talk page and edit warring. Reverted to his disruptive format changing.

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

1. Warned on 19:05, 23 December 2013 by Lvhis (talk · contribs) I (Lvhis) clearly warned Phoenix7777 if he kept doing that kind of disruption again, "the immediate right place for him to go is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement board".
2. Warned on 02:19, 23 December 2013 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs) In reply Phoenix7777's soliciting request to close the ongoing RM/CM, admin EdJohnston also warned him "Misbehavior during the discussion may lead to sanctions".

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Phoenix7777's misbehavior has in certain extent disrupted or distracted the ongoing RM/CM. Note that Phoenix7777 was an involved party of Arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands and he has been fully aware this topic is under discretionary sanctions. He himself mentioned this discretionary sanctions on 00:49, 21 December 2013 and also ever threatened other users "risk an indefinite ban from this article." on 04:51, 23 December 2013. Phoenix7777 should be topic banned. --Lvhis (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified user Phoenix7777[39].

Discussion concerning Phoenix7777[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Phoenix7777[edit]

The contention of this RM is mostly derived from my addition of two discussions which are hardly disruptive. One is a list of users who voted Oppose and another is a section "Relevant Policies and Guidelines". These additions are quite inconvenient for users supporting the move. Lvhis and Benlisquare removed or collapsed these inconvenient additions for them. Please note that these additions are now kept in the talk page because I warned them a possible enforcement if they remove the edits again.[40][41] See my additions currently in the talk page:Talk:Senkaku Islands#Collection of oppose points, Relevant Policies and Guidelines

• Lvhis created only a list of users who voted Support.[42] So I added a list of users who voted Oppose in order to show the both side of discussions.[43]

• Lvhis removed.[44]]
• Benlisquare removed again.[45]

• I added "Relevant Policies and Guidelines" section in order to summarize the Policies and Guidelines related to this RM.[46]

• Benlisquare collapsed.[47]

• I added Template:Oldmoves.[48]

• Lvhis removed an item just because it is not RM but RfC although the RfC is the most recent decision to keep the current article name.[49]

• Benlisquare made personal attacks

• After I moved "Relevant Policies and Guidelines" from the unilaterally collapsed section,[50] Benlisquare posted a personal attack in my talk page.[51]
• After I added a list of users who voted Oppose, Benlisquare posted a personal attack in my talk page again using "shit" and "fuck".[52]

Also RM discussion page using "fuck" and "tomfoolery".[53]

Note: Recently Lvhis added a list of users against retention of "Senkaku Islands"[54] by combining the section "Argument for moving to "Pinnacle Islands"" and "Argument for moving to "Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands" or "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands"". This shows how Lvhis obsessed to these lists.

I ask admins to enforce a topic ban to Lvhis and Benlisquare. Lvhis's past three month ban should be taken into consideration.

Statement by Ubikwit[edit]

Though there doesn't appear to be need to admin action beyond the blocking of the SPA, I would note that there has been a dearth of substantive discussion based on RS, and an excess of appeals to statistical data in the form of readily manipulable ngrams, as demonstrated by this comment Beijing is currently buying up African media companies for example.
. The page has been flooded with such comments, and there are some language issues (non-native speakers).
So while I can appreciate the concerns of the OP and believe he is posting in good faith and has been editing in good faith (on this contentious topic), it would seem that he is not aware of the fact that, due to language limitations and the like, some of his own posts related to ngrams and the like could be seen as contributing to the flood of flotsam and jetsam making it difficult to navigate the discussion (what there is of it). Earlier today I posted a wikilink to Wikipedia:Source counting

A Japanese navy record issued in 1886 first started to identify the islets using equivalents of the Chinese and English terms employed by the British. The name "Senkaku Retto" is not found in any Japanese historical document before 1900 (the term "Senkaku Gunto" began being used in the late 19th century), and first appeared in print in a geography journal published in 1900. It was derived from a translation of the English name Pinnacle Islands into a Sinicized Japanese term "Sento Shoto" (as opposed to "Senkaku Retto", i.e., the term used by the Japanese today), which has the same meaning.

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Phoenix7777[edit]

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

I have read the requested move discussion that this concerns and intend to close it tomorrow, if nobody else does so in the meantime. I hope that closing the move discussion will moot this request, as there doesn't seem to be a very clear-cut case for action at first glance.  Sandstein  00:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• From glancing at the discussion, this seems to be retaliation as Phoenix777 has the opposite argument of Lvhis. More of a WP:BOOMERANG here and should be closed. I'm more worried about Ryk72 (talk · contribs) who clearly ain't a new user. Secret ^account 03:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I blocked Ryk72 indefinitely, and considering the page is under ArbCom sanctions and his only edits was basically to disrupt the closure of the Senkaku Islands page move, the block falls under the arbitration decision of the case. I don't see any evidence that Phoenix777 is disruptive enough for a sanction, and like Sandstein said, the closure of the move discussion will make the request moot. Secret ^account 03:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing the move discussion would be a reasonable step. I hope User:Sandstein will consider doing so. That might allow this AE to be closed without additional action. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have now move closed the move request and recommend that this request be archived without action (although any administrator remains of course free to take action). The discussion contains quite a bit of nastiness, edit-warring, inappropriate language and confrontational attitude by various participants, but I think that little would be gained by sorting all of that out now. However, I've added a general talk page conduct warning.  Sandstein  10:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Yozer1[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Kansas Bear (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Yozer1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:AA2

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

1. [55]:Yozer1 adds "Unreliable source" tag to Armenian Genocide link in Adana article.
2. [56]:Yozer1 removed the words "Armenian Genocide" and replaces it with "WWI" in the Adana article.

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

1. Notified of AA2 restrictions [57] 20 May 2013 by Sandstein (talk · contribs)
2. Notified of topic ban [58] 30 November 2013 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is pretty clear cut here. Yozer1 is topic banned from anything to do with AA2, which includes the Armenian Genocide. Yozer1's edits to Adana clearly violate his topic ban. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Yozer1[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Yozer1[edit]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Yozer1[edit]

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

I was in-progress of a two-week block but ToddST has indef'fed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh... Per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Discretionary sanctions it appears to me that 48 hr block followed by an escalation to Indef violates the standard escalation procedure, which limits to one-year. Am I understanding / reading that right? Cc'ing to ToddST Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We usually interpret indef to be an arbitration enforcement action for the first year, and a regular admin action thereafter. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Hrmm. It may be kosher, but I don't think so. If I'm reading this correctly, an indefinite block could be an independent "measure[] which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project" but cannot be used to enforce another discretionary sanction. Based on the wording of the policy, I think that the intent is for Arbitration Enforcement blocks to cap out at a year, given the fast track nature of the enforcement--Tznkai (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I can accept the independent indef, but we need a better worded template for this situation ("this is under AE sanction undo restrictions until (1 year from today) and then is subject to normal administrators' discretion..." or whatever) and a standard that makes it clear that we need to make that clear when it's imposed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it ceases to be an arbitration enforcement action after 12 months, and becomes a regular admin action. It happens from time to time, and that's how it's usually handled (I don't think it's enshrined in policy anywhere, but it's standard practice). There's no need for policy creep, nor for making mountains out of molehills. It's far from unheard of. Toddst could have handled it better, but I'm guessing he's not used to the bureaucracy of AE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally sympathetic to the idea that policy should be light and agile, but in all other cases on the wiki, each administrator must answer to every other administrator. Not so with arbitration enforcement. At any rate, I would more agree with the two weeks, and would definitely say that someone should explain the difference in sanction levels to Yozer1 in plain English, not templatese.--Tznkai (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified for Yozer1 that it's only an arbitration enforcement action for the first 12 months, and that thereafter, the normal procedures around blocking apply. I've also logged Toddst's action at WP:AA2. I really don't see that there's anything else that needs to be done. AE is bureaucratic enough as it is without making quibbling over a fairly routine action. If you don't think Yozer1 understands the bureaucratic procedures around AE blocks, by all means drop him a note with a clearer explanation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys and thanks for cluing me in HJ & George. I've adjusted the length of the block to 1 year. Toddst1 (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning RoslynSKP[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

TomStar81 (Talk) 05:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute#RoslynSKP_revert_restriction

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

1. [59]

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

1. Warned on 2013/12/27 by Nick-D (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• Sorry to say this again, but as with the filing of the initial arbcom case I've never done one of these enforcement paperwork things, so if I botched something or you guys need me to add or subtract from whats here then please drop me a line and I'll get to it as soon as I can.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning RoslynSKP[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by RoslynSKP[edit]

I am sorry that I have contravened the revert part of the ruling. It was not my intention to do so and it was only after the event that I realised my mistake. Since then, I have taken my concerns about the article to the talk page, in particular here [60], and here [61] but it appears that quite important information, which I have also detailed here [62], continues to be cut by Jim Sweeney. --Rskp (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge of Nick-D's warning and cannot find it via the diff provided. --Rskp (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EatsShootsAndLeaves[edit]

Well, it appears that the editor did not understand the definition of a revert, and has acknowledged such. That, combined with the possibility that there were no intervening edits (which would possibly make it a single revert), IMHO, we let the editor off with a warning at this point in time. Their edits have been problematic - hence their restrictions are in place. Skirting the edges, or making any edit(s) that appear problematic are just as dangerous ES&L 13:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nick-D[edit]

RoslynSKP has recently been pushing against an editing restriction and ignoring the concerns over her conduct which were raised in the arbitration case:

• Despite the concerns raised in the arbitration case, the committee's finding that she was not respecting consensus on "Ottoman" vs "Turkish" (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute#RoslynSKP: Ignoring consensus) and the restriction against making this change again, RoslynSKP attempted to start a new discussion of this naming issue at WT:MILHIST to overturn the strong consensus which was reached there only a few weeks ago: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Name of empire
• She has also attempted to start yet another discussion about the name of the ANZAC Mounted Division article, despite her four previous move requests on this topic (including three and an appeal since September 2013) being unsuccessful [63]
• She also accused other editors in the ANZAC Mounted Division article of having "ownership issues" [64]

I think that it's really disappointing that RoslynSKP is making the same basic mistakes which lead to the arbitration case so soon, and it must be very frustrating for the other editors who are working on these articles. I'd strongly encourage her to "drop the stick" over these issues, and move on. Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@MarcusBritish: Marcus, it's normal for AE requests to be handled relatively slowly as the admins like to discuss appropriate responses and also see a statement from the party who enforcement is being requested against, and for them to respond to any proposed sanctions (or at least to allow sufficient time for them to be able post a statement if they so wish) before taking any action: this isn't ANI, and given the weight accorded to arbitration sanctions the admins aren't going to short circuit established processes. Please note also that it's customary for initial requests for arbitration enforcement to be handled particularly carefully, and generally result in a warning or the like. Your rude posts really aren't helpful. Nick-D (talk) 06:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As my two cents on a suitable sanction, I agree with the views expressed below that it's too early to activate the very broad topic ban: while RoslynSKP's recent conduct has been unhelpful, and suggests that she does not really grasp the results of the arbitration case (including the concerns raised by other editors), it's been mixed in with some productive editing. A short block and/or restrictions on individual articles seems appropriate to me at this time (with the obvious implication that more serious sanctions would be applied if these problems reoccur). The best outcome would be for RoslynSKP to drop the stick(s) and concentrate on her productive editing in this topic area. Nick-D (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MarcusBritish[edit]

• Hate to say it, but RoslynSKP has bigger balls than every admin to view her record to date. Over 2-years we have strong evidence of dozens of misdemeanours forming a significant disruptive pattern, but to date, before the ArbCom case, not one official warning or block issued.. ArbCom gives a ruling and block options which is like shaking a carrot at a donkey, and our donkeys all decide they're blind. The closure of the ANI thread, with no admin responses, was pure ignorance. Give someone an inch and they'll take a mile.. I think RoslynSKP has not only taken that mile, but run a marathon in laps around everyone, and I'm disgusted how utterly useless ANI has proved in following Arbcom's "Standard Enforcement" mandate. Even if 4 reverts do only count as one, which I accept, the fact remains that in all 4 cases RoslynSKP covered-up those reverts with a misleading set of edit summaries. Balls, gentlemen.. please reach under your impotent manhoods and find them. I see many an admin listed as "willing to make difficult blocks", but can only laugh.. RoslynSKP clearly has them by the balls to. I bet she's in hysterics at how much she can and has got away with, even under scrutiny. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 02:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be more accurate to note that RoslynSKP is on a "suspended topic ban" which is technically a form of probation than a declined topic ban, ergo they did not make it so that this case has to take standard baby steps through all forms of dispute resolution to achieve a result, it has already been processed at the highest level by ArbCom as the end result and the ruling provides a clause for admins to skip lower forms of resolution–notably because they have proved ineffective due to RoslynSKP's unwillingness to cooperate with involved or third-parties–and move directly to blocks with the added notion that the topic ban be unsuspended. I think all the prattle being discussed above undermines not only ArbCom's ruling, but is seriously disrespectful to the MilHist project and those parties who put dozens of hours into presenting an ArbCom case from 2 years of unstable edit history across dozens of articles, only to have admins come along and make low-quality and even more arbitrary determinations as to what should and should not be done about the matter. The fact remains that the ArbCom case presents a chain of paperwork proving the disruptions at hand, and the further fact remains that not only have lessons not been learned as a result of the case, but that admins are unwilling to consider that several MilHist members invested a lot of time into bringing this case forward to secure a result. Whilst each disruption as a whole may appear a "low grade edit war" as Tznkai puts it, we should remember that a whole is the sum of its parts. A minor slap on RoslynSKP's wrist for this ANZAC article isn't going to do anything to prevent her from carrying on across the numerous other articles she has disrupted previously, against Jim Sweeney. This reads to me like a court making a ruling but the police can't be arsed to arrest the offender. How, Tznkai, can you only suggest that "both parties need to start working together" when we have 2-years of this proving impossible? Do you think if anyone thought this would work it would ever have gone to ArbCom in the first place? Both parties have different views on the content of the articles being disputed, but where Jim is generally open to comment and able to provide a variety of sourcing, RoslynSKP is firm in her opinions, unwilling to give ground and often won't provide sourcing beyond a few choice titles. It's like arguing with a fundamentalist who only cites the Bible as "fact" against all else man has ever learned and published.. if you've ever been in one of those debates you'll know how inflexible, determined and often blind-sighted they can be against all reason, and it is that very reason that is undermining resolution of this case, because no matter how many times you argue with RoslynSKP, no matter how many talk pages or noticeboards or ANI threads you take her to, she can't see past the end of her own nose. One week after the ArbCom case ruling she reopened the "Ottoman vs Turkey" debate on MilHist.. after 2 years of defending her castle do you really believe she's going to bend and see reason on a talk page with the very editor who she reverts more than anyone? Pah! IMO, we're dealing with an overwhelming egotist now, more than a reasonable editor. The only way to deal with someone like this is to come down harder on them, not pussyfoot around them, which is simply playing into their hands. As someone once said, possibly TomStar81, once you start blocking bad editors and wasting their time instead of ours life can get very difficult and the need to cooperate becomes more apparent. Being a member of Wiki is not a right if you're going to abuse it, and all the evidence suggests that RoslynSKP is willing to keep stepping on toes to have her own way. Clearly ArbCom needs to impose stronger remedies and less leniency to reduce the chances of that and the fallout this case is having. I could support a number of motions suggested by HJ Mitchell but I don't think they're broad enough as proposed to avoid carry-over from one article to another. All I can see is a chain of these useless WP:AE requests resulting in nothing but bureaucracy with little or no action at the end of consequence. Jim Sweeney suffers, MilHist suffers, Wiki suffers.. those are the victims here.

TLDR; This WP:AE is proving pointless as people are unwilling to act on the established facts and by playing "by the rulebook" too closely it's resulting in too much freedom for RoslynSKP to cause mischief and fly under the radar of ArbCom and its rulings. Jim Sweeney is receiving more flak than deserved, which is good for RoslynSKP (and probably a motive for her) as it dirties his name and could allow for a witch hunt against her detractors in MilHist, but this doesn't help matters as far as the wider disruptions are concerned. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 05:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: By making an absolute demand that RoslynSKP "drop this issue permanently" you backed her into a corner from which she was bound to fight rather than accept; making such a demand was a) not your decision to make, b) did not represent ArbCom's ruling, and c) is contrary to Wiki policy such as WP:CCC, where I had more luck requesting she wait for 6 months until WWI centenary you obsessively sought to contradict that, which was damaging to the ground gained – I am sure you are unwilling to accept this fact.

Tznkai: I have nothing to gain by battling and have always worked towards a mutually-beneficial solution, how dare anyone suggest otherwise in order to alienate my comments. If you're looking to challenge my views by showing passive-aggression towards me, fine, but do not attempt to censor my opinions me making demands as you have. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 07:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a load of edits and moving of comments all in short time, I am lost as to who said what, being both tired and frustrated by the responses posted here. Regardless, it's too late to redact things that have already been said. I can only redirect several some of the context at Tznkai who clearly has not done enough background research into this case, and therefore his accusations of WP:BATTLE are assumptive and incorrectly placed. He would do better to reconsider his views than to attack mine given that he appears to be unable to follow the history of this case, or my involvement, with reasonable level of clarity. As someone who does NOT edit WWI articles I have NOTHING to gain from these proceedings, whether RoslynSKP stays or goes, I gain nothing personally, I only justify my role to prevent further long-term disruptions which affect MilHist and its pool of members, as such long-term disputes only serve to polarise views rather than strengthen collaborative bonds. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 08:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Tznkai: "I am also loathe to allow even the appearance of allowing users to even accidentally win a content dispute by taking advantage of an editor's restrictions." – "win"? Is that implying that Jim also has WP:BATTLE-like view? Isn't it more reasonable to rationalise that articles should follow a uniform naming convention, and that if an article already uses "Turkish" where RoslynSKP is adding fresh material using "Ottoman" rather than changing existing content it could be construed as circumventing the ArbCom ruling? I'm with Jim in expressing disappointment, as several times now you have specifically targeted parties but the one this case relates to, and there is a huge amount of bias in your POV because you've suggested that we might take advantage of her restrictions, rather than the more obvious case that she might exploit loopholes in her restrictions, as may be the case. Can you please explain your negativity towards myself and Jim, as I find it lacks the impartiality I would come to expect from a reasonable sysop? Your unrequired "loathe" also fails to WP:AGF in Jim for bringing his concerns forward to the appropriate noticeboard. Please assume a less pre-judgemental approach to your views, as that is twice now you have done so and I am getting severally pissed off by your harassive candour as there too many implications being hinted at which are not in your remit. Perhaps you forget we are all volunteers on wiki, and expect to be treated as equals, not as liars with COI. In short, if you can't be bothered to look at the evidence fairly, leave it to those who will. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 09:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Sweeney: Is there any evidence to support that "Turkish" is a Eurocentric term? It appears to me to be a reiteration of her unsubstantiated claim that the term "Turkish" is derogatory or colloquial. Given that she is making a broad and unverified statement in that note I believe sources can be demanded, as suggesting anything is "centric" to any location is semantically the same as saying "colloquial". It could be seen as continued WP:BATTLEGROUND editing, as she is still attempting to push her confined opinion outside of the prose in an attempt to circumvent ArbCom's ruling. I suggest that admins in this AE look at that last edit with that consideration in mind, as this is getting beyond ridiculous, every corner we turn to question RSKP's behaviour in one format, she finds a new format that has not yet been brought to question, thus taking this discussion back to square one. In short, delaying tactics (see: borderlining). Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 03:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TomStar81[edit]

Alright, everyone please take a deep breathe and let it out slowly. Then lets remember that by allowing ourselves to be agitated over this issue RSKP wins, so the less we debate the (in)action here the better it is for all of us. I for one have no intention of letting this issue run my life, that is why I've commented here only in a limited capability. The longer this gets drawn out and the more we invest into it the more wound up we are going to be, so lets all remember that we are and rightly should be editors first, ok? Once we remember who we are then we remember that this is all above our pay grade, meant to be left to the people who participate here cuz its what they do, not what we do. Each editor depends on one another to help support them in their hour of need, and editors in turn rely and admins to act or refrain from acting fro the betterment of the project. If it makes you feel better here, remember that RSKP's got a whole year - thats 52.5 weeks, 365.25 days, 525,600 minutes, etc - to make the needed alterations to her behavior. Missing the first mine in a minefield doesn't mean the field won't work in the long run, and to get bent out of a shape over it is ridiculous in my opinion.

Let it go. That is my advice, and while it may not be what you want, it is most certainly what you all need to do.

Let it go, before it become the all consuming factor that dictates your wiki-life. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jim Sweeney[edit]

Can this edit also be checked, [65] in my belief its against the first Arbcom restriction.

RoslynSKP is indefinitely prohibited from changing 'Turkey' or 'Turkish' to 'Ottoman' on any article.

By adding a map of the 1913 Ottoman Empire to an article about a British Empire (Australian/British/New Zealand) army formation, that was formed in 1916. Not only is the reason for its use doubtful in this article, by adding Ottoman an article where Turkish is in use, is surely against the restriction. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So its your understanding they they can not change Turkish to Ottoman but can introduce as many sentences with Ottoman in, or as in this case maps, that they want? Unbelievable really can not see why anyone bothered with going to Arbcom.Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest the latest edit, while also edit warring is against the Arbcom restriction. is indefinitely prohibited from changing 'Turkey' or 'Turkish' to 'Ottoman' on any article. Not only is there a agreement/consensus over the note on the talk page. The change from - The sources used in this article predominately use the term "Turkey" - to - While it is true the major element were Turkish soldiers, other elements also fought in the Ottoman Army. The sources used in this article predominately use the Eurocentric term "Turkey", although the Ottoman Empire was not a nation-state, making the Ottoman Empire both historically and politically correct. [66] Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NE Ent[edit]

The difficulty ya'll are having coming to a consensus is due to the fact the binary nature of the case remedy removes your discretion, leaving you with two no so great choices. I've filed an amendment request to the (new) committee to hopefully remedy the remedy. NE Ent 23:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Beyond My Ken[edit]

...or, you could just apply some good old fashioned common sense mixed in with a bit of IAR, take account of the fact the RSKP doesn't seem interested in changing her behavior, despite the ruling against her, slap a stern final warning on her that she got away with it once, but that's the end of the line, and if she does it again, block her indef. A little less bureaucracy and hand-wringing, please, and a little more protecting the project from disruption would be appreciated. You're not judges (or Talmudic scholars, for that matter), this is not a court of law, and there is no need or expectation for justice, only for taking measures which make it easier for others to build an encyclopedia. Eyes on the prize, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning RoslynSKP[edit]

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

If I'm not mistaken, the four edits listed at WP:AN/I were made consecutively with no intervening edits by another user, meaning they count as only one revert, so it looks to me as if this request is not actionable. Gatoclass (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Per WP:3RR, "an edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Because the edits in question were consecutive, they are one revert. However, RoslynSKP should remember that also per WP:3RR, "'revert' means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material". This can be closed without further action.  Sandstein  15:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There's not really anything here that would justify a draconian sanction, such as a block or some form of topic ban, though it is alarming to see an AE request less than a week after the closure of the arbitration case. I fear this may not be the last we see of of this dispute, and it may be prudent to nip it in the bud if we can. Perhaps one or a combination of the following measures might strike the balance between deterrence and fairness:
  • A stern warning to RoslynSKP that it is not acceptable to merely carry on with conduct that led to sanctions in an arbitration case, and that much more draconian sanctions are almost certain to follow if she does not change her ways. Possibly accompanied by a warning to Jim Sweeney to make sure his own conduct at the very least meets (and would preferably exceed) the conduct expected of those he is in dispute with.
  • 0RR on ANZAC Mounted Division (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (with scope for widening if necessary) for RoslynSKP and possibly Jim Sweeney.
  • Require RoslynSKP to gain consensus for edits to that article (and others if necessary) before she makes them.
  • Ban RoslynSKP from the article for a few weeks to allow dust to settle after the arbitration case.
  • Require all editors on that article to clearly mark reverts (including partial reverts) as such.
  • More drastically, a period of full protection for ANZAC Mounted Division (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), forcing all editors to gain consensus for edits before they are made.
  • An interaction ban between RoslynSKP and Jim Sweeney (if problems continue between RoslySKP and other editors, there will be a more compelling case for stiffer sanctions against RoslynSKP; if things die down, it should allow the dust to settle).
• I suspect that if we close this request with no action at all, things in the topic area will not improve, and we will be back here before long discussing essentially the same facts. I'd appreciate other admins' thoughts and those of the involved editors. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In a sense that is why this is here, its meant to show RoslynSKP that we are watching. Even if no action is taken, the fact that someone bothered to go the extra mile and take this here should show that we will be making sure that both parties (in this case RSKP, perhaps later Jim as well) adhere to the arbcom ruling. Ideally, this would result in action, but that it came here is for me enough to know that we did our 50%. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Marcus, I sympathise with your frustration, but perhaps tone down the rhetoric a little. Most admins here are thick-skinned enough to brush it off, but it's unlikely to help your case. We are limited in what we can do by the ArbCom ruling; our remit here is to deal with disruption within the scope of that case. Now, I've proposed a variety of possible actions that might go some way towards that. Hopefully other admins will comment, and we'll come to a consensus on what, if anything, we should do. Your feedback on the suggestions would be welcome, as would Roslyn's, and you are welcome to continue to demonstrate how you believe Roslyn's conduct is violating the arbitration remedies, but please don't expect that some admin is going to swoop in and make a unilateral action without waiting to hear other opinions first—that would only lead to an even bigger mess. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading the case correctly, @HJ Mitchell:, we cannot do what you are suggesting under Arbitration Enforcement. The only enforcement mechanism reads "Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year." Any block would also immediately trigger a topic ban, which would further be enforceable by blocks. I need to delve into the article history a bit more to know for sure, but this looks at first glance like a low grade edit war that would normally result in short term page protection (everyone sits on their hands and figures it out) rather than blocks for edit warring. If that bares out, no action is appropriate. Even if it does not, we need to be aware that we will be going from zero to topic ban when ArbCom declined to do so.--Tznkai (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having reread the diffs, and looked into the case history a bit, I think TomStar81 buried the lead here. These two users have an established history of edit warring with each other, and that is exactly what is happening here. ArbCom chose to restrict one editor and not the other, which ties our hands considerably, but that is the way it is. It seems to me the correct solution is for both parties to start working together, mostly by sitting on their hands, and discussing on the talk page. If creative enforcement becomes an option somehow, I would start with discussion on the talk page under kindergarten rules: I statements only. In lieu of enforcement authority, I make that my strong suggestions to both @Jim Sweeney: and @RoslynSKP:--Tznkai (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)@MarcusBritish:, I dislike enforcing formalisms, but I like reading rants when trying to come to a conclusion even less. Please move your comment to the appropriate section, or better yet, reconsider it entirely. You have said your piece, and then you said it again. Continued repetition suggests that you are interested in engaging in battles on Wikipedia instead of writing about them. If you believe that there is new, actionable evidence of misconduct we have missed, kindly list and link such items in your section.--Tznkai (talk) 08:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)timestamp is incorrect[reply]

Having taken a closer look at the article's history page, it appears to me that RoslynSKP may indeed have breached her 1RR restriction and on more than one occasion. I'm still checking the diffs but I think I should be able to post some evidence shortly. Gatoclass (talk) 08:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Sweeney:, the restriction is against changing Turkey to Ottoman, not adding information that references the Ottoman empire. I did see that edit and find it questionable, but that it is a content call, and does not fit within the sanctions levied by ArbCom. ArbCom had the opportunity to grant discretion to administrators or levy different sanctions. They did not. We are unable to expand or re-litigate here. I am also loathe to allow even the appearance of allowing users to even accidentally win a content dispute by taking advantage of an editor's restrictions. We will see what Gatoclass comes up with.--Tznkai (talk) 09:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin reply by Jim Sweeney moved up to the corresponding section.  Sandstein  10:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that RoslynSKP cannot be specially sanctioned for the action you cited. It can however, be handled through normal means. As an analogy, imagine one gets pulled over for drunk driving, and the magistrate lays down a probation that includes the provision "if you get pulled over for DUI again, you lose your license forever." That person then goes to a bar, gets drunk, and gets into a bar brawl. That person cannot have their driving license pulled under the provision, but still would be guilty of getting drunk and brawling.--Tznkai (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, having taken another look at the article history, it appears to me that a breach of RoslynSKP's revert restriction has indeed occurred. Per the original case, Rosylyn was prohibited from making more than one revert on a given page in a 72-hour period. Roslyn made an edit on 22:56 25 December with the edit summary reinsert notable campaign and battles in infobox per Template. Without this information readers may not know when and where the division served,[67] a revert of this edit. Jim Sweeney then made a number of intervening edits (example[68])and on 00:04 27 December RoslynSKP made another edit, with the edit summary reinstate direct quote in note for clarity as the paraphrase is misleading[69] which is clearly a revert of this edit by Jim Sweeney. That's two reverts in little more than 24 hours. I should add that this is not the only content Roslyn reverted in the space of about 24 hours, but because she broke her reverts over a sequence of consecutive edits, it's not so easy to show how much content was reverted in violation of her 72-hour 1RR.

Additionally, I note that at 00:08 27 December, RoslynSKP repeated her revert of 25 December with the edit summary reinsert notable battles in infobox per template guide[70] which under the circumstances might be considered edit warring, especially since this is at least the third time she has added this info. This is not the only example of repeated restoration of contested content that Roslyn has engaged in on this page over the last few days, as noted above.

I might add with regard to two of RoslynSKP's reverts listed above[71][72] that they arguably breach the spirit if not the letter of her prohibition on changing 'Turkey' or 'Turkish' to 'Ottoman' on any article; I think Roslyn would be well advised to steer clear of any content related to the naming controversy. Regardless, this request does appear to be actionable after all. Gatoclass (talk) 09:43, 29 December 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Given RoslynSKP's statement that she misunderstood the definition of "revert," and that the immediate result of any action here would be to unsuspend a lengthy topic ban, in addition to the concerns I laid out before, I would decline the enforcement request at this juncture. On the other hand, it is incumbent on sanctioned users to learn the boundaries of their sanctions by asking for clarification or frankly, reading the relevant policies. Several of the cited diffs have suggested the underlying problem presented in the arbitration case is in play here. Certainly RoslynSKP has not been a model of collaborative editing on this article. Given that, I will stand aside for any administrator who wishes to act.--Tznkai (talk) 10:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested to know why Arbcom chose to impose a "suspended" indef ban in the first place; it's a rather unusual sanction that tends to limit the discretion of administrators. Strictly speaking, however, the ban is unsuspended on the imposition of a block, so presumably other types of sanction would not activate it. Gatoclass (talk) 10:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough analysis, Gatoclass, with which I agree. Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute#Enforcement by block, this calls for a block in enforcement of the revert restriction. I think that two weeks (within an allowed range of up to a month) would be appropriate, given how recent the decision was and how little consideration RoslynSKP seems to have given to the decision. Per #RoslynSKP suspended topic ban, the block will automatically activate RoslynSKP's ban from editing any article relating to Turkish military history in and predating World War I.

In reply to Tznkai, by going right back to confrontative editing in the same topic area after an arbitration decision that stopped a hair short of immediately topic-banning her, and apparently without giving much consideration of the terms of that decision, RoslynSKP assumed the risk of being sanctioned for her actions. I see neither grounds for leniency, nor do I believe that we have any discretion not to take action: the revert restriction is a Committee decision, which is binding and final, and therefore must be enforced.  Sandstein  10:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, the only enforcement mechanism authorized in the case is a block, which then unsuspends the topic ban, thus leaving us with the options of block up to 1 month and topic ban or no action. Technically, a block of 1 second would activate the topic ban. Sandstein, I do not believe there is an affirmative duty on administrators to execute Arbitration remedies, even if we must, like any editor, comply with them. We always have the discretion to sit on our hands, which is what I believe is most appropriate in this case.--Tznkai (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tznkai, I don't see where it says in the Arbcom decision that a block is the only permitted sanction, how do you come to that conclusion? Gatoclass (talk) 10:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Enforcement section reads, in its entirety, as follows

Enforcement by block[edit] 0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked,' initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to arbitration enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page. (Emphasis added)

There is simply no provision for non-blocking sanctions, just that an administrator may block up to a month. We'd be looking at going back to AN/I for a community restriction if we want to try something more creative.--Tznkai (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but the next section states that Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged in this section ... , so I think the statement in the previous section is only intended to summarize the provisions related specifically to blocking. Gatoclass (talk) 10:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I agree that we always have the discretion to sit on our hands. I do not agree that this is most appropriate in this case. AGF fails me. I don't think this is a user trying intentionally to be disruptive. But I believe it's a user who is Not Getting It. Enough chances were given prior to the case. If they didn't understand the significance of the case or findings or restrictions then their competence to work with the community of editors, collegially and collaboratively, is in question. In a case like this, a topic ban can be viewed as much as a measure to try and separate a possibly rehabilitatable editor from the area that they're in and causing them to exhaust community patience. What I have seen so far responding to this does not give me a positive sense of short-term rehabilitation and behavior change, short of enacting the block and triggering the topic ban. We can always say 'not this time' one more time, but at some point that shifts to enabling rather than merciful. Perhaps the line's one more goof down the line rather than here; I would support more discussion rather than pulling a trigger myself now. But I'd like to see a better case for this actually being a rehabilitative act of tolerance rather than enabling. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Tznkai, more 'creative' solutions may not be available under the arbitration remedies, but we as ordinary administrators surely have the ability to impose such in lieu of a block; we're not robots—we're human beings and experienced editors, and that's why we're trusted with the responsibility of deciding these requests, not because we'll mindlessly enforce the letter of ArbCom's rulings for them (even they, in their infinite wisdom, probably wouldn't want that). @Sandstein: I agree with you in principle, but the topic ban that a block would automatically trigger seems out of all proportion to the offence, especially given that Roslyn may not have fully understood the definition of a revert. We should also take into consideration that others have not been behaving as well as they should, and that less drastic actions (such as some of those I proposed above) may be as effective. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not our job to second-guess the Committee and determine which sanction would be most appropriate for a violation of the revert restriction. The Committee has already decided this for us: a revert restriction violation entails a block, which activates the suspended topic ban. Our only job here is to, indeed, mechanically enforce the Committee's decision. If that is deemed to be not an appropriate outcome for this particular set of circumstances, then only the Committee, not we, has the authority to reconsider its decision and decide on a different sanction. If we were to do so in their place, we would usurp their authority.  Sandstein  11:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Maybe banning policy has changed in the last year or so while I've been gone, but administrator discretion is pretty compressed outside of "community consensus" or an arbitration remedy, or at least it that is how it seemed has been any time I've tried something even slightly out of the box, or seen someone else who has. The gray area seems to be unblocking with conditions.

My argument in favor of doing nothing at this point is that, under AE, our only options end in a topic ban, which forecloses the possibility of RoslynSKP returning to edit in the topic area of interest, which means one less editor with content knowledge. My review of her (I've been under the impression the editor is a her, someone correct me if I am wrong) disputed edits suggests that we're dealing not with an egregiously bad behaved editor, but someone who has yet to learn and apply Wikipedia norms. Her talk page entries, while hardly nice, are pretty much endemic among users all over the project, and restricting them and shaming them into behaving better has not paid dividends. Incompetence more than malice, in other words. If RoslynSKP is unwilling to learn, it isn't like it is difficult to sanction, but the enforcement section makes it a one-way ratchet. While I understand the argument to come down hard because she has resumed bad behavior so soon after a case, I have the exact opposite reaction. I think it is important to give a little time and not ratchet up when ArbCom had the option to do so themselves. ArbCom seems to believe that Roslyn editing in the dispute area under revert restriction is an acceptable circumstance. I do not want to override that decision, even if they gave us a narrow channel with which to do so. I think we should see if collaborative discussion is possible before throwing the book. I see nothing in the behavior of any of the parties that suggests that it is not, even if it is likely to descend into alphabet soup bickering. If the situation does not improve, I suspect there will be plenty of opportunities to activate the topic ban.--Tznkai (talk) 11:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roslyn's been editing for 3 1/2 years, she hardly qualifies as a new editor still learning the ropes. Also, on reflection I think I must agree with you that blocks are the only authorized sanction here, as discretionary sanctions were not authorized for this case. HJMitchell raises the possibility of applying a different sanction based on administrator discretion but I'm not sure admins have the authority to apply novel remedies outside the remit of DS. So it may be that the only alternatives here are a warning or a block, the latter which will of course trigger the automatic topic ban. Gatoclass (talk) 11:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is not a "new editor" problem. But I believe the editing culture is such that one can edit for years without ever even seeing best practices, let alone internalizing them. Restrictions can force users to do that. Many, perhaps most even, fail. I certainly understand why people advocate simply blocking and letting the topic ban activate. I'm a little annoyed that ArbCom squished our options in this way, but that is how they did it, so those are the choices we have. As I said before, I am willing to stand aside, and for better or worse, any one of us can take the decision out of the other's hand anyway.--Tznkai (talk) 11:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Tznkai , I lean slightly closer to 'doing nothing' than to triggering an automatic indefinite topic ban, mainly for the reasons you list, but I'm not comfortable with doing absolutely bugger all. I think it's necessary to make it clear that carrying on regardless after being the subject of arbitration remedies is not acceptable, even if it's only in the form of a warning that Roslyn is skating on thin ice and that further misconduct will almost inevitably lead to blocks and thus the un-suspension of the topic ban. I do, though, think that the topic ban would be grossly out of proportion to the offence. The authority for the middle ground comes from it being essentially a substitute for a block: if Roslyn (or any other sanctioned editor) decides not to abide by it, then they can simply be blocked as they would have if we had decided not to cut them some slack.

@Sandstein apologies for the typo in my previous edit, I disagree. We're not robots; ArbCom is perfectly capable of coming up with a process for 'automatically' enacting its remedies that doesn't involve admins using their judgement. The very fact that the process for enforcement is one that requires the judgement of several administrators suggests that we are expected to use that judgement to decide the best (or least worst) outcome for the project. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any precedents for the imposition of sanctions other than blocks in AE cases where discretionary sanctions were not authorized? If so, it might strengthen the case for doing the same here. Gatoclass (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any within the framework of AE (unless there are cases where ArbCom has specifically authorised other sanctions), but admins here too often overlook the option of ordinary administrative action when it may be better suited than the very narrow options available to us under arbitration remedies. @RoslynSKP, how would you feel about a 0RR restriction on ANZAC Mounted Division (ie, you wouldn't be allowed to revert any edit or any part of any edit on that article for any reason whatsoever) for, say, six months, as opposed to the two-week block Sandstein proposes and the indefinite topic ban that would trigger? Obviously, if you violated the 0RR, you would be blocked and the topic ban would come into force; my hope is that this will give you just enough rope and that you won't hang yourself with it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not keen on 0RR - I don't see how it is possible to make appropriate edits if one is unable to make alterations to the existing text. If you want to go down the voluntary route, I think I'd prefer to see a voluntary topic ban of limited duration. But Rskp hasn't even responded to the offer of a voluntary restriction yet, if we don't get a response soon we will have to look at other options. Gatoclass (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that time is rapidly running out, if it hasn't already, for RSKP to accept something voluntarily. What other options do you suggest? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering:

• that it is not contested that RoslynSKP has violated the revert restriction she is subject to,
• that the Committee's decision provides that the restriction is to be enforced with a block,
• that it further provides that a block shall unsuspend a ban from editing any article relating to Turkish military history in and predating World War I,
• that RoslynSKP has not responded to the queries ([73], [74]) by administrators on this board about whether she would accept a voluntary 0RR restriction instead of a block,
• that she has instead, in a recent edit of 2 January, violated the Committee's restriction from "changing 'Turkey' or 'Turkish' to 'Ottoman' on any article", by introducing text into an article that suggests that "Ottoman" rather than "Turkish" is the correct appellation for the forces at issue, in a manner that repeats the conduct that has been found to ignore consensus in the Committee's findings,
• that this indicates that RoslynSKP remains unwilling to comply with the Committee's decision and that the decision must therefore be enforced with a block,

I am blocking RoslynSKP for two weeks, as discussed above. Because the block is for misconduct relating to Turkish military history, it activates the topic ban as provided for in the Committee's decision. This is of course without prejudice to any changes the Committee may wish to make as a result of another user's recent request for the amendment of the decision.  Sandstein  11:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Matthead[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

 Volunteer Marek  15:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#2010_2

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

"Matthead (talk · contribs) indefinitely topic-banned from Poland and Poles as explained and detailed here"

1. January 5 2014 Straight forward violation of indefinite topic ban. Two previous blocks for violations, by Sandstein and NW. Inflammatory nature of the comment.

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

1. Warned on July 29 2010 by Sandstein (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on July 23 2011 by Nuclear Warfare (talk · contribs)

Numerous previous warnings.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Self-explanatory and straight forward request.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[75]

Discussion concerning Matthead[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Matthead[edit]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Matthead[edit]

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

This is a clear violation of the topic ban I imposed in 2010. Considering the two previous one-week enforcement blocks, I am blocking the user for two weeks and reverting the ban violation.  Sandstein  16:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Sean.hoyland[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

79.182.18.40 (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#SECTION

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kokhav_Ya%27akov&oldid=589301332

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

(cur | prev) 15:45, 5 January 2014‎ Sean.hoyland (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,948 bytes) (+379)‎ . . (Undid revision 589279990 by 79.182.18.40 (talk) necessary and accurate) (undo) (cur | prev) 12:17, 5 January 2014‎ 79.182.18.40 (talk)‎ . . (4,569 bytes) (-379)‎ . . (Following removed. Unecessary, inaccurate, and offensive to residents. (edit by Kochav Yaakov resident):) (undo)

The editor Sean.holyland is perpetuating an irrelevant statement about the subject town. The statement is political propaganda that has nothing to do with the town itself. It is patently offensive to the residents of this town, of which I am one. The international communities alleged opinion of a town is not an encyclopedic fact about the town.

The following statement was removed and should not be included with the entry: The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this.

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

1. Warned on Date by Name of user who made warning 1 (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on Date by Name of user who made warning 2. If there is no warning 2, delete this entire line (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Sean.holyland[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Sean.holyland[edit]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Sean.hoyland[edit]

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

This is a dispute about article content and as such not actionable. The arbitration process, and by extension the discretionary sanctions system authorized through it, can only address conduct problems. Disagreements about content must be resolved through the normal dispute resolution process (WP:DR). If I am not mistaken, there have already been extensive community discussions about statements such as the one being disputed here. I don't know where to find them, or what the result (if any) was, but you can ask experienced editors in this topic area, of which Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs) is one, about these prior discussions. If no administrator objects, this request can be closed now.  Sandstein  19:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Baseball Bugs[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

NE Ent 22:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute#Baseball_Bugs_topic-banned

"Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed. He is also topic banned from all pages (including biographies) related to leaks of classified information, broadly construed. "

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

1. 4 January Commenting in section Sexual preferences of transgendered people

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

1. Notified on 15 October by Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) (ac clerk)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[80]

Discussion concerning Baseball Bugs[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Baseball Bugs[edit]

If I had thought that reasonable question was some sort of violation, I wouldn't have asked it. Shall I delete it and use it to improve my consciousness of this topic ban? I've studiously avoided NSA-related stuff, which was what triggered this topic ban in the first place. I don't have any biases against transgender people. On the contrary, I'm sympathetic. I do have strong opinions about Americans that to me appear to be undermining America - which is why I try to stay away from such topics. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Callanecc: It's not a good excuse, it's just the fact. My focus in this topic ban was on the political side, the NSA stuff. The notion that I am biased against transgenders is just plain false. So the question should have been a red flag to me (as anything NSA-related would be), but somehow it wasn't. It's never been a hot-button issue with me. But it will be, henceforth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• How do I go about getting the transgender part of the topic ban rescinded or modified? It was imposed based on a totally false premise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Medeis[edit]

It may not be to my advantage commenting here, but having answered the question at hand, I feel I have to comment.

This question of sex change and sexuality was first asked at the Ref Desk a month ago. Personally familiar with the topic, I responded then with a reference then and followed up with a documentary link once I could find it. When the question was asked again ("Sexual preferences of transgendered people"), I linked back to the earlier discussion. Bugs then asked the entirely appropriate question regarding the new thread's title, "Is "preference" really the right word here, or is it "orientation"?" This is entirely benign, and, in fact, helpful in regard to LGTB consensus on the issue. I do not think it in any way violates the spirit of the topic ban, nor that any sanction is called for. μηδείς (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Baseball Bugs[edit]

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

• Looks like a clear violation of the topic ban to me, however given BB's statement I'd advocate a warning over a block. @Baseball Bugs: I would have thought the section header would have given it away pretty clearly, and I don't think "I forgot" is a good excuse. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BB - no problem. You'll need to appeal it to the Committee at WP:ARCA see Wikipedia:AC/P#Appeals of topic bans. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Callanecc that a warning should be enough here. EdJohnston (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree this is a violation of the topic ban but that a warning should be enough. Zad68 14:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Per the consensus here I've warned Baseball Bugs. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Avaya1[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

 Ohc ^¡digame! 20:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Avaya1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General_1RR_restriction

• All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.
  • Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

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

• Version immediately before revert

1. First "revert"

   5 January 2014 "Undid revision 589120329 by Ohconfucius – factual inaccuracies introduced by this editor - e.g. biography is 1989"

   5 January 2014 "Undid revision 589119168 by Ohconfucius – It certainly doesn't make any sense to use his old name in this section"

2. Second "revert"

   6 January 2014 No edit summary

   6 January 2014 "Undid revision 589299412 – Once his name change is mentioned once, there is no reason to refer to him by his old name in every sentence - we don't do it on other biographies of people who changed their name"

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

• N/A

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Avaya1[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Avaya1[edit]

There's no 1RR violation since the two edits on each of the days are reverting the same edit by you, simply doing so in two parts. Perhaps there is something like 20 hours between them instead of 24, but they are on different days.

On the subject of your edits, there is no reason to insert his old name into every sentence - there's no precedent for doing this on any other biographical article here. He is referred to as Sharon in all the sources that are being cited, therefore we will use the name that all the sources give him, and that is commonly used by everyone else (it is basic WP:Verifiability to call him Sharon)Avaya1 (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

24 hour block seems fine. Topic ban is presumably excessive. If you look at the content of the 1RR violations, they have involved a name change, and (last time round with Ovadia Yosef) formatting issues (neither concerning the content in any article or the fact they are related to Israel, but rather to make the article conform with WP:V). In this case, it was 22 hours between the edits. I had believed I left a day between the edits (hence the statement above), although I will gladly be more careful to leave a full day in future. Avaya1 (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sepsis My previous IRR violation (on Ovadia Yosef) was also a matter of style and formatting. Topic banning me (on an article I think I am the main author of), because of a 22 hour IRR violation when editing the names in an article is presumably excessive.

I had believed that I had left a day between the edits, although I hadn't kept track of time (hence why I state that I didn't notice an IRR violation). But I will definitely be careful to leave a full day (rather than 22 hours) between such edits in the future.

As for the content of the edit. I would think it is uncontroversial (as per WP:V) that we should use the name in the article that the sources that we are citing use. Avaya1 (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc "I will definitely be more careful to leave a full day between edits in the future"] "tells me that they just don't understand the necessity of discussion." I understand the necessity for discussion for any changes to do with the content of an article (and often engage in discussions on the talkpages for such edits). Editors below mention that naming is contentious. All the sources we cite for the article are using one name, so it seemed to be a uncontroversial edit as per WP:V, which is the reason why I wouldn't have opened a discussion before reverting. Additionally, I would have discussed it with the editor in question (in addition to the edit summary), had it been raised for discussion. My previous IRR violations (over the last 3 years of editing Israel-Palestine topics) were involving these edits on Ovadia Yosef, which trim the text so that it also sticks to WP:V: [here]. There were no further edits and the editor's reversion of my edits remains the current one. Avaya1 (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sepsis[edit]

Avaya1, slow down and use the talk page especially when editing articles around Israel, Palestine. Ohconfucius is only trying to improve the article, if you think his edits were wrong talk with him. That said, I do question whether a revert purely over wikipedia style, whether to use the subject's former or current name in a few sentences, should fall under IP area sanctions which were designed to keep down POV pushers and their ideological edit warring, not stylists. Sepsis II (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Avaya1[edit]

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

• Ariel Sharon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Avaya1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ohconfucius has been editing to add Sharon's birth name 'Sheinerman' to some locations in Sharon's article on the grounds that he was known that way at the time. He first did so in this edit:

• Ohconfucius's edit of 10:09, 4 January 2014

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ariel_Sharon&diff=589119168&oldid=589094342

For clarity, here are the two reverts by Avaya1 within 24 hours:

1. Avaya1's edit of 22:12, 4 January 2014

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ariel_Sharon&diff=589200463&oldid=589200051 (removes the name ’Sheinerman’)

2. Avaya1's edit of 19:50, 5 January 2014

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ariel_Sharon&diff=589332024&oldid=589302364 (removes the name ‘Sheinerman’ again)

Avaya1's block log shows two previous blocks for 1RR violations, so you can see the case for another block. Avaya1 broke 1RR as recently as December 2013 on the Ovadia Yosef article but on that occasion he was excused without a block. We sometimes let these 1RRs pass with only a warning if we have confidence they won't be soon repeated, but I don't feel that confidence here. Avaya1's own statement above denies that he broke the 1RR. If he doesn't grasp the concept of 1RR it is risky for him to be working in ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Ed on this one. After being blocked twice for violating 1RR and the warning I gave them in December it seems pretty clear that they don't understand the special restrictions on Palestine and Israeli topics so need to be removed from them. I'll impose a topic ban from ARBIP topics in around 24 hours so others (including Avaya1) can comment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that a topic ban has been proposed is the only reason I didn't block Avaya1 for violating 1RR. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting over names have always been a touchy subject. This... isn't great, but on the other hand, I think it's too much to just topic-ban from this violation. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 17:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just this violation, it's that they continue not to understand (1) what 1RR is, (2) and why it's there. "I will definitely be more careful to leave a full day between edits in the future" tells me that they just don't understand the necessity of discussion. If there is another sanction we could impose that would have the same impact, maybe mandated external review for any non-minor edit on ARBIP topics? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Callanecc. After two 1RR blocks and given no sign of understanding what the editor is doing wrong, a 24-hour block is kind of pointless. It hasn't worked before; it's time for something stronger. I can't agree with Penwhale here, as it's not just one violation, and even if naming has always been contentious, that's no reason for leniency. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• We have three admins in favour of a sanction stronger than a block but we don't have agreement on what that sanction should be. Given the constructive editing in the topic I can see an argument not to topic ban this time. How about a 0RR restriction with the following wording:

Avaya1 is subject to a zero revert restriction on all Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted. If Avaya1 wishes to change or revert another user's edit (which does not unquestionably fall within the standard exemptions) they must propose the change on the article's talk page and obtain a consensus. Avaya1 should not be the one to determine whether a consensus exists.

Since it's novel and probably needs to be refined if other admins (and other editors above) would comment that would be appreciated. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • I have no problem with it.. they seem to be looking at the edges, and I think it'd be a good thing to have then get consensus for any such reverts.. I can also understand the desire to topic ban here. SirFozzie (talk) 09:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If other admins think that a 0RR is the best plan, I won't oppose it. But I'm doubtful that Avaya1 will understand the restriction, so I think he'll be reported again soon for violating it. His continuing comments suggest he doesn't understand 1RR, and 0RR is even trickier. It would be better to issue a complete ban from ARBPIA, for at least the minimum usual time which would be three months. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• There been no other comments, I am implementing 0RR as suggested by Callanecc. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appealing user

Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Darkness Shines (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

You are prohibited from reverting (as defined at WP:3RR) any edit to an article if that edit or article is related to the topic of climate change. You may however attempt to convince others to revert the edit. This restriction applies without exceptions, including for reverting vandalism or WP:BLP violations.[81]

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

[82]

Statement by Darkness Shines[edit]

The sanction is flawed, I cannot be prohibited from reverting BLP violations, reverting BLP violations is policy. Sandstein also wrote as his rationale for imposing this bollocks, "To prevent continued disruption by you," As there has been no disruption from me at all since the article was unprotected I can only see this as punitive, not preventative. I am also of the opinion that as the closer of the AFD for the article which has led to this bollocks he is involved, as it was he who decided that BLP did not apply. It also strikes me as off that Sandstein did not mention any sanctions until I question his closure, which makes this look as petty as it obviously is. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: That is a guideline, not a policy. I have the right to clear my talk page, and I will be damned before I let that giant banner sit at the top of my talk like a badge of shame. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: @SirFozzie: This sanction means I cannot revert even obvious BLP violations such as this or all of these or how about "Delingpole is indeed a stupid unscientific denier and promotes ignorant anti-science views". Darkness Shines (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@A Quest For Knowledge: How I plan to deal with it is obvious, see any reverts by me on that article since it was unprotected? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously IQs are the usual, I am effectively topic banned. Any edit to existing content is a revert, and once this joke is over, were do I appeal? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein[edit]

My restriction excludes (alleged) BLP violations because the edits by Darkness Shines that caused this sanction illustrate that Darkness Shines believes that their interpretation of the BLP policy, even when contested in good faith by multiple other editors, gives them license to edit-war at will. They do not appear to accept that legitimate disagreements about the BLP policy must be resolved through the appropriate consensus-based processes (in this case, the then-ongoing AfD discussion). Therefore, if my sanction did not exclude what Darkness Shines believes to be BLP policy violations, they would continue to edit-war based on their interpretation of that policy, and the sanction would have no preventative effect. Based on the general discretionary sanctions authorization, administrators may take "any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project", which includes sanctions of this type. If there are genuine BLP policy violations in an article covered by the sanction, Darkness Shines remains free to call them to any other editor's attention, but it is apparent from the background of this sanction that they cannot be relied upon to correctly identify and appropriately respond to such violations themselves.

There might have been some doubt about which kinds of BLP-based reverts my sanction would exclude if I had not explicitly mentioned them in my sanctions. Per WP:BANEX, in the context of bans, only "obvious" BLP policy violations are exempt, but per WP:3RRNO, in the context of revert restrictions, " libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons" is excluded – that is, not only "obvious" cases. To avoid doubt about which standard to apply, and because Darkness Shines can (as explained above) not be relied upon to correctly identify actual BLP policy violations in any case, I specified that (alleged) BLP policy violations of any sort are not excluded from the restriction.

As concerns Darkness Shines's doubts about the motivation of my sanction because they appealed an AfD closure I made (the appeal was filed some 20 minutes after I closed the discussion), they are unfounded. Both my AfD closure and the sanction are actions of an administrative nature, which means that per WP:UNINVOLVED they do not trigger concerns of bias. In addition, Darkness Shines should have voiced such concerns when I gave them the opportunity to voice objections before imposing sanctions. They did not voice any objections but said: "Sanction away." Any objections made now are belated and should not be heard.

The appeal should therefore be declined.  Sandstein  23:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nomoskedasticity[edit]

DS wants to act unilaterally to impose his own take on BLP whatever the views of other editors on the topic: [83]. In this context, the sanction is appropriate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX[edit]

Darkness Shines has repeatedly ignored consensus and demonstrated a profound lack of understanding about WP:BLP and other policies, examples of which are abundant at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. There seems to be an attempt by this user to prevail in a content dispute by edit warring, forum shopping and repeating arguments that have been soundly rejected by other editors.- MrX 20:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He has also removed the sanction notice, which I believe is required to remain in place according to WP:REMOVED.- MrX 20:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 3)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Darkness Shines[edit]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate[edit]

The exact wording of the sanction in this case is actually inappropriate. Exemptions for edit-warring only apply to obvious violations of BLP, such as unsourced contentious claims, and that does not cover this case. A simple 1RR would suffice, though DS should be mindful of the exact circumstances where the edit-warring exemption applies.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upon realizing this is, in fact, a 0RR I must protest even more vociferously. Should someone add blatantly defamatory and unsourced material to a BLP he shouldn't have to sit on his hands until someone else notices. A 1RR, even with the removal of the edit-warring exemptions, would at least allow him to immediately remove the kind of stuff none of us wants to be present in an article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AQFK, the restriction Sandstein imposed covers any BLP violations and vandalism, including the kind that no one needs to be told should be reverted on sight. I fail to see how restricting him to just one revert with no exemptions would be a problem.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Sandstein went too far in this restriction. A block on the basis that it was a contentious BLP claim or simply placing him on a strict edit-warring limitation where none of the exemptions could be claimed would have sufficed. Barring him from making any reverts and from claiming the exemptions is far too harsh.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by A Quest for Knowledge[edit]

Darkness Shines edit-warred against consensus breaking at least 6RR.[84][85][86][87][88][89]. The only thing that stopped the edit-warring was that the page was locked. There is no excuse for such blatant misconduct. Given the circumstances, the AE sanction is more than reasonable. Darkness Shines has not acknowledged why such conduct is unacceptable, nor have they provided an explanation as to how they plan on preventing such misconduct in the future. Therefore, I recommend that this appeal be declined. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to mention that Sandstein's suggestion that "If there are genuine BLP policy violations in an article covered by the sanction, Darkness Shines remains free to call them to any other editor's attention" is working just fine.[90] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Devil's Advocate: Please see my above comment. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Devil's Advocate: Because DS has already abused the BLP exemption multiple times, and as I point out above, the new system is working just fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Darkness Shines[edit]

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

I'm inclined to dismiss this appeal. On the face of it, BLP concerns are one of the few exemption to our revert policies. However, the post linked in this request where he states (the equivalence of) "it doesn't matter if I have the BLP policy wrong, I was acting in good faith.." doesn't fill me with confidence to their ability to edit without trouble in this area. Recommend closing as Decline SirFozzie (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with SirFozzie and with Sandstein's interpretation (and hence recommend that we decline the appeal), the reason for the sanction was Darkness Shines's interpretation of the BLP policy the related exemption from 3RR. Likewise this diff (the one SirFozzie referred to) "It does not matter if others think my interpretation of BLP is wrong, I was acting in good faith" also suggests to me that they won't be able to edit this area without further trouble. Regarding WP:REMOVE I can see where MrX is coming from and agree that this would technically be covered, but I don't intend to prevent a user removing a notice which is logged elsewhere (unlike declined unblock requests for example) unless an argument can be put forward. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline I agree with SirFozzie's and Callanecc's assessments of this situation. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I would agree to decline. First, having a look at the dispute in question has given me no confidence that DarknessShines was unequivocally right in his application of BLP, as the items he removed were sourced. Of course, it could still be a BLP violation if the sources were misused or unreliable. But if source usage or reliability is in doubt, as it was here, one can't simply ram one's own reading of the sources through. While I'm loath to do anything that might have a chilling effect on BLP enforcement, I have to agree that in this case, DarknessShines is not the one to be doing it and must agree to uphold the sanction as is. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Darkness Shines: You may appeal directly to the Arbitration Committee by email (see here) or by posting a request for amendment. When doing so, you would most likely gain more sympathy if you chose not to insult others' intelligence the way you have here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the above views that the appeal should be declined. When an editor demonstrates clearly that he understands neither the letter nor the spirit of a policy, then it is reasonable to restrict him from "enforcing" it. MastCell ^Talk 19:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]