Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:16, 12 September 2012 editFactocop (talk | contribs)861 edits →Request concerning Factocop: re← Previous edit Revision as of 12:06, 12 September 2012 edit undoHeimstern (talk | contribs)Administrators16,884 edits →Talknic: close as indefNext edit →
Line 15: Line 15:


== Talknic == == Talknic ==
{{hat|Indefinitely blocked. ] ] 12:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)}}

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


Line 190: Line 190:
* I find I disagree with TBotNL; we generally interpret "broadly construed" broadly indeed, as the term indicates. I'd like to hear from him before we close this one. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 15:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC) * I find I disagree with TBotNL; we generally interpret "broadly construed" broadly indeed, as the term indicates. I'd like to hear from him before we close this one. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 15:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
*:In retrospect, I think I'm the one who misread things here; looking over it again, it looks a lot more obvious than I initially thought. Since I think I've botched this one enough for now, I'll hold fire and let other admins figure out what to do. ] (]) 18:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC) *:In retrospect, I think I'm the one who misread things here; looking over it again, it looks a lot more obvious than I initially thought. Since I think I've botched this one enough for now, I'll hold fire and let other admins figure out what to do. ] (]) 18:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
{{hab}}


==Espor== ==Espor==

Revision as of 12:06, 12 September 2012

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Misplaced Pages:AutoEd.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Shortcuts

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

    Important informationShortcuts

    Please use this page only to:

    • request administrative action against an editor violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
    • request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted an editor who engages in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
    • request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
    • appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

    For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

    Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with fewer than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

    Reports are limited to two individuals: the filer and the user being reported. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.

    To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

    Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

    All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

    The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

    1. ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

    Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

    A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

    Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

    An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

    • The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or
    • The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
      • the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
      • the restriction was an indefinite block.

    A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

    • a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
    • a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
    • a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

    Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

    Standard of review
    On community review

    Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
    3. the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.
    On Arbitration Committee review

    Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
    3. compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
    1. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
    2. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
    Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

    Appeals by sanctioned editors

    Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

    1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
    Modifications by administrators

    No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

    1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
    2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

    Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

    Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

    Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

    Important notes:

    1. For a request to succeed, either
    (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
    (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
    is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
    2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
    3. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
    4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
    Information for administrators processing requests

    Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

    A couple of reminders:

    • Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
    • When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
    • Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
    • More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

    Closing a thread:

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

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

    Arbitration enforcement archives
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
    341342343344345346347

    Talknic

    Indefinitely blocked. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning Talknic

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Activism1234 20:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Talknic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions (I think, not sure... An admin recommended simply extending talknic's topic ban to Israeli-Arab articles and articles on the future of a Palestinian state or articles which state the views of any political leader who refers to Israel as the "Zionist regime." I don't mind that.)
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 18 July This is the diff showing that Talknic was indef blocked from I-P articles, broadly construed, in July 2012. Also note he was previously indef blocked from I-P articles in 2011 as well.
    2. 13 August Here Talknic was blocked for 72 hours for violating his topic ban, by making this edit.
    3. 23 August He was warned by an administrator for violating his topic ban again by editing his namespace in an edit that violated the topic ban.
    4. 27 August Again warned explicitly against violating the topic ban by editing his namespace in an edit that violated the topic ban.
    5. 8 September - makes a disruptive edit to the article (and the talk page) of which he was blocked for 72 hours for editing. Although here it's an edit where he inserts a POV template (w/o exactly explaining why...), rather than make an edit about a UNSC resolution directly tied to I-P, the article itself as a whole is about Ahmadinejad's views on Israel, and his comments, which stem as a direct result of I-P, and should thus fall under broadly construed. Two different administrators have agreed that Talknic has been pushing the limits of his topic ban and testing the edges here, while there are millions of other unrelated articles Talknic could edit (but doesn't), and one of them suggested I should go to AE, so here I am.
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

    All is noted above.

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Admin Malik made a very good point. I don't have any preferences over indefinite ban or broadened topic ban, but I would like to point out that talknic's claims of consistently only maintaining NPOV seem superficial, when one takes a quick look at his YouTube page of his, devoted entirely to I-P and blatant POV against Israel (which is fine for YouTube, but not for Misplaced Pages), as well as his website. His Misplaced Pages account just looks to me like an extension of his online activities devoted solely to I-P. So honestly, I don't see a broadened topic ban being any different than an indefinite ban, and Malik is completely right when he/she says that talknic isn't interested in contributing to other areas of Misplaced Pages. --Activism1234 00:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)”

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning Talknic

    Statement by Talknic

    I hope admins will at least give me time to prepare a reply and then take the time to read my comments on the matter, before reaching a decision. Shan't be long. Thx ... talknic (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

    Addressing the complaints
    1) Part a. 18 July This is the diff showing that Talknic was indef blocked from I-P articles, broadly construed, in July 2012.

    The TBan was not specifically across "all NameSpaces" and only dealt with the I/P issue. The Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel article is not under the same ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES as the I/P Issue. I sought clarification here & here

    1) Part b. Also note he was previously indef blocked from I-P articles in 2011 as well.

    False accusation. It was a six month TBan not an "indef block" and was specifically across "all NameSpaces".
    Likewise I was pursuing the same, continued, purposeful breach of NPOV, which did not go away in my absence.
    In both instances, the blocking administrators did not take into consideration the actions of the complainant in maintaining breaches of WP:NPOV for 16 months.
    Oddly, the blocking administrator and complainant considered my dogged pursuit of an obvious and long standing breach of WP:NPOV to be tendentious. However, it is surely an inherent responsibility of all editors to address such breaches of policy, no matter how long they stand. It remains an inherent responsibility even after a TBan has expired.
    Tendentious: is a continued and deliberate contravention of WP:NPOV perpetrated by the complainant over 16 months and his coercion of others to breach WP:NPOV policy, by consensus and other means, across all the following discussions - - - - - - - .
    Instead they based their TBan decisions on prior determinations which had nothing to do with the new complaints resulting in those two TBans.

    2) 13 August Here Talknic was blocked for 72 hours for violating his topic ban, by making this edit.

    Quite so, just and accepted. I've not since mentioned the I/P issue

    3) 23 August He was warned by an administrator for violating his topic ban again by editing his namespace in an edit that violated the topic ban.

    The TBan was not explicitly to "all NameSpaces". I sought clarification of this issue from The Blade of Northern Lights . As it stands, it is now self imposed . I have not mentioned the I/P issue since.

    4) 27 August Again warned explicitly against violating the topic ban by editing his namespace in an edit that violated the topic ban.

    As before the TBan was not explicitly across "all NameSpaces".

    5) Part a. 8 September - makes a disruptive edit to the article

    False accusation. There is an obvious breach of WP:NPOV on the article. There are no Israeli statements against Iran or Ahmadinejad. Despite this obvious breach and it having been appropriately taken to the Talk page (before inserting the POV template), User:Activism1234 has removed the template

    5) Part b. (and the talk page) of which he was blocked for 72 hours for editing. Although here it's an edit where he inserts a POV template (w/o exactly explaining why...), rather than make an edit about a UNSC resolution directly tied to I-P, the article itself as a whole is about Ahmadinejad's views on Israel, and his comments, which stem as a direct result of I-P, and should thus fall under broadly construed.

    A) I made no edits in the 72 hour period.
    B) ..he inserts a POV template Of course there's a breach of WP:NPOV
    C) (w/o exactly explaining why...) Another false accusation. I took it to the Talk page 02:51, 9 September 2012 before the template was added 02:52, 9 September 2012
    D) Opening line of the Lede -- "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel refers to the relations between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the State of Israel..." This could include non I/P issues where there have been contentious speeches and statements by Israeli representatives. Iran's Nuclear industry, Human rights, elections, Iran's Jewish population etc etc, none of which are I/P issues.
    E) The Blade of the Northern Lights "I have to agree with Talknic here; Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn't inherently about I/P (although certain parts of the article are, that wasn't what Talknic was editing), so I'm really not seeing it" 16:38, 9 September 2012

    5) Part c. Two different administrators have agreed that Talknic has been pushing the limits of his topic ban and testing the edges here, while there are millions of other unrelated articles Talknic could edit (but doesn't)

    Pushing the limits and testing the edges is how policy is refined

    Further comments on the complaint
    This complaint was lodged @ 20:32, 9 September 2012
    Activism refines his sanctions request @01:52, 10 September 2012‎ after a bizarre request by EdJohnson @ 22:23, 9 September 2012 ... talknic (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


    Replies to Caili
    It has already been determined by The Blade of the Northern Lights that the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel article is not inherently related to the I/P issue "I have to agree with Talknic here; Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn't inherently about I/P (although certain parts of the article are, that wasn't what Talknic was editing), so I'm really not seeing it" 16:38, 9 September 2012
    "The battle ground mentality demonstrated here on this board only agrevates the issue" A) Blatant breaches of WP:NPOV are battle ground mentality. Whereas drawing attention to breaches of WP:NPOV or any other breach of policy is an inherent responsibility for all editors. B) My comment to EdJohnson contains nothing even close to battleground mentality. Given the circumstances, his request is quite bizarre ... talknic (talk) 11:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


    Replies to Heimstern Läufer

    I have already sought guidance and was eventually informed "I have to agree with Talknic here; Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn't inherently about I/P (although certain parts of the article are, that wasn't what Talknic was editing), so I'm really not seeing it" 16:38, 9 September 2012
    Opening line of the Lede -- "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel refers to the relations between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the State of Israel..." This could include non I/P issues where there have been contentious speeches and statements by Israeli representatives. Iran's Nuclear industry, Human rights, elections, Iran's Jewish population etc etc, none of which are I/P issues. "relations between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the State of Israel", go two ways. The issue I raised in the article is the blatant breach of NPOV! ... talknic (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
    "and since the POV tag was attached to the entire article. "
    The "relations" throughout the entire article go only one way! "relations" go both ways. There are no Israeli statements towards Ahmadinejad/Iran in respect to elections, nukes, human rights, offers of earthquake relief, other allegations/accusations etc, not related to the I/P issue ... talknic (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
    "we're OK to go ahead with blocking now"
    Why on earth is there a place here for me to make a statement on the AE request? It seems no one ever reads the evidence I've given? ... talknic (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


    Reply EdJohnston

    Broadening the ban, after the fact, after the ARBPIA tag was posted, while admitting the admin imposing the TBan didn't see it as a violation? What on earth for? Some minor 'testing the edges'? The article is completely biased. "relations between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the State of Israel", go two ways. The "relations in the article are only going one way!]] There have been contentious speeches and statements made by Israeli representatives on Iran's Nuclear industry, Human rights, Elections, Iran's Jewish population etc etc, none of which are I/P issues.
    I should get banned for pointing out a glaring, bias laden, one sided, blatant breach of NPOV? (Oddly enough the same as all the past discussions - - - - - - - . Sixteen months of No More Mr Nice Guy "tendentiously" maintaining a breach of NPOV, coercing other editors to breach policy by consensus, having to eventually admit a breach of NPOV existed, suddenly collaborating with Nishidani and based on much the same arguments I'd presented, made the edit himself, almost precisely as I had originally suggested. The issue was completely resolved to everyone's satisfaction at 20:35, 9 July 2012, vindicating my determination pursue the issue, even on return from being banned. A full six days later No More Mr Nice Guy then had the audacity to launch an AE request 20:35, 9 July 2012, accusing me of being "tendentious")
    Answer me this if you will please: As long as there is a breach of NPOV, is it not an inherent responsibility for editors to deal with it, no matter how long it takes or over how many discussions? I should have faith in such a system that previously, after 16 months of trying to have a breach of NPOV addressed and; on eventually being vindicated by No More Mr Nice Guy's admission of a breach of NPOV, which he maintained and coerced other editors into consensus to maintain, I am again banned? Now here having a previous ban extended retroactively, for a non-violation and 'testing the edges', after pointing out a gross violation of NPOV over almost an entire article? ...talknic (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
    Ed "What he has done at the Ahmadinejad and Israel article is add a POV tag."
    The POV tag was explained on the talk page, then added to the article because article is in breach of NPOV. It is an inherent responsibility for editors to deal with NPOV issues. The "relations" throughout the entire article go only one way! "relations" go both ways. There are no Israeli statements towards Ahmadinejad/Iran on elections, nukes, human rights, offers of earthquake relief, other allegations/accusations etc, not related to the I/P issue ... talknic (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
    Ed "There does not seem to be any proposal for content work in this case" ... "His activity at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel is likely to cause turmoil but no actual improvement of the article"
    A) I deliberately took the matter to Talk in order to collaborate, so as to address the breach of NPOV. Then added the POV tag. Is that not a recommended method for addressing issues and developing content? Instead we are almost immediately here! Opportunity to suggest, discuss, collaborate, NIL!
    B) Addressing the blatant, over all POV issue in the article, would not be an improvement?
    C) Articles where there has been improvement through my involvement. & & ( via ////////) & & . The prolonged laborious nature of the discussions being generated by those who REFUSED to collaborate on any material they didn't like, despite their every criteria being met and the continuous moving goal posts. In each case edits were made almost as I first suggested. In each case "turmoil" was generated by attempting to prevent "actual improvement of the article" ... talknic (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


    Replies T. Canens
    As you agree with EdJohnston, and as you have also been involved in previous bans, please read the above reply to EdJohnston. Thx ... talknic (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


    Replies to Shrike
    "I have marked article in question with ARBPIA tag as it clearly belongs to the I/P conflict."

    I sought guidance and eventually informed "I have to agree with Talknic here; Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn't inherently about I/P (although certain parts of the article are, that wasn't what Talknic was editing), so I'm really not seeing it" 16:38, 9 September 2012
    Furthermore, a belatedly added ARBPIA tag, after the fact, has no bearing on this particular AE request.
    We've already seen one instance of an administrator attempting to have the current TBan modified, 22:23, 9 September 2012 after the fact! and;
    The complainant belatedly nominating the sanctions they'd like 01:52, 10 September 2012 After the fact!

    "I think to stop Talcnic wikilawyering the ban should be from all Middle eastern topics and Jewish topics broadly construed"
    I'm sure you'd be delighted. However there are guidelines administrators are bound to follow, complex as that might be ... talknic (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


    Replies to Malik Shabazz"
    "Why is everybody pussyfooting around the real issue? talknic seems to have no interest in contributing to the project except with respect to the Israel-Palestine conflict."

    A) The Blade of the Northern Lights "I have to agree with Talknic here; Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn't inherently about I/P (although certain parts of the article are, that wasn't what Talknic was editing), so I'm really not seeing it" 16:38, 9 September 2012 B) Is it obligatory that one edits other areas on Misplaced Pages when one's time is limited and one would like to weed out dis-information and un-helpful POV on a matter of importance to ones Jewish fellows in Israel and Israel's neighbours? Peace will not come about as long as people are mis-informed and subjected to completely biased articles such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel.

    "Why block her/him for one or two weeks; we all know we'll have to take action again in a month."

    Because another breach of NPOV needs maintaining? ... talknic (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


    Replies to Activism
    ".. I would like to point out that talknic's claims of consistently only maintaining NPOV seem superficial"

    I have given documented evidence of it here numerous times and in previous banning statements. None of which appears to have been read very thoroughly

    "when one takes a quick look at his YouTube page of his, devoted entirely to I-P and blatant POV against Israel (which is fine for YouTube, but not for Misplaced Pages), as well as his website."

    A)Irrelevant to my actions on Misplaced Pages and; B) Far from being blatant POV against Israel, it is in fact entirely FOR Israel, as an Independent State, living in peace with it's neighbours by upholding the International Laws, UN Charter and conventions it has ratified, as required by the UN and as a UN member state. Satire aimed at Israel's leaders who DO NOT live up to the UN obligations in no way represents an Anti-Israel POV.

    "His Misplaced Pages account just looks to me like an extension of his online activities devoted solely to I-P."

    Israel, being my Homeland State and; having a burning desire to see it and my fellow Israeli Jews living in peace is naturally at the top of my list of online activities. Peace will not come about as long as people are mis-informed or presented with biased POV articles
    As you have already seen fit to reference my blog "All I ask, as do the numerous UNSC resolutions against Israel, is that it abide by the Laws and uphold it’s VOLUNTARY obligations to the UN, which in no way threaten Israel or diminish it’s right to protect itself in accordance with the UN Charter, the Laws of War or the Geneva Conventions"

    ".. talknic isn't interested in contributing to other areas of Misplaced Pages"

    It is not in itself a bannable offense or obligation. It is however an inherent obligation to address inaccurate information and blatant breaches of NPOV for as long as they stand. If they're still there after a topic ban (for attempting to address them) has expired, there is still an obligation on ALL editors working in the subject to address them again and again and again until they are resolved! ... talknic (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

    BTW "Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to constantly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Misplaced Pages articles may be." and; "Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor." ... talknic (talk) 09:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


    Replies to The Blade of the Northern Lights
    We were in fact making headway until Activism launched this AE request. We had already agreeing that the article in question was not entirely an I/P issue. I had already agreed to self ban from mentioning the I/P issue and from that moment did not. I don't envy your position BTW, at least you took the time to read my arguments and admit to there being gray areas and a less than explicit TBan. I just wish someone, anyone, would seriously look at the POV issue saturating the article ... talknic (talk) 03:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


    Notes to all administrators
    This is the second time an ARBPIA tag has been added AFTER I've made an edit to an article. The first being by No More Mr Nice Guy here for which there was no sanction EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2011
    Now an ARBPIA tag has been added by Shrike here after this AE request was made.
    Furthermore, the complainant has removed the article POV tag , without discussion in Talk, while the issue is still unresolved in Talk and while the article is still very clearly in breach of NPOV. No one but myself has seen fit to do anything constructive towards rectifying it. No collaboration what so ever, just a feeding frenzy to have me banned! ... talknic (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

    T. Canens/ Heimstern Läufer -- I feel my reaction to this AE is quite justified. I've pointed out a blatant breach of NPOV. In my statement I have given evidence of false accusations in the AE request. I took the POV issue to Talk as recommended and then added a POV tag as recommended. If I am banned and the breach of NPOV is allowed to remain (as the breach of NPOV stood for over 16 months in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article), you will all have done Misplaced Pages a dis-service ... talknic (talk) 05:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

    Comments by others about the request concerning Talknic

    Comment by Shike- I have marked article in question with ARBPIA tag as it clearly belongs to the I/P conflict. I think to stop Talcnic wikilawyering the ban should be from all Middle eastern topics and Jewish topics broadly construed .That will save the trouble for everyone.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

    Comment by Malik Shabazz — Why is everybody pussyfooting around the real issue? talknic seems to have no interest in contributing to the project except with respect to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Why block her/him for one or two weeks; we all know we'll have to take action again in a month. I recommend an indefinite block. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 18:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

    Statement by EdJohnston

    When I first heard the complaint that Talknic was violating his ban, I didn't want to take action myself because Blade seemed to be giving him some latitude. However the repeated appearances of Talknic's name in connection with articles which are not well chosen for a person working under such a ban indicate to me that admins should take reasonable steps. My proposal is: "Talknic may not edit any article which mentions the Arab-Israeli conflict or the future of the state of Palestine, or states the views of any political leader who refers to Israel as a Zionist regime." The point of this is to broaden the scope of the ban to include the entire common-sense definition of the Arab-Israeli conflict. If Talknic seemed to be using common sense, this fine-tuning of the ban would not be necessary.

    We also have been known to adjust the scope of bans if it seems that someone wants to do actual content work. There does not seem to be any proposal for content work in this case. What he has done at the Ahmadinejad and Israel article is add a POV tag. His activity at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel is likely to cause turmoil but no actual improvement of the article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

    Result concerning Talknic

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
    • There appears to be some dispute about whether this edit falls under the ban, as Iran is not an Arab country. I would submit that the edit does fall under it, as the article is clearly relevant to the Israel-Palestine dispute (the article speaks of how Ahmadinejad's opposition to Israel relates to the Palestinian people etc.) On those grounds, I see a violation and agree with Cailil's suggestion of a block. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Another issue being raised is that the article in question is not exclusively about I/P issues; that seems quite beside the point, what with the "broadly construed" and since the POV tag was attached to the entire article. I agree with KC that it would be good to hear from The Blade before closing, though I don't think I agree with TC entirely, and think it would be appropriate to close with a sanction if a consensus of admins deems this a violation. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
        • After The Blade's comments, it seems there's agreement that this was a violation, so I don't think the ban needs to be tweaked; I think it already covers what's necessary. I would also suggest that we're OK to go ahead with blocking now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    • If it were up to me, I'd say that this is a violation as well, but when the admin imposing the ban didn't see it as a violation, I do not think it is appropriate for us to overrule him. On the other hand, we should consider broadening the ban, as EdJohnston suggested on Blade's talk page. T. Canens (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
      • You are really not doing yourself any favors here, talknic. Given Blade's view below, my first preference is an indef block per Malik above. Second preference is a two week block per Cailil. T. Canens (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I find I disagree with TBotNL; we generally interpret "broadly construed" broadly indeed, as the term indicates. I'd like to hear from him before we close this one. KillerChihuahua 15:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
      In retrospect, I think I'm the one who misread things here; looking over it again, it looks a lot more obvious than I initially thought. Since I think I've botched this one enough for now, I'll hold fire and let other admins figure out what to do. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

    Espor

    Blocked 48h for disruptive editing, warned explicitly about discretionary sanctions. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning Espor

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Espor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions
    Offensive edits after prior "final warning" from 2 September
    • accuses opponents of "vandalism"
    • describes opponent as "extraordinary low educated"; expresses blatant battleground attitude (" If we unite we can win over over this crowd")
    • describes opponents as "jokers"
    • canvassing in support of battleground agenda ("we need more defenders of the cause")
    • hostile battleground attitude, speaks about "exposing" his opponent's "true intentions"; deliberately misspelling his username
    Warnings
    • , repeated personal-attacks warning by admin Canterbury Tail
    • edit-warring warning by Tourbillon
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Espor is a recently created single-purpose account engaged in battleground/tag-team behaviour (together with fellow SPA Ximhua (talk · contribs)) over a dispute at Bulgaria. His misbehaviour was even more crass in the first days and brought him several warnings; the links above are only those edits made after the latest "final warning" by an administrator.

    Re Heimstern: I don't think the fact that the warning didn't explicitly mention the discretionary sanctions regime needs to hold us back here. It was a final warning by an uninvolved administrator, clearly implying that he would be blocked if he continued. He clearly did continue. The least thing that should be done at this point is imposing that block. It makes no difference whether you do that as a "normal" admin measure or invoking the discretionary sanctions rule. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Espor

    Statement by Espor

    Dear Comittee,

    I do not agree with the attempts of Fut. Ref. to ban me. If you pay attention to the so called offensive edits you will see that the quoted passages are not even offesive at all( there is not even a single vulgar word). Furthermore, Fut. Ref. tries to ascribe me crimes that I have not commited such as "deliberately hiding my username", as if this is possible on Misplaced Pages. Before making decision whether I deserve a ban, I ask you to go first through the whole conversations and not just through the carefully selected and taken out of context passages presented by Fut. Ref. Most of the things said are responses to provocations made by the opposide side. Of course, being a new editor, I tend to be more direct and honest than some of my opponents who have learned to express themselves in a "politically correct manner". In completion, I want to declare that I stand 100% behind every word, every statement I made no matter how harsh it may sound in the sensitive ears of some editors. Besides, I do not think that an attempt to silence someone else's opinion under the "just" pretext of usage of harsh language (but not offensive) does any good to WIkipedia. After all, I brought up an old and unsolved problem regarding the Bulgaria page and thanks to the dispute that I initiated now the whole board of editors found an agreement that satisfies all sides for the first time since 2006. Not like the last "consenus" which was only between several editors (among which Fut. Ref.) leaving the other side completely confused, this time we have a true consensus among all participants. Now the other side wants to express its rage "shooting the messanger". No thanks. This will not work out. Regards, EsporEspor (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

    Comments by others about the request concerning Espor

    Result concerning Espor

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

    Factocop

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

    Request concerning Factocop

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Mo ainm~Talk 15:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Factocop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Ban Appeals Subcommittee#User:Factocop unblock conditions
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 09:28, 11 September 2012 Revert, therefore a violation of "Factocop can make no actions as described in WP:Revert"
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

    Not required

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    The edit has previously been made by Hackneyhound (talk · contribs) here (and at User talk:Hackneyhound#Hackneyhound there is a "distinct suspicion" voiced by a member of the Arbitration Committee as to Hackneyhound being a sock of Factocop). It was also made more recently (May 2012 for the last identified socking) by 147.114.44.209 (talk · contribs) here, and that IP was subsequently blocked per Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Factocop/Archive#18 May 2012 for being a known sock of Factocop. See also these additions, the entire discussion is worth looking over as well since there is no doubt the IP is Factocop. So given Factocop's socks have made this particular edit before, there can't be an argument he was unaware it was a revert since he's reverting to his preferred version. Mo ainm~Talk 15:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

    @ Factocop, the issue isn't just "making the same edit as an IP made 18 edits ago", but that he, Factocop, was the IP referred to so he, Factocop, was obviously aware it was a revert. Mo ainm~Talk 21:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    @ Factocop, I didn't see the post you made on the talk page, I noticed a comment you made on another users talk page. But the fact of the matter is that you restored the page to a version you previously wanted as evident by your socks making the same edit.Mo ainm~Talk 09:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
    So if you do not have a watcher set up for the Lough Neagh Page, how did you come across my edit?
    This is in an email response from silktork:

    You can make an edit of the current version of a page and manually add sourced material, and/or remove inappropriate material, and/or amend current text in a constructive manner.

    If you have any doubt as to if your action may be challenged then I strongly suggest you raise the issue on the talkpage and either get support for your action, or see if there are no objections after a reasonable amount of time has passed (the amount of time would depend on the significance of the edit and the page itself, but I would say at least 24 hours).

    I think I have followed these instructions. I can not do much more. I think the case here is that Mo seen my name and thought gotcha which is completely the wrong attitude to have. I have not tried to game anyone. I have simply tried to make a constructive edit, thats all.Factocop (talk) 10:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Diff of notification about this request


    Discussion concerning Factocop

    Statement by Factocop

    So making the same edit as an IP made 18 edits ago is a revert???? I started a discussion topic 5 days ago on WP:Lough_Neagh and outlined my proposed edit. Had Mo been concerned with the edit, he/she should of raised the issue there. Instead no response came and now he/she is trying to have my blocked again by gaming my sanction. What a waste of admin time.Factocop (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

    That IP was judged to be YOU. Meanwhile, you were blocked for nearly 2 years, and just 5 days after being unblocked, you're just begging to get blocked again. How does that serve your purposes? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    I have not done anything wrong. If you actually looked at my edit on the Lough Neagh talk page you would see that. And I have not made a revert. I don't see what issue you have with this. This is just Mo trying to get me blocked again. I had already warned arbcom of this gaming of my sanctions prior to my unblock. Is an edit made 4 months later and either side of 18 other edits a revert? seriously? Factocop (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    Reverting to your sock's version is indeed a revert. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    @Mo, its not a revert so I am not in breach of any sanctions. If you were so concerned with my edit why did you not raise this at the lough neagh talkpage?Factocop (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

    Comments by others about the request concerning Factocop

    OK, someone explain to me why changing it from United Kingdom to Northern Ireland is a bad thing, given that Carlingford Lough and Lough Foyle both say Northern Ireland. Why edit war to keep this one at United Kingdom? I note that Factocop even asked on the talkpage if anyone objected to bringing it into line with other articles, days before he made the edit. I came here ready to block Factocop myself, but appears a perfectly sound edit, should never have been changed to United Kingdom in the first place. I think this is a specious complaint. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

    Why is Factocop, or anyone else guilty of sockpuppetry, allowed to return an article to their own sockpuppet's preferred version? There was no compelling reason for Factocop to make this revert himself... unless he was gaming the system, to see what he could get away with. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    The revert restriction is designed to prevent potential conflict with dissenting editors. Since this edit was proposed previously to no objection, and Factocop's infringement appears inadvertent, I think a teleological interpretation of the restrictions should be employed and some lenity provided. Ankh.Morpork 23:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    It's not "inadvertent". He reverted to his own sockpuppet's version. He's gaming the system. And if you fall for it, he's gaming you as well. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    Maybe. But I don't have a problem in being 'gamed' if it involves editors discussing their edits 5 days before they are made and acting according to that response. I agree that it was a revert, I still think common sense should prevail.
    I do note that the nature of this edit has previously been fiercely contested on the talk page, although 2009 seemed the last time it was discussed, and it is probable that the editor was aware of the significance of his change. Still, I am hesitant to advocate sanctions for ill-advised but possibly well-intentioned editing. Ankh.Morpork 23:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    He didn't "discuss it" with anyone. He posted a comment on the talk page, waited a few days, probably hoping no one would notice, and then reverted to his sockpuppet's version. If he were sincere about staying within his restrictions, he would go to some of the other recent editors directly and discuss it with them. That wouldn't do, of course, because they might say "No". Better to just do it himself, skirt his restrictions, and see if gullible sorts like yourself are willing to let him get away with it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
    obviously Mo noticed the comment on the talk page or we wouldnt be here. So the question is why did he/she wait for me to make my proposed edit before doing anything about it? probably to try this stunt. Misplaced Pages should be about making content better, not getting user blocked to keep your own preferred content as Mo has employed here.Factocop (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
    @Bugs, I was actually ready to block him - I still believe Hackneyhound and Gravyring were his socks, and the IP is definitely him. But then I spotted the note, and the fact that other articles use the formulation he was adding. So what is the problem with the edit that it keeps being contested here, but not on the other two articles? Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
    I have no idea. Maybe it should be reverted. But not by Factocop. Put it this way: I myself am under an arbcom restriction. I have no problem staying within the restriction. If I can, anyone can - unless they are deliberately trying to erode the restriction. There was no compelling reason for him to change that item, except to try to chip away at his restriction. If he were honest and sincere, he could ask someone else about it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
    Yes thats correct Bugs, I only wanted access to Wiki again to flaunt my restrictions. Dont be so daft! The majority of editors are here to improve articles. My edit improved the article. I posted on the talk page of which I am sure has a number of involved 'watchers'. I left it 5 days before making the edit. What more can I do? Should I go to every user watching the page and force them to join the discussion? No, that just isnt possible. Mo was obviously watching the page and chose not to join the discussion, and still hasnt passed comment at the page. So please be more reasonable. Factocop (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

    Statement by Jon C.

    Hardly a revert, is it? Whose actions has Factocop undone? — Jon C. 15:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

    According to this, if the editor's edit summary is on the mark, (and this indicates it was), Factocop was putting it back to where a sock of his own had put it, some 4 months ago. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

    Comment by Beyond My Ken

    • The solution here seems quite easy. If the change made by Factocop was, as Elen saya it was, an improvement, then some other editor not under any applicable restriction should take on the WP:BURDEN of that edit. Then Factocop should be sanctioned, to whatever degree the examining admins think is appropriate, for clearly breaking his restrictions and making a revert. (It is what it is.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

    Comment by SilkTork

    • It is not a revert under the terms of Factocop's conditions. It was an edit. It was made after Factocop initiated a discussion on the talkpage and waited a reasonable length of time for a response. He has complied with the terms imposed on him. He is, as is any other Misplaced Pages editor, allowed to "amend current text in a constructive manner". There is now a discussion taking place on Talk:Lough Neagh which is how it should be, and how it should have been in the first place. I'm a little disappointed that nobody responded to a discussion for over five days, but the edit is reverted within 31 minutes. Problems arise when people revert rather than discuss. It is not in the spirit of Misplaced Pages that anyone is sanctioned for initiating a discussion on an edit, waiting for five days for a response, and then actioning the edit because nobody has objected. That can never be the wrong thing to do. It is also noteworthy that Factocop has not reverted back, but is discussing the edit on the talkpage. This is exactly the sort of behaviour we want from all editors. My only comment to Factocop would be in future to ensure that discussions are started in new sections rather than tagged onto existing discussions. That makes them clearer and easier to see. SilkTork 09:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

    Result concerning Factocop

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions Add topic