Revision as of 23:01, 8 August 2009

Requests for enforcement

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

Important informationShortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, 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: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect 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.

Lida Vorig

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

Request concerning Lida Vorig

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

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

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

1. This is a new account, and was used for the most part for edit warring and voting at AFD.

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

1. none

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

Discussion concerning Lida Vorig

Statement by Lida Vorig

I edited wikipedia with my IP address before I created this account, and I'm aware of the Armenia-Azerbaijan arbitration case. What actually strikes me odd is that none of the articles I edited were ever touched by user grandmaster. So how exactly did he noticed me? Is this kind of harassment and stalking a norm for wikipedia? Lida Vorig (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably he was watching the Erich Feigl page. Meowy 15:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Lida Vorig voted at AFD that I initiated. I mentioned that above. That's how I noticed him/her. Grandmaster 04:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors

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

• personally, I can't see the issue, anyone editing in contentious nationalist topics should be aware of the restrictions and I trust Thatcher to show good judgement in these matters. Spartaz 06:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Then place a warning about those restrictions onto any page that might fall under those restrictions. Or inform every editor who has made edits to such pages about those restrictions. This page exists to report problems with specfic editors - so what problems are there with the edits of this particular editor? Except for the issue of editing another editor's user page (which could be addressed by giving some friendly advice), there are none as far as I can see. Meowy 14:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Thatcher

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

I'm sorry, but saying "I can't say more" is simply not acceptable. Will you also be recommending that every editor who makes edits to any article that could possibly fall under the case restrictions is officially notified of the case restrictions? If you are not, then why are you discriminating against this editor, given that he/she has done nothing to merit any reprimands so far? Saying "it does very little harm" is wrong - you know it is. It is well-known that those wanting to get an editor put on restrictions always write something like "this editor has already been warned about such and such restrictions" with the obvious implication that have got that warning that editor must have been guilty. Meowy 02:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I can not say more without disclosing information protected by the privacy policy. I would be willing to discuss the situation with an Arbitrator or another checkuser, if you want an independent endorsement. Thatcher 03:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"Privacy policy"? What policy? Sounds rather like one of those catch-all excuses, like "for heath and safety reasons". I think that if an accusation or suspicion can't be said openly, in public, it has no relevance. Meowy 14:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

meta:Privacy policy – the policy that governs what CheckUsers can and cannot reveal. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

A policy which, because it is easily exploitable as a catch-all excuse (exactly like "for heath and safety reasons"), needs to be cited sparingly and not used in a case involoving an editor who has made a tiny number of edits, none of which were controversial, and none of which consitituted an edit war. If something bigger is going on here then it needs to be openly stated. Meowy 16:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

All we can say is that his IP address was formally placed under AA sanctions and then later blocked for violating sanctions. He was instructed that if he wished to continue editing, he was to create an account. That having been done, the original sanctions from the IP carry over to the new account here. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Why couldn't you or Thatcher just have said that at the start? Meowy 15:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Lida Vorig

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

Per my explanation here, this user has been placed on indefinite editing restrictions, the terms of which are detailed here. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Lvivske

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

Request concerning Lvivske

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

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

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

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

Anti-Polish comments and some personal attacks:

Personal attacks:

3. (post ending)

Other ethic-based comments:

Refusal to back down and behave in a civil fashion:

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

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

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Since it seems that comments on his talk page and in discussion asking him to tone it down and be more civil are failing to be effective, something else needs to be done. This user is creating much bad blood between Polish and Ukrainian editors, adding him to Digwuren's sanction list and a stern warning from AE admins may, hopefully, give him a pause. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC) PS. Considering his repeated bad faith towards Polish editor and biased editing of Poland-related articles, a topic ban seems could be helpful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional comments by

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

Discussion concerning Lvivske

Statement by Lvivske

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

Comments by other editors

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

→ The above report by a German user Sciurinæ (talk · contribs) includes also a stunt by Lvivske (talk · contribs) who yet again, presents himself there as an opinionated problem user insulting Polish Wikipedians at large with descriptive language. --Poeticbent talk 16:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with Piotrus' request, it's high time this editor gets a slap on the wrist. Today he continued with his provocations: moved the Wołyń Voivodeship (1921–1939) article to Volhynian Voivodeship (1921–1939) without any discussion, reverted on the Ukrainian Insurgent Army article with the disgraceful comment that he's "reverting vandalism" , shockingly advocated blanket reverts for combating "biases" and so on and so forth. Loosmark (talk) 08:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Excsue me, but User:Paweł5586's edits were vandalism. He reverted needlessly the order of the article, and put blatant bias back into the piece that I had just removed. What is this kangaroo court you guys have set up here?--Львівське (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if Paweł5586 added something you disagree with it, that's completely not vandalism. Also please stop using insulting language as "kangaroo court", the decision here will be made by an uninvolved Admin. Loosmark (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What's insulting is that its 5 editors ganging up on 1 who's merely trying to keep articles unbiased. It's clear as day to any passer by what you're trying to do here. It's sad...--Львівське (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll just add that the move was carried despite consensus on talk not to move.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:DRNC...--Львівське (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus of you and 1 other person? And the other person is under dispute too? That's not consensus! Nonetheless, the spelling I moved it to had twice as many google hits, 4x as many on google scholar. If done Boolean looking for "Wołyń Voivodeship" on google scholar it yeilds NOTHING. I was very justified in my move to be WP:BOLD and improve the article.--Львівське (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And I'd also like to point out to Lvivske repeated attempts to disguise reverts as minor edits, after he has been asked not to: . This is getting disruptive quickly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I disguise reverts by starting talk page sections on the change I made (re: "quote about terror"). I'd be horrible in espionage...--Львівське (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Marking reverts as minor edits is disgraceful in any case, it is against the basic wikipedia etiquette. Instead of inventing excuses coupled with cinism i suggest you stop with such behavior. Loosmark (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Tell you what, I'll stop "inventing excuses" when you stop inventing infractions. Deal?--Львівське (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Now you are going to lie in the face of the obvious? Do you really think the admins won't see that you deleted a big chuck of text and marked it as "spelling"? You are not helping your cause but do as you wish. Loosmark (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

In the last few days, since the initiation of this report, this user has actually shown quite a considerable willingness to discuss the topics and he's toned down a lot of the extreme anti-Polish rhetoric which he manifested initially. Basically the relevant topics are by their nature controversial and so can involve emotionally worded strong statements (and I understand that). As a result I think this report should just be closed with no action as long as Lvivske continues being constructive. Basically, let this one go, though keep it in mind - just remind Lvivske to discuss his edits and the edits of other editors he disagrees with. Lvivske, just keep in mind that I - and probably other Polish editors - are very willing to listen on these difficult topics, just don't call us "Polish propagandists" or the like and your input will definitely be considered and appreciated. There is plenty of room for cooperation here. Thanks.radek (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Lvivske

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

Spanishboy2006

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

Request concerning Spanishboy2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Warning by Cinéma C (talk · contribs)

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

Additional comments by Cinéma C:

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

Discussion concerning Spanishboy2006

Statement by Spanishboy2006

Comments by other editors

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

Result concerning Spanishboy2006

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

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

Poeticbent

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

Request concerning Poeticbent

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

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

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

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

5. (edit summary)
6. (edit summary)
8. (edit summary)
10. (edit summary)
13. (edit summary)
14. edit warring in violation of 3RR: revert 1, 2, 3, 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tymek, there is no threshold for how involved or uninvolved one has to be in order to be "allowed" to file a proper report, so there is nothing wrong with having been uninvolved in the dispute. As I said, there already is a report against the user Lvivske. At least read what I write, won't you please? Being already familiar with Poeticbent's previous conduct, that's a good basis. It took only a couple of minutes to find Poeticbent's incivility since it is in almost every comment. Of course you cannot find the diff that escapes your memory: I've never been warned by an admin in over three years (unlike you: ), nor to stop wasting the admins' time, nor did I ever have or say anything against Poles in general. I see that not only Poeticbent but also you have disrupted only recently the other AE report with similar ad hominem personal attacks of a subject just being anti-Polish. Also you should note that a group of users advancing personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith at the same target does not excuse one another's misconduct at all. The recent remedy about Collective behavior of blocs of editors is explicit that "mere strength of numbers is not sufficient to contravene Misplaced Pages policy". Sciurinæ (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

As for Radeksz's comment, the 3RR report was an incompletely filed belated one that would never result in anything. However, for your convenience since you haven't felt it necessary, either, I've now requested closure myself. I'm not the subject of the thread, so please leave your two diffs against me from 38 and 41 months ago respectively out of here and don't join in on the irrelevant ad hominem personal attacks and attacking my intentions. Your engagement in the same previous AE thread together with Poeticbent and Tymek by also making personal attacks that a subject was just anti-Polish in conjunction with the others does not make it any better. You're now already on the Digwuren list, Radeksz, so please stop this instant. Sciurinæ (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that to report unbecoming conduct of a user one does not have to be subjected to running the gauntlet with ad hominem implications of being an "extremist" (by Piotrus), anti-Polish and whatever else ridiculous, and insulting can be invented about my intentions ("trying to out other editors who enforce NPOV", "his intent is to harass Poeticbent", "taking a potshot at an editor he had previous disagreements", "bad faithed comments by Sciurinæ", "is trying to bait Poeticbent and reignite the conflict", "It looks like Scurinae's mission", "If Scurinae's intents were pure", "Scurinae is doing a type of pre-emptive forum shopping", "just to double the chances of an outcome s/he'd like to see.", "There is no reason for Scurinae to show up here and try to pour gasoline on a fire", "At least no good reason, but I don't know what's in Scurinae's head.", "so as to make it look as there's many horrible violations here whereas there's not much there in fact", "This is just making crap up and hoping nobody bothers to actually follow the links"). I'm out of here, having already had enough abuse thrown at me as a person for the time being and seeing nothing of substance against the contents of my report. Collective behaviour of a bloc of editors with shared nationality does not contravene the application of Misplaced Pages policy and enforcement. It should be possible to be able to file a proper report against misconduct without having to get treated improperly. Sciurinæ (talk) 12:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

Discussion concerning Poeticbent

Statement by Poeticbent

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

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

Reply to comments made after my initial statement

First, Sciurinæ’s reaction to comments made by others does not surprise me a bit, because it is a pattern established long before now. His seemingly uninvolved "reports" on Polish Wikipedians, followed by passive-aggressive language in the discussions (dragged by him until everyone’s exhausted), is the only thing I remember from the past. Please note, Misplaced Pages:Harassment defines that sort of pattern as wiki-hounding. "The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason" (emphasis added).

I noticed that my own content opponent chipped in below. I have nothing against User Faustian (talk · contribs). He devotes countless hours every day to this project. By the same token, I would like Faustian to step outside the box and to try to understand, that repetitive blanket reverts of my serious revisions constitute an ultimate slap in the face of a fellow editor. Blanket reverts are rude and insulting, because they don’t require thinking. I’m sure you realize that quickly reverting elaborate edits made by your content opponent is a form of personal attack – only nonverbal – similar to a middle finger. Automatic reverts are reserved for blatant vandalism like page blanking, swearwords, silly jokes, etc. So please don’t use blanket reverts as an editing method. Such reverts are inflammatory, and make you look bad. I spoke to you the way I perceived you through them. – Going back to information, which you claim to have been falsified by me (yet another insult added to injury), the line about the Orthodox churches did not originate with Subtelny, but with another Misplaced Pages article called Polonization. Quote. “In 1938 about 100 abandoned Orthodox churches were destroyed or converted to Roman Catholic in the eastern parts of Poland.” Please click on the link and see it for yourself. The information originated probably with this PDF file, which I don’t seem to be able to access. --Poeticbent talk 17:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that Poeticbent felt personally offended by my revert. When making large and controversial changes it's important to seek comment first instead of just making such massive changes. I spent a lot of time creating those sections that were moved, yet did not insult him when he did so. I merely restored the previous order and began two discussions about the order to see what others think: and . The first attempt was met by insult and the second was ignored. Basically he chose to insult and revert.

With respect to falsification of the source, there was a statement with accurate information and a reference right after that statement. Poeticbent removed the accurate information and replaced it with other information while the reference was kept in place. See here: . He changed "Hundreds of Orthodox Churches were destroyed or converted into Roman Catholic Churches and hundreds of Ukrainian langage schoolls were closed." to "In 1938 about 100 abandoned Orthodox churches were destroyed or converted to Roman Catholic churches and a number of Ukrainian language schools closed". Googlebooks shows the original passage here: which reads " The original referenced page is on googlebooks which in the third paragraph states "the authorites transfered about 150 churches to the latter (Roman Catholic) and destroyed another 190." Readers can decide for themselves what Poeticbent, who has been accusing me unfairly of "whitewashing", has been up trying to do here.

That being said, I would say that in areas not related to Polish ethnic conflicts Poeticbent has made very good contributions and so whatever sanctions are deemed necessary, I hope they will be specific rather than broad.Faustian (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Further remarks

I’m asking myself, is it OK to add a very controversial piece of information to an article about a genocide, using a dead link as the only reference, and than claim (even swear by it) that the information is true? – Why is the information no longer available at the source? Why is the page discontinued by the portal? Please note, we’re talking about more than just one piece of information, for example: the dead link to http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/upa/16.pdf is referenced five times by Faustian; there’s also the dead link to http://www.history.org.ua/oun_upa/oun/11.pdf implying even more deleted links at the source, between the numbers /upa/11.pdf and /upa/16.pdf. Meanwhile, the portal in question is still active: http://www.history.org.ua/, go check it out. The removed links were removed by the webmaster on purpose, but for a reason unknown to us. – These are nagging questions, inspiring more doubt. For example, has the information been discontinued at the source, because the portal, which removed it from its database, discovered that there’s something seriously wrong with it? Perhaps so, because what was quoted from those few deleted pages sounded to me like cheap political propaganda. However, it takes a calm and well balanced approach to deal with this sort of challenges properly in Misplaced Pages. No edit wars will help, and no stubborn repetition of the same explanation of why blanket reverts are deemed necessary in a content dispute.... They are not, and never will be! --Poeticbent talk 19:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the place for such a discussion. Move these comments on the article's talk page and we'll discuss it.Faustian (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors

Comment by Piotrus

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

PS. I will also point out that it is interesting to consider moderate comments made by Poeticbent's primary content opponent in the article in question, Faustian, with much more aggressive and bad faithed comments by Sciurinæ. It seems that our mediation is having an effect and Poeticbent and Faustian are talking again, in a civil fashion, and not edit warring - yet Sciurinæ as seen in his comments above is trying to bait Poeticbent and reignite the conflict. I hope this will be taken into consideration by a reviewing uninvolved AE admin. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I've always been moderate and civil in my comments towards him.Faustian (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Faustian

I would like to note that the only thing I wrote that can be considered a "personal attack" was when I stated that Poeticbent has falsified information from a source. This was proven with the diffs and link to the source which he had misrepresented (see the 4th paragraph here: ). I did not call him a liar, or otherwise insult him; I merely stated the fact. In contrast, Poeticbent has been abusive repeatedly, even started an RfC which was full of abuse: . Please to not draw comparisons between the two of us. With that in mind, it seems that Poetic bent has made good contributions to many other articles. A general ban on all eastern European history articles may be inapropriate; perhaps a very strict warning followed by an immediate ban on articles involving any sort of conflict between peoples would be sufficient.Faustian (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Tymek

I find it really odd that user Scurinae, completely uninvolved in the Massacres of Poles in Volhynia article, who has not edited this article, and has not made a single comment on the talk page there, suddenly has collected all the diffs concerning Poeticbent. It looks like Scurinae's mission on Misplaced Pages is to get as many Polish users as possible banned, and as far as I remember, he has been told to stop wasting other admins' time and cease going after Polish editors (I do not have the diff, as I do not collect such stuff). If Scurinae's intents were pure, he should have filled a request to investigate user Lvivske, who has been removing photographs, using such friendly terms as Polack propaganda. Somehow, this has slipped Scurinae's attention. Tymek (talk) 06:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Radeksz

Well, I'm not going to say anything more about the fact that Scurinae just appears out of the blue and files a report on yet another Polish editor since all that's been said. Instead let's actually look at the diffs that Scurinae provides:

Diffs 1 (40), and 4-10 (43-49) all have to do with Massacres of Poles in Volhynia. This is already being dealt with here which in fact what diffs 2 (41), 3 (42) and 11 (50) link too. Basically Scurinae is doing a type of "pre-emptive forum shopping" - just in case the other report does not turn out the way s/he'd like, s/he's filling this present, second report, just to double the chances of an outcome s/he'd like to see. Even if there is a problem with Poeticbent's actions (and I think what there is is minor) in the real world this is called "Double Jeopardy". Let the matter resolve itself there. Additionally, both Faustian and Poeticbent have stopped editing the article in question, presumably to cool down, and this is nothing that a simple mediation on the talk page can't resolve (as I've been trying to do). There is no reason for Scurinae to show up here and try to pour gasoline on a fire that's going out by itself as we speak. At least no good reason, but I don't know what's in Scurinae's head.

Throwing out the duplicates, that leaves us with diffs 12, and 13 (note that diff 14 also refers to the Massacres article - Scurinea's stringing out the diffs so as to make it look as there's many horrible violations here whereas there's not much there in fact).

Diff 12 is a comment Poeticbent makes on a AE report I filed on Deacon of Pndapetzim . In that report I was concerned about Deacon's anti-Polish bias and his supposed "uninvolvement" in Eastern European disputes. Poeticbent is merely making a comment supportive of my report (which was more or less agreed with by the involved admins - please take a look at it). Where exactly in that statement is there an instance of a "personal attack" or "incivility"??? Nowhere. Sure, Poeticbent agrees with me that Deacon has an anti-Polish bias but that's a completely different thing. Scurinea seems to be under the mistaken impression that "no personal attacks" and "be civil" implies that no criticisms can be made of other editors, their statements or their actions. Or at least that this applies to Polish editors who dare to criticize others. This is obviously incorrect.

Diff 13 ... well I don't know what to say about this one since I don't see anything in there that is a "personal attack" or "incivil". I'm not sure what Scurinea's talking about here. If you want to see real incivility look here: , or here .

So what we have here is a whole bunch of diffs regarding a matter that is already being dealt with, strung out to make it look like there's more to it than there really is, and two other relevant, but completely spurious diffs.radek (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to Sciurinæ second comment: I have not made any kind of personal attack against Sciurinæ . S/he seems to interpret any kind of disagreement or criticism as a "personal attack". If this was the case then no kind of productive discussion - which is necessary for any kind of resolution of disagreement - between opposing parties would be possible on Misplaced Pages. Sciurinæ also seems to think/hope that providing a diff and calling it a "personal attack" would be sufficient for lazy admins to take her/his word for it. Please tell me where the "personal attack" takes place in this diff s/he provides: . This particular allegation is actually representative of this whole report - pretending something is when it isn't. This is just making crap up and hoping nobody bothers to actually follow the links.radek (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to Sciurinae's third comment, and seeing nothing of substance against the contents of my report. - actually I took the trouble to reply against the contents of your report quite substantially, diff by diff. You still haven't said how this constitutes a "personal attack" (especially since it's part of an AE report! How can one argue that some editor is doing something bad w/o actually criticizing the editor in question?!?!?) or how diffs 12 and 13 you provide are "incivil". But since you ask for more substance against the contents of your report, let me go through the "Diffs of prior warnings" diffs you provide:

• Diff 1 by Gamaliel - this predates either Eastern European or Digwuren so is irrelevant to this report.
• Diffs 2-4 merely show that Poeticbent was in fact part of the Eastern_European_disputes. This is different than a warning.
• Diff 5 - Straight up mischaracterization of what Tznkai is saying. He is not proposing a block. He says Is anyone other than Poeticbent and M0RD00R actually reading this thread? It is very much to long didn't read for me, and its quickly approaching "block both for a week" status. He's basically just expressing his frustration and boredom with the discussion going on between the two users. AFAIK the block was not implemented or even seriously considered.radek (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Lvivske

I can say with certainty that I've seen Poetricbent being disruptive on numerous occasions over the last year, and this report has made it clear to me that I wasn't just not giving him a fair shake. As far as Piotrus goes, it's clear there is collaboration going on here to "fight" the other side of the edits. Honestly, this whole situation is a mess and these articles will never get cleaned up and made neutral as long as these characters continue. --Львівське (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Poeticbent

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

Pmanderson

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

Request concerning Pmanderson

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

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

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

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

addendum

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

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

1. Not applicable

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

• diff of notification

Discussion concerning Pmanderson

Statement by Pmanderson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Two Arbs have now commented on the original discussion here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • And more have commented since. We now have four Arbs saying "does not fall under the restriction's scope". Ohconfucius' action in calling this back from archive all by himself seems, at least, unauthorized and peculiar. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you, "unauthorized and peculiar"...? That case is still hanging in limbo, and this thread was archived by bot and not properly closed. What I did was to undo a bot action. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Who authorized it? Is there any parallel to persistent plaintiffs bringing back such a case when it has died for lack of admin interest? Peculiar, therefore, and unauthorized; since it is also now contrary to the clear intent of ArbCom, what reputable motive was there for this recrudescence? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ohconfucius

• with regard to the "outrageous edit" which I allegedly missed, please see this correction diff Ohconfucius (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• I believe I have already explained (relative to my first at Clarification) why I am posting this and why it has been moved here. I note that the sniping continues but will not allow PMA to indulge in this style of questioning of my motives. He may be forgiven for believing this is about him, but it's really not. Greg L's participation in the WP:DATEBOT was questioned although I did not see the relevance at the time either, and I was proven wrong. My reason is now highlighted in red above. An official can ignore or dismiss this for all I care, but don't then come after me when I start editing similar editing guidelines, because I will come and say "I did ask" (referring to this query, of course). Ohconfucius (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• On the "much less contentious" guideline which is WP:NAME, PMA appears nevertheless to have created some ripples of his own. His behaviour over the naming of certain articles was the subject of a complaint which graced these very pages only ten days ago; User:Xenovatis has asked for his talk page to be protected against PMA's unwanted attention. Therefore, it is not as "uncontentious" at WP:NAME as PMA would like to suggest. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• "The gentleman doth protest too much": WP:NPA; "if what he wanted to know was whether he could edit the Naming Conventions, he could simply have asked.": I did. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, but editors usually only work on specific areas of interest to them, and what they do best is usually in that area they care about the most. Please note that, in the same decision, Lightmouse was banned from using any form of automation - an area he excels in. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC) (Non-admin response to Fut. Perf. moved from admin section.  Sandstein  05:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC))
• It appears that PMA continues to edit the Naming convention guidelines in recent days: 1, 2, 3, 4, and pending clarification evident from Arbcom, I have therefore unarchived this thread as not closed. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to Ohconfucius

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by other editors

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

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

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

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

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

Result concerning Pmanderson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am on record as stating that the Naming conventions are not content guidelines and I have argued that the naming conventions should not stray the content of articles and the content guidelines (such as the MOS) should not stray into the naming conventions, eg with the use of hyphens and dashes in page names. There are two exceptions (1) The naming conventions should use WP:V for the definition of what is or is not a reliable source and (2) the section WP:NPOV#Article naming could be in either policy, and for historic reasons is where it is. --PBS (talk) 10:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah777

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request concerning Sarah777

User requesting enforcement:
MASEM (t) 21:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Sarah777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine#Sarah777 restricted

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

1. First (modification) of Sarah777's profiling speadsheet on the talk page of the poll
2. Sarah updates this "spreadsheet"

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

1. Warning by Masem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (note that no warning is required by the ArbCom, but as a moderator for this other ArbCom case, I felt a warning here was necessary.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Block per remedy.

Additional comments by MASEM (t):
As part of the Ireland article names ArbCom case, I've been appointed moderator to help resolve the issue. The users of the Ireland Collaboration Project have agreed to use a wiki-wide single transferable vote to resolve the issue after years and months of discussion did little to bridge the gap. That poll recently opened. Sarah777 has since started creating a spreadsheet on the poll's talk page that attempts to sort out the votes by who is admittedly Irish, British, or otherwise indeterminable. This itself is a questionable approach and I am currently seeking AN/I input as to whether such profiling is appropriate, as it has already caused two people unassociated with the project to remove their votes to avoid being profiled. However, in Sarah777's specific case, she is already under restriction per the above remedy "from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks." I believe that her reasoning for using this poll (as can be seen in her comments about it here) are indicative of what the remedy was to deal with and that a block is necessary. (I will note that she has voted in the poll, so a block at this time would not silence her input to the results). --MASEM (t) 21:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

Discussion concerning Sarah777

Statement by Sarah777

This has absolutely nothing to do with any Arbcom ruling, I propose that this request be refused. I also don't think analyzing the voting patterns should be banned. That is censorship, but I have already pointed out to the Moderator that if he engages in censorship I will not revert his actions. Arbcom said: Sarah777 may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks.

• (1) This had nothing to do with any edits.
• (2) I have made no anti-British remarks.

Sarah777 (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors

• Comment by HighKing Let's keep calm. The emerging consensus appears to be that profiling should be banned while the vote is in progress. The profiling is based on public information, and collated. Like other editors here, I don't believe the case has been made that this could be seen as "imtimidating". I believe she set out to demonstrate that a majority of primarily British editors vote one way, and a majority of primarily Irish voters vote another, and that since there are more British voters than Irish, getting things changed can be problematic. Now it's a fact that this has resulted in some editors removing their votes, but the primary issue is intent and knowledge. Did Sarah set out to imtimidate voters and could this have been foreseen? I think not. The obvious solution is to simply ban profiling while the vote is in progress, and I believe any sanctions are unnecessary. --HighKing (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment by Jack forbes HighKing has said almost everything I would have. I believe this was taken here too quickly and could have been dealt with without any drama or fuss. There would have been a quick consensus not to profile voters and that would have been that. Jack forbes (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment by GoodDay Howabout we just have the 'speard sheet-in-question' removed from the Polling page-in-question. PS: Ain't nobody gonna intimidate me, at that page. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment by Bastun I'd support oversight of the profiling and a ban on it recurring on Project pages or userspace, but would oppose a block or ban on Sarah at this time. Reintroduction of her mentoring/civility parole may well be in order, though. Bastun 23:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC) (Edit to add: please note Sarah777 has now added the profiling to her own talkpage... Bastun 23:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC) )

• Comment Nothing to see here, move along. If my jedi mind trick doesn't work could this please be closed echo comments above by HighKing and Jack forbes.BigDunc 23:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment by BritishWatcher - This sort of profiling should be banned for sure, people need to consider if they would accept a method of profiling people based on Skin colour (if possible on wikipedia) in a dispute on racial matters, it is basically exactly the same thing. Sarahs actions on the ballot page are disruptive and considering her previous blocks were related to anti British POV, her actions on the talk page seem linked. We should also remember that people are allowed to change their votes throughout the 42 days, there for she has something to gain by trying to put people off voting a certain way and instead of doing it in a positive way of arguing the case for change, she chooses to do it in a negative way by claiming bias within the first 24 hours of the vote.

Sarah should not be allowed to continue trying to change peoples minds in such a negative way on the talk page. She clearly went against the moderators wishes by reposting her spreadsheet after Masem had removed it and replaced it with a box explaining why it was removed. This is clearly disruptive and whilst her vote should count, if she continues she should not be allowed to contribute on the talk page of the ballot. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment by SarekOfVulcan re-adding the "little spreadsheet" at her talkpage after it was deleted twice from the poll talkpage shows a clear intent to be disruptive, regardless of what her original intentions may have been. Recommend blocking.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment by RashersTierneyif a block is imposed on Sarah777 as things stand, I will withdraw from this process entirely. I strongly recommend a de-escalation all round. RashersTierney (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment by Domer48 per HighKing, Jack forbes, BigDunc and RashersTierney. Move along now, there is nothing to see here.--Domer48_'fenian' 08:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment by Tfz per Domer48, HighKing, Jack forbes, BigDunc and RashersTierney. The spreadsheet is of interest to many, has been done before, and there were no problems. Why here? Move on. Tfz 10:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Sarah777

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

The "profiling" may be unhelpful, the editor's behaviour might be disruptive, but that is not relevant to the arbitration measure in question. In the diffs supplied, only the inclusion of figures as to how the poll would stand "ithout the British input" comes anywhere close to the behaviours proscribed by the remedy, and falls quite short of "engaging in aggressive biased editing" or "making anti-British remarks". Furthermore, the remedy does not allow for the enforcement requested (a block), only a page-ban. So, in sum, perhaps hypothetically Sarah777 ought to be blocked or page-banned, but certainly not for the edits in question under the remedy cited.  Skomorokh  07:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah777's "My little spreadsheet" is harmless, IMO. If you find Sarah's "little spreadsheet" helpful, you can analyze it; if you find it unhelpful, please ignore it. Sarah777 has not violated the ArbCom sanction imposed on her, so there is no need to take any action. AdjustShift (talk) 07:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)