Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

WP:AE

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331

Imalbornoz

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

Request concerning Imalbornoz

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Pfainuk talk 21:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar#Discretionary_sanctions

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

A long discussion in which users repeatedly refuse requests to explain objections to proposed edits, which is described by WP:DE as disruptively refusing to engage in the consensus-building process (January 2011).
A long discussion in which users repeatedly refuse requests to explain objections to proposed edits (March 2011).
A long discussion in which users repeatedly refuse requests to explain objections to proposed edits (March 2011).
19:18, 30 March 2011 Wikilawyering over the precise definition of "prevalence".
19:18, 22 April 2011 Includes a direct accusation of bad faith against me (that I take my position purely through some kind embarrassment about the conduct of my country's soldiers 300 years ago, as opposed to the genuine concerns about the weight, neutrality and accuracy of certain points in the paragraph concerned that I have repeatedly expressed).
[1][2] Edit warring to a two-week old version of the article.

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

Warned on 01:43, 16 December 2010 by Vassyana (talk · contribs)
Warned on 20:37, 18 December 2010 by Vassyana (talk · contribs)
Warned on 19:33, 15 January 2011 by Vassyana (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Discretionary sanctions to be imposed on User:Imalbornoz.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This has proved a particularly intractable content dispute, but its intractability is made far worse by the fact that Imalbornoz (and fellow editor Richard Keatinge) have proven themselves unwilling to engage in the consensus-building process. You'll see several things in the discussions I linked above. There's WP:OWN violations (see the title of this section for a typical example - Curry Monster is essentially told that he is not allowed to be WP:BOLD). You will see in the discussions above lots of times when asked for objections, these editors cite lack of consensus consensus. When pushed, they state that things are "required", or "very notable and relevant" with no argument whatsoever backing that up.

It takes literally weeks of asking to get an argument of any kind objecting to any proposal - which would seem to be exactly the "roadblocking" that Vassanya described in the warnings provided. And even then it is generally couched in the sort of bad faith accusations that you saw in the diff from this evening.

Today, Imalbornoz has twice reverted a work in progress because, he said, the Great Siege of Gibraltar took up one third of the history scetion. That was the only objection expressed. Never mind that it was very much a work in progress and that the Great Siege would not have been a third of the length in the end (and Imalbornoz had been told that). Never mind that the Great Siege was one of the most significant things to have happened to Gibraltar in the last three hundred years (and thus given lots and lots of weight by reliable sources), and that the reverts remove it from the article altogether.

Note in that diff that there is no constructive criticism. It's all about "[w]hat I think isn't reasonable at all is WC Monster's current History section" and "[s]omeone should convince WC Monster to be reasonable". This is entirely typical of the sorts of responses we get. The article is at a standstill because of this egregious "roadblocking", and I and Curry Monster have asked repeatedly that it stop, but as you can see, it has not.

For me, that accusation of bad faith this evening was the straw that broke the camel's back. Even taken alone, this is something that I should not have to put up with on an article under Arbcom discretionary sanctions, particularly when the editor concerned has been warned under those sanctions. But I believe the above demonstrates that it is not the only problem with this editor's behaviour here. As such, I would now like to ask that discretionary sanctions be applied.

Note that I will be going away on Sunday for a week, and during that time will almost certainly not respond to discussion. Note also that Curry Monster has a bereavement to deal with at the moment.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

21:02, 22 April 2011

Discussion concerning Imalbornoz

Statement by Imalbornoz

There has been a discussion in the Gibraltar article since October 2009 (one year and a half!), in which PfainUK and WC Monster have tried to avoid mentioning certain events in Gibraltar's history, while Richard Keatinge and myself have thought it reasonable to mention them.

About the ARBCOM:

I see he mentions a previous ARBCOM ruling during which WC Monster (then calling himself "Justin A Kuntz" or "Justin the Evil Scotsman") received a 3 month topic ban (in spite of PfainUK's defense) for...[3]

...some examples from the ARBCOM...

{{

erasing my comments in the talk pages
calling me and others "trolls" or "POV pushers"
accusing "Spanish editors" of "meat puppetry", "Tendentiousness", "Wikilawyering", "Ad hominem attacks", "Disruptive editing"
saying about mediators and admins "Half-arsed ill-informed half-cocked and half-baked admin intervention that gives admins a bad name"
calling other editors "Spanish nationalists"; "disruptive"; "browbeating people into submission"; writing "tendentious crap"; "offensive"/"patronising"
retired (only for a few days, it seemed) saying "The facists bastards win it seems", "Its shameful that a supposedly democratic Spain should be carrying on that Fascist Fuck Franco's crusade but lets be honest about it, its macho fucking Spanish pride. (...) Fuck the lot of them", "Frankly you're being a petty little shit", "I bare my buttocks in your general direction"...}}

Many of these niceties were directed at me, while PfainUK kept defending WC Monster. After the 3 month topic ban, WC Monster returned to edit warring and received a 0RR ban[4] (PfainUK, again, defended WC Monster in the Arbitration Enforcement Noticeboard).

You can see that Pfainuk has never critisized his fellow WC Monster's extreme abuse, but -on the other hand- finds my behavior so disruptive as to start here an accusation. I would call that partisanship or one-sidedness. Myself, I have tried to keep a cool head and assume good faith (I think that mostly successfully), which as you can imagine has not been easy at all in face of all this abuse (from WC Monster) and one-sidedness (from Pfainuk).

About the dispute:

The issue here has been (for 1.5 years!) whether to include or not the widespread violence that British and Dutch soldiers used on the civil population of Gibraltar during its capture, and the subsequent exodus of the population to a place called San Roque (keeping the curious tradition that they are the "real" Gibraltar). Those are facts that have been used by Spanish nationalists to support their irredentist claim on Gibraltar, and have been called "embarrassing" by British historians, but no one disputes their factuality.

WC Monster and PfainUK have been trying to:

not mention these facts in the article, first trying to impose a theory that completely misconstrued the sources[5] (that's when I came in the discussion). Please take a look at what they were trying to say in the article: "much of the population chose to leave Gibraltar fearing reprisals following the murder of English and Dutch soldiers.[2] Parts of the town were then plundered by the occupying forces.[3]" Actually the soldiers raped, plundered and desecrated churches, and then the civilians felt fear and decided to leave.
(when I finally convinced them that their theory was wrong) they tried to remove any reference to these facts. They argued that the article was already too long and UNDUE weight (curiously, only to remove mention of these events, while they don't care about other episodes in the history of Gibraltar, that are given a much lower weight by sources).
now, they are trying to inflate the article by FIFTY PERCENT talking about the siege that Spaniards and French held on Gibraltar after its capture (forget about the article being too long!!).

About PfainUK's accusation:

I have not accused anyone of bad faith in the talk page. I have limited myself to mentioning the facts I summarize above (although I must admit that with them one could have a good case for saying that these two editors are consciously or unconsciously motivated by nationalist motives rather than by WP's ultimate goals and policies).

PfainUK accuses me of not engaging in discussion (after 1.5 years!!), not mentioning policy-related arguments (when I've even made lists of sources,[6] of arguments...[7]), ... I really think that this accusation is self-defeating if you take even a general look at the discussion.

Conclusion: I actually think that this is a very sensitive dispute and we are not able to find a solution by ourselves. Now that the matter has been brought to this noticeboard (for the 2nd or 3rd time in 1.5 years) I would ask for admin intervention in the discussion and (especially) some opinion on WC Monster's and PfainUK's behavior (and my own behavior as well, of course). We need help!!!

Thank you. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think T. Canens' proposal is just great. Please, do go ahead! I don't think we can solve this by ourselves, and the longer we keep going, the fewer editors remain interested (many editors, like The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, Ecemaml, Cremallera..., have been bored into exile during the last 1.5 years...) -- Imalbornoz (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein and T. Canens, 2 comments:

I would agree to the topic ban as well if that helps de-monopolize the article. The only problem would be if someone comes and completely changes the decision reached after the RfC. What would be the role of the incumbent editors?
Regarding the procedure for the RfC: one of the usual fears from the editors involved in a long and detailed discussion is that an outside mediator/admin does not grasp the main points in it; another danger is an almost irresistible drive for the inside editors to keep adding comments in the RfC that usually drive outside editors away (I have seen this happen in this discussion time and again). My suggestion would be that the two sides in the dispute have an initial statement with a word limit (like the 500 words limit in the ARBCOM initial statements, for example) to explain the essentials of the dispute from each POV and then they are only allowed to comment by invitation by the admin or mediator.

What do you think? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Imalbornoz

I'd like to support Imalbornoz's comments and commend his patience in an intractable dispute; I suggest that this particular request is not worth further attention. While I'm here, I would like to record my thanks to NebY for recent helpful edits which may actually break the logjam on this article, and if any editors are prepared to follow his bold example I'd be really grateful for further substantive help. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have some acquaintance with this controversy through a peripheral discussion we are having at the NPOV noticeboard; I am not otherwise involved in the Gibraltar article.

It appears to me that this controversy is mainly about the four principal editors of that article (Imalbornoz, Wee Curry Monster, User:Pfainuk, and Richard Keatinge) tending to reach a "critical mass" too quickly and railing away at each other. I don't know that any of them is significantly any more (or less) at fault for this than any other; I think the matter needs to be considered in terms of the group situation, and not just in regard of a single editor.

I think also it would be unproductive to get into detailed recitals of "he said, she said", as there is a long history here not readily unwound. I don't think there is any deliberate bad behavior; it seems they sometimes just get too wound up about an issue. I wonder if it would be more useful to coach the involved editors in how to avoid the triggering behaviors. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein suggests a break from this article for all of us, an idea that I've previously suggested and would support now. But note that NebY may have managed to get things moving already. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recommend against any across the board topic banning. These editors are having difficulties working together, but banning them does nothing to remove the difficulty, and would deprive the article of four interested, knowledgeable editors. It appears to me that the difficulties are not irresolvable, and working out how to resolve them would be a great benefit to Wikipedia far beyond this article. Perhaps they could be banned from making any unilateral changes to the article, but with an exception for any changes they all agree to on the talk page. Other conditions are needed, but an across the board topic ban would do little good, and likely deprive us of greater good. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I happily bind myself only to make changes that are supported by all of the others. If that's enforced on all of us by an admin prepared to follow-up long-term, I think we have a solution. All four have more to offer Wikipedia, and indeed this article, than arguments about our long-standing content disagreements. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the prior very thorough analysis by Vassyana (essentially the same situation as here, but focused on another editor), but suggest that this current flare-up does not disaffirm the possible effectiveness of "lesser measures". It appears the editors involved have been advised in general terms to to work together better, but have not yet addressed the specific behaviors that cause the problems. Draconian measures won't help, they need assistance at a finer level. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Imalbornoz

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

I don't see anything in the request that would, on its own, clearly require admin intervention. From a brief look at the issue it seems more likely that J. Johnson's guess is correct and that we have a problematic group editing situation. I'm not sure that AE is equipped to deal with it, though. Discretionary sanctions are more suited for addressing clearly identifiable misbehavior by individuals. Consider trying more formal content dispute resolution, such as a content WP:RFC or mediation. Sandstein 05:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We might try long term protection (in the three month range) if it keeps up, but mostly this just looks like a minor flare-up between editors with long memories who are basically trying to work within the system. The talkpage looks like a lot of let us use *this* version while we wait for consensus to magically materialize, but it stays basically civil and I am not convinced by the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT assertion. 1RR for the article is also an option, but I think that that would miss the point. Recommend content-focused dispute resolution, and closing this report if there are no objections. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is basically a case of two groups of two editors each arguing back and forth. This dispute has gone to such an extent that Talk:Gibraltar has been essentially monopolized by them since October 2010 ([8]). This is not good at all.
The applicable discretionary sanctions provision states that:
Editors wishing to edit in the area of dispute are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. Any editor who is unable or unwilling to do so may wish to limit his or her editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions. (Emphasis added)

The dispute here should have been resolved, one way or another, a long time ago. As a principle in the case pointed out, "sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes". Intractable disputes that monopolize a talk page is unhelpful to the project.

It appears to me that those users, for whatever reason, are unwilling or unable to resolve this dispute through the usual channels on their own; a MEDCAB case was opened in January and closed in March, but then the dispute flared up again; there was apparently an attempt at an RFC, but that seems to have gone nowhere, either. As Sandstein and 2over0 observed, there is a need for content-focused DR, but I don't think telling them to pursue that and then leaving them to their own devices is a good option here. These are experienced editors, who know all about DR; there's no reason to believe that they would miraculously find a way to resolve this dispute when they have failed to do so in more than six months.

I propose, therefore, that we enact the following discretionary sanction, which I believe to be "reasonably necessary to ensure the proper collegial editing of these articles and the smooth functioning of the project":

Within 15 days after the sanction is imposed, the four users at issue (Imalbornoz, Wee Curry Monster, Pfainuk, and Richard Keatinge) must either:
- agree to a compromise wording with respect to the dispute at issue, which will be binding upon them, unless and until a community consensus decides otherwise; or
- submit the dispute to a binding content RFC, which is to be supervised by an uninvolved administrator (to avoid issues like Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 23#RFC restart); the outcome of the RFC will be binding upon them, unless and until a community consensus decides otherwise.
Any of the four users who fails to comply with #1 will be topic banned from Gibraltar, and all related articles, discussions and other content, broadly construed across all namespaces, until such time they comply with #1.

I think this is a fairly novel approach, but it's the best I could think of under the circumstances. Comments are welcome. T. Canens (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this analysis. The proposal is novel, but might be worth a try. Have the other editors been previously warned of sanctions and notified about this thread?

If we want to do this, we might want to tighten it as follows: All four are banned right now from the Gibraltar article and its talk page (except for any RfCs) until (A) an administrator has closed an RfC as establishing a community consensus about the wording that is to be used, and (B) the banned editor has agreed to abide by that consensus by (B1) not making changes contrary to it or (B2) not trying to change the consensus by any method other than another RfC in no earlier than one year. This would reduce the scope for wikilawyering ("yes I agreed to the proposal!" "no you did not!" "It's their responsibility to start the RfC, not mine!" etc.). Sandstein 10:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the idea is that the instruction in #1 (either compromise or go RFC) would be the requisite warning and "specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines". If any of the four fail to comply with it, then the sanction (a page/topic ban) can follow. T. Canens (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three of the editors concerned have commented here, and Wee Curry Monster was notified by the filer. I have added Vassyana's formal notifications to the log. Vassyana's old statement certainly indicates that requiring rather than requesting content-DR is a good idea, and this focuses the attention where it belongs without closing off the article to any other interested editors. It might also be a good idea to limit the involved editors' comments to the RfC to prevent it from becoming just another section where the same people make the same points at each other, as is too often the case with RfCs. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support the idea of T. Canens that the four editors should be required to join in a binding content RfC if they want to continue to edit the article. While I could accept T. Canens' version, Sandstein's version sounds more enforceable. Since the dispute over Gibraltar has been running for so long, I don't think it is excessive to place the topic bans at once and then have them be lifted as a consequence of good-faith participation in the RfC. Anyone who is still hoping that lesser measures will suffice should take a look at the very thorough analysis by Vassyana in the December 2010 AE request. The 23 archives at Talk:Gibraltar show that national disputes about the content of that page have been going on since 2005. EdJohnston (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JonathanGo

blocked 48 hours for 1RR

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 JonathanGo

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy 12:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction

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

Violated the 1RR on Palestinian people

Violated the 1RR on Palestinian nationalism

15:37, 24 April 2011 1st revert
10:11, 25 April 2011 2nd revert

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

Warned on 22 April of 1RR by Nableezy (talk · contribs)
Warned on 24 April by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Block or topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This account was registered in late January, though it only made 2 edits prior to April 19. Since then, the account has almost solely been focused on repeatedly adding unrelated material taken from another article into these two articles. The user has been notified of the 1RR multiple times and continues to repeatedly revert multiple users to attempt to force in this content.

The user acknowledged reading the first notification of the 1RR here. nableezy - 12:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]; 24 hours is still, as far as I recall, 24 hours. All of the reverts listed above are within the same day. A cursory look by a reviewing admin will show that all of these edits meet the definition of revert listed at WP:EW. nableezy - 16:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning JonathanGo

Statement by JonathanGo

this account was active since January and it's not a fake account. was trying to edit 2 aricles about Palestinian issues. the articles are used as a political propaganda withholding much relevant information concerning palestinian history, and on the other hand relying on fictional assumptions and beliefs.

about the restrictions. at first I was not aware of these restrictions. the second time I made an edit and when I came beck to the site I didn't see it on the history. so i re edited the article , I didn't revert it. in any case I didn't abused the editing rights. and as you can see I was trying to explain the necessity of the new sections on the conversations.

this looks like an organized, method of using the wikipedia as a political propaganda mean and spreading fictional information rather then facts, especially referring to Palestinian nationalism formation date, the editors are trying to promote a fictional theories about ancient as possible, Palestinian nationality establishment .--Jonathango 12:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

As you can clearly see. Regarding Palestinian people , I made only 2 reverts on 24 April. The third revert that mr. nableezy regards to, is the same one like 2nd revert, he just copied it twice.I hope it was an unintentional mistake. As I stated, the second revert was made by mistake since I didn't see the edit history when I went beck to the page so I just put it beck again and didn't use the "undo". About Palestinian nationalism – as you may have noticed the reverts took place in different days. As I understand it 1RR rule means that one revert allowed per day. And please correct me if I'm wrong. this looks like an attempt to shut down any opposition view and I hope you are not going to give it a hand.--Jonathango 13:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

after my above remarks mr. nableezy edited his third time stamp Regarding Palestinian people. you can see it's on 25 of April - and that's a new day. additionally , the first edit that mr. nableezy refers to as an "undo", is in fact not a revert at all but a completely new edit , which is a significant shortening of previews section that I edited as a result of the discussion we had as you can see in this article. the same is applied to the editing were done on Palestinian nationalism. the first edit that mr. Nableezy refers to of 24 April is not an Undo but a new edit , which is a significant shortening of previews section that I edited as a result of the discussion we had as you can see in this article and the second edit was made only at 25 April.--Jonathango 16:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning JonathanGo

I suggest a topic ban or indef block for this WP:SPA. We don't need this approach to I-P topics in Wikipedia. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to read a less firebrand account of this issue, Tom Segev's article in NYT is available. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that JonathanGo edit wars to keep that huge section full of who said what and what date at Palestinian people instead of (say) History of the Palestinian people or more appropriately at Mohammad Amin al-Husayni is tell-tale sign why he is editing here. The section at Palestinian people on al-Husayni, which JonathanGo edit wars to keep intact, is much longer than the one for 1948-1967, and slightly longer than the one called "1967 to the present" [9] (despite the edit summary). Nuthin' much of note happened since the Palestinians were all Nazi collaborators, I guess... Tijfo098 (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning JonathanGo

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

This looks to be a 1RR violation on both Palestinian people and Palestinian nationalism. The user has clearly been aware of the 1RR restriction since 21 April, and all the reverts listed in this report happened after that. He is trying to insert material about negotiations with Nazis during WW2 into both articles, and his idea has not yet attracted any support from other editors. I suggest a three-day block for the 1RR violation and a warning of discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA using the {{uw-sanctions}} template. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went with 48 instead of 72 in recognition that there is at least some participation at the talkpage, but left the full uw-sanctions template and a warning that continuing to add substantially the same material without consensus could lead to a much longer block. The 1RR warning linked above quite clearly and properly stated "24 hours" rather than the more ambiguous "day", and I find the statement about calendar days disingenuous at best. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bedson

Closed. Paul Bedson warned of ARBPS sanctions Courcelles 05:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 Paul Bedson

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: - 2/0 (cont.) 06:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions

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

Talk:Measuring rod: pretty much the entirety of the discussion page after the first section is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and fringe sources from Paul Bedson while other editors cite more reliable and modern sources.
04-19 "mindlessly deleting ... even if that is beyond you" (intervening edits in the link are all Paul Bedson over a period of about twenty minutes)
04-19: extensive post on his own talkpage tying everything together. This link is mainly given for background of the dispute, though WP:NOTTRUTH applies and it does include "how it can be labelled fringe, Doug only knows. Perhaps he wants to keep it secret."
04-22: introduces original research and synthesis to Metrological Relief, an Ancient Greek relief - [10], [11] (removed by other editors here and here
03-03 used a source without reading it (read the two comments preceding the one in the diff as well)
Substantially copied an article during the abovelinked AfD: compare [12] with [13]
04-22 deletes necessary context from lead of a fringe article; unmarked revert of [14]
04-19, removed as "claim not supported by sources"
04-19 adds fringe assertion as statement of fact (WP:PSCI: Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should be proportionate with the scientific view. Likewise, the pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such.); Paul Bedson sourced this sentence a few minutes later to Sacred Geometry: Deciphering the Code (ISBN 9781402765827), see next diff
04-19 adds more fringe sources without necessary context; removed by other editors: [15], [16], [17], [18]
04-22 misuse of sources (see [19] and [20]
04-22 adds unreliable source: http://www.cosmic-mindreach.com/ (removed by another editor here)
04-23 adds a self-published source (Thoth, Architect of the Universe, ISBN 9781905815173), a letter to the editor, and original synthesis (removed [21], [22], and [23]
04-22 edit summary: More reliable sources to stop deletion of mathematical truth based petty and personal opinions about sources; removed by another editor as rm as unreliable source/fringe/coatrack see talk page; link to referenced talkpage discussion
04-20 adds an unsourced comment (removed by another editor here)

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

2010-03-22 extensive introduction by Dougweller (talk · contribs) to the WP:FRINGE guideline and associated policies, about a month after Paul Bedson started editing (Dougweller is an involved editor here, so this does not meet the warning requirement of ARBPS)
04-16 3RR and civility warnings from me
04-19 3RR warning from Dougweller
Request from Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk · contribs) (04-23): Look, you really need to slow down. You're adding references at a tremendous rate and obviously not checking them. I've just seen a reference that turns out to be a Letter to the Editor in New Scientist, a self-published book, a reference that explicitly contradicts the text you added ...

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Notifications of the provisions of ARBPS, to be logged at that case page, and advice on the appropriate use of reliable sources and maintaining a collaborative and civil attitude.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

To provide context that the "Megalithic Yard" is not considered credible by archeologists (and hence is governed by the WP:FRINGE guideline), Dougweller added a quote to Talk:Megalithic Yard citing Archeostatistics: old statistics in ancient contexts (NRJ Fieller Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series D (The Statistician), 1993 42, 279–295): "It is a sad fact that the megalithic yard hypothesis itself is of negligible interest to archaeologists. From what is known of the development and structure of prehistoric societies over the areas and time spans involved in the construction of the circles, the hypothesis that a strict mensuration system, based on a common 'brass-edged whalebone yardstick', was in widespread use is not worth entertaining. It belongs to the semi-mystical fringe of archaeology concerned with ley lines, Atlantis and the like."

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [24]

Discussion concerning Paul Bedson

Statement by Paul Bedson

This seems to be a direct attempt to damage mankind by hindering research into the central Levantine archaeological site of the neolithic revoluiton in Aaiha.

It seems based on this spiteful editor trying to promote his own pseudoscience opinions that vertical standing stones in the middle of England were positioned by Glaciers tens of thousands of years ago.

It is also an attempt to prevent coverage notable topics that has reduced coverage on Wikipedia on valid metrological and archaeological topics due to people's personal interpretations either not understood, or ignored and prejudiced against to protect personal reputations. If there has been some civility breaches, it is normally to do with wild and crazy POV pushing suggestions like the megalith-building-glaciers and those suggesting the pyramids were surveyed with a desk ruler.

This type of behaviour has led to other websites such at The Megalithic Portal, Quantitative Archaeology Wikipedia[25] and Archaeowiki [26] providing far better academic coverage of valid topics way ahead of Wikipedia. Due to certain editors failure to understand the relatively easy and widely covered statistical analysis [27] that has caused the unit in question to reach the mainstream with such an overwhelming number of sources including other archaeological encyclopedias. Barbara Ann Kipfer (2000). Encyclopedic dictionary of archaeology. Springer. pp. 344–. ISBN 9780306461583. Retrieved 23 April 2011.

If some sources have been debated, this is purely due to the massive and overwhelming number that represent the mainstream opinions on this outrageously uncovered topic.

I certainly won't resort to such petty and vengeful action as this editor when he deleted my posts and replaced with barmy glacier theories. I have no interest in covering such madness, or ley lines or atlantis for that matter. So I'll proceed to ignore this. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 12:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that the entire basis for the subject area in question has no evidence whatsoever and is labelled with "Citation needed" on Alexander Thom's page "mainstream science which generally labels it as pseudoscience^{[citation needed]}."

In response to Doug Weller's completely libellous remarks -

1. I have never argued Sumerians or anyone built stonehenge or avebury - complete rubbish! I suggested well sourced material that Beaker People made the Dalmore bone and even this was immediately deleted! I am here because O'Brien first noticed the most important archaeological site on the planet, that could heavily revise our views on the neolithic revolution and is about to be destroyed. There are plenty of his theories that I have never represented here, this includes any speculations about "Shining Ones"
2. John Neal's book "All Done With Mirrors" is one of the most comprehensive and up to date reviews of ancient metrology and is prominently featured with it's own section in the pseudoscientific metrology page, yet Doug deleted this as unreliable without deleting from pseudoscientific metrology. This is the one I commented on as improving the neutrality in my edit summary NOT "Celtic New Zealand".
3. I have never run a tour to Aaiha, I have expended all my monetary resources in order to survey the tell where I recovered lime plaster from the surface similar to White Ware and saw the northwestern chasm that Edward Robinson didn't visit, which Josephus claimed was the source of the Jordan (and met Lebanese Red Cross who put red dye down it similar to his story of the "Chaff of Phiala"). I have also see the building work about to demolish the principle tell mound (similar to the hill at Tell Marj) and that is why I am writing here. To get archaeologists like Doug to pay attention and go survey, research and save that archaeological site for world heritage.

If you have archaeological training (and that goes for you too ResidentAnthropologist), shame on you for seeing the evidence [28] and sitting on your hands, or supporting this action. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 17:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd add that now Doug has cleared up the John Neal issue on Pseudoscientific Metrology that led me to believe the source was notable, admitted that I do NOT run tours to Aaiha plain yet, understands I fund my research through working 48 hour weeks in a call centre and only support that specific view of O'Briens and not the majority, I withdraw the libellous allegation above. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 05:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Paul Bedson

Welcome to Wikipedia. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(After reading Talk:Measuring_rod at several edits at Megalithic_Yard) It looks like Paul Bedson is trying to insert some fringe ideas into the articles, as if they were accepted scientific ideas, using outdated sources, refusing to consider more modern sources, and sourcing conclusions to sources that don't make those conclusions. Also, a fair amount of original research. Also, he seems to ignore any source that doesn't agree with his own ideas, and pushes any source that is in agreement with his ideas, independently of how good they are, as Tijfo098 points out above. Also, ending the patience of editors who make good edits and who have to clean up after him. He might cause knowledgeable editors to burn out and abandon topics where their work is necessary.

TL;DR: Paul Bedson is fringe POV-pushing. He needs a topic ban from the topic of "measuring-related topics in antiquity", broadly interpreted. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bedson is open about the fact that he is here to promote the ideas of Christian O'Brien who argues that the Sumerians built Stonehenge, Avebury, etc. Alongside this he is adding material about or creating articles about the alleged Megalithic Yard (generally if not always without noting that it is disputed) and has been using DYK to further these claims. He is aware of the difference between mainstream and fringe sources and our policy on reliable sources, including that to do with self-published books. Yet he continues to add sources such as a self-published [29] book on 'Celtic New Zealand' [30] which is both far out fringe as well as SPS (added before this case) and today (to make it more neutral according to his edit summary) another one [31] which is published by the author [32]. He has done some decent non-fringe work (although I haven't checked his sources and sometimes his sources haven't actually said what he thought they did) in areas related to where he thinks Eden was found by O'Brien (he also runs tours in those areas to fund research into the ideas he supports - he's been open about this also). It isn't just measuring related, it's also alignment-related, O'Brien ideas related, etc. I shouldn't have to spend the time I've spent chasing down his sources, trying to make his articles NPOV, making sure DYK isn't used to promote fringe ideas, etc. There are very few editors working in the area of fringe archaeology and yes, it's tiring and discouraging trying to keep this area in line with our policies and guidelines when you have someone like Paul Bedson.

Kharsag is the earliest example - it still has O'Brien fringe stuff -based on articles in a local (to Paul I believe) paper by a journalist who is also a fringe writer [33] - something I discovered while I was making this edit which now makes me doubt it should be used as a source, typical. The original article he created was pure fringe. He's recently created a series of articles which appear to have been created solely to push the Megalithic Yard concept without noting its contentious nature Dalgety bone bead and Patrickholme bone bead for instance. Dougweller (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DougWeller hits all the issues I really dont have much to add other than I support action here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libellous remarks? I'd appreciate it if you would fully retract that claim. Please read WP:NLT. I didn't say you argued that the Sumerians etc, I said you supported O'Brien who does make those arguments. Re-read my comment about improving neutrality, it says " today (to make it more neutral according to his edit summary) another one [34] which is published by the author [35]." You like it, fine. It's self-published thus not a reliable source for this, and probably should come out of the metrology article. I clearly didn't say you ran a tour to Aiha. As for your complaint about 'Beaker People' in the Dalmore Bone article, I don't know why the editor deleted it but it doesn't look as though he had any interest in fringe content being there or not - that edit is irrelevant to the issues being discussed. Dougweller (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are still calling me a liar over your claim I said you ran a tour to Aiha. Perhaps someone else can find where I made that claim and if they can, I'll amend it. You've now stated for the first time that you don't fully support O'Brien (despite linking in the past to a website that does and that has used your work, and saying you are here to get O'Brien's work better known). Fine, but you are still linking to sites with ideas as fringe as his. Dougweller (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citing: ''http://www.paygan.com/eden/maps.html''probably does more to hurt you in this forum than anything Doug or I could really add to the this discussion. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the editors involved on the Talk:Measuring rod discussion, I got tired of dealing with the relentless supply of fringe that was put forth and bowed out. I support action here as well. --AnnekeBart (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Paul Bedson

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

Support formally notifying Paul Bedson- he is indeed pushing a POV and misusing sources. Would endorse a topic ban fairly swiftly if he fails to clean up his act in this area. Courcelles 01:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is persuasive. Since Paul Bedson has not yet been warned under WP:ARBPS the remedies allowed by that decision can't be imposed yet. Agree with Courcelles that we expect to see a halt to the POV pushing and misuse of sources. A warning using the {{uw-sanctions}} template is justified. A reading of Paul Bedson's comments above does not inspire any confidence in his understanding of Wikipedia policy or his willingness to edit neutrally. He views this AE request as "a direct attempt to damage mankind by hindering research into the central Levantine archaeological site of the neolithic revolution in Aaiha." There is not much risk that mankind will be damaged due to the actions here, but we can keep inappropriate material from being pushed into the encyclopedia. EdJohnston (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Given the only remedy available to us is a notification, there's little reason to let this grow moss under its feet. Courcelles 04:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biblbroks

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

Request concerning Biblbroks

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions, particularly article-level 1RR/week imposed here

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

19 April removing iw link, partial revert of this previous edit
23 April commenting out iw link instead of simply removing it, but with same intended effect
[36] related disruption: replacing several iw links with links to non-existent articles
26 April plain revert to version 2
26 April same edit on several other iw links, in effect now a full revert of [37]

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

Editor has stated himself that he is aware of the 1RR restriction and of the fact that he is risking a ban for his edits [38], hence no further warning necessary

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Topic ban on Kosovo

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The lameness of this conflict over interwiki links probably requires some explanation. Biblbroks' edits are motivated by a desire, driven by a pro-Serbian, anti-Kosovo-independence POV, to de-emphasize or hide references to Kosovo as an independent state from the main Kosovo article. The topic was recently split into a main Kosovo article which is nominally about the geographical region, and a Republic of Kosovo article which is about the partly recognised independent state on its territory. Biblbroks is now fighting to hide even the iw-links to all other wikis that haven't followed this model and are still treating both concepts in a single article. There has been an endless deluge of wikilawyering and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT stonewalling about this on the talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[39]

Discussion concerning Biblbroks

How about warning Biblbroks that if he continues to remove interwiki links that he will be banned for one year from editing the Kosovo article? User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is something wrong with trying to control content on other language Wikipedia's. Their business, their problem. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can consider myself warned even if the proposal by User:Fred Bauer is withdrawn. And then oblige to WP:1RR for that article if that is what will be imposed as a conclusion. But since this doesn't actually solve the issue, the issue of whether it is the changing of interlanguage that is a problem or the problem is the control of content of other wikipedias, i think either a discussion at the relevant talk page Talk:kosovo or here should occur. As for me changing the interwikis in the meanwhile, you simply have to choose whether to trust me or not. Best regards, --biblbroks (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let us continue the discussion at Talk:Kosovo and see if there is a productive third opinion. You, Biblbroks, go on at great length, which makes it very difficult to get your point, but there was a point to your edits which are under active discussion. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that. I think i was brief here. And i think it was needed to be elaborate there. Regards, --biblbroks (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Biblbroks

Statement (by) --biblbroks (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Biblbroks

WhiteWriter

I would just love to say that during the wast and highly successful split of the article Kosovo into Republic of Kosovo, Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, and Kosovo, we all had unwritten administrators understanding that 1RR on Kosovo (and all new-old related articles) was temporarily suspended, until stable versions are created. While this edits regarding interwikis where also question of separation and split, it may be understood that that same understanding is under way for this edit too. Nevertheless, per that, and per situation in question, i would propose just a strong warning, as i don't think that situation is that dire that need topic ban. Actually, i think that situation is quite far from that. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 20:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Biblbroks

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

By a remedy authorized in WP:ARBKOS, Biblbroks can be banned from all Kosovo-related articles without further ado if the admins deem it necessary. There is no need for a previous official warning by means of the {{uw-sanctions}} template. I hope that Biblbroks will soon add his own response so we can see if he is open to changing his approach to Kosovo-related articles. The 1RR/week restriction on Kosovo has clearly been violated. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There has been more discussion with this editor at User talk:Biblbroks. Though an apology is good, his admission that he knowingly violated the 1RR rule is puzzling. We need to be assured that he will follow 1RR in the future, will stop adjusting the interwiki links and will stop editing Kosovo-related articles from a nationalist POV. EdJohnston (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Biblbroks does not seem to realize that there is any POV problem with his edits. No admin besides FP has spoken up in favor of a topic ban. It may be necessary to close with a {{uw-sanctions}} warning under ARBMAC and a warning of a one-year topic ban from Kosovo-related articles if Biblbroks continues to remove interwiki links or violates the 1RR/week restriction again. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

talknic

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: No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction and Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

19:38, 27 April 2011 1st revert
17:12, 28 April 2011 2nd revert

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

Warned on 05:25, 3 April 2011 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Block or topic ban.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There are two issues here. First the 1RR violation. Talknic has previously violated 1RR on this article (see my report [40]]) for which he received notification of the case. This is the second time within less than a month.

The second issue is that he has been edit warring against consensus on 1948 Arab–Israeli War for the past week+. And when I say against consensus I mean that three different editors reverted him and an additional 5 said they object to his edit on the talk page, while no other editor supported the change he made 6 times in 8 days. The discussion is here, his multiple reverts can be seen on the article history. Let me know if diffs are necessary. The discussion and history look self explanatory to me.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[41]

Discussion concerning talknic

Statement by talknic

Edit warring goes both ways and is started by someone, for a reason.

The reasons for my being reverted have been rather less than substantial. None have challenged the validity of the source. Consensus is by a familiar and predictable rally and seems to be vaguely based on 'I don't like it'. Were there an actual policy based reason other than the blatant misuse of consensus in order to stop information...

I'll leave the Talk pages to do the rest of the talking. talknic (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning talknic

Result concerning talknic

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

Blocked 31 hours for the 1RR violation. I'll look into the other aspects of this matter when I get some time. T. Canens (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia'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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards