Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/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 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	332	333

Jaqeli

Jaqeli is topic-banned from everything that is related to both Armenia and Georgia. Sandstein 14:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Jaqeli

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Hablabar (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, as per AA2 general sanctions public notice

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

2 January 2014 Resumed edit warring, refused to use talk pages for explanation. False claim of removal of sourced info in edit summary.

14 December 2013 Continued edit warring, reverted same passage and refused to use talk pages for explanation

13 December 2013 Display of battleground attitude

13 December 201 Display of battleground attitude

13 December 2013 Continued edit warring, reverted same passage and refused to use talk pages for explanation. Unexplained revert that sized back the image of alphabet

10 December 2013 Display of battleground attitude in summary

5 December 2013 Display of battleground attitude in summary. Reverted contentious passage, refused to use talk pages for explanation

4 December 2013 Display of battleground attitude in summary. Reverted contentious passage, refused to use talk pages for explanation

4 December 2013 Display of battleground attitude in summary. Reverted contentious passage, refused to use talk pages for explanation

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

Warned on 2 January 2014 by Hablabar (talk · contribs)

Warned on 9 December 2013 by Yerevantsi (talk · contribs)

Warned on 4 December 2013 by Hablabar (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User:Jaqeli has been edit warring in the article Georgian alphabet in 2013 an 2014, reverting the edits of four other editors: Hablabar, Хаченци, Roses&Guns and Zimmarod. It seems he tries to WP:OWN the article by reverting passages he does not like, without explanation, and displays WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude on talk pages and in edit summaries. He was warned several times to no avail.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notification filed

Discussion concerning Jaqeli

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

Statement by Jaqeli

Hello dear admins and sorry for late respond. First of I am glad that the Georgian alphabet article got finally your attention indirectly but still and I hope that from now on you'll be watching this article very closely as it gets very often vandalised by the Armenian wikipedians as they are trying 24/7 to push their nationalistic agenda on this very article. I want to go deep into this issue and inform you a bit more about it. All these users that user Hablabar listed are Armenian wikipedians and all of them try to simply push the nationalistic agenda on the Georgian alphabet. This is not a surprise for most Georgians as if anyone who is familiar with the history of Caucasus and this region and the Georgian-Armenian relations he will understand this nationalistic pushings from their side very well. I'd like you to know that the issue concerning the Georgian alphabet is very important for them and that's why majority of the users editing this article are Armenians. Armenian children at schools are brought up with that knowledge that their national hero Mesrop Mashtots created for us an alphabet. For example if you go to the Matenadaran which is their some kind of manuscripts center you will be directly told that it was Mesrop who created the Georgian alphabet and so on. Again this is not a surprise for me at all, but spreading such kind of lies on the international arena is unacceptable. This article for years is being vandalised by various users and this kind of behaviour needs to be ended once and for all. The origin section of the article gets messy all the time and it needs to be on high alert from the wikipedian admins and I do really hope that from now on you will monitor all the edits done by any user. Everything should be done for protection of this article from further disruption. Please see also the article Mesrop Mashtots here. It proudly states:

“

He is also known for his contribution to invention of the Caucasian Albanian and Georgian alphabets.

”

Another typical nationalistic pushing from our neighbours. It states something which is not an established fact and never was. If you will see the article of Georgian alphabet in Armenian wikipedia you'll meet Mr. Mashtots inpictured there by stating directly who the creator of the Georgian alphabet is. I want you to know that the Georgian alphabet is not the only one thing which is claimed by the Armenian side. To know these kind of things one should know the history of this region deeply to understand.

As for the article itself. I want to note that I've improved the article greatly with sources, cleaned the sections, improved the histories of three scripts and none of them ever were disrupted. The only thing which needs to be monitored very closely is the Origins section of the alphabet which gets vandalised in a constant manner. Also the current version which is in the origins section is not mine but was done by the User:Susuman77 who indeed in a balanced and neutral way rewrote the origins section so I am not messing with it around. What I did I just reverted it back to the user Susuman's version which was removed and changed by the Armenian users with their nationalistic needs. Again, I do hope that the admins will closely monitor the article and it will be protected from now on. Thank you. And happy new year to you all. Jaqeli (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked again to comment here. Honestly I don't think there is anything I can add as I've said everything. I just want to note that none of my edits ever were of disruptive manner as I am here for contribution for Wikipedia only. I suggested to the user Hablavar to see what the edit-war actually meant because if you see the history of the Georgian alphabet I haven't edit war but just improved the article and reverted 1 edit back to the original state as it was back then before it's neutral and balanced version was changed. I am on Wiki for improvement and contribution of articles and what I've posted above I don't think was in any way offensive for anyone as it is the truth in many ways. Thanks. Jaqeli (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Richwales

Although there was a history here of edit-warring involving Jaqeli — over the question of how to deal with two competing claims for the origin of the Georgian alphabet (an Armenian origin supported by most scholars, and an indigenous Georgian origin dismissed by most scholars as being legendary) — the current set of edits by Jaqeli (see this series of edits) doesn't really seem to me to be objectionable along those lines. One valid point Jaqeli has made in his current edits is that, although two sources (Rapp and Haarmann) have been cited to support the claim that the Georgian alphabet was created in the early 5th century AD, the Rapp source says in fact that "all three Caucasian scripts were fashioned ... in the second half of the fourth century or early fifth century". So Jaqeli's changing the paragraph starting with "The scholarly consensus points" to indicate both "4th century AD" (citing Rapp) and "at the latest in the early 5th century" (citing Haarmann) seems to have merit. Whether an earlier failure to make this distinction clear qualifies as "removal of sourced info" (Jaqeli's edit summary for this diff) — or whether Jaqeli was thinking of some other issue, not obvious to me at the moment, when he used this particular edit summary language — may be up for debate.

I will also note that a source which was removed by Jaqeli's latest edits — a mention of The Routeldge Handbook of Scripts and Alphabets, saying that "like the Armenian [alphabet], the Georgian is clearly based on a Greek model" — appears relevant to me, and I'm not sure why Jaqeli removed it. Generally speaking, I'm impressed that Jaqeli's latest edits did not upset the existing consensus (see this version just before Jaqeli's latest editing), which stated that the Georgian tradition ascribing the invention of the alphabet to the 3rd-century-BC king Pharnavaz I is rejected by scholarly consensus. Given Jaqeli's past record, I do think he needs to work especially hard on being more careful in explaining his editing and seeking genuine consensus with others working on this and other articles with him. However, this particular set of edits by Jaqeli do not seem to me to justify AE action at this time. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Yerevantsi: I don't think it's in dispute that much of Jaqeli's past behaviour has been disruptive. However, since the aim of any sanctions should be preventative rather than punitive, I think it's important for us to focus most closely at this time on Jaqeli's current behaviour. If his current behaviour shows the same objectionable, disruptive actions now that have plagued Jaqeli's record in the past, then the old stuff is indeed relevant. However, if Jaqeli's behaviour has in fact improved, we should concentrate primarily on that. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hablabar: I didn't say that Jaqeli's behaviour has improved. I said that if Jaqueli's behaviour has improved, we should concentrate primarily on that fact and not on older actions. And my comment about how sanctions are supposed to be preventative and not punitive is accepted on Wikipedia as a general truism (see WP:PUNITIVE). I'm not trying to babysit or coddle Jaqeli; I'm only saying that if we are going to find him in violation of AA2 and sanction him on that basis, we need to do so on the basis of reasonably current misbehaviour on his part — and, in my opinion, Jaqeli's most current work cited in this complaint does not appear to satisfy that standard (though I will acknowledge that others might not agree with me on this). It may be that his earlier activity (even though 3+ weeks old) is sufficient for taking action, but in that case, the case for AE sanctions should be based specifically and explicitly on that earlier activity, and (IMO) not on the most recent set of edits. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Yerevantsi

Jaqeli has made a number of offensive comments. The one I can recall right now is "No more Armenian fairy tales here", referring to the claim (supported by several non-Armenian academic sources) that Mesrop Mashtots, the inventor of the Armenian alphabet invented or made contribution to the invention of the Georgian alphabet.

He went on to call it "the most funny joke in the region" on 22 Sep 2013.

On December 5, 2013 he simply removed the Russian and Ukrainian names of Sergei Parajanov, an Armenian filmmaker from Georgia who lived in the Soviet Union, where Russian was the official language and many of his films are in Russian and Ukrainian. With no edit summary, he replaced it with his Georgian name (no objection here, since he has several movies in Georgian and was from Georgia). This is disruptive. --Երևանցի ^talk 01:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Richwales: My comment is for uninvolved administrators. Let them decide what matters and what doesn't. Thanks. --Երևանցի ^talk 01:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hablabar

@Richwales. First off, I do not have the impression that User:Richwales fully understands what AA2 imply. Your comment that "Jaqeli's behaviour has in fact improved" and "since the aim of any sanctions should be preventative rather than punitive" are not in line with the logic of AA2 environment in which this article had been placed because of editors like Jaqeli. Please do not babysit someone who has been trying to WP:OWN the text and repeatedly attack other editors. Hablabar (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc. It is difficult to accept User:Callanecc's proposal. Jaqeli's defense statement is as inappropriate as any statement can possibly get, especially in the AA2 environment. Hablabar (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dougweller

I wish User:Elockid was around, but he's been away for a while now. He unblocked Jaqeli when Jaqeli accepted the standard offer - his promise to behave is here.[1] Elockid found it necessary to warn him in late November and even suggested a 1RR restriction might be necessary if his behavior continued.[2] I'm disturbed that Jaqeli hasn't responded here, and that his behavior since the unblock has not lived up to his promises. He's skating close to the edge, and sometimes over it, and that isn't acceptable. He's posted a bit to talk pages but I don't see him entering into a full discussion of his edits. I'm dithering between suggesting a 1RR restriction now and postponing a decision, but his lack of participation doesn't really show the attitude that we need in this area so if I have to choose I'd support something like a 1RR restriction. Dougweller (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jaqeli last edited less than 20 minutes ago. If EdJohnston's post to his talk page gets no response and he continued to edit, I see no point in waiting any longer. Dougweller (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a quick look at the content when I last edited it[3] and the origins section of today's version appears to be much less pov than the history section (change of section name) of that version. I note that the last two editors are User:Maunus and User:Kwamikagami whose comments would be valuable, so pinging them. Dougweller (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been following Jaqeli's individual edits. The history section at the time of Maunus's edit, after multiple edits by Jaqeli, appears at first glance to be reasonably balanced. (Though the final paragraph is pretty bad.) Some sort of Armenian and Greek influence seems to be likely, though as of the last I heard, no-one was sure what they might have been. From a completely OR perspective, it's entirely possible that Georgian predates those, and was restructured under Greek or Armenian influence – Greek sorting order and numerical values may have been applied to an existing script, or some Greek or Armenian letters may have been borrowed to augment the script, or Armenian calligraphy might have influenced the form of the Georgian script. But as the article currently says, there is no evidence that anything like that actually happened (except maybe the calligraphic influence??), so pending further discoveries we need to be clear that is speculation. Similarly, the role of Mashtots is probably legendary, and since it's an Armenian rather than Georgian creation myth, it probably shouldn't be given too much credence.

As for Jaqeli's behaviour, I find discussions with him frustrating (I can ask him to explain a claim five times, and never get an answer, but only repeated requests that I justify not accepting his claim, as at Template:World writing systems), but nothing that would warrant a topic ban. For example, *he* came to *me* about that template, asking me for advice, and so could be forgiven a bit of OWNERSHIP; what was frustrating was that he could not offer a good reason for rejecting my advice that the template was unbalanced. Note BTW that the regionalism it displayed benefited Armenian as much as Georgian, at the expense of scripts unfamiliar to the Caucasus, and so presumably simply reflected ignorance of the wider world and in no way indicated any problem in dealing with Georgia's neighbors. Armenia does seem to have a bit of an ownership issue when it comes to the Georgian script, one which is not supported by scholarship, and I can understand how blind parroting of such claims would be objectionable, but of course an NPOV review of the lit should clarify all that. And if Armenian editors are pushing their mythology in an article, I hardly see a problem in pointing that out, though I'm not sure I see the problem with the edit[4] he objects to. My concern would be in substituting Georgian nationalist mythology for the Armenian, but Jaqeli appears to have avoided doing that, at least as the article now stands. — kwami (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EatsShootsAndLeaves

I just have to say that Jaqeli's statement is extremely offensive... blaming "all the problems" on nationalists from another country is in and of itself negatively nationalist. It goes to show the background and genesis of all his on-Wiki issues. Such blame is neither appropriate nor acceptable on this project. ES &L 21:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

Almost immediately after acknowledging he had seen Sandstein's topic ban imposition, he closed a year-old merge discussion on Romanization of the Georgian alphabet by (sort of) merging the articles in question. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Jaqeli

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

Jaqeli has edited since the request, but has not commented here. At first glance, I'm inclined to follow Richwales's assessment, and conclude that a report that contains only one recent diff doesn't seem immediately actionable. That diff is not a model of good editing practice, to be sure (it seems to be a flat revert that reintroduces since-fixed spelling errors such as "archaelogical", and isn't well explained) but on its own it doesn't seem to merit action other than a warning to Jaqeli to make sure to follow good editing practices and avoid edit wars in order to avoid sanctions. But there are indications that Jaqeli's editing is problematic and may require sanctions if it does not improve. The "No more Armenian fairy tales here" comment, for instance, is unacceptable, but it is from September 2013 and as such too stale to sanction now. The discussion at Talk:Georgian alphabet#comparison with Armenian reflects frayed tempers on both sides; please tone it down, everybody, and be mindful of WP:AGF. If there is continued edit-warring on this page, sanctions such as article bans or revert restrictions may need to be considered. Sandstein 22:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On moderate review I agree, but we may see more evidence, I suggest we leave this open for at least the weekend to review and discuss. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the userlinks:

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

Jaqeli has been on Wikipedia since November 2011 and he has an impressive block log. When User:Hablabar filed this complaint, he focused on User:Jaqeli's edits at Georgian alphabet and its talk page. This is not the only problem. There have been wider issues with Jaqeli's Georgian-related edits as you can see per this warning of a possible 1RR issued by User:Elockid in November. (Thanks to User:Dougweller for the information). Jaqeli's response to the warning suggests he doesn't grasp the edit warring policy or know the definition of vandalism, even after two years on WP. A WP:1RR in the domain of AA including Georgian topics would serve to limit Jaqeli's warlike editing in the Georgian area while still letting him make contributions in the area of his knowledge. Jaqeli should also be warned against nationalistic comments on talk and in edit summaries. See also the unblock conditions which Jaqeli accepted last July. Jaqeli has previously edited as User:GeorgianJorjadze, but all his contributions and block log are now under Jaqeli. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No objections. Sandstein 17:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in principle, although I'm not so sure a 1RR restriction will help. It wouldn't really have helped on Georgian calendar for example. However given the unblock conditions and other warnings it looks to me that short of blocks or topic bans 1RR is our best tool. That they haven't made a comment here gives me pause and I'd like to give them more time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 17:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the statement that Jaqeli made today, I recommend that they are instead banned from, as a minimum, everything that is related to both Armenia and Georgia (such as the issue of who developed the Georgian alphabet). Their statement fails to address their own conduct, but is dedicated to casting entirely inadmissible aspersions against a whole group of editors based on their national origin. Derogatory comments about others based on their origin, such as Jaqeli's statements in the vein of "the Armenian wikipedians as they are trying 24/7 to push their nationalistic agenda", "typical nationalistic pushing from our neighbours" and "the Armenian users with their nationalistic needs" are incompatible with WP:AGF and WP:NPA, as well as the principle, as enunciated by the Arbitration Committee in WP:ARBAA2#Wikipedia is not a battleground, that "Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for political struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive and absolutely unacceptable." With this attitude, I can't imagine that Jaqeli can work productively with editors that Jaqeli so denigrates as a group. Sandstein 20:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem that that might be necessary, although given that they have made positive contributions is there another sanction we could impose which would do the job? Perhaps something like probation or supervised editing in a more or less amended version. For example, any non-minor edit must be suggested in a change x-to-y format on the talk page of the article. If there are no objections in a few days they can make the edit, otherwise they must discuss and come to agreement first? I've also left them a message asking them to revisit their statement. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just clarifying and saying a bit more, if Jaqeli doesn't take my suggestion on their talk page and make changes their statement whenever they are next active (though I would expect in the next 36 hours), I would support a topic ban as Sandstein proposed as the only alternative. But I'd like to see if they can understand and suggest some ways to improve, if not then a topic ban is our next option. It might also be worth asking Elockid to comment as to whether he believes Jaqeli has breached the unblock conditions/expectations. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering now Jaqeli's additional statement, in which they confirm their first statement, I'm going ahead with topic-banning Jaqeli as discussed above. I'm leaving this open in the event that any other administrator believes additional or broader measures are needed, and wishes to discuss them. Sandstein 11:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There being no further comments, I'm closing this thread. Sandstein 14:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matthead

Matthead is blocked for two weeks. Sandstein 16:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Matthead

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Volunteer Marek 15:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#2010_2

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

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

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

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

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

Numerous previous warnings.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Self-explanatory and straight forward request.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[5]

Discussion concerning Matthead

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

Statement by Matthead

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Matthead

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

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

Sean.hoyland

This is a content dispute and so is not actionable in this forum, please see WP:DR for steps you can take. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Sean.hoyland

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: 79.182.18.40 (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#SECTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Sean.holyland

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

Statement by Sean.holyland

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Sean.hoyland

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

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

Avaya1

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

Request concerning Avaya1

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Ohc ^¡digame! 20:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Avaya1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General_1RR_restriction

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

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

Version immediately before revert

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

5 January 2014 "Undid revision 589119168 by Ohconfucius – It certainly doesn't make any sense to use his old name in this section"
Second "revert"
6 January 2014 No edit summary

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

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

N/A

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Avaya1

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

Statement by Avaya1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Sepsis

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

Result concerning Avaya1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Baseball Bugs

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

Request concerning Baseball Bugs

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NE Ent 22:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute#Baseball_Bugs_topic-banned

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

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

4 January Commenting in section Sexual preferences of transgendered people

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[6]

Discussion concerning Baseball Bugs

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

Statement by Baseball Bugs

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

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

Statement by Medeis

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Baseball Bugs

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

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

[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