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

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

The scope of a discussion is limited to the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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 other arbcom 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	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352

Edit this section for new requests

Please give a gentle reminder in regards to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2

Resolved

User:DreamGuy's edits at Talk:Jack the Ripper continue to approach, and occasionally cross, the lines drawn by the edit restrictions imposed on him by this RfArb. He is very knowledgeable on the subject and I am not sure I really think a block is appropriate at this time... But I think he needs at least a gentle reminder.

User:Arcayne believes DreamGuy may have used an IP login in bad faith to bolster his position, although DreamGuy denies it. I have not looked at the evidence myself. In any case, DreamGuy is not really adhering to the edit restrictions imposed by the previous arb, and I think at the very least he could use a reminder that his behavior could lead to a block. --Jaysweet 20:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he didn't deny it; he simply evaded answering the question. That way, if he was shown to have been using the account, he couldn't be shown to have lied about it. He has been specifically told not to edit under duplicate accounts, and the one in question, 71.203.223.65 has a substantial history behind it, something you wouldn't ordinarily see with someone who simply forgot to sign in (most IP addresses aren't that static). He's rather screwed up here, as admitting to it is a violation of the RfC and ArbCom restrictions placed upon him, and denying it would get him banned outright. He has even created yet another account using this anonymous account, as seen here, anon 82.38.177.222, who has also contributed to the Jack the Ripper article. So what we are essentially dealing with here is someone who is creating at least two different anonymous IP addresses to edit within the article, and the edits and comments of one (71...) his DreamGuy account eventually defends.

I had noted some of the edit summaries in the last section of the ripper article Discussion regarding unprotection, but here are the specific diffs showing anon user:71's contributions and then DG's reentry under his primary account:

As user:71.203.223.65

August 31, 2007@12:42
September 4, 2007@10:17
September 11, 2007@9:51
September 13, 2007@17:10
September 15, 2007@17:59 - reverting to "last good version"
September 21, 2007@08:32
September 25, 2007@08:52
September 26, 2007@11:46
September 27, 2007@17:08
September 27, 2007@17:10 - created account 82.38.177.222

(posts from anon user 82.38.177.222 occur in this gap - see below for posts to Jack the Ripper article under that anon IP)

As user:82.38.177.222

September 12, 2007@15:56 - this edit is actually vandalsim of the Scrubs (tv series) article
September 27, 2007@16:43
September 27, 2007@16:44

Again, as user:71.203.223.65

September 29, 2007@14:56
October 18, 2007@12:33
October 20, 2007@09.59 - edit summary: "Reverting back to last good version... absolute nonsense that some editor would blind revert changes to approved version of page just out of spite"
October 20, 2007@10:03 - post to my User Talk page, referring to "blind reverts"
October 20, 2007@10;06
October 20, 2007@10:07
October 20, 2007@10:16 - created discussion section entitled "Blind reverting"
October 20, 2007@10:24 - posting replies to own user talk page. Note the similarity in language to that of DreamGuy_2.
October 21, 2007@16:19 - edit summary "reverting back to last good version -- got some editors here who insist upon ignoring long standing consensus out of misplaced ownership or anti-IP editor status or something"
October 21, 2007@16:21 - article discussion attack "not paying attention"
October 21, 2007@16:23 - article discussion again, "blind revert accusations"
October 21, 2007@16:29 - article discussion yet again, referring to 'prior consensus', 'blind reverts', how I need a "crash course" (in editing, I presume), and bizarrely, how the user recalls me and Colin working the article at some point in the past (don't think I was on my watchlist until very recently)
October 21, 2007@16:31 - article discussion again, referring to "prior consensus"
October 21, 2007@16:32 - article discussion again, referring to 'prior concensus' and how colin needed to seek a new consensus, but points out that it "won't happen"
October 23, 2007@14:54 - blanking user talk page of comments and complaints over behavior

At this point, user 71.203.223.65 went silent. During the first of the edits by this anon user, DreamGuy's account was silent (ie., no edits from August 24th until October 22nd), After DreamGuy's account became active, he frequently posted around the same times as user 71..., in one instance only 10-15 minutes apart (here and here).

As the civility of the responses as well as some of the exact wording was utilized by both anon user 71.., and DreamGuy_2, it almost positive that these two users are in fact the same. I have not heard back the results of the CheckUser I filed a few days ago, but considering the backlog, itmight be a while. Repeated requests asking if DG was in fact the anonymous user went specifically unanswered. It should be noted that not all of the diffs of users 82... and 71... are contentious, but it is my reasoned belief that they aren't meant to be such, but instead hidden 'supporters' of DG's edits, to be utilized in providing 'consensus'. However, writing styles as confrontational as DG's are pretty hard to mask, and the similarities between the two are both remarkable and unmistakable.

Additionally, DreamGuy_2 has engaged in edit warring in the article (both under his primary ID and the two anons), reverting the versions of the main article until it was locked by admins. Furthermore, he has continued to make accusations, personal attacks and in generally raising the bar for uncivility. His uncivil behavior and edits under his DG account begin less than 10 days after his ArbCom restriction.

As per his ArbCom restrictions, DG is:

"subject to a behavioral editing restriction. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below."

As well, he has been repeatedly asked by admins and editors to not create alternate accounts to edit from, as per both ArbCom as well his his first and second RfC's.

This continued pattern of uncivility, personal and ad hominem attacks and evasive use of alternate accounts to avoid editorial linkage to his primary account seem to clearly (at least to me) indicate that DreamGuy_2 is aware that he is violating the ArbCom restrictions, and simply tinks himself the smartest guy in the room. Normally, that last part could be applied tomany of us, but when coupled with the lack of respect shown his fellow editors, the edit-warring and the barely-concealed hostility he has for anyone 'daring' to question his edits, it presents a picture of a deleterious and corrosive influence in Wikipedia. I think that blocking is absolutely necessary. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the issue here? There is a lot of general complaining here, but I don't see any links to actual ongoing civility or edit warring problems. If there are any, please supply the relevant diffs. Dmcdevit·t 06:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not being clear. The many above-noted diffs were to point out that DreamGuy_2 specifically created anonymous IP addresses to use while editing within the article Jack the Ripper, and then denied editing using them. His edit summaries under the first anon IP address (71.203.223.65) reverted en masse previous edits by another editor without discussion, using as it's edit summary,"Reverting back to last good version... absolute nonsense that some editor would blind revert changes to approved version of page just out of spite". he then posted to my User Talk page, accusing me of "blindly reverting" his version. this turn of phrase kept recurring under both the anon IP and DreamGuy_2, when he eventually signed in under his primary account. As the anonymous user, he edit-warred with another user and was uncivil in both edit summaries for article edits ("reverting back to last good version -- got some editors here who insist upon ignoring long standing consensus out of misplaced ownership or anti-IP editor status or something") and in the discussion page.

After signing out as the anon users 71.203.223.65 and 82.38.177.222, Dreamguy signed back in to edit Jack the Ripper. The uncivil edit summaries, however, continued: "reverting back to last good version, over the blind revert of an editor who has a long history of wikistalking me", continuing the edit war and eventually violating 3RR (though it became stale before the connection between the anon user and DreamGuy became apparent) through the last mass revert of the article version here which, despite the edit summary, did not occur asa result of discussion agreement. the page was locked a day later until the underlying disputes could be resolved, and extended when the discussion bore no resolution.

I wish I could provide a single diff that would indicate the level of civility displayed in the discussion page, but that would literally be over a dozen instances of digs on other users, assumptions that they "need to learn how WP works", making veiled accusations of collusion with other editors, and so on. It would present a smaller list to provide examples of when he has been civil.

While DG provides a lot of insight into the subject of Jack the Ripper, his behavior there is toxic, driving away and intimidating other editors. i approached the article determined to give DG a chance to redeem himself and acted politely and civilly towards him. It has been tedious to sidestep his personal attacks and uncivil behavior. Wikipedia is supposed to be fun, and he simply sucks all of the fun out of editing in the article - in any article - he contributes to. He is not reverting and being uncivil to simple vandals; he is behaving to editors who are contributing in good faith to the article - or at least, trying to do so before being reverted by DG or his anonymous IPs.

The ArbCom and double RfC in specifically addressing DreamGuy's behaviorhave restricted his behavior, enjoins him to be more civil in his interactions with other editors - a unanimous decision from ArbCom. After looking at his behavior from before the RfC's and ArbCom and after, I find no improvement of his behavior. I see no real attempt to be civil, polite, and his personal attacks litter and gum down the discussion page, as others address them instead of focusing on the article. I see no attempt to reign in what appears to be a consistent patern of uncivil behavior, of ownership of articles he contributes to, specifically Jack the Ripper (where he claims to be an expert, a "Ripperologist", dismissing and berating the comments of 'amateurs').

He has created at least two anonymous IP accounts (that we know of) to edit in the same article to provide a false consensus for his views, and has argued unremittingly (without a single example of compromise) for a version of the article which he has made twice as many edits as any two other editors combined. He has used these accounts to sidestep the ArbCom decision, evidenced by his uncivil behavior as the anonymous IP, and edit-warring and 3RR violation by reverting the article under both the anonymous IP addres and as DreamGuy.

This is someone who has had almost two dozen editors contribute to two different RfCs and an actual ArbCom interaction, complaining about his behavior. this is someone who was specifically told in no uncertain terms that his behavior needed to improve or else. Are the actions described above the actions of someone attempting to modify or attenuate their behavior? From even a cursory examination of just the Ripper article discussion, it is clear that DreamGuy_2 sees no reason to heed ArbCom's rulings and in fact considers them to be a 'club' to be feared. He has not learned how to work with others. He chooses not to learn how to work with others. Wikipedia only works when people works together, and when two dozen, long-time, editors with solid backgrounds say that this guy is toxic, then its time to consider that maybe they are right. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of a specific diff that shows DG going way over the line is why I was hesitant to make this report in the first place. In fact, his present behavior is only worrisome in the context of the previous ArbCom ruling: He was warned to pay particular attention to civility and personal attacks. I have not seen him break WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA in a manner which I would normally consider reportable -- but at the same time, in terms of the good faith editors I come in contact with, he would probably rank in the bottom quartile in terms of his level of civility and respect for other editors. Given the previous ArbCom ruling, I found that troubling.

I don't know, I'm starting to reconsider the original report. I just wish I knew how to make DG chill out a little bit! --Jaysweet 16:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that DG wasn't aware of the enforcement complaint at the time of its filing. I've remedied by notifying him via all three accounts (Dreamguy_2's, User:71.203.223.65 and User:82.38.177.222). I just noticed that DG had not responded here as of yet, and went a-looking. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who has looked at my edits I am bending over backwards to try to be civil, even in the face of many rude comments, assumptions of bad faith, and so forth, by User:Arcayne and User:Colin4C as a result of differences in opinion over the article Jack the Ripper, for which they cannot gain consensus (in fact they don't even seem to support each other on the topics they feel most strongly about). User:Colin4C said straight out that he doesn't consider my opinions valid and tried to use the ArbCom ruling as justification for why others should ignore me as well, while User:Arcayne seems to be taking a slightly different tack, for example claiming that I am using sockpuppets to try to get a false consensus when the actions of the IP addresses he is trying to connect with me couldn't possibly be construed as sockpuppet behavior, and trying to claim that my saying he had blind reverted the article is a personal attack when he himself admits that he reverted and didn't care what errors and so forth were included in the revert as long as it undid what I had done. Jaysweet seems very well intentioned here, but I think the biggest reminder that I need to always stay civil is that certain people are watching me like a hawk. Certainly ArbCom decision to encourage civility should not be used like a club, it should be a reminder that everyone needs to meet those standards. DreamGuy 23:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I find disconcerting about this response by DG is the presumption that anyone who disagrees with his edits must be working in concert against him (ie, the noting that we don't even 'support each other's edits'). It has already been shown that you have edited under these IPS addresses (and continue to do so with at least one of them). that you choose to evade admitting it as well as the information above pretty well indicates that you have ingored completely the strongly-worded RfC that specifically enjoined you from creating and editing under different accounts int he same article. Had you meant to use them as dopplegangers, you would have readily admitted to them. That you were uncivil in the same articleas anonymous user 71. that you normally edit in as DG, and you reverted the version of both, violating 3RR indicates a clear attempt to avoid the ArbCom restriction on uncivil language and behavior. Edit-warring, unless something has changed drastically, is considered uncivil, is it not?

While it has been explained on at least five different occasions that the revert was to stabilize the article from the edit-warring going on, wherein you were at risk for being blocked for 3TT and /or edit-warring. My edit summary said as much, and strongly urged you to discuss your edit differences. As it successfully ceased the behavior, i considered it then (as I do now) an intervention by a neutral party, and not some contribution to the feud between yourself, Colin and anyone else who apparently disagrees with you.

ArbCom isn't being used like a club, DG. Were you civil and polite and didn't edit-war, ArbCom couldn't be able to find fault with you. These violations aren't pulled from whole choth, they are examples that you have failed to learn from over a dozen experienced editors who have given you several chances to adapt your behavior to 'play and work well with others'. Unfortunately, you haven't learned that lesson, and that is specifically why the ArbCom restrictions on your behavior feel like a club. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really have no interest in replying at length here, but anyone who looks at my edits versus your claims will see that there's nothing to your complaint. There was no sockpuppeting, there absolutely were no 3RR violations, you can't rationalize your own edit warring via blind reverting out changes made by many different editors to restore it to an older version which never had any consensus as an attempt "to stabilize the article" because it most certainly did not, and so forth and so on. And I certainly never said ArbCom restrictions themselves were a club, just that certain people seem to be using it as if it were a weapon and not for the purpose they were intended. DreamGuy 17:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there was no edit-warring on my part. I edited to create a cease-fire fromthe edit-warring and to bring you and colin to the discussion page. It was successful in doing so. I certainly didn't involve myself in what amounted to a lame dispute over a consensus that clearly did not and does not exist. Consensus not a static thing. While Colin was incorrect to edit-war, your edit-warring in return makes you just as incorrect, and its notable that he wasn't under Arbcom restriction to refrain from such activity - you were.

So I am clear as to your contentions, you are stating unequivocally that you have not edited Jack the Ripper under accounts (including anon IPs) other than your DreamGuy_2 account? As well, as you also unequivocally stating that you have not acted uncivilly and have not edit-warred over versions under two different accounts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 20:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the silence from DG speaks volumes. Even now, when presented with proof of his use of alternate IDs to edit uncivilly (or to use another term, 'sock-puppeting'), he refuses to admit or apologize for their usage. - Arcaynet (^{cast a spell}) 19:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I do not believe 82.38.177.222 was a sockpuppet of DG. I'm not sure about the other IP though... There were definitely some red flags.

I think we can take this off the AN/AE noticeboard at this point. I don't think any admin feels we've presented evidence that is worthy of an enforcement, and I'm having second thoughts as well. I am starting to think what we really need is an RFC to get more eyes on the Jack the Ripper article. Right now, Arcayne and DG can both very correctly argue that the other does not have consensus behind them ;) --Jaysweet 19:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see long winded arguments to punish DreamGuy, but no conclusive diffs. If you see a negative activity that you can present concisely with diffs, feel free to report it here. If you suspect sockpuppetry, WP:SSP is thataway, and so is WP:RFCU. Otherwise, find some other sport besides trying to get DreamGuy banned or blocked. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You see only that, do, do you? Splendid. Thank you for the suggestion of SSP; I've since filed. I thought I had filed a Checkuser, but apparently not. I shall pursue that avenue as well to provide foundation for this complaint.

As for your rather unfair assertion that I consider this sport, perhaps you might 'agf' just a wee bit and realize that I would much rather be spending my time doing something else, instead of repeatedly pointing out that which both the RCFU and the SSA are going to clearly illuminate in short order. I guess I can wait until those results are in, at which time I will be able to point out specific uncivility on the part of the anonymous users that DG has chosen to use as socks, and that he used those accounts to commit vandalism and post uncivil comments and attack other users, sidestepping the ArbCom restrictions. Even though it appears (from a quick scan of DG's user talk page) you are clearly defending him and his edits, I certainly hope you are going to consider yourself neutral enough to render an honest opinion in the matter. However, I will do what you have chosen not to do for me; I will presume your good faith.

As soon as I hear back from RFCU and SSP, i will post the results here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy blocked, case review requested

I've blocked DreamGuy initially for one week for abusive sock puppetry, incivility, and edit warring. I am requesting a review of the sanctions because there are additional factors that ArbCom was unaware of. I recommend increasing the length of the block, and also a checkuser to confirm what appears to be an obvious case of sockpuppetry. See ANI thread and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dreamguy 2. - - Jehochman ^Talk 13:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you need to specify what you felt was abusive sock puppetry, incivility, and edit warring, with concise evidence. This modus operandi might be good enough if and/or when Durova becomes an arbitrator, but, for now, do feel yourself obliged to remain empirically-grounded. El_C 16:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI thread and SSP report contain the evidence. I didn't repeat everything here, but can if the committee asks. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the organization? The coherence? The intelligibility? Please reference your claims. El_C 17:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no statement to make about that, but it appears that if the IP was DG when logged out, he violated 3RR pretty badly. I would have expected a blocking admin to wait for RFCU to work out, given that it would almost certainly be conclusive in the case of what appears to be a static IP, but given DG's refusal to deny that the IP is him, it is at least understandable in that light. I expect that ArbCom will wait for the results of a RFCU before pronouncing on the block, if at all. Relata refero 19:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you submit no evidence "he violated 3RR pretty badly." At least Jehochman sends me elsewhere for non answers. El_C 20:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The supposed evidence is the "elsewhere" that Jehochman sent you. I intended to submit no evidence, merely clarifying the accusation. Relata refero 21:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would only have meant you pasting four links, to prove your claim of a 3RR breach. But if you won't ,you won't. El_C 23:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read the above sentence. I made no claim. attempted to clarify the accusation for your convenience, which last will henceforth be a matter of complete indifference to me. Relata refero 06:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Sorry, I was out to dinner; here are the 3RR difftimes El C has asked for:

1st revert: 16:19, October 21, 2007 as 71.203.223.65 (talk · contribs)
2nd revert: 13:50-13:59, October 22, 2007 as DreamGuy
3rd revert: 14:00, October 22, 2007as DreamGuy
4th revert: 14:12, October 22, 2007 as DreamGuy

I am aware that the reverts are a bit stale. Until we were aware of the connection of DreamGuy to the anonymous editor 71.203.223.65 (talk · contribs), it was assumed that DreamGuy had only made 3 reverts (which he was warned about at the time). It now appears that he was using the anonymous IP in an hostile manner and to violate 3RR. He has been repeatedly warned about this specific practice of using anon logins to "avoid scrutiny" in other administrative actions (diffs available upon request). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just say that I am very disillusioned with the Wikipedia administrators over the response to this. This does not have to be so complicated. For one, I am absolutely baffled that the RFCU was denied. There are some very serious red flags regarding the edits made by 71.203.223.65, but without the checkuser it is not a slam dunk either way. And without knowing that, nobody here knows for sure whether or not DG has egregiously violated policy.

Jehochman comes into the discussion with what I perceived as a very negative and dismissive attitude, which struck me as particularly unnecessary coming right after I suggested nicely that maybe it should come off the noticeboard. Phrases like "making sport" of this are just going to rile things up.

Then of course, Jehochman becomes a convert and blocks. Now we have El C jumping in with, OMFG, another belligerent and dismissive attitude coming from an admin -- and one I know to be prolific, long-standing, and generally well-respected. Is there something about the noticeboard that turns admins into dicks?!

I'm just very disappointed. Until the admins showed up, this was a fairly level-headed discussion -- even DreamGuy's comments were within reason, and I do not think overly-defensive given that he is being accused here. I dunno, it is just really disappointing to me that the discussion didn't get out of hand until admins participated. I thought we expected better of admins around here. Seriously. --Jaysweet 15:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, El C and I have patched up our disagreements, and I think issues with Arcayne have been resolved as well. Is there something else we can do for you? My advice is to move forward in the spirit of reconciliation. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is good to hear, and I think that is good advice. Sorry for the rant, I just felt like AGF had been a little lacking. Well, really lacking. ;) If everybody is on the same page now, I think we can indeed move forward. I am going to message Arcayne and DG with a proposal regarding this. --Jaysweet 17:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda agree with Jaysweet on this. Sure, i didn't know how to put together the report proper-like, but usually I edit, i don't file admin paperwork. Usually, its the ediors who screw up and the admins have to be the voice of reason; the admins screwed the pooch on this but good. Turning down the ArbCom enforcement complaint because DG wasn't uncivil enough is one thing. Turning it down because its long-winded is stupid. Refusing to perform the RFCU because there is no evidence to proceed is reasonable; refusing to do it because it regards reverts and not uncivility (by dmcDevit) is an utter cock-up; since when do we stop checkusers on people who use it to edit-war? In a smarter world, Dmdevit would have simply waited until the checkuser came back. In a smarter world, I would have filed the report without waiting to hear back from someone who was stalling for time, and gotten help to file it the right way.

Since it isn't a perfect world, I guess there is nothing left to do but get back to business as usual. Of course, DreamGuy does is getting a mulligan on this, but that's okay. If he hasn't learned his lesson, he'll be back here again. If he has, then all the better. I'll cross my fingers ad go back to editing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Giovanni Giove

Hi.
Hereby I report that user:Giovanni Giove has breached its one-year edit restriction, as decided by Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dalmatia.
As You can see from the history of editing of article Jakov Mikalja [[1]], Giovanni Giove has not given any explanation of his actions. All he did was moving of the talkpage to its version. His edit from 18 Oct 2007 [2], in 13:12.
On the article page, he did four edits (these edits are reverts) on 18 Oct 2007 [3] in 13:12 (moving), [4] on 13:15, [5] in 13:16, [6] in 13:24.
He again ignored other users' contributions, repeated his behaviour pattern shown and described in the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dalmatia/Evidence, for which he was "punished".
I don't want to engage in the edit/revert war. I've given a bunch of material on the article talkpage. I don't know what to do anymore.
Please act as Wikipedia policies say (remedies, enforcements and blocks).
Sincerely, Kubura 07:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note

User:Giovanni Giove

This matter concerns the final decision of the Dalmatia Arbitration Committee and its final decision (here [7]) wich restricted User:Giovanni Giove and myself to "one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism)", and it is required we discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
With this final decision not one week old, User:Giovanni Giove has already made, not one or two, but a little under two dozen reverts of varying size in the Marco Polo (history page: [8]) and Dalmatian Italians articles (history page [9]).
In the Dalmatian Italians article (besides reverting more than once) he also made no attempt whatsoever to discuss his edits, and the discussion page does not have a single explanation of these numerous reverts and provocative edits ([10]).
In the Marco Polo article he quite flagrantly ignored the instructions of the ARBCOM and reverted on several occasions this week (on the same article).

(To whom it may concern,) I edited as well on a few occasions myself, but (as per instructions) i made only one revert per week per article, along with a thorough discussion each time ([11], [12], [13], [14]).
DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia was up because of continual edit wars and a few unresolved RFC's in several Dalmatia related articles. In all cases User:Giovanni Giove was an iniciator of discussions but concentrated more on his "outistic" editing of the articles and constructively absent in the talk pages. A person totaly blind for sources presented by others. Zenanarh 18:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin response He made a lot of changes, but so far what I saw was editing, not reverting. If you disagree, you can revert (once per week) and then try to discuss the substance of the changes on the talk page. If you believe he has been reverting to previous versions, please show diffs of the old version and the reverts, because I didn't see his edits as reverts. Thatcher131 13:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Thatcher131, take a look again.

I gave those diffs above, 6 days ago (these deal with article Jakov Mikalja and Talk:Jakov Mikalja). These are from 18 Oct, 13:12 (redirecting; in this sense, it's a kind of revert, because the involved parties had disagreements because of the article name) [15] and reverting 13:15 [16], and upgrading of revert/his original research, 18 Oct, 13:24 [17].

See the lines he removed, his removing of adjective "Croatian", as well as his POV-izing/original research/off-topic (section: "Controversy"). In the latter two he also ignored the sources given previously.

Talking about the talkpage of the article Jakov Mikalja (Giovanni Giove must explain his revert actions according to the RFARB decision), user Giovanni Giove gave no explanation till this very day, 30 Oct (12 days have passed and no admin reaction yet!?). And he was supposed to promptly give the explanation (!?!). All he did was the redirect of the talkpage [18] (see the history of the talkpage changes [19]). In other words, revert warring even on the talkpage.

Other parties substained from edit warring, although Giovanni Giove persisted in his upgrade of his original work (e.g. here [20], on 29 Oct, in which he ignored all previously given sources on the talkpage).

That's what I call "edit-slaughter". We, obedient users are idiots, because we obey the rule and tolerate the propagandist/vandalic/trollic behaviour and stay calm, while at the same time, Giovanni Giove calmly edits "unprotected" article, without any disturbance from opponents that avoid revert actions and edit war and wait the RFARB enforcement/waiting the admins to react.

Have in mind that Giovanni Giove was blocked (on 24 Sep, 15:47; 72 h block) because of 3RR rule violation (!!!) (see his block log [21]), during arbitration case (where he got his current, too mild, punishment), that dealt with him. Neither proposed remedies, given before Giove's blocking haven't changed his behaviour (4 days before his blocking, one arbitrator already voted for proposed remedies and enforcement regarding Giovanni Giove). Kubura 10:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to say... Giovanni Giove advises me to be more creative, but I feel this is a simple matter. The fact that he did revert is painfully obvious. The diffs are here, the violation is here, the only problem is that it isn't easy to search out the reverts among the million other edits this guy made. I know its a pain, but someone must take the time to do this. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my third reaction on the admin's noticeboard, after the ones from 24 Oct and 30 Oct.

Director gave reports on 26 and 30 Oct.

Zenanarh gave report on 26 Oct.

Has any of admins ever read what we wrote on RFARB, on the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia/Evidence page ?

Regarding Jakov Mikalja case, as I see, Giovanni Giove is 15 days overdue (today is 02 Nov), more than 2 weeks. And he was supposed to give explanation on the talkpage promptly, according to the explicit and strict order of the Arbitration Committee. We have rules on Wikipedia.

He repeated his behaviour in which he removes all adjectives "Croatian" (replacing it with some amorphous or Frankestein adjectives, despite the scanned original documents, that point exactly to terms Croatian and Croat), and/or when he tries to lessen any connection of Mikalja with Croats. Just compare the history pages between other users and him. His edits weren't the "upgrading edit", that was ordinary revert. Compare the versions. See his previous reverts.

This is not a place to explain why is his contribution full of POV's, original research and misrepresentations, as well as his anti-Croat attitude, I (and others) have given a bunch of explanation on the talkpage of article Jakov Mikalja previously (the same talkpage that Giovanni Giove ignores since for 09 July 2007, that's almost four months, or 116 (one hundred and sixteen) days!).

Honorable admins, Yours task is to act as rules require. Sincerely, Kubura 14:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giove's recent vandalistic behaviour on the talkpage

On 6 Nov 2007 in 11:05, user Giovanni Giove has deleted my explanations on the talkpage of Jakov Mikalja [22]. He deleted them the very same day I've posted them (my message was from 10:44).
Giove's comment was "deleted insults and personal attacks)".
This is the text that Giovanni Giove deleted "19 days have passed since Giovanni Giove violated the decisions from the Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dalmatia/Proposed_decision). See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dalmatia#Remedies and section Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dalmatia#Enforcement
- Since then, other users have abstained from editing. Giovanni Giove abused that for his editslaughter.
- Because of repeated ignorant behaviour of user Giovanni Giove (described in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dalmatia/Evidence), I've restored the version before Giove's violation of RFARB decisions. ".
It's a shame that admins allow Giove to pull all other users (including admins) by the nose. Kubura 07:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here're Giove's reverts and undiscussed and unexplained POV (and original work) actions exposed on the talkpage (and described on the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dalmatia/Evidence.
Talk:Jakov_Mikalja#Giove.27s_unexplained_reverts.2C_trolling_and_vandalisms_since_RFARB.
To remind you, since his first (undiscussed and unexplained) revert (18 Oct), 20 days have passed, several user reports, no admins reaction yet. Kubura 11:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting MichaelCPrice for violation of ArbCom restriction

I reported a revert violation by MP today to AN/I along with diffs.

Michael Price has violated an editing restriction imposed by ArbCom for sustained edit-warring Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ebionites#MichaelCPrice_restricted. MP reverted content on the Tachyon article without discussing it on the talk page as required by ArbCom. [23] [24]

The change was not discussed on the talk page per the ArbCom directive. A note was placed on MPs talkpage by the responding admin, Sam Blacketer. I was informed this report should have been filed here instead. My apologies. Ovadyah 21:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting BKWSU Core IT PR Team for violation of ArbCom restriction

Following on from meatpuppet and WP:OWN findings at a recent Suspected Sockpuppet report; [25]

Suspected meatpuppets acting for the BKWSU Core IT PR Team on the BKWSU Wikipedia page again.

Bksimonb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Riveros11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Appledell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Evidence

Looking through the history of the topic on the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University, there seems to be a distinct theme of ownership WP:OWN being exhibited by not just active members of the religious movement but even dedicated organizational IT PR Team members. Over the last few days prior to having the page locked, I attempted to add a number of citations, quotations to citation and make neutral typographic and tagging correction only for them to be identically reverted under the guise of "Vandalism". [26] by the BKWSU team members.

Although I am sure that these are separate individuals, I suggest that this is clear as possible an example of dedicated meatpuppetry. WP:SOCK states that in such cases, such individuals should be treat the same as sockpuppets.

User:Bksimonb states that he is an official BKWSU IT PR team member [27]. In a previous Arbcom decision, [28] and user page, [29] it was disclosed that User:Riveros11 was also part of the team and confirmed puppeteer [30]. I suspected that single user account User:Appledell is also. Both exhibit a trend of following the leadership of User:Bksimonb. In the arbcom case, it was stated that there was "clear evidence of article ownership".[31]

reverts back to Bksimonb version [39]

Both User:Bksimonb [40], User:Riveros11 and User:IPSOS [41] have filed disproportionate report of vandalism, personal attacks, checkusers, sockpuppetry complaints regarding the BKWSU page, included some while logged out so they do not appear in the contribution history of the named account, apparently to intimdate any user contradiction the organization's position, even those well known not to be socks by other editors.

Even when I have placed extensive documentation and justification of change I see no where else, [42] it is dismissed by IPSOS by a oneliner say it is not "discussion" [43].

With all independent contributors intimidated off, the discuss and article remains virtual fallow, e.g. 3 edits in two months; [44]

(To avoid any counter-accusation, I recently required to change my user name due to a lost password but have reported this).

I have stated clearly that I know these individuals are separate but that I can substantiate in detail a collusion between the BKWSU IT PR Team (currently Bksimonb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Riveros11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Appledell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) over the control of this topic. This is meatpuppetry and it has gone on for too long. Unfortunately, I do not know of where else to report meatpuppets.

I consider that Reneeholle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been brought into this out of goodwill but is aping the main team. It would appear that IPSOS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is very skilled in the use of Wikipedia accusation, e.g. aggressive sockpuppet accusations to other known, long term contributors and new editors [45], [46]. and attacks to manipulation. Perhaps he just enjoys provoking other editors to achieve control by way of WP:3RR. Tend to use uncivil language and insults such as "idiot" and "bullshit" by way of intimidating [47].

My own recent edits to page consitently WP:3RR-ed

AWachowski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

--AWachowski 01:25, 14 November 2007 (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]