Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive72

Hammer of Habsburg

Blocked 1 week for 1RR violation and warned with respect to ARBMAC discretionary sanctions.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Hammer of Habsburg User requesting enforcement — kwami (talk) 02:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Hammer of Habsburg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated WP:ARBMAC (article currently at 1RR) Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [1] (first revert, the limit per ARBMAC) [2] (second revert, violating 1RR) [3] (third revert) Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) HH has been blocked twice for violating 1RR on this article.[4] Chipmunkdavis warned HH to self-revert the third time.[5] Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) whatever you feel appropriate Additional comments by editor filing complaint HH reverted a line in a text that I was working out with another editor, Chipmunkdavis; we are trying to come up with some text that will resolve some of the objections Croats have about the article. The line was marked 'citation needed', as the point had been in the news but needs confirmation. (Waiting for response from the EU.) — kwami (talk) 02:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [6] Discussion concerning Hammer of Habsburg Statement by Hammer of Habsburg Comments by others about the request concerning Hammer of Habsburg Result concerning Hammer of Habsburg This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Given two fairly recent blocks, I'm blocking for a week. T. Canens (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC) In addition, given that all three 1RR blocks are for edit warring on the same article, under the authority of WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions, Hammer of Habsburg (talk · contribs) is hereby banned from the Croatian language article for one month. They are permitted to edit the talk page. T. Canens (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Striking that, since the user does not appear to have been served with an ARBMAC warning. Done now. The next violation will result in an article ban. T. Canens (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Support block. I'm not optimistic that the editor's behavior will be any different when the block expires, but a topic ban should be the next option to consider. Suggest that the ban should cover all the articles under WP:ARBMAC. EdJohnston (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Concur per T. Canens. --WGFinley (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Marknutley

Consensus was to endorse the block. PhilKnight (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Moved from WP:AN, 20:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED). Appealing user Marknutley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – mark (talk) 11:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Sanction being appealed The current block Administrator imposing the sanction Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification. Statement by Marknutley I think this block is atrocious. There is no justification for a block based on my commenting on an ANI discussion. And most certainly not a two week block for what was essentially a mistake. I suspect those who supported a block did not even look at what i had written at ANI [7] Not even commenting on CC is it? The discussion was including edit events from these. April 2009: ANI discussion which resulted in a block. [10] The block was reduced when he showed remorse and an intent to improve [11]. August 2009: He was again blocked for edit warring [12] and again promised to desist in the future [13]. His block was again reduced[14]. July 2010: Personal attacks [15] (deleted edit), which resulted in a block. October 2010: Petty vandalism [16] when questioned about recent reverts (archived discussion). My block for 3RR on William Connelley. Is my comment really worthy of a two week block, especially as sideaways said he just wanted clarification? I withdrew voluntarily from the CC articles over 6 weeks [8] before the case even finished, and have not touched one since, does this count for naught? come on. mark (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Moved from Mark's talk page to AN. NW (Talk) 18:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC) N.B. No editor who has been a protagonist in the CC fracas should comment here.--Scott Mac 18:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1) Statement by (involved editor 2) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Marknutley Collapsing comments that were made on Marknutley's talk page prior to transfer here. NW (Talk) 18:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC) In a normal case, I'd say this block is borderline. However, given the long-running drama, the admins aren't dealing with a normal situation. The sanction does specifically mention "related processes" which would easily include some ANI's, but whether this specific ANI fell under sanction would have been uncertain without a related precedent. Unfortunately for Mark, he became the trailblazer for the new stance on sanctioned editors in the climate change issue. Mark's participation in the ANI could be construed as reigniting the former battle lines in a new forum, but FWIW, I believe Mark acted in good faith, but may very well have already been in dangerous waters before treading too far out. Without further comment on the validity of the block, I would note that approval of this block certainly establishes a precedent for the sanctioned editors to witness (and I'm sure many of them are interested in the outcome here). A block of this sort sends a thunderously loud message that there are some who are to stay far, far away from commenting on any matters even tangentially related to climate change (with very few exceptions), and that even engaging in any sort of confrontations about climate change will draw scrutiny; this seems to support the goal of the ArbCom ruling (though that's not to say that the block here is definitely right ... or wrong). BigK HeX (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Mark has a long history of testing the limits with regard to sanctions. But in this case he was apparently acting in good faith, commenting on a subject that is only tenuously connected to climate change, and certainly not adding extra heat to the long-running climate change dispute. A block may be necessary to show Mark - and others - how seriously the instruction to avoid climate change-related discussions should be taken, but the length of this block is obviously punitive and does not take into account the (lack of) severity of the transgression or the reasonable room for doubt. It should be reduced to a 24-hr block. Thparkth (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC) It does seem to come down to whether more consideration should be given to the new less-than-tolerant stance on those tempted to approach the Climate Change Gun Line or [forgive me if these is too personal] Mark's penchant for haplessly wandering beyond the safe bounds into the grey area. Mark's voluntary self-ban is a possible mitigating factor, but there's a chance that the need to enforce means that it's still just not enough. BigK HeX (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC) I support the block. While one cannot know intentions, it seems likely that mark nutley chose to become involved in the ANI dispute because of his intention to influence the editing of CC articles. TFD (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC) The CC dispute must end - entirely and completely. Those editors in dispute must stop disputing - entirely and completely. We can manage the CC topic without them, and we can deal with any problematic behaviour from any editor involved in that fracas without any comment from other editors involved in that fracas. Our patience is exhausted. Editors who have been causing the problems need to go totally out of their way to bodyswerve any discussion that's even remotely related. Editors failing to get this, or pushing anywhere near the boundary of it, take the consequences on their own heads. Zero-tolerance. Does Marknutley get this? If he does, then perhaps we can remove this block - but it is the last time for any lienancy.--Scott Mac 18:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC) One of the main reasons I agreed on the block is that while Mark is generally well-meaning, he has no concept of where the boundaries are. HE pushed the limits of prior sanctions that had been placed upon him, and it is likely that this fiasco is another attempt to do that. This, it is apparant that he doesn't get it, and the block is necessary. The WordsmithCommunicate 19:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC) This appeal is in the wrong place. Per WP:ARBCC remedy 1.2, sanctions may be appealed "to the appropriate noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement)". I recommend that somebody move it there.  Sandstein  20:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Since he was blocked as a result of an AE report, I feel that it would be unfair to make him appeal to the same noticeboard. But it looks like it doesn't matter. NW (Talk) 20:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Well, the instructions are pretty clear. I'll be moving it now.  Sandstein  20:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC) I agree that the action is sanctionable, but I also think two weeks is too much, though. I also find it depressing that from the wide range of possible discretionary sanctions, apparently blocks are the only ones that are ever considered. To me, this seems to be playing to the crowd, not considering what is likely to work well. In particular, Mark has always acted like a rhino in a China shop - without malice, but energetic and potentially destructive. I don't think a block alone is able to change this. What is needed is a clearer explanation of the limits, as e.g. possible with the power to enact a stricter topic ban as enabled by the discretionary sanctions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC) I am not seeing any cogent argument that the block was improper, nor any good reason the block shouldn't be concluded. Sometimes it sucks to be the first person to get one's knuckles rapped for being over the line, but that doesn't change the line's position. Jclemens (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC) This was a Wikipedia-related process in line with the wording of the sanction. That said, I can understand what mark thought he was doing (commenting as a member of the community on a sanction discussion which was not really being veered to a specific topic, except by a few users who participated in the CC probation). Newyorkbrad has offered an undertaking to mark at the clarification request so perhaps that will resolve the issue here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Marknutley This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Keep it on and keep taking this exact same approach. The time for any tendency toward leniency is long past. Let this be a message to the rest of the named parties. Come even that close to anything CC related and you will get the same. It's over, you are all topic banned. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC) I agreed to the block as a compromise, and the reason for that block stands. Mark has repeatedly shown he doesn't know where the line is; now all the involved editors know. When he was under a restriction against adding sources, he continually pushed the boundaries of it. It would appear that the case that resulted in this block was another attempt to do so, with the topic ban. I continue to endorse the block. The WordsmithCommunicate 19:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Fully support the block. There was nothing unclear about ArbCom's requirement for the editors sanctioned to stay away from anything involving CC whatsoever. This is a clear message that pushing those boundaries will not be tolerated. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse block - it was quite clear that the 1RR proposal was meant to deal with Climate Change issues, so Mark shouldn't have gotten involved. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Agree with block reason and length. The Community wants the topic banned users to stay completely away from anything related to the subject including all matters that are related. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Just a note, since I didn't see it above: the text of the topic ban can be viewed here. The phrase "[banned from]...participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles" appears to be the key one. Protonk (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse the block, obviously, per my comment at the original AE thread. T. Canens (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Strongly endorse, per Seraphim. --WGFinley (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by William M. Connolley

Appeal denied, no consensus to overturn the AE block. --WGFinley (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is an appeal of the enforcement from the #William M. Connolley section above. Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED). Appealing user William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – William M. Connolley (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Sanction being appealed Banned means leave it alone, entirely. No exceptions. is the one that Beeblebrox has made up. Administrator imposing the sanction Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator [9] WMC is blocked, so I have done this for him. The WordsmithCommunicate 22:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Statement by William M. Connolley The arbcomm sanctions do not apply to a user's own talk page, therefore this block is invalid Statement by Beeblebrox I didn't make anything up. The community and ArbCom have made it clear they want this topic ban interpreted as broadly as possible and that the liberal use of blocks is the preferred enforcement remedy. This kind of testing the waters is exactly what they were warned not to do just last week in the conversation at the ArbCom noticeboard. I was fully prepared to be attacked by WMC's army of fans and apologists over this, but I don't actually see any need for me to repeat myself any further as I have made my position abundantly clear already. I will not be reversing this block. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Statement by Tony Sidaway I'll comment here in clarification because I've been quoted below for my opinion in this discussion, "What does topic banned mean?" At the time, just 12 days ago, I argued that the topic ban didn't forbid edits to user talk pages.[10] Having since then seen continued sniping, bickering and bad faith statements on arbitration pages and user talk pages [11] [12] [13] [14] [15], and even links to external discussions of climate change placed by topic banned editors on my own user talk page [16], I've changed my mind, and I've also made efforts to ascertain the opinion of the community and of the arbitrators. There seems to be near unanimity that a problem still exists and that no allowances should be given. My opinion is now completely opposed to permitting the discussion of climate change or any disputes whatever arising from the editing of the topic anywhere on Wikipedia by topic banned editors. It is the continued inappropriate conduct of the topic banned editors that swayed me, particular the efforts by several of those editors to continue their dispute using the medium of various discussions on the problem [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]. This was a self-feeding fire and must be stamped out before it infects more of Wikipedia. If there is an article edit or comment to be made, some non-banned editor can make it--TS 10:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Comment by Merlinme This was a response to the comment by Tony Sidaway above This seems to me to be moving away from whether this block was correct though. Why was WMC not warned? You say yourself that you started off thinking that edits to user talk pages were ok. If the ruling was clarified to exclude this, or consensus moved to exclude this, then WMC should have been told and warned, not instantly given a 2 week block. --Merlinme (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Statement by SirFozzie (moved from down below, sorry about that) Honestly, the best thing in all ways is ALL the topic banned, on both sides WALK AWAY. No attempts to stay in the topic area via efforts On-Wiki, off-wiki, on-WR, email, IM, hell, I'd suggest barring smoke signals if I thought anyone would actually do it. What we're seeing is people who are here for the fight on Climate Change, who the Committee attempted to remove from the area, who the community of administrators are trying to remove from this area, trying desperately to remain in this topic area, NO MATTER THE COST OR THE TACTICS USED. That's not what the encyclopedia needs. That's not what the community wants. Walk away from it here on Wiki. SirFozzie (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Fine. That's perfectly reasonable, and I would advise everyone who was banned to do that. But would you be willing to block someone for doing what WMC did on WR or on a blog? I assume not. Then what's the difference between posting there and on his talk page. NW (Talk) 22:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Because they've been told specifically to disengage on-wiki? SirFozzie (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Let me expand on that. Of course, we cannot control what people do on places outside of Wikipedia (with certain limited exceptions, such as off-WP actions meant to have on-WP effects, such as threats, or as in the EEML case, attempting to stack consensus and target opposing editors). The actions of the Committee members who voted these topic bans in and the administrators who have enforced these bans (on both sides), however, has made it clear that they want to see an absolute clean break between the editors sanctioned and the Climate Change topic area. It reflects poorly on the people sanctioned so far that they cannot accept the situation. SirFozzie (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC) So are you suggesting that topic-banned editors should avoid the subject on WR or other websites, under pain of sanctions against their Wikipedia accounts? I'm not saying that's a bad idea, but there would be a lot to police. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia's policies do not support sanctions for off-Wiki activities, except for those limited exceptions I noted above. I'm not going to state that any potential situation would or would not fall under those limited exceptions (that is for the Committee to decide should any such situations be brought to their attention). Please note, I do not suggest changing those policies to broaden the exeptions, for a very good reason.. I've seen the pendulum swing the other way on this.. it was called BADSITES. SirFozzie (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC) OK, thanks. Obviously one can't police the whole Internet, and it also is possible that an editor can post anonymously that X is wrong with the CC articles and Y is right. I personally don't see the harm in editors stating those positions on their talk pages, as long as it is factual and not disruptive. Talk pages seem to be "safe harbors" generally. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC) (This is just from reading the statements of the people who voted on the decision and the administrative actions taken so far to enforce the remedies in the decision). I think the reason is two-fold. One) The personality conflicts in this area are absolutely toxic. Allowing folks to continue to opine from talk pages would just continue the conflict, in more of a throw and run way rather than the full fledged battles we're used to seeing. Two) The dangers of meatpuppetry and battles by proxy are great. The problem would continue, only with a whole new set of editors mixing it up and the people who were Topic Banned here acting as the generals, so to speak, directing the effort (either privately or on their talk pages). I think I can speak for EVERYONE here (Arbs, Clerks, Parties, Involved Admins, General Public)... no one wants a "Climate Change 2" ArbCom case. Everyone spent four months here battling it out. 16 weeks. Do we really want that kind of battling (the kind that caused an article to be protected MULTIPLE times during the ArbCom case because the two sides wanted to slant the article their way?) SirFozzie (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC) You might better understand ScottyBerg's point of view if you look at it this way: One) The personality conflicts in this area are absolutely toxic. Allowing folks to continue to opine from Wikipedia Review would just continue the conflict, in more of a throw and run way rather than the full fledged battles we're used to seeing. Two) The dangers of meatpuppetry and battles by proxy are great. The problem would continue, only with a whole new set of editors mixing it up and the people who were Topic Banned here acting as the generals, so to speak, directing the effort (from Wikipedia Review). I think I can speak for EVERYONE here (Arbs, Clerks, Parties, Involved Admins, General Public)... no one wants a "Climate Change 2" ArbCom case. Everyone spent four months here battling it out. 16 weeks. Do we really want that kind of battling (the kind that caused an article to be protected MULTIPLE times during the ArbCom case because the two sides wanted to slant the article their way?) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Honestly, I kinda wish they would take it to WR, or anywhere else really. (Not that I would wish the CC folks on WR, mind you (or vice versa!) The difference is, the Community, the Committee, the administrators, have all stated their fervent desire that theon-wki CC battles STOP, as much as possible. As I said above, in general, we can't control what goes on with the other ninety billion or so websites out there, but we CAN and WILL control what happens here. SirFozzie (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC) But William being discussed and later reported at AE was exactly motivated by the sort of battlefield mentality that we don't want here. William posts links to CC science pages that were affected by Scibaby-like edits which went uncorrected after more than 24 hours. Realistically, it would always take some time for the rest of the community to take on the task of patrolling all the CC pages. Beeblebrox only started doing this today. So, this should not be seen as a big deal. It is entirely natural for someone like William to move on to other areas over the course of one or two weeks, while still checking his old watchlist every morning, but gradually seeing that all unambiguous problems (e.g. Scibaby-like edits) are fixed by others, as more and more other editors take on the job of patrolling all the CC articles. If Wikipedia were my personal website and I were the only Admin, I would actually block those people who were misrepresenting things. And if you violate your topic ban, you better have a damn good reason for that. Thing is that William had a good reason (and he didn't actually violate his topic ban). File an AE request against someone who you know reported an unambiguous problem, and it will be you will be blocked. Count Iblis (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC) (de-indent) Count: I haven't seen the exact edits and to see if the user has been blocked. However, through his actions, it is not currently WMC's place to bring attention to this. He has been topic banned from the area. As it says above, a topic ban means you do not interact in that area. Period. End of story. If that was not abundantly clear before, it was made clear with the action taken against him. At least one administrator has stated during this appeal that they would be more inclined to unblocking WMC if he stated he understood the boundaries as had now been explained to him. WMC declined to give that statement. That pretty much states that he plans to continue to do so. SirFozzie (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Ok, but I do think this needs to be explicitly clarified by a an ArbCom motion. What we now have is a dispute about a consensus for this view. I accept that many people have this view, but I don't see the consensus that e.g. Beeblebrox claims exists for this view that would make an ArbCom motion unnecessary. Count Iblis (talk) 03:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Statement by Hans Adler This is another example of the Giano effect: Once a huge "target" sign has been placed on an editor, they attract bad blocks because every single admin has a de facto veto right against not blocking. A single editor who misreads the situation is enough to cause unnecessary drama. In this case Beeblebrox apparently doesn't understand that due to the formulation of the topic ban a prior formal warning was definitely required. Blocking WMC without proper discussion for something he has been doing for weeks without any formal warning looks like a very stupid action, but this kind of thing had to happen under the circumstances. The only question was which admin would fall into this particular trap. In legal systems there is a process for assigning a judge to a defendant, and this judge will then decide. A judge who acquits the defendant does so explicitly, and normally no other judge gets a chance to change the verdict. Wikipedia's system of having hundreds of judges who are free to pick any case they are interested in and take action if they think it appropriate (while there is no formal process for acquitting someone) is adequate for the vast majority of low-profile cases, but it does not scale to high-profile cases. Some ideas for making sure this kind of thing does not happen again: Whenever behaviour falls into a grey zone, a clear process must be followed. Action must only be taken after a consensus has been established. (In this case such a consensus would have existed implicitly after a formal warning – a step which Beeblebox skipped for no apparent reason.) [A sensible alternative would be for Arbcom to appoint a limited number of admins each of whom can sanction on their own discretion.] Admins who display poor judgement and treat grey-zone behaviour as if it was a clear infraction must get very clear negative feedback that strongly discourages this kind of drama-increasing mistake. Hans Adler 22:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC) PS: Has anyone who is familiar with Scibaby checked the contributions history of EngineerFromVega, the editor who filed the request that led to this block? I believe WMC's offending actions were pointing out Scibaby-like edits that nobody else has noticed. In this context the strangeness of EngineerFromVega's few edits outside the climate change area is remarkable. Hans Adler 11:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC) I'm slightly familiar with Scibaby's edits, and no, it doesn't look like them. Scibaby makes quite subtle changes to CC articles using misleading edit summaries, where it's not immediately obvious that the meaning has been changed to favour scepticism. As far as I can see from the contribution history EngineerFromVega apparently spends a lot of time on talk pages, with an occasional edit on India/ cricket/ technology related issues. --Merlinme (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC) I have a fairly good idea who this might be (probably not Scibaby, as you say). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Statement by dave souza This block is based on an unstated extension of the topic ban, going beyond the standard exceptions to limited bans which allows action on obvious vandalism. Thus, this notification of blatant vandalism has been made into an issue of the ban, so the ban itself disrupts normal maintenance of Wikipedia. The topic bans on the various editors are asymmetric, in that WMC has a track record of high quality contributions to this specific area, while other editors have been attracted by the toxic atmosphere largely created off-wiki by opponents of the scientific consensus, and some have appeared to have the specific aim of getting WMC removed from the topic area. For example, Cla68 in his closing comments (announcing his temporary withdrawal) said "My whole purpose for getting reinvolved in the CC articles around a year ago was to see the behavior of these editors, one in particular, corrected. This PD appears to do so, at least for six months." Having achieved his purpose, he can readily return to other topics where he has more expertise, though he has continued to show a combative response to discussions on this page. In contrast, the ban on WMC's content contributions is to the detriment of article quality, taken further when mere noting of vandalism on his own talk page in a manner previously allowed to topic banned editors is escalated into a block. Three topic-banned editors have been involved in questions arising from the vague definition in the Scope of topic bans, which refers specifically to articles and and article talk pages, then rather vaguely bars them "(3) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles". They breached item (3) interpreted very broadly. In one case no action was taken, not even a warning, in the other two a block was imposed. In these cases it would have been better to give formal clarification before the block, but Enforcement by block doesn't require a warning, and I accept that the blocking admin imposed the block in good faith. However, the result is deeply discouraging to those aiming at improving article quality rather than aiming to remove editors who face vocal political opposition. The links on the user talk page were not disruptive, but indeed constructive, and involved none of the personal interaction which has been problematic in the past. As pointed out above, action on obvious vandalism would normally be acceptable: in this case, even suggesting that vandalistic edits be reviewed has been turned into a major issue: the block is over-reaction, and should be reconsidered. . . dave souza, talk 16:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Statement by Count blis I have already made it clear that I agree with the many editors who have argued that William's actions on his talk page were not a problem at all. Indeed, the whole fuss created about this is yet another episode of the CC conflict and this AE process has now been dragged into it. I call on ArbCom to pass a motion that makes it clear that the Remedy 3 editing restrictions don't apply to talk pages and that this will be reviewed in indiviidual cases if restricted editors are contributing to conflicts via their talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by William M. Connolley I agree with Beeblebrox that the community and the Arbs want a liberal use of blocks. However, in Roger Davies own words "All that is required before an administrator acts is a "cease and desist" message on the editor's talk page." Emphasis added. There is no gray area concerning whether talk pages are in scope or out of scope. Arbitrator Coren explicitly said they were out of scope. That doesn't mean an uninvolved admin can't block based upon a talk page comment, it simply means that a warning is required first. Actions clearly within the scope (such as MN's post) do not require such warning. The words are quite clear. And we are wasting too much time on this. If we follow the process as outlined by the arbs - block immediately for actions clearly in scope, warn then block for actions an involved admin feels are undesirable, we will be fine. WMC should be unblocked.--SPhilbrickT 22:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Sustain the action. It is WMC who has hallucinated the implication that a topic ban does not apply to an editor's own talk page. Jclemens (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC) I made much the same point (as Sphilbrick) earlier today[28], before this case was filed, in the AE case against Cla68. I felt that case was premature because he hadn't been warned, and because the margins of the topic ban were hazy. I feel the situation is the same here, only more so because of the severity of the block and because his actions were neither disruption nor battlefield. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC) I point to what I wrote above and endorse Sphilbrick's comment. Yes, ArbCom has "topic banned", but they have also (maybe unwisely) defined what that means in this case. I fail to understand how someone can in good faith read this as including non-provocative, helpful comments on the users own talk page, especially not after the ArbCom clarification. Mind-reading what the community or what ArbCom want, on the other hand, is not a useful bases for any kind of process. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC) FWIW it looked grey to me, because the community supports strange rules on user talk pages, they were not mentioned explicitly in an explicit list and pushing stuff undercover is worse. So yes B can interpret it this way but as it is grey a cease and desist was needed. Might well reach the same outcome a few minutes later but the process was short-circuited. --BozMo talk 22:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC) @various pther admins below. It is very hard to argue that from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles unambiguously covers discussion on user talk pages. It just isn't clear --BozMo talk 22:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Let's face it. The whole point of the arbcom case was to get WMC's head on a pike; all the other stuff was just window dressing. This was so blindingly obvious that the so-called "vandal version" of the decision, released before the arbs even got around to their first proposal, was nearly identical in substance to the final decision. The bottom line is that WMC is going to get kicked around for whatever real or imagined offense folks can come up with. If he says "got to work late today because there was a bad storm" someone will leap at the chance to block him for using the word "storm," which they will contend is climate-related "broadly construed." Since he's guilty no matter what there's no real incentive to reform. Why don't you just indef block him from the project and be done with it? Or is the goal to prolong the drama? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC) I read Coren's statement [29] as admitting that the current language of the relevant Arb remedy does not strictly address user talk pages. In that sense the language of the enacted remedy was more narrow than what is commonly understood by "topic ban". I also read the Arb statements (1, 2) as indicating that this technical loophole was unintentional, and if forced to do so they would amend the Arb remedies to fill the gap. Which from my point of view answers the issue, and user talk page posts relating to climate change are not okay. It appears to be within the scope of the discretionary sanctions to address this, and so a full amendment by Arbcom is probably unnecessary (though it might be helpful, for clarity and to demonstrate consensus among Arbcom members). The only caveat I would add is that since there could have been plausible confusion about whether this behavior was technically okay or not okay, it might be reasonable to unblock WMC this once with the understanding that similar edits in the future will lead to blocks. In addition, others topic banned in this case should probably receive an explicit warning about the use of user talk pages if this is how we plan to interpret the issue going forward. Dragons flight (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Can those who says I'm mistaken point out the mistake? Coren clearly states that "suggesting" edits (which is even stronger than what WMC was doing) is outside the scope of the ban, and would require an amendment to include. Roger concurs, and goes onto suggest how to properly handle this situation. Shell "agree with the opinions of my colleagues above" so no dissent there. Carcharoth says "I agree with the responses by Newyorkbrad, Coren and Roger Davies." I don't see any wiggle room. I believe the topic ban should have included user talk pages, I'm stunned that it did not, but as user talk pages were the subject of extensive discussion, it's not like it was an oversight (as, say templates might be). I'd be happy if some or several arbs chimed in and said, we intend talk pages to be included in the ban. Then going forward, they would be in the ban. However, the present request is for someone to explain how several arbs explicitly concurred with Coren, and none dissented, yet we've enact a block against someone who followed the rules.--SPhilbrickT 23:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Everyone, let's reboot our brains in safe mode, remove the ArbCom spyware, make appropriate changes to the system registry and then take fresh look. Only then will the following comments sink in. So, here we go: Edits on userspace are not part of Wikipedia processes. It doesn't matter one iota whether William posts a comment on his userspace, his personal blog, The Wikipedia Review, or any other cyber-public venue. Also think about the logic of blocking an editor who violates the topic to make sure he/she doesn't do it again. Does that logic apply here? Is William now constrained from posting links on his userspace? Even if he were to be blocked from editing his userpsace, nothing would stop him from posting links on his personal blog. Conversely, if William had done as Beeblebrox and some others demand, he could have posted on his blog a few months later how bad the ArbCom ruling is because "look at all these Scibaby edits that have accumulated during the last 3 months". That would have made him look bad, it would actually have amounted to a violation of WP:POINT by staying silent for so long. Count Iblis (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC) I reject the notion that WMC has a moral imperative that allows breaking the rules. First, if the moral imperative exists, then surely it mean he can do more than post to a user talk page, it means he can actually make the edit. Clearly, there is no point to a topic ban if it can be evaded that easily. Second, to the extent that WMC truly sees a wrong which needs weighting, he can email you in private, or any one of a dozen others, so on the chance that WP will burn to the ground but for WMC, that can be handled without breaking a topic ban whether narrowly or broadly construed. I don't think it helps to resolve this dispute by arguing that WMC could edit in userspace even if we did the right thing and included it in scope. This issue is quite simple - we agreed to a process, and we aren't following it. The solution is simple - follow the process - either amend the decision to include user spaces generally, or have a sysop declare that user space edits are now disallowed, and issue a warning then a block to anyone who breaks the new rule. We are spending far too much time trying to convince ourselves that the rule already says that.--SPhilbrickT 23:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC) I agree that process should be followed and that this issue has to be clarified. But given a precise formulation, there is always room for notification of problems. As you say, William can send emails if banned from CC related notifications on his talk page. But note that the AE request against William was motivated just on the grounds that William places notifications. If William had notified me via email of a problem and I had been fixing a problem and writen in the edit summary that I was notified by William, then a similar AE request could have been filed: "William is editing via proxies". Count Iblis (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I thank User:FloNight for the link to a relevant page explicitly discussing whether user talk pages are in scope. Relevant excerpts: Lar "Does it extend to user talk pages?" TenOfAllTrades "it does not include user talk pages" Arthur Rubin "discussion ... whether one climate change category is a subset of another?" Roger Davies "Sure... for those who want ... discretionary sanctions" (NB, discretionary sanctions require warning before block) Count Iblis "It seems clear to me that discussions about climate science are allowed on talk pages" ScienceApologist "When I was topic banned, I proposed edits all the time from my talkpage to no objections" Beeblebrox "just stay the hell away from anything that could be construed as even vaguely related to climate change" TS (responding to Beeblebrox) "t looks to me as if you've misread the discussion." BozMo "WMC ... can give technical comments ... seems an elegant solution." Arthur Rubin "user talk pages ... should be fine" Roger Davies "I disagree sharply with what you say about uninvited talk page comments" (implicitly accepting other talk page comments) Caveat - I did this in only a few minutes - I attempted to use ellipses honestly, but read the whole thing, and reach your own conclusion. My summary - many people explicitly saying talk pages are OK - the only major dissent is Beeblebrox. Note especially that Davies tells us that people gaming the rules (the specific example was category talk, but could be construed to include game playing on talk pages) will be dealt with harshly, but with DS, which requires a warning. That's all I'm saying, the clear consensus is that if an admin wants to prohibit talk page comments, they can, with a warning. I truly understand the frustration this community has with the CC issue, but read the FloNight linked page as if you didn't known about the whole issue, and tell me if you can come away clearly convinced that a talk page comments can earn a block without a warning.--SPhilbrickT 00:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Messy addendum: Unfortunately, I ran out of steam at the wrong point. The very next paragraph: Carcharoth "If we (ArbCom) had intended to allow limited discussion of sources on user talk pages, we would have made provisions for that. As we didn't, there are no provisions for that to take place." While that strong statement undoes a lot of what came earlier, but in my view, it muddies the waters, rather than adding clarity. Arguably, they did make provision for talk page discussions, butby failing to include them on the list despite discussions. Had Coren and Davies followed up with "That's really what I meat" I'd say case closed, but they did not, so we are left with multiple clear, but conflicting statements from Arbs. (A situation easily resolved with a clear warning prior to a block.)--SPhilbrickT 01:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Just to make things extra clear, none of my comments on that matter can be construed to mean that WMC's raising issues he saw in articles in the CC area was in any way acceptable. I explicitly advised him to the contrary, in fact, and my comment in the clarification request squarely put the behavior for which he was blocked in the "should not do" camp. — Coren (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Thank you Coren. And there is also this post yesterday at AN: "Support. As another Arb wrote ( Carcharoth, at [23], "My intention, when voting for the topic bans, was that those topic-banned would stay away from the topic area completely (as Beeblebrox has said). If we (ArbCom) had intended to allow limited discussion of sources on user talk pages, we would have made provisions for that. As we didn't, there are no provisions for that to take place." This has gone on long enough. I'm with Scott Mac. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 15:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)" Speaks for itself. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I had missed that one too. Much clearer. thanks. --BozMo talk 12:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Block no longer necessary William has now made arrangements to comply with the don't ask don't tell rule regarding his scientific orientation by keeping CC discussions confined to a mailing list. Count Iblis (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC) (ec):I'm sorry but I have to say something here. I asked on WMC's talk page here why the block was done now and not 10 days ago when WMC made what I was told his first edit to his talk page about the CC area which you can see the explanation to me here. The response I got from Cube lurker was that the complaint came here and 15 min. later a two week block was applied against WMC. 15 whole minutes were allowed prior to blocking the editor, why? Was this an emergency block to protect the project from harm? Also, WMC asks nicely what he did for a two week block which the blocking administrator has ignored as far as I can tell. Am I the only one who has a problem with the way this was handled? It's nice Coren clarified things more but doing so today after the block isn't really all that helpful to the editor that is blocked. Now WMC may deserve a block but I have to admit that what Phil says I too thought it was alright to discuss on talk pages. Editors have been going to WMC with questions too. What this block does is it is making editors take their questions and comments offline to either email or other forums. We lose transparency now which I think is a shame. At least the discussions were in the open which is what was said before about whether WMC and the others talking about CC on their own talk pages. Seriously, this block was wrong the way it was handled. If WMC was causing an immediate threat to damage the project than the block 15 minutes after coming here would be appropriate. I have to ask now what the administrator that blocked him had in his/her mind to feel that the block was needed so quickly. Is there a history between the administrator and WMC? I would also like to know what the specific reason for the block is for please. I think now the banned editors understand not even their talk pages are allowed, if they don't then the block will now be deserved. But that being said, if Coren had to clarify himself now, then things weren't clear to all editors and you can include me in that. Thanks for listening to me, --CrohnieGalTalk 18:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, clearly WMC has turned a page. Oh wait, he has resorted to petty name calling: [30]. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC) You just blocked him for two weeks, anger is normal as I'm sure you are aware. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Another way of circumnavigating the Arbcom ruling. [31] Apparently, there is no improvement even after this two week block. EngineerFromVega (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC) There is also a list, joking around is not a sin here. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Question about the future Other topic banned editors have used their talk pages to comment on the topics from which they have been banned, and without anyone objecting. [ScienceApologist has named himself as one such. I won't name any others because I'm not trying to get them in trouble, but they exist.] In the future, will topic banned editors who have done this be subject to blocks, or will this be a special rule, which applies only to WMC? Cardamon (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC) What happened was that through a series of discussions it became increasingly clear that the community wanted this type of thing to stop, and as you can see here, several arbs have clarified that they did not intend to leave a back door open in this manner. Marknutley and WMC were simply the first two persons reported here since that consensus developed and have both been blocked for two weeks. It is absolutely not a specific rule aimed at any particular user, it applies to all users under this topic ban equally. It's just that it took a moment for this to become clear. Any further attempts to end run the ban will be dealt with in a similar fashion. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC) What really happened was that it became increasingly clear that one party in a highly polarised conflict wanted WMC to stop pointing out the disruptive edits that continue to flow in from throw-away accounts that are on their side. When an editor with a total of 72 edits as of this writing (less than half of them unrelated to climate change) and no disclosed alternate or earlier accounts, but with a history of conflict with WMC [32] dragged him here, there was a sudden influx of admin comments in favour of blocking and you blocked quickly before a more solid consensus could be established. The block was a bad one because (1) it was purely punitive (as it does not actually prevent the behaviour you supposedly blocked for), (2) it was quite obviously not covered by the topic ban, and (3) it was for behaviour that had been going on for a while without any formal warning and which a large number of editors considered acceptable though not politically opportune. When are you going to apologise for your substantial contribution to the polarisation in the climate change area? Hans Adler 14:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Comment Capricious and arbitrary blocks do Wikipedia no credit as they make the wrong sorts of headlines for Wikipedia (and create even more misunderstandings between editors and administrators). The Committee was aware that if it wrote in 'user talk pages' into the restriction, then this would cause issues; note that the blocks imposed by Wordsmith and arbitrator SirFozzie for talk page issues earlier this year were reversed by the Community. The Community sent a message that it was sick of this mess (and a hardline approach is needed), but it is by no means a message that administrators should not fully look into situations. The circumstances here were such that EngineerFromVega (talk · contribs) has made about 50 contributions to Wikipedia, a substantial proportion of which have been on the CC topic and in conflict with WMC (including past enforcement requests against WMC). Although the account was created in November 2009, substantial contributions were made from 21 January 2010 - close to the time when the Community was sending a message to the most disruptive editors in the field (most obvious example of GoRight being indef blocked a couple of weeks earlier) and aroudn the time the first CC request for arbitration was declined due to the probation that was proposed/enacted by a clerk. This gave every indication to the problematic editors that their disruption is not going to be tolerated and had led to other ways to try to game around what it is the Community wanted (puppetry being the most obvious route). EngineerFromVega had not made any contributions since 17 October 2010 in terms of very recent contributions, but made a contribution on 26 October 2010 for the sole purpose of making an allegation to WMC on his user talk (a page which he probably should not have even had watchlisted or watched). It filed the AE report; it was unhappy with the bracketed response was provided by WMC. It's very likely we would have avoided the drama of this discussion had this account not brought about this foolish AE request with edits which are inconsequential to the larger scheme of things. That no investigation has still been conducted into this account, an enforcement action was taken, and the blocking admin freely admits to making several 'guesses', is concerning. The sanctions imposed under CC were not for the purpose of another form of battling between involved editors; that is, EngineerVega continues to make contributions for the sole purpose of trying to site ban its adversary (see his comment in this thread at 27 October 2010). If administrators are not thinking twice about what it is they are doing, why it is they are doing it, and what it is going to accomplish in terms of practice (not some stupid theory which is never going to work), then that's a problem that the larger Community is going to need to address through other means. The Community's messages should not be read in isolation of one another. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Ncmvocalist good summary, you show things that I missed when I looked so I bet others did too. I hope that the administrators who iVote below prior to this summary and all the new comments will return and make a decision on all the new information now provided. Personally I believe that SA gives us all proof that we should allow comments on talk pages as long as they are not words for battlefield behavior. I also think only editor who are welcomed at the talk page should comment and editors definitely know by now whether they are welcomed or not. Above Cla68 was given a pass on the complaint against him. I think things here should be dealt with equally so why not do the same for WMC and even Mark Nutley? This is of course my opinion, but from seeing discussions from banned editors going on off site it has me thinking that if they can behave the way they are there than transparency here on site is the best way to go which means letting editors talk about whatever they want on their talk page with the normal rules followed. Thanks for listening again, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC) I agree that blocking without warning on something which wasn't clear is incorrect. However I think the implication that EngineerFromVega might be a sock is a bit of a red herring to be honest. The edit history could as easily be a new user feeling his or her way around as a sock. The only mildly suspicious thing I found was an undo of a notification re: the Climate Change restrictions on EngineerFromVega's talk page, and that's scarcely conclusive. It certainly doesn't look like GoRight to me, unless GoRight has suddenly developed an interest in India and cricket. --Merlinme (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Bad block - WMC was blocked as a violation of an ArbCom topic ban that clearly did not apply. Tony Sidaway's comment proves the point - he decided after the fact that the ban should include talk pages. If the original ban was so unclear that its extent had to be decided later, then the prohibition isn't part of the original ban but rather part of the later decision. ArbCom was a bit sloppy here - not a great crime, but it's something that needs to be clarified before, not after, blocking editors basically for editing while unpopular. The admin comments below aren't very insightful - why does their opinion count more than anyone else's here anyway? They haven't thought carefully about this. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC) I disagree with a 2 week block for the following reasons: the ArbCom ruling did not clearly apply to User talk pages. The fact that there has been lengthy discussion about this since the ruling surely makes this point clearly. Even if it has eventually been clarified and decided that it did apply to User talk pages, it is not clear to me how WMC was informed of or supposed to know about this decision. With that in mind, a block without warning was inappropriate. It is also unclear to me what has been achieved that could not have been achieved by a simple warning. I am not aware of WMC in the past having attempted to evade the letter of restrictions, so if it had been spelled out I assume he would have kept to it. I'm aware that some people think that WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Enough_is_enough. However the only reason I can see to block WMC in this case without warning, let alone a 2 week block, is simply to make an example of him, and I do not think that is good policy. --Merlinme (talk) 09:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn I believe that this heaving handed action by Arbs and former arbs at the blocked user's talk page are a violation of his user rights. I see no breach by WMC of Arbcom ruling that resulted in this block. There has been no breach of WP:UP insofar as I can tell. Note that remedy 3 stated: "Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited (1) from editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (2) from editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; and (3) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles." In short, there is nothing anywhere which would prohibit from talking about it in his userspace, even if it is supposedly covered by Arbcom's usual "broadly construed". --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn See the new info that clarified some things written late yesterday and today. Ncmvocalist shows some things that could have been missed by editors along with some of the other comments, they should be read and this poll should then be updated. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC) This is not a poll. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Then what is it? --CrohnieGalTalk 19:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn The block was undeniably punitive, not preventive, the circumstances (imposed 15 minutes after the issue is raised by an account of dubious history) are questionable, the applicability of the topic ban to user pages was unclear, and the edits were not disruptive. Clearly a bad block. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Do I need to repeat these conversatons? I will so you know what I'm talking about. First this was listed above by Phil; Coren clearly states that "suggesting" edits (which is even stronger than what WMC was doing) is outside the scope of the ban, and would require an amendment to include. Roger concurs, and goes onto suggest how to properly handle this situation. Shell "agree with the opinions of my colleagues above" so no dissent there. Carcharoth says "I agree with the responses by Newyorkbrad, Coren and Roger Davies." Then this one was: Lar "Does it extend to user talk pages?" TenOfAllTrades "it does not include user talk pages" Arthur Rubin "discussion ... whether one climate change category is a subset of another?" Roger Davies "Sure... for those who want ... discretionary sanctions" (NB, discretionary sanctions require warning before block) Count Iblis "It seems clear to me that discussions about climate science are allowed on talk pages" ScienceApologist "When I was topic banned, I proposed edits all the time from my talkpage to no objections" Beeblebrox "just stay the hell away from anything that could be construed as even vaguely related to climate change" TS (responding to Beeblebrox) "t looks to me as if you've misread the discussion." BozMo "WMC ... can give technical comments ... seems an elegant solution." Arthur Rubin "user talk pages ... should be fine" Roger Davies "I disagree sharply with what you say about uninvited talk page comments" (implicitly accepting other talk page comments) I think I cut and pasted all that was put up there on this page. I would also like to add to this record that WMC using an alternate account called WMC had been editing other articles until the block was given to him as this shows. --CrohnieGalTalk 20:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC) My apologies for putting my comments in the administrator sections. It was not intentional and I appreciate the editor moving my comments up. Thank you for that. Again, sorry, --CrohnieGalTalk 22:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Result of the appeal by William M. Connolley This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Receiving a topic-ban means that the topic in question is off-limits everywhere on Wikipedia; the arbitration committee has made this clear with regard to a number of cases on a number of occasions. They have made it clear that wiki-lawyering as to whether a particular namespace was explicitly proscribed is both unwelcome and irrelevant. I would have preferred a duration of 7 days, rather than 14, but the current duration is not excessive and I do not support overturning the sanction. CIreland (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC) SPhilbricK, You misunderstand. WMC was topic banned by ArbCom, and this is an enforcement for that remedy. He has been notified of that with the close of the case. AND Coren (and others) clarified the scope of the ban for him. Only new editors or changes need prior warning under the Discretionary sanctions. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Add link to thread on ArbCom Noticeboard where more than one arbitrator and some uninvolved admins clarified that the topic ban was to enforced on all pages. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC) FloNight, the ArbCom ruling was pretty clear in what it specified and what it did not specify. All arbs had the chance to add talk pages to the ruling at the time, but didn't [I'd be curious to know what the exceptions were supposed to be--the ruling could have gone with a simple "all pages" wording, but didn't). For the sake of transparency and fairness, the opinion of any individual arb shouldn't really matter unless there's a fair & formal amendment. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC) A topic ban is a topic ban, period. ArbCom is not required to think of every potential way that an user will attempt to skirt the ban and write it into the ruling. Instead, users need to know that if they make edits related to the topic on Wikipedia anywhere, then they are violating the ban, and it will be enforced with sanctions. In this instance, WMC developed a new process for influencing edits to the topic (a dedicated section on his talk page), something that ArbCom could hardly know to add to case when writing the ruling. On Wikipedia we have always enforced the spirit instead of letter of a policy. And in my view, for WMC to continue to engage with other editors about this topic on his talk page is a definite violation of the spirit of the ruling as it applies to the issues involved with the CC case. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 09:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Admins who frequent the AE noticeboard look at the diffs to determine the sanction and do not dwell on who made the report. That is basic to admin work and arb enforcement. In any case, the problems of one party in a dispute does not give other people involved a pass for violations of sanctions. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 12:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC) In this case, the letter and the spirit you envision are too far apart. We have amendments for this reason. The whole "A topic ban is a topic ban, period" argument is just us making up our own rules; the actual ArbCom ruling has a "scope of topic bans" section which omits user talk pages. At the very least it would be better if he was blocked under a general rule about violating the spirit of a topic ban, rather than through an incorrect extension of a topic ban. This isn't about petty lawyering, but rather protecting even ArbCom sanctionees from unfair treatment. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Ultimately, the purpose of the topic bans are to protect the encyclopedia from continued disruption. The topic ban doesn't omit user talk pages at all: it says that the sanctionees are prohibited "from participated in any Wikipedia process" and it's no stretch at all for that to include user talk pages, which are an essential part of the consensus-building/collaboration process.  Roger talk 11:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Just to further clarify this, if people who are topic-banned move discussion that belongs on article talk space onto their user talk pages as a proxy for the article talk page, they are circumventing the ban. It's a simple as that really. Here's an example.  Roger talk 12:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, from my reading of the ruling, ArbCom intended the topic ban to cover everything. And no arbitrator commenting after the case has indicated otherwise. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 12:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks for this. I'm not sure the term process would normally be understood as covering talk pages, not by everyone anyway; I at least would understand it to mean activity in or deriving from pages marked WP, portals, guideline pages, and so on. Even so, in wordings I would assume ArbCom members realise the traditional exceptionalism thought to apply to talk pages in the community, and if talk pages were actually meant, specify them. We have other policies for disruption of course. We don't need to start extending rulings without amendments in order to enforce WP:DISRUPTION. In reference to Flo's point, judges don't ask individual legislators what they really meant when they passed laws; the reasons they don't and shouldn't are pretty obvious. And once there are rules, they have to be fairly applied as laid out, so that they can be applied fairly to all. I mean, are you two really certain there won't be a past or future AE case where a similar request has been dismissed because an incident was on a user talk page? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC) As FloNight says, SPhilbricK is mistaken; WMC has been banned from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles. PhilKnight (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC) endorse topic banned means "find a new topic" - it is not an invitation to "find a new venue for the same topic". Enough is enough.--Scott Mac 22:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse Topic-banned means that area of Wikipedia is no longer your concern. Courcelles 22:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC) If WMC had indicated that he didn't know it was a violation of the ban, and would abide by the new, expanded scope of it, I would be willing to grant his appeal. However, he has declined to make such a statement, so i must reluctantly endorse the block. The WordsmithCommunicate 23:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC) As with the other block above, "topic ban" means "cease all participation in this area, period", not "try to find loopholes and stay involved anyway". And as above, this sends a clear message that boundary testing and lawyering will not be tolerated, and that the expectation is that the topic banned editors will stay entirely away from that topic. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse block I do appreciate the argument that this block was outside the scope of the discretionary sanctions - if this was a court and I was a judge I'd uphold that argument. But it's not. Thankfully we have the ability to sanction conduct that is itelf designed to avoid sanctions. Good block. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Good block, per most of the above. T. Canens (talk) 03:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse and extend, how much more admin time being consumed by WMC is enough? I think we have passed that point. --WGFinley (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn. Unless I'm missing something, the user's talk page is not covered in 3.1 "Scope of topic bans". All the user did was post something on his own talk page. This has nothing to do with the editorial process on Wikipedia, besides perhaps "influencing" other users. Not good enough to justify censoring someone's own talk page. He could easily have a blog which he could direct sympathetic readers to follow, so the only fault is that these messages were on wiki space rather than journal space. The remedy is to keep him away from article disputes, not to scare him out of voicing his own opinions on his own talk page. The block was a overreaching one, sets a bad precedent, and should be overturned. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC) The amusing thing is the direction that this encourages editors to go down . If WMC doesn't want to stop watchlisting the topic area, he can simply create a thread on, say, Wikipedia Review entitled "things that should be fixed but won't", add some criticism of the ArbCom decision, and periodically post to it. Exact same effect, but now is driven off-wiki. NW (Talk) 21:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC) So, what would you have us do? Let him end-run the topic ban on-wiki so he won't do it off wiki? The vast majority of users named in the ban have accepted it and moved on. Those who cannot exercise the self control needed to do that need to have controls imposed upon them until such time as they can restrain themselves from ignoring the ban and/or trying various underhanded tactics to evade it. The message WMC and everyone else named in the ban was sent was "stay away from anything on Wikipedia related to climate change." That some have voluntarily elected to ignore that perfectly clear message is a reflection on them, not a flaw in the decision. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC) The matter isn't that difficult. He's not lawyering his ban by posting on his own talk page. Users have always been allowed to do this. Unless I'm missing something, the ArbCom ruling clearly does not authorise blocks for comments on his own talk page. What was the point of the "Scope of topic bans" section, if intervening admins can just ignore it for unpopular users and make up their own rulings ("topic banned means "find a new topic", "Topic-banned means that area of Wikipedia is no longer your concern")?! People often need their own space to vent, and that serves a function. If he starts on project and article space, block him; if it's just his own talk, ignore him and leave him to it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC) You are in fact missing something, although you can hardly be blamed for it. There has been a lot of discussion since the ruling was originally posted, and as a result of those discussions, mostly located at the arbcom noticeboard talk page and WP:AN a consensus emerged which favored including such editing within the scope of the ban as it was clearly intended to be an end-run around the ban. There was fairly broad agreement that the time for talk was over and the time to start issuing harsh blocks in order to send the message that this dispute must end had come. So, even if these blocks (everyone seems to have forgotten this is actually the second such block and the block of Marknutley was possibly even more tangental to actual CC content) were not in within the scope of the original decision arbitrators, administrators, and the community at large were in favor of a more hardline approach in order to stop this once and for all. As I've mentioned, most of the other named parties were able to walk away when they were asked to do so, there are only a few holdouts who wouldn't let go, and WMC participated in at least on of these discussions so he was not unaware this was a possibility. It is my guess that he did not think anyone would actually do it and he was testing the waters to see how close he could come without getting blocked. I trust he now knows the answer to that and I sincerely hope this the last CC enforcement block that will be needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your explanation. As I said to Fl above, I'm not comfortable with this at all, and am not persuaded by these arguments. While much of this may or may not justify blocking WMC, it doesn't justify blocking him in the name of an ArbCom ruling that doesn't cover the matter. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Having a strong consensus behind an action does not justify it unless ArbCom specifically says so? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC) I haven't said anything like this. This block was issued as an AE block, and has special protections. We have a situation here where one user, unpopular as he is, is blocked on an AE ruling that doesn't actually authorise it, and is blocked everywhere but his own talk page for infractions committed only on his own talk page. "Consensus" or not, it is not right. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse. Essentially agree with comments by Roger Davies (talk · contribs), SirFozzie (talk · contribs) and FloNight (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Update About 24 hours ago (well after the initial block) WMC made another contribution to the section of his talk page where he was notifying tpw about issues in articles in the CC topic. I removed the whole section, warned WMC to not return the section, or create a new area to discuss CC on his talk page. Additionally, I warned him that future edits to his talk page of this type would result in an extension of his block. Since then, there has been loads of discussion about the block and editing restriction (topic ban) on his talk page, but not further violation of the topic ban. My suggestion is for us to close this AE as resolved now as the request has been actioned and there is not consensus to overturn it among uninvolved admins. Then hopefully WMC will be able to focus on other topic areas on WP where he is welcome to edit. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 12:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC) I agree with this comment by FloNight (talk · contribs). There is not an existing consensus to overturn. This AE thread should be closed as resolved at this point in time. -- Cirt (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Does leave one puzzled about the point of the block ... I mean, does it really make sense to block someone for talk page comments but not block the talk page? Given the preventative not punitive Wikimantra .... what's the block preventing? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC) I admit it is not a perfect solution. The block is intended as a message to WMC about the wisdom of trying to sneak around the edges of the ban, as he was already warned not to do. I also agree that this conversation should be closed. It seems clear that the block is not going to be overturned. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Andranikpasha

Blocked for one year.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Andranikpasha User requesting enforcement Atabəy (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Andranikpasha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#1 Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [33] See edit comment. Accusing contributor of having meatpuppets without basis and to push his WP:POV in violation of WP:CIVIL [34] Another comment violating WP:CIVIL [35], [36], [37] Numerous reverts in violation of permanent 1RR/week restriction by A-A2 Arbitration Remedy, insertion of dubious or NPOV tags even when presented with concise references showing otherwise. Please, follow the discussion at Talk:March_Days and the revert history of March Days to find out more about disruptive editing. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) [38] Warning by Atabəy (talk · contribs) Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) The contributor has previously been under arbitration for edit warring and banned for 3 months. He is back, clearly violating the imposed remedies by reengaging in edit warring, reverting, irrelevant tag insertion against references, assuming bad faith of contributors in violation of WP:CIVIL. I warned the contributor for this behavior, but he took no action instead simply removed my warning and continuing to push WP:POV. He is currently inserting irrelevant references, some of them unsourced or with no URL provided, attempting to change the essence of the topic. I request that the contributor is topic-banned from Armenia-Azerbaijan related topics for the prior restrictions have not resulted in constructive editing. Atabəy (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Additional comments by editor filing complaint Per statement from user Andranikpasha below, since when simply adding an R.G. Suny book reference to an article, citing historical details and pointing to a discussion page, is considered "incivil" to warrant a baseless warning, accusation of chauvinism and other personal attacks? Especially, when in the course of debate on talk page, user Andranikpasha was presented with numerous additional references, proving and reinforcing the facts contained in the legitimate reference that I added. Atabəy (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Another wholesale revert in violation of permanent 1RR/week and messing up all the references, formatting per Wikipedia templates. It is impossible to contribute any reference or any useful information to March Days because Andranikpasha's reverts and WP:POV pushing. Atabəy (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested has been made Discussion concerning Andranikpasha Statement by Andranikpasha On October 26, 2010 User Atabay (who is also under AA2 remedies, placed on civility supervision, supervised editing, and revert limitation [39]), without any discusissions and explanations on the talk added some dubious text to the article [40]. The he was the first being warned [41] for his incivil behaviour as after I started to discuss his misinterpretation of a souce (currently he seems to agree with my opinion by his last edit [42]) and chauvinistic remark on Armenian descent of naturalized American scolar Roland Suny [43], another Azerbaijani user who never was involved in our discussion deleted my <dubious> tag [44] with aggressive manner (after few hours our discusssions started). After some attempts to readd his misinterpretation, Atabay seems to aggreed on a version and this request was made late, it is added after the discussion seems to be ended and looks like an attempt of revenge, as Atabays misinterpretations were proven (see the talk [45][46]). I never pushed any POV, as all my addings are supported by numerous reliable sources[47]. And I made only 1 revert, it was this [48]. Andranikpasha (talk) 07:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Andranikpasha Statement by Tuscumbia First off, I must correct Atabəy. The link he provided for A-A2 Arbitration Remedy is actually better described here where the admin actually places the Andranikpasha on permanent 1RR per week on all articles due to his long history of disruptive editing. Don't let him confuse you with statements that he only made one revert. He reverted here [49] and here (he just takes a step further by replacing his dubious with NPOV tag for the whole article). Before edit warring on March Days article, he reverts in the article Blue Mosque, Yerevan - [50], a day later he reverts in the article Hamidian massacres [51], clearly violating the 1RR per week for all articles rule, as mentioned above. Additionally, he edit-warred in 1977 Moscow bombings including making emotional reverts - [52] In addition to his disruptive editing, he makes a completely outrageous remarks in his source indicating author Thomas De Waal as pro-Azeri See here: pro Azeri author Thomas de Waal, Black garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through peace and war, p. 100. Since when are editors allowed to highlight their POV and personal bias in the source names? Tuscumbia (talk) 13:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Statement by Quantum666 Another example of disruptive edit [53]. --Quantum666 (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Andranikpasha This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I'm thinking about a year, now. It is obvious that the last 3-month block didn't do anything. T. Canens (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Concur. It's time to enforce the maximum sanction available to us, as everything short of a year off has failed to modify behaviour. Courcelles 16:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Also concur. Looie496 (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC) I support T. Canens' proposal of a 1-year block. If the same behavior were being discussed at ANI an indefinite block would be logical, since that board places no limit on the block length. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Enacted. Courcelles 19:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Jack Sparrow 3 (Croatian language)

Blocked indef by Future Perfect as a non-AE block. EdJohnston (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Jack Sparrow 3 User requesting enforcement — kwami (talk) 06:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Jack Sparrow 3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated ban on the article and WP:ARBMAC (article currently at 1RR) Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [54] (first revert of sourced statements, violating his ban on the article) [55] (second revert, violating 1RR as well) Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) JS3 was blocked for a week after violating ARBMAC, and banned from this article.[56] Chipmunkdavis warned him to self-revert the second time, though that would only address the 1RR violation and not the ban.[57] Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) enforcement of the existing topic ban as appropriate Additional comments by editor filing complaint JS3's is a strongly held political belief by some editors that Croatian is not a form of Serbo-Croatian and is not particularly close to Serbian, a POV contradicted by a huge number of RS's (some of which he deleted) and which has no RS support. Discussion on the article has centered on how to follow sources without unduly offending this POV. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [58] Discussion concerning Jack Sparrow 3 Statement by Jack Sparrow 3 Comments by others about the request concerning Jack Sparrow 3 Result concerning Jack Sparrow 3 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Straightforward breach of topic ban. Given the prior history of blocks for breach of 1RR and for block evasion through IPs, we don't need to suppose this was an accidental mistake or anything. Escalated block to 2 weeks for now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Changed to indef after this latest personal attack. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Closing. Future Perfect issued a conventional indef block, not an arbitration enforcement block, since it was for more than one year. The rules for appealing it are given at WP:UNBLOCK. EdJohnston (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Prunesqualer

Blocked, and topic ban extended and expanded.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Prunesqualer User requesting enforcement CIreland (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Prunesqualer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions specifically, the article-ban imposed and logged on 21 Oct 2010. Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [59] Edit to article from which user is banned [60] Edit to article from which user is banned [61] Edit to article from which user is banned [62] Edit to article from which user is banned Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) [63] ARBPIA notification by CIreland (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [64] Block for edit-warring and concurrent ban by CIreland (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Additional generic edit-warring warnings visible on user talk page. Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Block for 14 days, the original duration of the article ban. Additional comments by editor filing complaint I gave this user an ARBPIA notification, blocked him for violating the 1RR restriction at Gaza War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and imposed a 14-day article ban from that article. Strictly speaking, it would be acceptable for me now to block the user for making edits in violation of their article ban. However, I feel uncomfortable with continuing to be the sole administrator to have warned and sanctioned this user and would prefer another admin to act at this stage, as means of ensuring the the user receives fair treatment. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [65] Discussion concerning Prunesqualer Statement by Prunesqualer Comments by others about the request concerning Prunesqualer Result concerning Prunesqualer This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Blocked for 21 days, and extended the topic-ban to be over the entire area of conflict and removed the time limit. As far as flaunting restrictions goes, it doesn't get much more blatant than this. Courcelles 19:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Prunesqualer

Talk page access removed. PhilKnight (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Prunesqualer User requesting enforcement Cptnono (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Prunesqualer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions. Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [66]: Removal of declined unblock requests, ban, and validly-imposed edit restrictions while sanctions are still in effect. (WP:BLANKING) [67] Refering to other editors as "vultures" in the section title and creating a laundry list against WP:UP#POLEMIC Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) I assume one is not required. The editor is aware of the possible sanctions. Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Blocking user's access to their own talk page (often a final step) and an extension to the overall block to encourage a better understanding of what is and what is not acceptable. OR Removal of my comments that were reduced or inclusion of the complete comments. (I was actually OK with keeping his edits in and that should have been clear) Please also see User talk:CIreland#Prunesqualer Restoration of the block templates. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [68] Discussion concerning Prunesqualer Groovy. Thanks guys. My primary concern was the half comments which misrepresented what I said and that looks handled. Feel free to close it out. Cptnono (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Statement by Prunesqualer Comments by others about the request concerning Prunesqualer Result concerning Prunesqualer This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I think using 'vultures' once in an established metaphorical sense isn't that bad, so I'll remove talk page access, but won't extend the block. PhilKnight (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Phil beat me to it, I concur. I don't think it's a big deal the notices are gone as long as you logged them, on ARBPIA. --WGFinley (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Iksus2009

Editor notified under AA. If improper edits continue, a topic ban may be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Iksus2009 User requesting enforcement Khodabandeh14 (talk) 09:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Iksus2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#1] Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [69] Threatens to disbar an admin who had warned of his WP:NPA violation: [70]. Note the comments on the previous violation:"If anything, don’t look at the past, look at what Iran is right now: one of the most backward countries on Earth, living according to a dark-age ideology, abusing women’s rights, and electing a total clown as your president. Very little indeed. So, I guess, again, I do understand why it is so important to Iranians of today to try to put as much of their national pride on what happened in the past, a side effect of this being attempts to appropriate anything you can. But even if you look in the past, to be frank, there is not much to be proud of. Really. What did this ancient Persia do? Greeks kicked your ass, and you left to the world 0% of what the Greek philosophy and science have left. You claim to fame is to have been beaten by an Ancient great nation, and is such a very derivative notion. It is like saying, “Hey, look, I am an accomplished person too, because Brad Pitt slapped me in the face pretty bad 20 years ago.” " and "Move on, and don’t try to steal other people’s achievements". These comments violate WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:ATTACK and WP:BEP. New comment also generalizes[71] users based on their background violating WP:NPA and WP:BEP. " It is a sign of clear Iranian bias to hide this fact." "I see that Persians have overrun this page". Also threatens to disbar an admin who had warned him is a serious violation. More minor but still serious issue when it comes to Armenia/Azerbaijan topics, removing sources [72] without discussion in the talkpage. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) [73] Warning by Nishkid64 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Additional comments by editor filing complaint The user has obvisouly has come with a WP:BEP and WP:NPA approach. However, his 2009 comments were extremly xenphobic, which makes it impossible to work with in the article. The user should be topic banned from the article Nezami Ganjavi whose introduction has come through a many months worked concensus (which the user has been told in 2009 as well as the preamble of the article he is editing). His comments about "page being overran by Persians"[74] , "Iranian bias"[75] violates WP:BEP and WP:NPA. More seriously, threatening the admin who warned him about WP:NPA] with disbarment. With the addition of his severe WP:NPA, WP:BEP violats on the talk page, the user should be banned from the talkpage. Also a block for WP:NPA and threatening the admin who only warned of him WP:NPA with disbarment (which is an attempt at a psychological threat). Account could also be an SPA. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [76] Discussion concerning Iksus2009 I request a permanent ban. Here is part of the latest comments[77] after he got the warning. " So with this in mind, here is the promised political opinion: I hope the US and Israel bomb Iran sometime soon. Not because I hate Persians or Iran. I just think it would be good to bring some humility to Persian chauvinism, to talk some sense to them, to bring them up to date with the modern realities of the world (from being stuck in a time period three thousand years past),..." . And this too: " Since I am already going to be banned anyways (in an Iranian style censorship. Well, at least I will not be whipped ... I hope, or be issued a Fatwa against). ". This was just a portion of the latest comments. The user's acount is 1 years old and he has been warned multiple times today and last year. Do you really expect that such a user can be compromised with in the talkpage? Are other users supposed to forget all of his hatred and act like nothing happened and continue normal topics discussions that might arise? The user is asking to get banned as he states too and you predicted: "Ok, now you can go ahead and ban me. I plan not to use Wikipedia anyways. I think the Britannica subscription price is worth it, which I have realized thanks to this exchange. So thank you! As they say, you get what you pay for.", "I have no intent of wasting my time any more than I already have.".. etc. Well I think admins ca give him the oppurtunity of not wasting his time and the time of other users (for complaining to admins). It is really a waste of my time. If he is not permanently topic banned from such articles, then other places the user contribute, has already been poisened, and has created a WP:BATTLE atmosphere. For example, no one is going to talk calmly to another user who has called for a bombing of a country. There is a reason this sort of topic subjects have gone to two Arbitrations. I believe new measures are needed, where the first such comments, the user is blocked for a week and the second such comments, they are banned. In the case of this user, he was warned three times for the same type of comments, but got absolutely nothing except a light warning from admins (actually the first one was a serious warning but admins did not follow it up). This is a disaster in terms of admins weak policy, and some serious actions would perhaps reduce the number of users like this. Specially since such topics have come under two arbcomms, and admins need to get strict. Not follow one light warning with another with another. . Again, when a topic has gone through two arbcomms, it means admins need to be serious. Moreschi is surely missed, as he would have banned such users on the first incident. Not three light warnings in a row. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Just a reminder per discussions below: "Because this editor has very little history and the warning from Nishkid came last year, I felt it was more reasonable to give a clear and explicit warning that battleground behavior is not acceptable than to block immediately. However any repetition of this very aggressive behavior should lead to an immediate response. Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC) "}}. I know admins have a lot on their plate, and they deal with so much nonsense everyday. However, they should act upon the previous warnings that were issued. Else violaters of the system might not take their warnings seriously. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Statement by Iksus2009 Comments by others about the request concerning Iksus2009 Result concerning Iksus2009 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Because this editor has very little history and the warning from Nishkid came last year, I felt it was more reasonable to give a clear and explicit warning that battleground behavior is not acceptable than to block immediately. However any repetition of this very aggressive behavior should lead to an immediate response. Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC) I have notified Iksus2009 of the AA discretionary sanctions. Since he hasn't continued to revert any articles, and the main problem is his intemperate and nationalistic rhetoric on talk pages, I suggest we close this with no further action. According to him (June 2009), Iran is "right now one of the most backward countries on earch, living according to a dark-age ideology, abusing women's rights, and electing a total clown as your president." At Talk:Nezami Ganjavi#Protected Status he has stated: My "fault" was that I was objecting to the clear Persian bias on display in the editorial board overseeing the Nizami page. I will pursue this issue to the end with Wikipedia until a balanced approach is reached. I think there has to be at least one ethnic Azeri present on the editorial board of this page. If he actually goes ahead and edits in accordance with a nationalist philosophy, a topic ban is one of the possible options. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC) This comment by Iksus is precisely what we don't want to see. I am minded to not err on the side of leniency on this occasion, although I do understand why some are. AGK 21:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC) I'm not minded to err on the side of leniency, I'm just minded not to poke an editor who has a good chance of disappearing if he isn't poked too much. Looie496 (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC) My understanding is that an individual admin may impose a topic ban on an editor from all AA articles "if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." This could be done in the future without opening up a new enforcement request. The possibility of a topic ban may be held in reserve, even if the present request winds up closing without further action. If anyone thinks a block would be wise, can they specify a duration. EdJohnston (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Rigger30

Blocked, 24h.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Rigger30 User requesting enforcement O Fenian (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Rigger30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [78] Revert to this version [79] Second revert, within 24 hours of the first [80] Third revert, within 24 hours of the first Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) [81] Warning by O Fenian (talk · contribs) Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Block Additional comments by editor filing complaint Has clearly received the notification prior to the second revert, since he replied to my talk page messages here before the second revert. I will admit to a 1RR violation myself, but please allow me to explain. Here I reverted the third edit he made, as it has BLP implications and it is also factually inaccurate. In the early 1970s Gerry Adams was not held at a prison, as it was not a prison at the time it was an internment camp. Internment was for those held without trial or charge, whereas prison obviously implies either convicted or on remand after being charged. As the article was on the main page at the time, I felt it was unacceptable to have such an error in the article especially with the possible BLP implications. You will note my second revert ignored their second edit. I believe only reverting the one edit considering the lack of accuracy, BLP implications and the article being on the main page at the time should not count against me, but will accept any decision. O Fenian (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [82] Discussion concerning Rigger30 Statement by Rigger30 Comments by others about the request concerning Rigger30 Result concerning Rigger30 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Clear violation, blocked for 24 hours. Given his explanation above, I"m not inclined to block O Fenian at this time. Courcelles 20:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Concur with decision and agree that O Fenian's explanation is adequate. Closing this thread. AGK 21:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)