Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive61

< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests | Enforcement
Arbitration enforcement archives:

Tuscumbia

edit

Hittit

edit

Marekchelsea

edit

Lihaas

edit

Lihaas 2

edit

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

Request concerning Lihaas

edit
User requesting enforcement
O Fenian (talk) 06:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Lihaas (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
  1. [61] First revert
  2. [62] Second revert, less than 24 hours after the first
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
Not applicable, has just been blocked under this sanction
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
Block
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
The IP editor is plainly Lihaas, given the edit to to the article and continuing the same discussion on the talk page, he is also participating in the same discussion as the account on Talk:Tapuah junction stabbing. Northern Cyprus presidential election, 2010 is another article common to both the IP and the account as well. I do not believe it should be necessary for me to file a WP:SPI first given they are plainly the same? Note that the "source" he has added is this, which only describes Rebublican Action Against Drugs as a "vigilante organisation" and does not use the word terrorism as required. This is the second time in a matter of days Lihaas has violated the sanction on this article, the report right above this one was his first violation. O Fenian (talk) 06:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[63]

Discussion concerning Lihaas

edit

Statement by Lihaas

edit

if one sees the discussion on the talk page for List of terrorist incidents, 2010#criteria for inclusions I have asked O Fenian for a debate where he refuses to debate the issue at hand but simply states : "This is not a list of bombings, so please do not add bombings..." + "If your only argument is that you intend to "ignore all rules" then this discussion is pointless" + "You either provide a source that describes the incident as terrorism, or it does not get added to the list." He then resorts to the tried and tested method of tag-team revertin with the user RepublicanJacobite from the the irish republican wikiproject (of which the two did the same on the RIRA/CIRA articles last year to remove the sources quotations from the IMC report of the time). On another issue on the page I had an issue with the addition of the Tapuah Junction stabbing incident which another editor added because wikipedia calls for editors to be WP:Bold. I'm currently in the process of debating with another editor why i think it is wrong to add and why he thinks it is right, as the onus is on me to challenge the info was agreeably left on the page till consensus. Then another editor comes along and adds this edit in question about RAAD, the 2 republican members seem to so politically charged that they dont want to discuss the issue or the criteria for inclusion (in general as per the topic of the debate) and refuse to discuss this but simply state the onus turns on us again. I have said it before in the debate that i agree there is stuff that shouldn't be on here but let's debate a criteria, yet they seem to think it is absolutely there preregotive to decide on an issue that suits them with scant regard for the talk facility. What is the point of a talk facility if political agendas have it there way without willingness to discuss? Even the hot-bed of the Middle East conflict is at least willing to discuss in the Jewish Exodus from Arab lands. Im not saying im right, im just saying have a debate fairly before removing. Then get consensus. Wikipedia explicity asked an editor to be bold and they remove without discussing it with anyone. Might as well get rid of all these rules then. (of which, btw WP:Ignore also states that rules dont have to be followed by the book, meaning WP:WTA has repercussions. Furthermore, another editor has also said how the list of terrorist incidents is unrelated to the troubles and that every act of terror/political violence in N. Ireland is not related to the troubles.Lihaas (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for his latest "blatant lie" he has used the talk page as a forum rather than discussion. i have listed what he said and refused to discuss. Talk page doesnt mean using it for the sake of it, its to be used for discussion of content not threats.
as for "edit summary of vandalism -- watch what you delete" if you read the edit you will find the edit removed undisputed info apart from the controvesy. go on and see how the dates of another entry were reverted, mind you without any edit summary whatsoever. At any rate, pending the outcome of this case i have not gone back and reverted. But then there is the other precedence for being WP:Bold in reverting other controversial additions like that of the Tapuah junction. if one wants to read/follow the debate in this regard i have postedon the talk page without reverting. the onus now falls on O Fenian to debate.
He now seems to say, after i have given an arguement with basis, that he doesnt want to debate because he seems to have changed his mind "This is becoming little more than trolling now. Unless reliable sources describe this incident as terrorism, or the perpetrators as terrorists, Wikipedia will not be doing so." Now i would like to ask an admin. Why should i have to keep justifying myself if he refuses to talk and debate?
There seems to be a new red herring to avoid debate. "finding it difficult to believe that straight after a block for a 1RR breach, an editor can breach 1RR again on the same article using a sockpuppet, continue edit warring after that" firstly, 2 editors vs. one finds this article is not related to the troubles so there is a 3rr rule. Secondly, i have ceased to remove his edit awaiting the setting of precedent. Thirdly, there is no "sockpuppet," which he seems to believe is the only reason to argue about.
Sockpuppet case
edit

Why would i possible want to log out and log back in just to edit this? That to somethign that is blatantly similiar? If i was a sock puppet woudlnt i at least try to be different? My account seems to often log out on some comps im on b/c its a public facility or has low cache memory. i dont know what the reason is.Lihaas (talk) 09:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

previous block
edit

on what basis was this? on the whim of 1 person? No others, no other admins. Is this a politically driven wikipedia that 1 person can make demands have it passed? Simply because he asserts a relation with the troubles doesnt make it true? Mr. O Fenian is not a historian by an qualification not a policy maker nor a wikipedia admin/rule maker. as above, 2 editors on the issue have shown this to be otherwise. Why is there no apology for the block? And as shown above the second "revert" adds another source to work through consensus, yet for some reason wikipedia seems to believe that only those who update regularly have the authority to make demands on others.Lihaas (talk) 10:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lihaas, the block was on the basis of this remedy, which clearly states that editors who exceed 1RR "may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator". The remedy has the scope of "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland", and I consider the Republican organization is related to Irish nationalism. PhilKnight (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You said "any article that could be reasonably construed..." yet i didnt edit RAAD (even if it were to construed as a time of the troubles (as per the above not everything in the country has to do with the troubles), even though the topic on hand concerns actions in 2010). The article in questions is List of terrorist incidents, 2010. Seeing that page there are only a few facets that even consider ireland as a whole.
Furthermore, the RAAD page itself was created only lastmonth in response to action this year, long after the troubles were done with. Yes the remedy ties me up to the troubles which i havent even touched in a year
You can also see the tag-team revert editors supporting each other (the only this RepublicanJacobite seems to want to discuss. very likely to be a case of sockpuppetry)Talk:List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2010#Arbitrary_break
And i do all the admins actually read the content before replying? (See tim songs update below after i posted)
also, and more importantly, the block came from a "revert" that included lots of info. not just his that was another "revert" in less than 24 hours. see the previous info above. Didnt the admin who did the block actually read the info? Lihaas (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Lihaas

edit
  • Comment I think invoking AE is an unnecessary escalation of what has been a fairly slow-burn, civil discussion, albeit mostly carried out by edit summary, the more unfortunately. Firstly, I don't think this is a Troubles related incident, simply a vanilla question of whether a violent act by a vigilante group can be construed as terrorism. Not all terrorism in Ireland is by definition part of the Troubles. Secondly, the second "revert" diff linked by O Fenian above represents what appears to be a good faith effort to make a real substantive change to meet O Fenian et al's concerns by adding a new source on the issue. I oppose any blocks at this time as unduly chilling on the necessary give-and-take we're having on this list and related articles. (please see also my comments at the SPI case). RayTalk 18:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering Lihaas is once again adding the incident which is unsourced as terrorism with an edit summary of vandalism -- watch what you delete I would request that a sanction (or sanctions) of some description is/are issued. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further accusation of vandalism, and also a blatant lie that "Time and time again you have refused to use the talk facility", when I have posted on the talk page repeatedly. A block at this stage would not be punitive, it would prevent him edit-warring to add back the incident which is unsourced as terrorism, since he shows no sign of stopping. O Fenian (talk) 09:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am finding it difficult to believe that straight after a block for a 1RR breach, an editor can breach 1RR again on the same article using a sockpuppet, continue edit warring after that, make accusations of vandalism, and that nothing is going to happen about this? When will it end? O Fenian (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat myself, I don't think this falls under the arbitration case for the Troubles; Lihaas' problem here has nothing to do with Irish nationalism, and I've yet to see a serious argument that this incident springs from that. In which case what we have is a fairly frustrating and annoying content dispute, where I do think Lihaas is being a little bit unreasonable, but unreasonableness is not yet a reason for banning. RayTalk 04:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From my uninvolved view with this current issue. I have dealt with O Fenian before and I noticed from his comment of complaining about accusations of vandalism, this reminds me of a certain accusation here where he falsely accused me of vandalism while I attempted to fix an infobox which I was only able to do poorly due to template problems. Hypocrisy? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As anyone can see, that (which is not caused by any since-deleted templates) is a joke, and that any editor knowingly saw fit to leave an infobox in that state and not self-revert their edit is vandalism in my opinion. O Fenian (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to remove a flag that does not represent the whole of Ireland and due to there being no template to have it say "Ireland" without a flag, that was all I could do with the templates avaliable which is not vandalism. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could I suggest you discontinue this thread? PhilKnight (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point I was making is that O Fenian's motives may be questionable with the source I gave that suggests there may be some hypocrisy which makes one of his explainations suspicious. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Lihaas

edit
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Hi AGK, my understanding is there was an infringement, but Lihaas hasn't been blocked. I agree a short block could be appropriate. PhilKnight (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for clearing that up. Any block should be accompanied with a notice that further violations will result in an extended block and/or a ban from the topic area. This sort of problem editor can quickly escalate from being a small pain in the rear to being a major obstacle to collaboration and discussion. I do, however, hesitate at blocking now for the two reverts because of the time that has elapsed since the incident. On the other hand, a block may a good idea in light of the sock puppetry. AGK 23:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should we be kicking Lihaas out of this subject area permanently, in light of the sock puppetry? People who use alternative accounts to avoid scrutiny and push through their POV aren't the kind of people we need floating around contested, ex-arbitration subject areas. AGK 23:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My feeling, as above, is that blocks are meant to be preventative rather than punitive and it would do no good to block him at this stage. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about a restriction that he may only edit while logged in? Any future failure to log in that is not immediately corrected will result in a block. Tim Song (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle: Blocks are meant to be immediately preventative, yes, but I'm talking about sanctioning him. The preventative element of a sanction needs to be considered on a more long-term basis—so even if he isn't currently a "threat", it may be the case that his presence in this subject area is detrimental.
Tim Song: I don't think that's necessary. We usually deal with sock puppets by slamming an indef on the puppet/s and a lengthy block or indef on the master. I'm also not seeing any remedy in the The Troubles case that would allow us to levy such a sanction even if we wanted to. Maybe a community one-account restriction could be agreed to at AN/I, but again—I don't agree that it's necessary. AGK 21:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the sock puppetry, I think it's possible to assume good faith, in the sense he could have forgotten to log in. However, he certainly should have been more forthcoming about making edits while logged out. I don't think we need to be concerned about requesting that if he makes logged out edits, he indicates they're his. In my opinion this is more or less covered by a 1RR restriction - in order to know whether he has gone over 1RR, we need to know if he also edits logged out. Otherwise, with more time passing, I'm more inclined to agree with Stifle - it wouldn't do much good to block him at this stage. PhilKnight (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kedadi

edit

Ліонкінг

edit

Pmanderson

edit

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

Request concerning Pmanderson

edit
User requesting enforcement
Tony (talk) 04:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Pmanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. !Voting in an RfC on a MoS talk page about a proposal to merge several outlying MoS pages into an existing MoS page.
  2. Associated incivilities at WT:Words to watch -
    Refers to User:Gnevin as a "bully", in addition inferring that other editors on the page are bullies.
    Refers to MoS as "an illiterate disaster area"; Calls for sanctions for anyone who supports the merger; "Spotty reception"; "a falsehood",
    Refers to other editors at WP:WTW as "a aquadron (sic) of bullies".
  3. undid and edit at WP:PEACOCK under guise of reverting vandalism
  4. further comment at WP:WTW
  5. further comment at WP:WTW
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  • Previous WP:AE report.
  • Warned here, and has responded here that he believes his "restriction has lapsed". I think the user knows very well that the ArbCom restriction was for 12 months (i.e., until 14 June 2010).
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
Extension of the restriction for a further six months, to expire on 14 December 2010 contingent on good behaviour during the remainder of the restricted period. Strike-through of the edits in question at WT:Words to watch.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
The user has breached the ArbCom restriction. Furthermore, he has shown in the breaching that he is incapable of behaving according to WP:CIVIL, on the MoS pages and elsewhere, using a strategy of inflammatory attacks on editors and on the MoS itself. I note a long history of blocks for edit-warring, including one during the restricted period, on 15 December 2009, although rescinded on the promise to stay away from the article in question. I note also that, oddly, rollback tools were granted on 4 January, just a few weeks after that event. [My error: granted a year earlier—Tony1] (Please refer to previous WP:AE report).
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
diff.

Discussion concerning Pmanderson

edit

Statement by Pmanderson

edit

I followed an invitation to comment from WT:NOR, which has nothing to do with MOS, on an issue concerning three pages which have nothing to do with MOS, attempting to merge them into a MOS page. When I did so, I did not realize the target was a MOS page, I also thought that the restriction had lapsed (I'm not counting the days until I can continue with MOS, which is the intent of the restriction); but I will abide by any decision relating to WT:Words to watch.

However, I hope the decision will be to leave things alone. The restriction arises from a date-delinking case; this is a completely different issue.

This complaint is an abuse of process, attempting to Wiki-lawyer a loosely phrased reestriction, which will expire before long, into an area it was never intended to cover; similarly, the merge proposal is an attempt to bull through a change which has no consensus, and which will have the effect of expanding MOS.

Both of these flaws are endemic to MOS's way of conduct and to its regulars; is Tony's real objection to somebody pointing out this creeping imperialism? Or is it being reminded that MOS is widely (and justly) despised outside its Mutual Admiration Society? (Which is why I will not discuss the "guideline" if this merge passes; I will simply ignore it.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I observe that those calling for extended sanctions and removal of my comments are the other participants in the date-delinking case (who were also sanctioned); this is a small clique, attempting to remove the traces that people disagree with them.
The claims of idyllic harmony before I arrived are false: there was already a protest, led by PBS, against participants in the RfC presuming to declare it closed (after only a few days) and against wide dispute. In fact, this appears to be why Slim Virgin asked for outside voices in the first place. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You observe incorrectly. I am calling for the removal of your comments and I was not sanctioned in the date-delinking case.  HWV258.  22:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? How did ArbCom miss my opposite number? I may propose an amendment. ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't "miss" anything. (Unlike yourself) there's a good reason why I didn't receive sanctions.  HWV258.  01:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As much as you may want to make this look like some sort of 'Get Mandy' agenda, I suggest that the problem is little bit closer to home. At issue, IMHO, is your unrelenting dissing of others' views almost wherever you go, or so it seems. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to make this look like anything; I have provided diffs, and let others see what they look like. The way to make it look different is to act differently. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would include not accusing others of lies and falsehoods would it?  HWV258.  06:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony has been attempting to gather together all my past actions; the result has described as Wikilawyering by third parties as well as myself. This continued effort to silence an inconvenient voice is really deplorable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This removal, by Gnevin (the proposer of this RfC) is at least indicative of the true purpose of this complaint. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To AGK: I have no intention of using this matter to recall any of the acting admins, if that simplifies matters. For what it's worth, I have not commented at WT:Words to Watch, and don't intend to do so either; this note on Carcharoth's talk page suggests that the matter has been settled, and that my intervention has been helpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Greg L

edit

What I just read, the widened restriction, is as follows:


Quoting PMAnderson: …which have nothing to do with MOS… perhaps. It is, however, quite clearly “style guidelines”. Moreover, we once again seem to be seeing “continuing disruption”, which is what happens if one accuses an experienced editor who has been around since 2005 with “vandalism” over a style guide issue (Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms) when it is quite clear that the edit PMAnderson reverted was over a legitimate difference in opinion and couldn’t properly be regarded as vandalism by any stretch of the imagination.

The reason for the topic ban on PMAnderson was to take a source of both the fuel and the spark from venues where debate was ongoing that were hot-button topics for him. The ban was widened because the scope of topics that were obviously hot-button issues proved wider than first thought.

As for PMAnderson’s protestation This complaint is an abuse of process, attempting to Wiki-lawyer a loosely phrased reestriction… I find he doth protest too much. The extended topic ban (“the pages and talk pages of all MOS and style guidelines”) is sufficiently clear. The motives and reasoning underlying the restrictions are even more clear.

As to the entire last paragraph of PMAnderson’s statement… (endemic flaws, the “regulars” on MOS, “creeping imperialism”), I frankly don’t know how to respond to that. Greg L (talk) 06:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suggestion: he (and others) could stop attempting to take over policy pages, acclaiming seriously disputed proposals as consensus, and generally conduct themselves in accordance with policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quoting PMAnderson: … conduct themselves in accordance with policy. Interesting. Tony has no restrictions on his editing style guides and MOS-related pages and talk pages; it is OK for him to be there. Tony has one single block to his record and that was an accident the blocking admin took back three hours later. Tony, who is an experienced wikipedian, has a long record of knowing how to contribute in a collaborative writing environment without being uncivil and disruptive and engaging in incessant editwarring.

    Tony also takes care, when coming to venues like this, to use the truth and nothing but the truth in his posts. I find it unfortunate and telling when PMAnderson writes I did not realize the target was a MOS page when it was so easy for the inviting editor to come here (as she later did) to point out that her open invitation began with There's a proposal to merge several pages as part of a project to streamline the MoS. It appears to me that PMAnderson brings both the fuel and the spark to the style-guide coal mines and we simply don’t need that. Greg L (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#Tony1_topic_banned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ohconfucius

edit

I do not mind a sincere and civil vote by Pma, and I think people would have overlooked a genuine 'technical violation'. However, it goes way beyond that: he charges into a discussion – and on-going rewriting work – which has been going on in a very cordial, collegial and enthusiastic manner for some weeks, without apparently having read through the exchanges, and then proceeds to insult those who have given their hard work to consolidate the mess which resulted from gradual evolution. I find the repeated pattern of unprovoked denigration of others and dissing of their opinions unacceptable. Even here (above), his rhetoric is belligerent, and I note his vitriolic attack ("creeping imperialism") of Tony for filing this case. His anger-management does not seem to have improved a lot, if at all, since the dates case.

He may choose to forget that the broadening of the arbcom restriction was a result of previous disruption; to say it is "loosely phrased reestriction" (sic) is stretching credulity to the extreme - the wording is, I believe, crystal clear. There seems to be a serious disconnect between his statement that he wasn't aware it was a Style guideline, and his assertion that editing restrictions placed upon him had lapsed already. This version is the one which Pmanderson voted on. The very prominent {{style-guideline}} tag at the top of the page is difficult to miss. The MOS tag has similarly existed on WP:PEACOCK since at least the end of 2007.

In view of the zero improvement in his behaviour, I believe a six-month extension to the topic ban to be entirely appropriate, to prevent further disruption. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But all was not harmony before I arrived; there was already a protest, led by PBS, against participants in the RfC presuming to declare it closed (after only a few days and against wide dispute) - and I see it continues without me. In fact, this appears to be why Slim Virgin asked for outside voices in the first place. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your participation was notable by its inflammatory nature, and the sooner you admit that, the better. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Pmanderson

edit

Comment by Hesperian

edit

Pmanderson provides a reasonable explanation for what is only a technical violation, if a violation at all. And his comments, if read in context, are only barely objectionable. Hesperian 09:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What ever about his claim that the edits at W2W where accidental When I did so, I did not realize the target was a MOS page. This edit can not claim such a defence Gnevin (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your unsolicited support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by SlimVirgin

edit

Just a point about Pmanderson's statement that he was responding to a request for comment posted on WT:NOR, and didn't realize it was connected to the MoS. I was the one who posted that request, and it's clearly connected to the MoS. I wrote:

Wikipedia talk:Words to watch#RFC. There's a proposal to merge several pages as part of a project to streamline the MoS. One part of the proposal is to merge Words to avoid, Avoid peacock terms, Avoid weasel words, and Avoid neologisms into a new page, Words to watch (W2W). Fresh input would be appreciated at the RfC. [138]

SlimVirgin talk contribs 12:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tony1

edit
  • WRT Sandstein's and Shell's posts below, can you please let me know when the matter has been decided, and whether it's up to me to re-file this at ArbCom as an application for amendment (or if ANI, which part of ANI)? Tony (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Pmanderson

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

By editing Wikipedia talk:Words to watch and Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms, which are labeled as being part of WP:MOS, Pmanderson has violated the extension of his topic ban to "the pages and talk pages of all MOS and style guidelines" by Shell Kinney (talk · contribs), an arbitrator. However, I'm not sure abount the binding nature (and hence the enforceability) of this extension, because the Arbitration Committee's decision does not authorize discretionary sanctions by administrators (which could include such a ban extension) and nothing indicates that the ban extension is the result of a (public or non-public) vote of the Committee, either in the course of the original case or an amendment motion. For this reason, I am asking Shell Kinney to clarify whether his ban extension was made in the exercise of the Arbitration Committee's binding dispute resolution authority.

  • If Shell Kinney indicates that it was, I intend to enforce it according to the decision's enforcement provision; the conceivable question about whether a ban extension decided by an individual arbitrator is ultra vires would then be for the Committee itself (or Jimbo Wales) to review if they are seized by any appeal. This is because we as editors are not authorized to review whether an arbitral action is in conformity with the arbitration policy.
  • If Shell Kinney indicates that it was not, the ban extension is void and this request should be dismissed.  Sandstein  16:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell did not become an arbitrator until the start of this year, so I can't see how a sanction she imposed in 2009 could possibly be under arbcom's authority. I do have concerns about Sandstein's proposed action, though. As a procedural matter, his proposal means that we would be overturning Shell's enforcement action, without either consensus or authorization from the committee. It could be argued that the action was not taken "pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy", but this potential is quite troubling. As a philosophical matter, sanctions normally stay in force until they are successfully appealed. We should discourage users from testing their sanctions in the hope that they would be found invalid. No appeal has ever been made in this case, and I'm almost minded to think that to the extent there are any objections to Shell's sanction, they have been forfeited. I'm not sure if we should reach, nostra sponte, an issue that no one in this request addressed. Tim Song (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see the point you are making, and I agree that sanctions stay in force until they are successfully appealed. In this case, though, we are not overturning an existing sanction (such as an arbitration enforcement block), but we are concluding that there is no arbitration-based sanction that could be enforced, in particular because the (then-)administrator who extended the ban does not appear to argue that he did so under ArbCom authority. At any rate, sinply declining to enforce a decision (as I propose we do here) is not equivalent to explicitly overturning that decision, because even if we who participate in this discussion decline to enforce the decision, nothing precludes other administrators (or Shell Kinney himself) from enforcing the decision themselves if they believe that is the right thing to do.
You are also right that no party has raised the issue of enforceability, but the absence of a complaint does not make the decision enforceable, and if we ourselves were to claim arbitral authority to enforce a non-arbitral decision, we would ourselves be misusing our administrator tools. We should, in such cases, apply the maxim of iura novit curia.  Sandstein  10:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But your proposal is not to simply decline to enforce - it is to declare Shell's action void. I fail to see how declaring that a sanction imposed by another administrator to be void is not overturning that decision. And while we are citing Latin phrases, my view is that the question of the validity of the sanction as an arbitration sanction, while legitimate in an appeal, is res iudicata in an enforcement request and generally not subject to collateral attack - that is, for the purposes of enforcing it, it suffices that the sanction sought to be enforced is, on its face, designated as an arbitration enforcement sanction, and imposed and recorded as such by an administrator - and I'm especially not inclined to reach a question which no one has raised, to disturb a sanction that has remained in place for a long time. Vigilantibus non dormientibus aequitas subvenit. Regardless, this is not a good place for a meta-discussion. Assuming that we should treat this as an appeal of the sanction imposed, I agree that it appears to be unauthorized by the Committee, and on that basis would agree to lift the sanction. If necessary, community sanctions can be proposed at AN/ANI, per Tznkai. Tim Song (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No Latin legalese please. This is arbitration enforcement, not moot court.--Tznkai (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: When the ban remedies were moderated in August 2009, the three amendments made to Pmanderson's and others' topic bans explicitly adjusted the restriction from "'style and editing guidelines' (or similar wording)" to "style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates". The intent of those amendments seem quite clear: only edits to MoS pages relating to date linking are to be sanctioned. Per Sanstein, in the absence of a provision for administrators to re-broaden the topic bans, this request does not seem actionable. Moreover, I am not seeing why Pmanderson's actions are at all of concern or at all might re-inflame the date delinking dispute. AGK 23:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I chose to reset the ban to its original form (full text of close) based on the committee's indication that their motion to tighten the ban (which originally included style guidelines) was conditional on good behavior and would be rewidened if the disruption resumed (See the original motion). On reviewing the AE thread, it was clear that disruption had resumed; after leaving the proposed closure open for more than a day with no objections, I enacted the decision. As a side note, one of the Arbs suggested that the reset to the original ban extend beyond just this one participant. [139] If you disagree that the behavior that caused the rewidening was disruptive, I could see the concern, but to void it at this late date because you think it was procedurally inaccurate seems a bit silly to me. Since there hasn't been a repeat of this type of AE thread for more than 7 months, it seems to have been highly effective in stopping the disruption. Shell babelfish 01:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the explanation. I, too, think that the re-widening of the ban was most likely the appropriate decision on the merits. However, it was not an Arbitration Committee decision, and therefore is not a proper subject of an arbitration enforcement request on this noticeboard, which is dedicated exclusively to enforcing Arbitration Committee decisions (or sanctions issued pursuant to an Arbitration Committee decision). This matters because the community has conferred the authority to make binding dispute resolution decisions, including extensions of any bans, not on individual administrators, but solely on the Arbitration Committee (who alone may in turn delegate it further to administrators). I suggest that in order to make the ban extension enforceable, it should be submitted as a request for amendment as provided for in par. 4 of the motion you refer to ("Any party who believes the Date delinking decision should be further amended may file a new request for amendment.")  Sandstein  09:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the solution here is to punt to AN/ANI. Appears to be a standard nasty editing dispute, but I wouldn't be surprised if a successful community sanction could be created.--Tznkai (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That may well be so, but does not resolve the question about whether Shell Kinney's ban extension should be enforced now or in the future. Since we do not seem to agree about this, only ArbCom can resolve it. I have requested clarification at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking.  Sandstein  07:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shell's comment above (As a side note, one of the Arbs suggested that the reset to the original ban extend beyond just this one participant) refers to a comment I made. I'm noting here that I made that comment as an editor, not an arbitrator. Still commenting as an editor, not an arbitrator, I would suggest that rather than be all formal and correct (as Sandstein is being), that an informal approach is tried here: just ask Pmanderson if he recognises that he made a mistake here, and whether he is willing to recognise and abide by Shell's extension? He appears to have said so here, so if Sandstein and Shell discuss this with Pmanderson, this could all be resolved fairly quickly, and anyone disagreeing with what results could file something separately. Carcharoth (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That "all formal and correct" approach is more accurately the "covering our backsides" attitude. When you deal with this stuff regularly, people start to look for ways to have your tools taken away. At least an arbitrator can't be recalled by a disgruntled ex-sanctionee for deviating from the rulebook. Administrators active on AE very much can. AGK 15:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incompleteness theorems

edit

Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Carl_Hewitt#Post-case_clarification, I'd like to request semi-protection of Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Numerous IPs have been posting to the talk page recently, which was mildly tendentious but not worth any sort of enforcement action. However, today three IPs have edited the main article to expand on Hewitt's work. The use of numerous IPs matches the description in the section of the arbcom case linked above. The article was recently semiprotected for two weeks on Feb. 15 for the same reason. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Semi-protected for 2 weeks. Abecedare (talk) 03:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MarshallBagramyan

edit

Biruitorul

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive61&oldid=1142655685"