Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Important information Shortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,[a] or is no longer an administrator;[b] or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. ^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. ^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan :

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

1. 26 March 2014 Files a spurious SPI against myself, pure battleground mentality.
2. 26 March 2014 Calls me "useless" and an "ISI agent" These are obvious personal attacks.
3. 26 March 2014 Insertion of a blatant BLP violation, this unsourced "and cooking up lies and rumors" and the cited part "herself is found to be biased" is not even in the source used, the source actually says "Setalvad is alleged to have included charges that were retracted later by the witnesses." And that is all it says regarding this BLP. This is source misrepresentation to smear a BLP.

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

1. Warned on 26 March 2014 by Darkness Shines (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The fact that these edits came just after having being notified of discretionary sanctions shows, to me at least, a battlefield approach to editing in what is a highly contentious topic, notably the events which occurred in Gujarat in 02. Most telling were the edits which gave me cause to issue the notification. Restoration, twice, of the main article on the incidents to a version from over a year ago, which also contained BLPPRIMARY violations, and in doing so removed up to a hundred (wild guess there, I am not about to count them) academic sources which discuss the issue. This removal was a terrible breach of NPOV.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2002_Gujarat_violence#Biased_article_2

The entire article is biased inspite of open truth.Some unknown journalists are given more importance than well established news agencies.

Zordanlighter has not been warned by an admin earlier and may not yet understand the rules here. I think he must first be warned not to indulge in Original Research and that he should cite references that contain the same words as the sentence he uses on wikipedia.—Khabboos (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This SPI case results might be of interest to admins reviewing this request. -- SMS ^Talk 21:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Calling someone an intelligence agent in an attempt to discredit them is either simple trolling or an indication of a clear disregard for wikipdia's standards for behaviour. ZORDANLIGHTER is a relatively new account that has already been blocked for disruptive editing (only in the last week) and whose conduct has degenerated since being notified of discretionary sanctions.
  Opening an SPI by linking 12 completely unrelated accounts without evidence and with the comment "Just 5% chance. 95% chance of myself being wrong" indicates that this person is either naive or trolling - but this is not within the remit of AE.
  In terms of the RFAR this edit[1] gives me reason to consider that ZORDANLIGHTER is indeed just being disruptive because they've added[2] and removed this material within 1 minute. What worries me most is that this issue seems to be an escalation of issues on Total Siyapaa and rather than heeding the AC/DS warning ZORDANLIGHTER's behaviour has gotten worse.
  I'd be inclined to issue a final warning in this case regarding edits to pages relating to the area conflict covered by this RFAR and separately issue a standard sysop warning regarding conduct toward other users. However, I am open-minded if other sysops see ZORDANLIGHTER's actions as warranting harsher sanction--Cailil ^talk 22:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be happy with that, but I'd be fairly likely to have a pretty low standard if there is further misconduct. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The situation that led to the block of ZORDANLIGHTER on 17 March (for removing others' comments) is explained in more detail on this version of his talk page. Since the DS warning was only just given on 26 March there has not been enough time for Z. to do much that is worthy of sanction. ZORDANLIGHTER's comments which can be seen on Talk:Total Siyapaa do not inspire confidence, but all but one of these comments were *before* the DS warning. Unless Z. decides to completely change his approach in the near future those who are expecting the worst probably won't need to wait long. In other words, closing this with just a warning should be sufficient. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the results of the SPI linked to by SMS above - I'm asking Salvio for input here--Cailil ^talk 16:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really know what you'd like to know, Cailil; so, please do feel free to ask if you'd like to know more. In short, I ran a check on IMRANABBASCHAMPION and technical evidence showed me that there were strong links among said account, BLACKIEHINDU, Whistlingwoods and ZORDANLIGHTER. I found edits made by different accounts from the same IP address within a short time frame of one another and with the same UA – and, more than that, in general, all their edits came from the same /25 range with the same UA. For Whistlingwood, I also took into account the fact that his edits always supported Zordanlighter, which reinforced my original conclusion. In the end, however, I considered the technical evidence I gathered strong enough to call the whole bunch  Confirmed. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry Salvio - I missed the bit where ZORDANLIGHTER was blocked for 2 weeks. But fundamentally what I'm wondering is, if given this abuse we should move to a higher level sanction or just close with the warning? Personally I'd lean towards a topic ban at this point--Cailil ^talk 19:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering that the SPI result indicates that ZORDANLIGHTER engaged in disruptive topic-related sockpuppetry after being warned about discretionary sanctions, including with edits as BLACKIEHINDU (talk · contribs) such as "[living person] is an Dark and ugly South Indian Hindu" ([3]), I recommend an indefinite topic ban from everything related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan.  Sandstein  19:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Since ZORDANLIGHTER's abuse of multiple accounts is now confirmed and he has no record of any helpful encyclopedic editing I'd support a one-year block under discretionary sanctions. The above diff by User:BLACKIEHINDU is to be credited to ZORDANLIGHTER per the sock case results, and it certainly shows improper ethnic motivation for his Wikipedia edits. Z's other confirmed socks should be indeffed as a normal admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm happy leaving it as a two week block (as opposed to extending it to a year as Ed suggested) but placing the indef topic ban per Sandstein. I think a two week block is an appropriate sanction for the sockpuppetry and that the topic ban is necessary to prevent further disruptive edits to the topic area. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd have no qualms about a year-long block, but I can certainly live with an indefinite topic ban. It's minimal effort to re-block if that proves necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing user

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

Sanction being appealed

The other participants (Galassi (talk · contribs), Bandurist (talk · contribs) and Lvivske (talk · contribs)), all of whom have had prior sanctions and/or warnings under the "Digwuren" Arbcom rules, are placed under an indefinite revert limitation on all Ukraine-related edits: not more than 1 revert per 48 hours per article, with the extra slowdown condition that before they make any content revert (obvious vandalism excepted as usual), they are required to first open a discussion on talk, provide an explanation of their intended revert and then wait 6 hours before actually making it to allow time for discussion"

Topic bound 1RR per 48hrs with extra slowdown on Ukraine related articles. Sanctions were applied on this talk page on 30 October 2011.

Editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) / Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notification of that editor

diff

My primary area of editing is on Ukraine or Europe, be it in politics or sports, and having a topic bound sanction that limits my ability to engage in WP:CYCLE indefinitely is a major hindrance. The sanctions were applied in 2011, and really should have been limited to just the page where the edit war at the time was occurring, in order to slow down the conflict that happened that 1 day...which was over 2 years ago.

I wasn't even a prime mover in that particular conflict, and in a way got dragged in, but I wasn't an instigator. After the sanctions were applied, a user who was opposing me on the discussions stated:

User:Greyhood: I also think that user Lvivske's conduct wasn't really problematic here, at least for me, and I'd like to kindly ask the involved admins to reconsider the restrictions on him.

Also, the sanctions were predicated on having "prior sanctions and/or warnings under the Digwuren Arbcom rules". I had no prior sanctions under DIG. Also,my warning on DIG was made by Cailil.

This warning was related to a block Cailil made on me, the discussion related to which is here. Commenting users found that the admin was too involved. It was overturned.

Here are some comments by neutral users who chimed in:

User:Lothar von Richthofen: Cailil's DIGWUREN warning to Lvivske was handed out for the same "reasons" as the block. After much discussion, these "reasons" were found to be spurious at best. As a result, the block was summarily overturned. Shouldn't this mean that the warning also be rescinded?

User:Lysy: Having looked through the edits in question it seems clear that this block should not be held. Additionally, the content disagreement between the blocking admin and Liviske regading whether Mila Kunis is Ukrainian or not, not only does not warrant a block but on the contrary, should make the admin more cautious, and refrain from using his admin priviliges

User:Djsasso: I almost unblocked immediately this block was a very bad block by someone clearly involved and biased.

User:Piotrus: it would be helpful if the blocking admin would apologize to the victim (Lvivske).

User:Volunteer Marek: It should also give you two pause that folks who have had disagreements with Lvivske in the past are coming here to defend him. It's pretty clear that this was a horrible block, that it was abusive and that now just a whole bunch of excuses are being made. There's nothing uncivil about stating this fact

The admin's (Calil) conduct actually inspired another 3rd party user to file an AE report on him and cite many of the things that happened in my oreal here. The block itself in the end was overturned by Future Perfect at Sunrise. (which I guess is ironic that something overturned was later used against me)

I am thus asking for 2 things:

• a) That my sanctions be lifted - they were harsh at first but after 2 years passing, I think I've learned my lesson. It's also debatable as to how involved I was in the first place.
• b) That my warning on WP:DIG be removed from my record (or reworded) since it was based on a very questionable dispute and a block that was overturned and opposed by a slew of uninvolved users who thought I was unfairly treated. Something like this shouldn't be ammo to use against me in the future.

@Callanecc: For the record, the dispute you're citing was resolved on the talk page. / Yes, I may have overstepped my bounds and lost track of my edits in that particular instance a few weeks ago. Nonetheless, I feel that I should be treated under the same 3RR rules as anyone else. I'm a very active user on talk pages, the sanctions imposed are more fitting for someone who reverts continually and/or ignores discussion while I do operate in good faith and try to engage as well as provide rationale behind my edits if disputes arise. --Львівське (говорити) 03:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a long history of interaction with Lvivske and quite often we were on opposing sides of numerous editorial disputes and I cannot help but notice that his behavior significantly changed to the better. He is much more civil and stricter follows the rules than three-five years ago. This is of course my own opinion, but there is a fact: most people subjected to 1RR remedy would become banned from the site in a year - usually if somebody is unable to follow general 3RR rules then they certainly could not obey 1RR - Lvivske on the other hand not only survived on 1RR remedy without being banned for more than two years, he was not even blocked for a single time since then.

Now there is a series of very important events occurring in Ukraine since 2014 Ukrainian revolution and 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. The whole world is now looking on Ukraine, a lot of new events and a lot of editorial activities attracts many new users. Some of new users are not aware of Wikipedia policies, some are very opinionated, some might be trolls. Ukraine is the main topic for Lvivske and he is trying his best to keep the related articles in shape doing a lot of usable work. His ability to do this work is strongly affected by this 1RR ban: if an important article has dozens of edits per day and many are done by new or biased editors or people with poor command of English then it is easy to formally violate 1RR restriction by just doing noncontroversial edits like fixing BLP issues, removing repeated info, fixing grammar, etc. I think we should give Lvivske a chance to work without interference from the 1RR restriction. If he started to edit problematically when it is just a few minutes from any uninvolved administrator to put him on the restriction again. Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't have much to add that Alex above hasn't said already. Same thing. I often disagree/dispute with Lvivske (I think I got him blocked once long time ago). I think that over the last three years his behavior has gotten much better. And... oh, ok, I do have a bit to add: I don't think his behavior was all that bad to begin with. Just some usual minor stuff that happens in any sufficiently contentious topic area, but I've always found that if you actually approach Lvivske in a reasonable and respectful manner then... you get a reasonable and respectful conversation (which is A LOT, both on Wikipedia and in this topic area). I also agree with Alex that right now we really do need knowledgeable editors about Ukraine and Lvivske has a lot to contribute. The appeal is timely and well justified. Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Alex Bakharev says is all the more reason to maintain the current sanctions. The fear of sanctions has had a moderating effect on Lvivske's behaviour.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correlation is not causation. And anyway, by that logic we should slap some sanctions on anyone anywhere because "fear of sanctions will have a moderating effect on their behavior". You know, prevention, not punishment. You ready to volunteer to be first in line Toddy1? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Callanecc's note on rewording warnings. I would have no problem with my warning being reworded if its considered helpful by the admins here.
But given that this sanction (Future Perfect's) has stood for years. And seemed to be well understood I think changing my warning is quite pointless at this point - but if it helps I will not stand in the way of the log being undiffed and reworded (but linked to this thread) - but only in the case that is considered necessary by a consensus of sysops here.
Also if I remember correctly Shell Kinney notified Lvivske of the RFAR in 2009 as well--Cailil ^talk 10:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also for the record Future Perfect granted Lviviske's unblock appeal of 72 hour block after 51 hours. he did not overturn or rescind my warning. He used his discretion in what was a normal non-AE block that any sysop could unblock without prejudice. Lviviske is confusing this non-AE action (the unblock) with overturning his notification of the existence of AC/DS (something that is impossible). Yes Volunteer Marek did file an AE thread against me. It was closed with "no action" (see here)--Cailil ^talk 10:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a constructive proposal if sysops want a reworded log at WP:DIGWUREN might I suggest:

Lviviske is notified of WP:DIGWUREN and the discretionary sanctions in place in that topic area

--Cailil ^talk 11:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lvivske has already been operating for some time as if these sanctions do not apply. I recently cited 3RR violations and edit warring over on the noticeboard. The edit warring in question appear to be very similar in nature to the edit warring that brought about the original sanctions. Namely, Lvivske reverted multiple editors despite there being an ongoing conversation on the talk page where the emerging consensus supported the original text. Further, Lvivske has a history of attacking those who criticize him with personal attacks including repeated allegations that I am "headhunting" him, calling me "a nut", and yesterday accusing User:Solntsa90 of libeling him here. Clearly the status quo is not working - either the sanctions should be enforced or they should be removed. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that editing restrictions to experienced editors (such as all three people sanctioned by FPS) should never be given for a period of time longer than six months because this gives unfair advantage to SPA accounts who are engaged in WP:BATTLE. What actually happens here are AE admins playing on the side of smarter violators simply because they play by the rules. This is the reason I agree with Alex and Marek that restriction should be lifted. On the other hand, I am sure the restriction will be soon reinstated because even an experienced editor (like Lvivske) will quickly be "eliminated" by his content opponents if they want. Sorry for speaking in terms of information wars, but I think this is exactly what happens here, and this is the "war" Wikipedia can never win, meaning it will always be used for promoting some kind of political propaganda. This problem can be alleviated by supporting long-term contributors against the rules per WP:IAR. I am making this comment only because I do not edit any longer in this subject area. My very best wishes (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• These (from March 2014) seem like a violation of the 1RR/48hr restriction 1, 2 & 3 plus another 1 & 2. Lvivske explanation of the reverts as WP:CYCLE in progress (which it isn't as there is only one R in BRD) shows me that they don't understand the reason the restrictions were imposed (to make them discuss rather than revert) or what they actually mean. Given this I don't see a strong argument to remove or lessen the sanctions unless either the sanctioning admin wants to remove them or there are other arguments presented. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that it was resolved on the talk page but that still doesn't excuse the reverts in violation of your edit restriction. Also regarding the warning, there have been a (lot) of discussions about removing warnings from log pages and the agreement is that you can't un-notify or un-warn someone that discretionary sanctions are in effect so warnings therefore shouldn't be removed from the log page. Though they can be reworded, and I'm very open to considering that pending the logging admin's comments on the matter. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• After all this time, I would have expected to support this. However, the appellant's argument TODAY is that the original sanctions were wrong, and beats us up using random quotes to support that. This is not at all what I would have expected as a appeal. Any form of topic ban appeal, whether AE-imposed or community-imposed needs to show a) positive editing b) positive user interactions. There seems to be violations just RECENTLY of the imposed restrictions. As such, there's no possible way to vacate this as of yet. DP 12:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]