Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

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.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340

Nado158

Nado158 is topic-banned from everything related to Serbia, Kosovo, and Albania. Sandstein 08:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Nado158

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Nado158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Standard discretionary sanctions :

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

June 9, 2014 User moved article from common name of Albanian origin to uncommon name of Serbian origin
June 9 to 13, 2014 Drastically rewrote article on Kosovar football club based on non-English sources, edit warred over content when challenged due to behavior on stadium article
June 9 to 13, 2014 Same as above, different club
1. [3]
2. [4]
3. [5]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

February 22, 2013 Nado158 is banned for 1 year from "from all articles and discussions related to Serbia, Kosovo, and Albania, broadly construed"

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I came across this when I saw the thread WP:ANI#Olympic Stadium Adem Jashari/ Trepča Stadium and noted behavior of Nado158 across the project in regards to these football clubs of apparent intertwined history. I reverted edits yesterday, and again, today, and requested that he find consensus, until I discovered that he had previously been banned from the topic area. Based on his behavior in acting without a consensus, I believe he has just become more problematic. In his arguments towards me, he brought up where I (used to) live as a reason to discount my opinion, and as a response to the notification that I would come here he brings up other nationalities (although I will admit I referred to his actions as having a Serbian nationalist slant). He also accuses Albanian and Croatian users as being those responsible for his previous account sanctions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another bit of explanation of his point, claiming that the fact that a stadium in Kosovo had been renamed after a Kosovar militant leader from its old Yugoslavian name is the same as hypothetically renaming a stadium in Yorkshire after Osama Bin Laden, as well as more ad hominem jabs based on the residence of the other person in the dispute.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianyoumans: I am not knowledgable on the history of soccer in Kosovo, or languages of the Balkans, to make any sort of judgement. All I am aware is that he is trying his damnedest to change the name and team colors of FK Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica to FK Trepča despite the fact that FK Trepča (not to be confused with KF Trepça or KF Trepça'89) apparently no longer exists as an independent entity. His disruption right now is mostly centered on Olympic Stadium Adem Jashari (moved without consensus to Trepča Stadium).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not evidently clear what's going on with the two FCs, or 3 of them, or why Nado158 felt the need to completely disregard the current official name of FK Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica in favor of FK Trepča.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Added more diffs to support edit warring, which was prior to my knowledge of his ban.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [6]

Discussion concerning Nado158

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

Statement by Brianyoumans

Is anyone actually claiming that what Nado158 added to the articles is incorrect? I've read most of the text and it seems quite straightforward. I can't vouch for how it matches the sources because I don't know the langauges, but I haven't seen any objections to the content, just to his reaction when reverted. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like, with the FK Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica article, the main problem is that Nado158 has failed to include much on the original FK Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica team, perhaps because they were a much smaller team, and when the two teams merged (I speculate because FK Trepca needed a stadium to use, since their stadium was now on the Albanian side of town), Trepca basically took over, changed the jersey colors, etc. They do seem to be referred to, at least in the Serbian leagues they play in, as "FK Trepca" - see here, for instance. The article as is should simply be moved to the FK Trepca name, and if there isn't enough material on the former FK Partizan to merit an article, it should be a redirect. As to the stadium name, I don't agree with his moving the article to the Trepca name, but at least he is discussing the matter on the talk page, and will hopefully accept the consensus there, which appears to be against him.Brianyoumans (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- One might also ask why you twice chose to revert large numbers of edits by Nado158 on the FK Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica article, calling them "nationalistic" and "questionable", when you had no evidence that anything in them was incorrect, and the material in the edits was, as far as I can see, relatively innocuous? (Disclosure: I have some history with Nado158, both pro and con, on other articles in the Balkans. I am located in the United States and I don't have any real connection to the Balkans.) Brianyoumans (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, on reading the Trepča Stadium talk page carefully, I think Nado158 is making very poor arguments indeed for his move; that the new name of the stadium is offensive to Serbs, or perhaps even intentionally offensive to Serbs, is interesting material for the article, but it doesn't change the fact that the name of the stadium has been officially changed.Brianyoumans (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nado158

This side must be called FK Trepca not FK Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica (PKM). The PKM merged in th FK Trepca and was integrated in the club, which was foudned in 1932. This was in 2010. The FK Trepca continue to exist of course with the whole tradition ect. The old version was not right in both cases, as a PKM version and in the version as FK Trepca article with the wrong name, the FK PKM. So i tried to improve. The guy who create this article make a big mistake i think. WHat I want to say is that the original article, supposedly about FK Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica, was full of mistaken information, not accurate about FK Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica. I thought before, the PKM is a small club, much too small, I thought the relevance for WP is not enough (an article only for PKM i cant create I think, because of the "weak" history of the club and infos and sources, I am not sure).

Because of this I wanted before to improve the half FK Trepca/FKPKM article and move the article to FK Trepca, because this club was in the Yugoslav First League, have more relevance ect. and to create also a link about FK Partizan KM to FK Trepca. Thats all. Becaue of this , I added also many sources and use also the diskussion side, but the guy came an blame me because of the same users who blame me 1 year ago, but he dont knwo the background of the story than, also the background of the users, their plans, type of working, and the trap they set for me, thus he blame me so fast and revert and revert and revert for totaly another things, and i told him please see the sources, look on the dres, the kits, i explained, but he always blame me for the same stuf and wrong accusations. He sitting in Miami and will explain me the rigth. So i lost my nervs, because is ever the same think. If i realy want to fake something, did i contact and admmin before?

The other think is, if you think i am bad or i am nationalistic POV pusher, you can block me (I hope not, but i know i am right and I am not nationalistic or do anything in my life wrong, so nobody can change this, not the users here also not the admins and also not WP, infront of the great God i am clean), but trust me, i am in conflicts here and was banned becaue of other strong nationalistic Users who have here more power and are better organizied and have also support and are much more, and I am allone. I am than the "stuppied". But I tell you, the truth have nothing to do with the number of people who are convinced of it. If i revert or remove the nationalistic or fashistic edits of an another user, or the POV, i am the nationalistic user, the bad ect. Least year becaues of croatian User Joy I was banned mostly. Now, he is Admin, and in Vukovar for example he have support of many Croatians users and I was allone, because I want the same rights for all. The rules for Vukovar are not the same like for city of Novi Sad. Becaue I want to remove double moral and double standards. But no changes, I am again the idiot ect. and the onother side enjoys their support, buuuut I am nationalisitc, yes of course. Because of this I have my Edit-History, so i will be ban again for nothing, and the other continue and grow. So again the same like everytime. Double moral continues on WP and this side (WP) lost every day more and more of his vision and faith. So thats all from me brothers. So, your hands are free.

Again, Currently there are two football clubs with the same name Trepca. First is Serbian FK Trepca founded in 1932 which was merged with the local Serbian club FK Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica in 2010. Upon merging FK Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica, the FK Trepca stay the same club like before, the FKPKM stopp to exist and was integrated in FK Trepca, which was founded in 1932. This club is playig nowdays in Morava Zone League, the 4th league in the Serbian football system. Trepca's home stadium is the local stadium in Zitkovac, Zvecan municipality in Northern Kosovska Mitrovica. Northern part of Kos. Mitrovica is mostly populated by Serbs. The another club with the same name "Trepca", is Kosovar KF Trepça founded by Kosovar Albanians in 1999, which play in the Football Superleague of Kosovo and its home stadium is Trepča Stadium. Both clubs share only the name and colors but year of foundation, stadium, league, club president etc. are different. Trepca Stadium was the home stadium of Serbian FK Trepca but because of politics this club must moved to the local stadium in Zvecan municipality. They tried to play in their home stadium, but its not allowed or possible for many things for them to play there. I added sources, i tried to explain ect. ect. but nothing, now I am the bad guy again. I tried to improved, i used sources, nothing, the guy have no sources, no knowledge about this, but what he can is only to revert and TF here TF there.--Nado158 (talk) 11:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About the Stadium: The FIFA and UEFA dont recognize the Kosovar Football Association, the league system, and thus the clubs and football team not also, so It can not be official Adem Jashari Stadium. This was a one side decision. Also, the Albanian club KF Trepca which was founded in 1999 annex the stadium from FK Trepca who was established in 1932, take the club history, the club property of an the club which was founded un 1932, and represent it as his own. I want only to explain it. So I wanted a neutral name, neither Serbian nor Albanian one, like the name Trepca-Stadium, because both clubs bear the name Trepca, thats all. So if I dont have support for this, for the true historical expiration i can change it, but my POV isnt.

So many Serbian and non-albanian clubs from Kosovo and also their stadiums and club logos was renamed and annexed without permission of the UEFA or FIFA or the club owners. If someone expell the English players and poplation from Manchester and changed Manchester United over night in KF Manchester Bin Ahmeti Club and the Wembley Stadium also, for example in Osama Bin Laden Pakistani Stadium in one side decison, unofficial and also forbids the English population there to play football, I find this is not right and should be explained. WP should not take over injustice and wrong things and reflect it as the truth or this happen in line of control without problems and support the un-neutral Osama Bin Laden Pakistani Stadium ect. So happen with the Trepca Stadium for example. I wanten only an neutal name like Trepca, this is not pro Serbian, because the albanian clubs bear the name also, but the name after Adem Jashari is uneutral. That was my idea. So, becasue of this I am NPOV??? Never.Nado158 (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the Pristina International Airport, we found also a neutral solution, and why not also for the Trepca Stadium, because both clubs bear also the name Trepca, i thin it was fair. So this is really neutral and not POV ord nationalistic POV. We dont need postfix Adem Jashari to recognize the Trepca Stadium in this special and poor situation.Nado158 (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston:See my comments above. Which nationalistic POV or POV??? Please read my comments first and see also the sources, nothing is my POV.--Nado158 (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh come one, you make from a flee an elephant. For what? You report here only the "bad things". Come on, stay true, i am her only because fo FK Trepca and KF Trepca as wel as Trepca Stadium, so nothing was wrong what I edited, but you dont want to see this, and want ban me so hard for this? for truth. Do you read my comments above? Of course not, you ignnore all. One year for this? I did edit 99% non albanian ect. articles in the last months. What I edit was about FK Jagodina and FK Cukaricki. Why you want again represented me as the evil, by enabling individual edits I have not repeated here anything about Mitrovica ect. You want to ban me because I have improved the FK Trepca side... ridiculous. You are so unfair but to others do what they want but I punished her becuae i edit, improved and add sources also. Sure, just because I write in your eyes per Serb...ridiculous. The case is, FK Trepca exists and all was right, where is problem? I will ban for truth anf facts. Incredible. Well--Nado158 (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dont derseve not 1 week ban ( and you speak for one year), also not ban for Serbia sport, or nature or tourism ect. You are so unfair. Nobod of you looked and checkd my edits on FK Trepca really, but you are so fast with the ban...sorry, but its ridiculous. We (I) dont have rights here like the others, i know, but you exaggerating totaly, but totaly.Nado158 (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC) Come one, show me what i edit wrong at FK Trepca, come on show me, and tell me what was nationalistic or POV???--Nado158 (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, this edits are the same like at FK Trepca, here for the club FK Mokra Gora, so if this is in your opinion POV or nationalsitic, than i dont know realy....[7]

@Brianyoumans: Yes, the stadium has been changed, thats true, so I think we coud explain the situation in the article, thats all. I dont have problem with this. Nado158 (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Nado158

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

This can't be acted on based on the evidence as submitted. The first diff appears to reflect a content dispute, and it is not explained how this might constitute a conduct problem. The second and third diffs each allege edit-warring, but single diffs can't be evidence for edit-warring. Sandstein 18:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a dispute about the article at FK Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica, which appears to be a Serbian football club. Can anyone explain what is wrong with this edit by Nado158? There is a long sequence of events. There were football clubs on both sides of the Serbian/Kosovan divide in the city of Mitrovica, Kosovo, previously known as Kosovska Mitrovica. Two Serbian clubs merged. The only usable stadium was on the Albanian side, so that is where the combined Serbian club plays now. The club which is now Serbian used to have Kosovan players, but it doesn't any more. The sources provided are mostly Serbian, which seems OK since this is a Serbian club. What are we missing? EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nado158 is not doing himself any favors by the nationalist tone of his remarks at Talk:Trepča Stadium#Requested move. EdJohnston (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As amended, the request includes a link to a previous topic ban and evidence of edit-warring by Nado158. Their comments in the move discussion linked to above indicate that their edits are motivated by a desire to promote their own point of view rather than to write a neutral, factual encyclopedia. This is disruptive conduct. In view of this, I'd reinstate the recently expired topic ban with indefinite duration. Sandstein 06:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are here at AE because Ryulong noticed Nado158 making an inappropriate move of the article on a football stadium in Mitrovica, Kosovo. I myself came across Nado158 in April since he inappropriately moved Mitrovica, Kosovo back to Kosovska Mitrovica about a week after a closure of an official move discussion that found consensus for the other title. (You'd expect a previously banned person to exercise at least minimum caution on ethnically-sensitive topics). This led to me to impose move protection on the city's article. We don't usually block for inappropriate moves but this looks to be an ongoing problem with Nado158's edits. Now that I have reread the previous AE from February 2013 that led to a one-year ban I agree with Sandstein. We should reinstate the previous topic ban (22 February, 2013) from Kosovo Serbia and Albania but this time with indefinite duration. The wording would be "Nado158 is indefinitely banned from all articles and discussions related to Serbia, Kosovo, and Albania, broadly construed." EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but I'm using a more standardized wording: Nado158 is topic-banned, as described in WP:TBAN, from everything related to Serbia, Kosovo, and Albania. So closed. Sandstein 08:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Khabboos

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, 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: Khabboos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Khabboos (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban from the subject of religion or ethnic conflicts in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, imposed at

[[8]]

Administrator imposing the sanction: Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notified here: [[9]]

Statement by Khabboos

It has been two and a half months since I was topic banned (please see the link provided above). I have not indulged in any OR or wrong citation since then - in fact I have edited more than a thousand articles on wikipedia, citing proper references for my sentences (unless I was making a simple grammar and syntax correction). I have even avoided similar articles after User:Sandstein implied so on his/her Talk Page. I therefore request you admins to lift my Topic Ban - I promise not to indulge in any OR again and cite proper references for my sentences.

Bangladesh is a different country (please read the 2nd paragraph of the Lead of the wikipedia article on Bangladesh) - it is not a part of India, Pakistan or Afghanistan, so I believe I haven't violated my Topic Ban with this edit (which was an edit to the Bangladesh section of the wikipedia article on Anti-Hinduism)!—Khabboos (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have now edited the wikipedia article on Bangladesh also now - just a grammar and syntax correction - to draw your (administrators) attention to the fact that it is a separate country!—Khabboos (talk) 03:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh used to be called East Pakistan before independence (in 1971) from present day Pakistan and Bengal (along with India's West Bengal) when it was a part of (British) India, but Bhutan, Burma, Nepal and Sri Lanka were also a part of (British) India; so if I make an edit to the articles connected to Bhutan, Burma, Nepal and Sri Lanka also, are you admins going to object/sanction me?—Khabboos (talk) 03:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please also tell me when, how, where and to who I should appeal my TBan next.—Khabboos (talk) 05:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: The TBan was imposed because I cited references that did not say the same thing as the sentence I inserted (because I couldn't find proper references online) and then when I complained about a user (Darkness Shines) removing a sentence that I had cited a proper reference for, you topic banned me for calling him a 'crook (you said it was a personal attack)'. However, I have always cited proper references for sentences I inserted in wikipedia articles since then. Like you said, this appeal was originally submitted to WP:AN but was then moved to WP:AE by somebody else, but since this is also a valid forum, I don't think it's necessary for me to move it back where I posted it (thanks for the offer anyway)!—Khabboos (talk) 04:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

Because the appeal does not address the reasons for which the topic ban was imposed, let alone explain how and why the conduct for which it was imposed will not reoccur, I recommend against lifting the ban at this time.

I note that this appeal was originally submitted to WP:AN but was then moved to WP:AE by somebody else. Because AN is a valid forum for an appeal of discretionary sanctions, the appeal discussion should be moved back if Khabboos desires this. Sandstein 21:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Khabboos

Statement by AcidSnow

You have not come close to making a thousand edits, let alone 200 since your block and topic ban. As Sandstein said before, you still have not provided anything that "is assurance that the conduct for which you were sanctioned will not reoccur". Making promises means nothing as you have done that several times and have broken them right after. In fact, this edit[10] seems to break your topic ban just as Sandstein had first indicated. I don't believe your ready to edit these articles whatsoever. AcidSnow (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should something be done about his topic ban violation? AcidSnow (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Khabboos

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

He appears to have literally just broken his topic ban, which is a complete show-stopper, and resets the stopwatch. Nevertheless, hasn't come anywhere to showing the quantity and quality of edits elsewhere in the project that would be required to lift anything. the panda ₯’ 18:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khabboos's March 29 ban says 'You are topic-banned (see WP:TBAN) from the topic of religion or ethnic conflicts in India, Pakistan or Afghanistan'. Since this edit of May 27 is a violation of Khabboos's ban, I don't see any reason for optimism that might justify lifting the ban. EdJohnston (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khabboos has argued that his recent edit was about Bangla Desh which is outside the scope of his ban. As written his ban applies to India, Pakistan or Afghanistan. This puts the violation in a gray area, since Bangla Desh used to be part of Pakistan. Even so, noticing that he continues to make that kind of edit doesn't give us much reason to lift the ban, so I propose declining this appeal. The original AE complaint which led up to the ban was this one from March, 2014. At that time the complaint was that Khabboos was adding incorrect information to articles while citing sources that he had never read and didn't have access to. If he had read the sources he would have seen they contradicted the statements he was trying to add at Forced conversion and other articles. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline appeal due to the recent breach of the TBAN and that Khabboos's statement doesn't address the reasons for the appeal. If this is the breach being referred to I don't think it's recent enough for us to block for breaching it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AmirSurfLera 2

AmirSurfLera blocked 48 hours for violation of the ARBPIA 1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning AmirSurfLera 2

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Sepsis II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: AmirSurfLera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA

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

1:02 June 14 Revert 1
19:46 June 14 Revert 2
20:17 June 14 Revert 3 - After he was made aware of 1RR violation he double down.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

June 11 He was warned about ARBPIA after edit warring; the case is has yet to be archived from this page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The account is obvious a returned banned user, the problem is there are a dozen banned editors like him. See User_talk:Elockid#AmirSurfLera/AndresHerutJaim. With such poor editing from this new account it is clear this returning user has not changed their ways and should be banned again.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[11]

Discussion concerning AmirSurfLera 2

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

Statement by AmirSurfLera 2

Why is he accusing me of being a "banned user"? This extremely POV-editor is the only one who should be banned based on his aggressive behavior (check his edit summaries). Regarding the 1RR, Dlv999 is right. I'll discuss on the talk page of the article. I didn't notice this was a revert. I apologize for that, but there's no edit-warring here, just mutual contributions by Nishidani and me as you can see.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

Sepsis. Your diffs are not actionable, for the simple reason that 'Explanation' in the first two explains nothing. On the otherhand, the 1R rule appears to have been violated at least once (I suspect more than once, but I'm plumbdumb on this aspect of the rules) among the baker's dozen SurfLera made today. Revert theory is not something I understand however, and in any case, I've not the time to examine them, given the imminence of the Italy/England world cup soccer match.Nishidani (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning AmirSurfLera 2

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

The diffs provided above show three reverts on June 14 at 2013–14 Israeli–Palestinian peace talks. Even two reverts are enough to violate the WP:1RR, so I think a sanction is needed. Whether or not the Ma'an News is a good source for this article, there is no exemption from 1RR that allows anyone to remove citations to it from I/P articles with impunity. EdJohnston (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm comfortable that AmirSurfLera was both aware of discretionary sanctions and 1RR, so have imposed a block for 48 hours. I think this is an appropriate first sanction however I'm open to further sanctions if others believe it necessary. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brewcrewer

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

Request concerning Brewcrewer

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Sepsis II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Brewcrewer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA

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

June 15 2:51 Revert 1
June 15 3:14 Revert 2

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Notified by PhilKnight

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In the reverts he adds an empty praise section, deletes criticism of the article's subject as well as removing have a dozen sources including some written by M.J. Rosenberg, Max Blumenthal, and Conor Friedersdorf.

I see any section of any article which has to due with calls for the genocide of the Palestinians as being covered by ARBPIA. Sepsis II (talk) 04:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[12]

Discussion concerning Brewcrewer

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

Statement by Brewcrewer

My understanding is that this article does not fall under under WP:ARBPIA. I'll be glad to revert if told otherwise. In full disclosure, the subject does write sometimes about the Middle East conflict and part of the content at dispute is related to Israel.

Please be also aware that the content disputed herein concerns a BLP. My position is that the blogs and opeds at dispute, which do nothing but besmirch the subject, do not satisfy our strict BLP policy requiring "a high degree of sensitivity" and the use of "high quality sources." I reverted twice due to our serious BLP policy and the ongoing discussion at the talk page. I have already brought this to the attention of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If an uninvolved administrator wants me to respond to the (predictable) additional commenters please let me know. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 13:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

I just want to comment on Sandstein's statement, without commenting specifically on the merits of this report. An extremely large number of articles on living people include attributed criticism by other people. I would guess that most articles about journalists who take strong stands on the I-P conflict have such material. Obviously there are limits involving weight, significance, balance, and reliability of publication, but merely being an opinion piece is by no means grounds for exclusion. Zero^talk 08:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ZScarpia

One of the opinions removed was Max Blumenthal's. At the article on Blumenthal himself, Brewcrewer was rather insistent about re-adding material from a negative review of a book taken from the Forums section (and therefore likely an opinion piece) of the Jewish Daily Forward (at the same time as removing, admittedly rather poorly sourced, complimentary material). Perhaps that betrays a rather uneven approach to what could be see as BLP policy issues, if, in fact, the BLP policies actually are the point at issue. ← ZScarpia 12:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant to the breaching of the 1RR restriction on ARBPIA articles, yesterday, the 15th, Brewcrewer created and then heavily edited, during which he reverted other editors, the 2014 kidnapping of Israeli teens article. As other editors made intervening edits between his reverts, at my count, under the way reverts are counted under the rules, he made three separate reverts:

1. Between 12:35pm and 12:59pm: Condensation, removing material about international reactions. The material condensed appears to have been added by Jalapenos Do Exist here.
2. Between 14:09 and 14:12: removed categories (which had been previously added by Jalapenos Do Exist I think).
3. Between 15:57 and 16:30: modified the sentence, "Many Palestinians, and militants, support the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and civilians as a "bargaining chip of justice" to gain concessions from the Israeli government," removing the clause about militants and making a substitution for the final phrase about gaining concessions, also, further down, replacing "In 2011, Israel released hundreds of Palestinian prisoners" with "In 2011, Israel released more than a thousand Palestinian prisoners." (I'm not sure which editor originally added the text.)

Jalapenos Do Exist was blocked yesterday for breaching the 1RR restriction on the same article.
← ZScarpia 00:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC) (expanded: 12:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

Opinion pieces are not immediately disallowed as sources in BLPs, so long as the claims are attributed in-text to the author as in this case. In the case of the Blumenthal and Josh Nathan-Kazis sources, both are professional writers for professional outlets and thus their writings are subject to full editorial control. Rosenberg is the only one that is shaky, given that his piece was actually taken from a Media Matters site, which is a partisan watchdog organization. Generally, it has been viewed as a reliable, albeit biased, source and thus something that should typically be used with some form of attribution. The sources are not, in my opinion, BLP issues on their own. Even if one argues that there is some BLP issue with the tone or weight, this does not seem to be sufficiently severe to be the kind of non-contentious BLP issue subject to revert exemptions.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Brewcrewer

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

This is a bit of a borderline case. The article, Jennifer Rubin (journalist), is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict for the purpose of this report, which concerns edit-warring over, among other things, a paragraph reporting that Rubin has been criticized for allegedly calling for a genocide of the Palestinian people. However, I think that Brewcrewer acted in a defensible manner by removing this paragraph, which is what is at issue here, on the grounds that it constituted a violation of the WP:BLP policy. The paragraph relied on two sources, [13] and [14], which appear to be opinion pieces and therefore are not suited to support, at least on their own, negative statements about living people. For this reason, I would forego action in this case. Sandstein 08:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per User:The Devil's Advocate it is not evident to me that Brewcrewer's reverts are justified under BLP. (BLP reverts, per WP:3RRNO, are an emergency measure where the evidence is overwhelming, which it is not in this case). Wikipedia editors do make use of editorial opinion, not just factual coverage, in biographical articles where it makes sense. The factual point that Jennifer Rubin retweeted a harsh comment by Rachel Abrams about the captors of Gilad Shalit does not appear to be contested. (The comment can be seen in this version of the article). Rather than go to the bottom of that issue it may be better to note that (above) Brewcrewer has agreed to revert if he is told that ARBPIA applies to this article. It clearly does. Jennifer Rubin is a political columnist who stakes out bold positions and must be no stranger to controversy. The claim that she advocates genocide of the Palestinians looks to be a rhetorical excess by some people who wouldn't be expected to be her allies in any case. It may reveal more about them than about her. We are used to putting up with some over-the-top rhetoric by opponents in I/P articles, as for example in The Invention of the Jewish People, when the criticism appears notable. We can close this AE with advice to Brewcrewer not to revert again, but leave it to someone else. EdJohnston (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:ZScarpia has added a new complaint about reverts by Brewcrewer at 2014 kidnapping of Israeli teens. The article is about a current event, since these teenagers disappeard on June 12. The reported edits were on June 15 and Brewcrewer does not seem to have edited since. Some of Brewcrewer's changes appear to be copy edits. Since this does not seem clear enough to constitute a 1RR violation I would close the whole AE with no action. I would still advise Brewcrewer not to revert again at Jennifer Rubin (journalist), the article which led to this AE being filed. Unless there is objection I will close this soon. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lvivske

Lvivske is blocked for one week for breaching Eastern Europe edit restriction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Lvivske

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: MyMoloboaccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Lvivske (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: East European restrictions Lvivske (talk · contribs) placed under revert limitation: max 1rv/48hrs per article, with additional slow-down rule: must precede every revert by explanation on talk plus min.6hrs waiting period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Lvivske unsuccessfully tried to appeal this sanction on April 2014[15]:

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

T-64 article

Revision as of 18:29 First revert
Revision as of 18:32, 14 June 2014 Lvivske(Reverted to revision 612918862 by Lvivske (talk): Blah blah bah Second revert-violating restriction on reverting only once per 48 hours.
Revision as of 18:54 Third revert-violating restriction on reverting only once per 48 hours.

Odessa Clashes

Revision as of 06:41, 12 June 2014First revert
Revision as of 14:32, 12 June 2014 by Lvivske (talk): Huge POV pushing going on Second revert.Second revert-violating restriction on reverting only once per 48 hours.

Donetsk Republic

Revision as of 04:12, 30 May 2014 First revert
Revision as of 04:17, 30 May 2014 Second revert-violating restriction on reverting only once per 48 hours.

All above reverts in these articles violated the sanction as Lvivske carried them out without 48 hour waiting period.

Reverted to revision 612105104 by SkoraPobeda (talk): Category exists for a reason, terrorists took control of an airport and did terroristy things Revert done without discussing it prior on discussion page as per sanction.
Reverted to revision 612662697 by Lvivske (talk): Everybody poops Another revert without discussing it first on discussion page.
Reverted to revision 612101682 by Lvivske (talk): IP apparently can't read Third revert without prior discussion on discussion page,combined with personal attack.
Reverted to revision 612302193 by Lvivske (talk): STAHP! Fourth example, not sure what STAHP! does mean.

Above reverts violated another part of the sanction must precede every revert by explanation on talk plus min.6hrs waiting period. There are many more of those in Lvivske's edit log, I am using these ones as examples.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

East European restrictions Lvivske (talk · contribs) placed under revert limitation: max 1rv/48hrs per article, with additional slow-down rule: must precede every revert by explanation on talk plus min.6hrs waiting period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on April 2014.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Looking at the edit log, it seems that there are other violations of the revert sanctions, but these is the one most obvious and used as examples.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[16]

Discussion concerning Lvivske

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

Statement by Lvivske

I was reverting IP vandalism (content blanking of properly sourced content). I got into it, stopped when a legit user threw me a warning. Have nothing else to say or explain. The filing user wasn't involved in the dispute and does appear to have a vendetta to push...oh well --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 19:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since every edit I've ever made is being listed here, it would be difficult to go over the rationale for every revert (I don't see myself 3rr'ing or anything) but I see one for Tocino where I say 'stahp!", that was because that was previously talked on the talk page and he kept returning unsourced info against consensus, so I was a bit frustrated. Whatever, this whole thing is silly... --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 02:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Toddy1

The wording of the sanctions was that Lvivske and two other editors were "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."

At least some of the edits being complained about look like reverting obvious vandalism to me. Reverting "obvious vandalism" was permitted under the sanctions.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lvivske)

Result concerning Lvivske

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

The edits to 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes on 12 June is the main one I find actionable as Lvivske clearly breached the 1 revert/48 hours restriction especially without a clear consensus. The edits to T-64 on which Lvivske made three reverts (linked above) I also find actionable as the edit is not clear vandalism especially when considering that the source says that it's "highly likely" many tanks are still operational not that they are. However I'm mostly convinced that these edits are related to the Ukraine, that's what the source was written about and the edit was controversial primarily due to the conflict in the Ukraine. Given that WP:BANEX emphasises that vandalism must be obvious and the example given is blatant, I don't find the excuse of reverting vandalism to be entirely believable or acceptable as many of the reverts were of content which is questionably vandalism. Regarding the second part of Lvivske's sanction this revert is a breach as it is a 'content revert', which isn't vandalism, so per the sanction needed to be suggested on the article's talk page first. In this case I believe a minimum one week block or short term (no more than a month) topic ban is needed as Lvivske suggests to me ("Whatever, this whole thing is silly") that they don't intend to edit in accordance with the sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lvivske has done good content work but he gets into disputes periodically. I don't especially like these complex restrictions but he does seem to have violated it, and we can't ignore that. For instance, he obviously made two reverts in 48 hours at T-64, at 18:29 and 18:32 on 14 June, and he was not reverting vandalism. As recommended by User:Callanecc a block of up to one week would be appropriate. In my opinion short topic bans (less than three months) aren't the best idea. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like one week is the middle ground, I'll impose the block in a minute. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards