Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Arbitration enforcement action appeal by SonofSetanta

Appeal declined. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 
SonofSetanta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction being appealed 
diff
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by SonofSetanta

I would like to appeal for the removal of an ArbCom decision some years ago to ban me from editing articles related to the Northern Ireland Troubles as a result of violation of Wikipedia guidelines on editing such articles. I have no particular motive for making my request at this time. I've noted that a number of more level headed and well informed editors have improved articles I worked on and believe that Wikipedia has taken appropriate action to moderate the behaviours of some whose idea of balance I took issue with.

There will be no mass editing by me as a result of a successful appeal. My history will show I have continued to assist in the improvement of Wikipedia on a small scale in the intervening time but have distanced myself from anything controversial.

I put it to you that I am a valuable editor who just didn't have the common sense to know when to stop over certain matters. Experience has begotten a wisdom I didn't have when I joined Wikipedia and age has calmed me down.

SonofSetanta (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Response to Sandstein

Thank you for the opportunity and thank you for taking the trouble to set my appeal out for me. I was unaware you were the banning party.

I have no plans to edit anything at the moment, Troubles related or otherwise. Wikipedia was a very big part of my life for a long time and I believe I became obsessed. Since the ban I have largely confined myself to improving articles when I have noticed inaccuracies, spelling mistakes, missing citations etc. My intention would be to continue this policy. The biggest bone of contention for me was the Ulster Defence Regiment article. I joined Wikipedia specifically to improve it and remove what I perceived as bias; partly because of my specialist knowledge of the subject. I was unprepared for the reaction I got and I hadn't developed the skills and patience to deal with what transpired. I believe I have those qualities now, at least to a much greater extent than back then. That article is now pretty well balanced and I rarely look at it although I do refer others to it.

I note comments from interested parties below and am pleased to address those concerns: My previous identities are declared on my home page and have been for several years; a reflection on my improving attitude towards the wiki I would suggest. My major interests are military history and Irish history but I have a third level education (an HND in keyboard technology and a degree in history) and am knowledgeable on a wide range of subjects as my posting history shows.

I believe it is necessary to point out the difficulties surrounding editing Troubles articles when I joined and in many subsequent years. Although I have done no serious research on the subject prior to submitting my appeal what I have seen leads me to believe that the situation is calmer now as a result of various adjudications.

I should also bring to the attention of interested parties the difficulties I had concerning copyright of images. I did feel aggrieved as I felt there were no concerns about anything uploaded by me. Initially I searched through my own photographic collection and provided fresh scans and negative images to Wikipedia proving my ownership of the files. After a short time however I became disillusioned and stopped responding. I don't believe I have uploaded an image since then.

In a final statement I believe it is my behaviour over the last 5 years+ which merits the lifting of the ban. I pulled back and didn't make any further fuss.

I'd like to thank everyone involved for giving me the time of day, regardless of the outcome.

SonofSetanta (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

  • Note that I have reformatted this originally very malformed appeal, but it will still be closed shortly if the missing information (including a link to the sanction being appealed) and notification diff is not provided. Sandstein 20:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Moved from the results section, Sandstein 07:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I've moved the above here because I initially didn't recognize that this was an appeal against a sanction by me.
Since the ban in August of 2013, SonofSetanta has made relatively few edits. I invite them to describe the edits they intend to make in the Troubles topic area if the topic ban is lifted. Sandstein 07:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • My views on lifting the ban are similar to those of Salvio giuliano below. In the end, I still recommend not lifting the ban at this time until we see some more competent, conflict-free editing in other topic areas. In particular, the startling lack of technical competence exhibited by SonofSetanta in making this appeal (check their recent contributions) indicates that they are probably better suited to editing in topic areas that are not particularly challenging to work in. Sandstein 09:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Andy Dingley

Support You seem to have run afoul of Werieth (talk · contribs). I see that as no slight on any editor here, so I would support the removal of your restrictions. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by SonofSetanta

I've added the diff to what I believe is the original AE thread placing the TBAN. As Sandstein appears to have been the placing admin and has already commented here, I'm declining to notify them again. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I have no particular opinion on whether removing the topic ban will be beneficial to Wikipedia, but I'd point out that for a few years after the TB, they were fairly active, but that's not been the case more recently. This year, they've made 11 article edits, last year (2017) they made 6, and there were 6 in 2016. This would raise the possibility that they don't have substantial interests outside of the topic banned subject area, and if the ban was lifted, they're very likely to be an active editor in the area of The Troubles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I thought appeals were supposed to be posted at WP:ARCA? -- GoodDay (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The pink "Important Information" box says that one of the uses of AE is to "appeal discretionary sanctions to uninvolved administrators." The collapse box a little farther down, titled "Important: Appeals and administrator modifications of sanctions" says:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. The process has three possible stages... The editor may:

     1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
     2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
     3. submit a request for amendment at "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-llists.wikimedia.org).

Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by SonofSetanta

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I'm not going to be any part of the decision either way on this, but I assume this is what's being appealed. Reviewing admins should also be aware of the history of SoS's previous incarnations ([1], [2]). ‑ Iridescent 22:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The fact that, after the ban, SonofSetanta has made so few edits gives me pause, because, generally, that is how an editor shows that he has learnt from his mistakes and proves that he can make edits in a collegial fashion even concerning topics he has strong feelings about. And in the light of SonofSetanta's colourful track record, the need to show that he has learnt is, in my opinion, especially strong. On the other hand, this is an area for which discretionary sanctions have been authorised and, so, topic bans and blocks can be reimposed swiftly (and without much discussion, if need be), which makes me think that we can take a chance. So, basically, I'm still on the fence, but I'm not outright opposed to lifting the sanction. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I would decline this for the reasons Salvio mentions above. Without an edit history post-TBAN, it's challenging to examine whether SonofSetanta will be able to edit in that topic area without new issues arising. For me, I'd need more 'good behavior' to look at to feel comfortable lifting this. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I, too, would decline the appeal at this time. For us to consider an appeal, the appealing user has to show that they have been able to work constructively in areas not covered by their sanction. This user has not done so, and at their present activity level, is not going to be able to do so for a while. Vanamonde (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Iovaniorgovan

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 Iovaniorgovan

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
RGloucester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 20:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Iovaniorgovan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Standard discretionary sanctions or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 28 November tit-for-tat nationalist skirmishing for the purpose of establishing WP:FALSEBALANCE
  2. 28 November strange WP:OR conclusion based on an image to support a nationalist position
  3. 5 December Attempt to assert false balance/equal validity through Wikilawyering
  4. 26 November Attempt to create false balance through equal validity.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 

Two blocks related to this issue can be found in the block log...it's not clear that either of them were DS blocks.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Eastern Europe alert - 18 April 2018
  • Balkans alert – 26 November 2018
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

I am writing this request as a neutral party. I have had no participation in this dispute or topic area. I became aware of it via Robert McClenon (talk · contribs)'s post at WP:VP/PR. The relevant dispute is about the Origin of the Romanians article. It is not clear whether this article belongs more correctly under the Eastern Europe or Balkans DS, but this user has been alerted to both at different times. Iovaniorgovan (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account. His first edits in April of this year pertained to this subject, and he has not edited any other subject since. From the moment he started editing, his sole purpose has appeared to be to promote the "Dacian continuity" theory about the origin of the Romanian ethnic group, and promote Romanian nationalism. From the start, he has been embroiled in conflict with editors who have had to fight his continued advocacy for that point of view, and has been blocked two times for this same advocacy. Having researched this dispute, which was recently declined at DRN, I have come to the conclusion that Iovaniorgovan is not WP:HERE to build an encylopaedia, but to promote this theory. He repeatedly attempts to establish WP:FALSEBALANCE through claims of "equal validity". I believe that topic banning Iovaniorgovan from the "Origin of the Romanians" topic will end the dispute, and so I am requesting review here. I do not think that nationalist editing of the kind done by this editor is in the interest of the encylopaedia. I hope an uninvolved administrator agrees with me, and makes use of the DS at their disposal. Maybe this is a malformed request; maybe I'm wasting my time. However, even the slightest review of this user's edits, and the sheer amount of time he has wasted for well-meaning editors at the origin of the Romanians article suggests to me that real problem is this editor, not any other factor. If he can prove his capability to edit neutrally in some other topic area, maybe I'll change my mind...RGloucester 20:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Further comments: Draft:Origin of the Romanians looks like an attempt at a pro-Dacian continuity POV fork of the actual article. I've read through the RfC, and I'm sorry to say that I don't see anything at all productive in it...all I see is excessive procedure used as a cover for advocacy. As above, I hope that action will be taken. RGloucester 14:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
  • Notification of AE request

Discussion concerning Iovaniorgovan

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 Iovaniorgovan

I unequivocally reject these charges. I am not a "nationalist", nor have I ever been, nor do I try to make any edits to the article in question along such lines. Perhaps the editor filing this AE is not particularly familiar with the subject, and I don't blame him/her because it's a complex subject. One of the main theories presented in the article is the Daco-Roman Continuity Theory; the "Daco" part represents the Dacian component, so "Dacian continuity" is part and parcel of "Daco-Roman Continuity Theory" [DRCT] according to mainstream scholars. Now please allow me to address the edits that the filing editor found to be in violation:

  • 1. The work cited is by the President of the Romanian Academy, Ioan-Aurel Pop, and represents mainstream DRCT viewpoint (hard to find a more WP:RS than this, therefore I believe that the charge of this source being WP:FALSEBALANCE is unfounded).
  • 2. The image in question was added in support of two WP:RS that have not been disputed by any editor and are still in the article ("Romanian ethnographers point at the "striking similarities" between the traditional Romanian folk dress and the Dacian dress depicted on Trajan's Column as a clear evidence for the connection between the ancient Dacians and modern Romanians."), which is exactly what the image depicts. Furthermore, this image is also included in the Romanian version of the article. Again, the image supports the "Daco/Dacian" component of the DRCT, and not some "nationalist" agenda, as the above editor implies.
  • 3. That's taken from the Talk pages, where I stated my opinion that the current structure of the article is flawed (see more below) and hence I proposed a solution according to what my understanding of WP:NPOV is. It's just a discussion. Incidentally, we're in the middle of an RfC concerning precisely this issue (more on this later).
  • 4. That's a revert on a previous revert by one of the editors supporting the article's current structure. This type of edit warring got us all in trouble, not just me. We all got hit with blocks, and deservedly so. My first block was lifted after less than an hour, while my second block came (after I added one image to the article) because I misunderstood the wording of the DS, but then so did everyone else (as you can see here). I've toed the line ever since.

Additional comments: While I have contributed to other articles, I agree that most of my edits have been on this article, the reason being it's time-consuming and as much as I'd like to contribute more I just can't find enough time at the moment. Once we agree on a sound structure for the article and things resume their normal course I'll surely expand my editing interests. Now here's the reason we've gotten to this point, as far as I can tell-- the structure of the article is flawed, as observed by several independent editors in the last few months:

  • How an editor characterizes the content of the article: [...] In fact, reading over some sections... the article is extremely abstruse as it is. [...] How is the average reader supposed to know what any of this "evidence" has to do with the origins of the Romanians? [...]
  • An editor's suggestion on how the article should look like: [...] This will help to keep the evidence framed: readers will see how evidence is marshaled in support of one theory or another and can get a feel for the arguments each side uses. I think the uninformed reader who just wants to know where the Romanians came from will be able to weigh two or three theories better than hundreds of fact(oid)s. [...]
  • An editor's description of sections in the article: [...] The archaeological data is the worst. It is an info dump the relevance of which is nowhere made clear.Part of the problem is that the "evidence" is written as if the reader should draw his own conclusions. Take, e.g., the paragraph on Gothia. One can only guess what this is supposed to tell us about the origin of the Romanians. [...]
  • How another editor describes the article: [...] I realise now this article intentionally presents the theories seperately from the evidence [...]
  • Another editor's take on how confusing the content of the article is: [...] I think part of the confusion that I experienced reading the article is that the two theories are occasionally mentioned in the same paragraph, with no clear division between the two.[...]
  • Again, the same editor providing a reader's perspective: [...] so I might not be able to add much to this other than offer the perspective of the reader. If there are two conflicting and contrasting theories about the history of Romanian, the two theories should be kept somewhat separate within the article, and it should be clear at any point which theory is being explained. It is not clear which theory is being discussed in the paragraph in question, and adding a single sentence about the other theory only makes things more confusing, rather than adding balance. [...]

So, as you can see, the independent editors are in full and unanimous agreement that the structure of the article needs to change (as is my view). In light of this, and in order to bring edit warring to an end, I already filed for a dispute resolution (it went nowhere unfortunately because apparently the Mediation Committee was disbanded recently), and then for an RfC (pending). I think it should be clear to anyone that my intent (as evidenced by my actions) is to solve the current issues, and not engage in time-wasting edit warring or promoting any kind of agenda. Furthermore, as I stated before in the dispute resolution comments, I'm willing to abide by whatever the "moderators" decide. As you can see, I have hardly made any edits lately and I believe it'd be wise to allow the (currently pending) RfC to conclude properly, seeing as we've all come this far.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Response to Borsoka: Leveling false accusations will not help create a good editing environment. This editor however has contrived to create a false narrative by misinterpreting my edits/statements. The whole discussion he's referring to can be read here for all to see, where my edit in question is clearly this, which as you can see by reading the discussion was not about "ignoring facts" but was actually a "statement of fact" (as that editor did not partake in all discussions, including the most important ones). Having mostly Romanian and Hungarian editors involved is par for the course, considering most WP:RS are in Romanian and Hungarian (not exactly two languages of wide circulation), so making that observation has nothing to do with "nationalism" but with common sense. I've always been respectful of all editors, as one can see by going through my edit history. Moreover, a "bludgeoning" charge from 7 months ago cannot reflect on all my recent edits just because one editor (Borsoka) feels that way. After we all got hit with blocks (including Borsoka), the admin folks suggested that we bring up any issues to the Talk pages, and that's exactly what I was doing. If opening a conversation about an issue and talking with the other editors to try to achieve consensus counts as "bludgeoning" in that editor's opinion, then maybe he/she is not here to build an encyclopedia. Again, this whole debate is not about the false narrative of nationalistic impulses, but rather it's simply about structure (as anyone taking a cursory look at the article will not fail to notice). It's about building a better encyclopedia. p.s. the "independent editors" mentioned above have been notified of the pending RfC (except the editor who already "moderated" another RfC).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Response to Sandstein : Thanks for taking the time, just wondering why not just tag my edits until I establish a better track record? Seems harsh to jump straight to a topic-ban, especially while we're in the middle of an RfC about the very subject of this heated debate.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 10:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Response to EdJohnston: Thanks for your comment. Honestly, if I were you I'd probably be thinking along the same lines: SPA's = BAD, and many of the signs here do point towards yet another "one of those nationalistic" debates. However, I want to assure you that that's not the case. While SPA's might fall into that category 99 times out of a hundred, there are exceptions, and this is one of them. The entire debate is (and has been almost from get-go) about the structure of the article, which is flawed for all to see. If I'm somehow at fault for "the latest round of disagreements" for the simple reason that I've tried to do something about an issue several independent editors (see above) have agreed on, then I'm guilty as charged. In my naiveté I thought the editors' job was to improve the state of Wikipedia articles. Again, I'm the one who sought dispute resolutions in order to create a sound editing environment and avoid edit warring (see above) and we're currently in the middle of an RfC regarding the very issue of restructuring the article, where we (editors from both sides of the argument) are working on a draft of the article in order to create a structure that works. As such, I can't help but wonder at the timing and wisdom of these proposed sanctions, seeing as this is the closest we've come to a solution since the whole debate started. Trust me, my interests are varied and the last thing I want is to spend 2 hours a day editing on this topic. When this structure thing is settled I will voluntarily take a 6 month break from it and focus on other subjects.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Borsoka

I agree that Iovaniorgovan is not here to build an encyclopedia. He regards WP as a battleground between Romanian and Hungarian editors ([3]), clearly ignoring facts which contradict his assumption ([4], [5]). His bludgeoging tactics ([6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]) which have already been noticed by other editors ([13]) clearly show that he does not want to reach a compromise, but to push his own PoV. He has been quoting cherrypicked texts from other editors for weeks (as he does above), but he fails to ping the same editors to confirm (or disapprove) his conclusions ([14]). I agree that he should improve his abilities to cooperate in other articles before returining to his favorite (actually, single) topic in WP. Borsoka (talk) 04:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Iovaniorgovan:, I would appreciate if you pinged all editors whose words you have been referring to when defending your case. You only pinged two of them. You also informed only one of the wikiprojects which are interested in the article. Interestingly, your choice was WikiprojectRomania. Have you realized that you are on the edge of a topic ban? Do you think that this canvassing does support you ([15])? Borsoka (talk) 11:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Tgeorgescu

Cealicuca is precisely the same story as Iovaniorgovan, but with admigration theory instead of Dacian continuity theory. I will let you research his activity and you should make up your own mind if another arbitration enforcement would be required. I prefer that somebody else, with more authority, collects the evidence for it, since I do not want to receive all the blame for the likely topic ban. Oh, yes, both editors are quite fond of WP:PROXY. I don't have a dog in the fight among the three theories. Equilibrium (truce, stalemate) is all we have and all we will have, so bickering about this is much ado about nothing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sandstein: Cealicuca is also a WP:SPA, so following your reasoning he would qualify for a similar ban. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

When Iovaniorgovan was asked at [16] to retract with <s> and </s> that accusation that I would be paranoid, he replied with [17]. I guess that's what people call gaslighting. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Result concerning Iovaniorgovan

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I lack the topic-area knowledge to be able to determine whether this is merely a good-faith content dispute or nationalist POV pushing. However, I can look at Iovaniorgovan's contributions and determine that they are indeed a WP:SPA. Single-purpose accounts are almost always a bad sign, particularly in hotly contested topic areas. On that basis alone, I would topic-ban Iovaniorgovan from Origin of the Romanians until they have a track record of at least six months productive editing in some unrelated topic area. Sandstein 08:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
With respect to Tgeorgescu, a separate enforcement request would be needed setting out, among other things, that the awareness requirements are met. Sandstein 10:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Over time, there has been a lot of disputing at Origin of the Romanians. Clearly the latest round of disagreement has been touched off by the arrival of User:Iovaniorgovan (about 4/15/18) and User:Cealicuca (early July) at the article. Both of these editors are WP:Single purpose accounts. When we notice SPAs working on hot-button articles that are prey to nationalist emotions, we expect that these editors ought to behave with extreme correctness if they want to continue. Rather than extreme correctness, we see a lot of editing that appears non-neutral. (Also a ridiculous response to being given a routine {{uw-3rr}} template). So I support User:Sandstein's recommendation for a topic ban of Iovaniorgovan, though my advice is to make the ban be from all topics covered by WP:ARBEE. The ban should be indefinite, though I agree with Sandstein it might be appealed after six months if 'they have a track record of at least six months productive editing in some unrelated topic area.' EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Cealicuca

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 Cealicuca

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 10:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Cealicuca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Standard discretionary sanctions or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. Latest edit 2018-12-07 16:31 Evidence of being a WP:SPA: most edits at Origin of the Romanians and the rest of article edits (which are not many) regard Romanian-Hungarian disputes, except for [18], which is about Romanian nationalism, broadly construed. Since that is for now the only germane point, I kindly ask Borsoka to do the honors of providing more evidence if it would become needed. Anyway, if nobody else will do it, I will do it.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 

[19] 48 hours block for edit warring (27 November 2018).

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

[20] (27 November 2018) and [21] (4 May 2018).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Sandstein wrote I lack the topic-area knowledge to be able to determine whether this is merely a good-faith content dispute or nationalist POV pushing. However, I can look at Iovaniorgovan's contributions and determine that they are indeed a WP:SPA. Single-purpose accounts are almost always a bad sign, particularly in hotly contested topic areas. On that basis alone, I would topic-ban Iovaniorgovan from Origin of the Romanians until they have a track record of at least six months productive editing in some unrelated topic area.

Since Cealicuca is a WP:SPA same applies to him.

Explanation why that diff is nationalism, broadly construed: it basically says "We're not Russkies."

Additional reply: I won't go into details, but for Romanian identity it is very important that we aren't Slavs. I knew from the beginning that Iovaniorgovan and Cealicuca will be topic banned, but I tried to teach them the WP:RULES, etiquette (what we consider not done) and that they are WP:SPA. I wanted that they are given the chance to understand why they get banned and given a chance to better their ways in order to avoid it. They had enough time to learn from what I told them, but they chose to ignore it. If they will cease breaking WP:RULES and pushing POVs, I will have nothing against them.

Newbies rejecting honest criticism is never a good sign.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[22]

Discussion concerning Cealicuca

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 Cealicuca

I would respectfully ask the administrators as well as Tgeorgescu for some time (say a week, but more likely less) for me to come back with a full and comprehensive answer to this. In the mean time, and Tgeorgescu can make sure of this, I will not touch any article on Wikipedia, nor will I participate in discussions on any Talk page. This would ensure that the time I'm asking for would not mean letting me disrupt any article or talk page. I hope this is an acceptable request.

Thank you.

Ah, I see. Well, since my request is unacceptable, then I would point out, for the time being, to the following:
  • My account is 6-7 months old. I wonder how many editors start basically on an article, only to later "expand" to other articles.
  • Being very present (and frankly eating up all my time) on the Origin of Romanians talk page is both my choice (obviously) but also related to other factors I hope I can expand on soon. And it's also an accident - since it was purely chance that I decided to contribute. Of course, I thought that it's common sense to do that on the talk page, rather than going in the article itself. Oh how wrong I was...
  • I appreciate Tgeorgescu's concern, but let's do a comparison to other editors on that page, for the past 6-7 months. For example this is Borsoka's activity, with a majority of edits on the same article and an overwhelming majority of edits on the talk page. This, although his account is 10 years long (about 17 times more "time" than mine).
  • I am surprised of Tgeorgescu arguing my edit here is related to nationalism. I would be curious to see the argumentation.
  • Also, although I was indeed involved in edit wars, I was not the only one. Again, Borsoka (who's help Tgeorgescu asked) was received an arbitration "remedy" for Eastern Europe here, as well as several recent blocks (just like me), the latest seen here. You can even compare a little bit my activity to Borsoka's, on that specific page. Can't tell the difference, really. If you can't, look here. Borsoka seems to be a lot more active, both on the page as well as on the Talk page. So why the double measure?
  • For this specific accusation "and the rest of article edits [...] regard Romanian-Hungarian disputes", I will not answer (completely) right now. But it's a good thing that you mentioned this, since it helps me a lot. Thank you.
And the last thing... as I am well aware of just how much time this sterile and toxic article eats up, I have already tried to diversify. Some of my latest edits have tried to steer away from the article, and I've also acquired some new books which I intend to use as sources. Martin Gilbert's "The First World War: A complete history" (one of the best sources on WW1), Glenn E. Torey - The Romanian Battlefront in World War 1 (yet another exceptional source). Oxford's Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages is yet another source I will be able to consult. So yes, I fully intend on diversifying.Cealicuca (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: Changing the name of the category from "Slavic language" to "Slavic influence", for the Romanian language, is nationalism?!?...Cealicuca (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Cealicuca

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • As in the case regarding Iovaniorgovan above, I am of the view that discretionary sanctions topic areas are not a good place for single-purpose accounts dedicated to promoting a particular point of view. Cealicuca has not contested being such an account. A more detailed statement by Cealicuca, for which Cealicuca requests more time, is not needed. I would therefore also topic-ban Cealicuca from Origin of the Romanians until they demonstrate productive editing in other topic areas. Sandstein 12:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • As argued in my post on the Iovaniorgovan complaint, I support Sandstein's proposal of a topic ban of Cealicuca, but suggest that it be from all topics covered by WP:ARBEE and not just from Origin of the Romanians. The ban could be appealed after six months per Sandsteins's condition that 'they demonstrate productive editing in other topic areas'. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=873506626"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA