Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive56

User requesting enforcement

Athenean (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Purpose_of_Wikipedia, Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Decorum, Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Editorial_process

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

See related ANI thread for evidence and community discussion: Wikipedia:ANI#Propose_community_ban_of_User:Monshuai

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

1. [1] Warning by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs)
2. [2] Warning by Alison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Indef block appropriate sanction under WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions rule, recommended topic-ban from Bulgaria-related articles (this section edited by Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

At the time of writing at ANI, there were some 10 users in favor of a ban, with only 2 against (one is User:Gligan, who is also Bulgarian, the other is User:Sulmues). Particularly telling is that Bulgarian users alone are 3-1 in favor of sanctions (Tourbillon, Tomatoman, Preslav for, Gilgan against). In response to his claims that he is always polite and has improved from his early days, here's two diffs from right before he became aware of the ANI report I filed [3] [4]. They speak for themselves. Athenean (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

He was notified of the ANI discussion on his talkpage [5], and has now been notified that it has moved to WP:AE [6]. Athenean (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must cover the allegations against me even whilst I am limited in what I am allowed to say. Future Perfect at Sunrise states that I support the claim that the Bulgars are Iranian (Aryan) and not Turkic. This is patently false! As I stated before, years ago I believed that all theories about the Bulgars' ancestry be included in the respective article, as there did not seem to be absolute consensus amongst academics regarding their origins. I was also under the impression that Dr. Peter Dobrev's (of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences) Iranian-Bulgar theory was properly referenced and peer reviewed. However after studying the issue I came to the conclusion that his theory was not supported by a majority of the academic community and therefore most of the evidence pointed to the (Hunno-Bulgar) Turkic theory being correct. In other words, through intense research and education I came to view the Iranian hypothesis that I previously supported as being what Wikipedians refer to as a fringe theory. Therefore I stopped supporting its inclusion and all my edits hence forth were in favour of the Hunno-Bulgar Turkic theory. I have also read about the theory proposed by Dr. Shin Yong-Ha that the Bulgars originally stem from the Korean Peninsula as the Bu-Yeo culture that then migrated to the region presently known as Greater Mongolia. It seems Dr. Shin's premise directly ties to the primary theories about the Bulgars' Altaic (Turkic) origins. In other words, there is growing evidence that the Bulgars stem from central regions of north-eastern Asia. In light of this I was the one that made the edit that the Bulgars are associated with the Turkic Huns and that they originate in the steppes of Mongolia. Further still, I added another constructive edit (removed consequently by another editor) that according to academics the Bulgars were comprised of loosely confederated steppe peoples of various backgrounds. Thus I have shown that with hard work and in-depth research of numerous reliable sources I can not only admit my past errors of supporting a fringe theory of Dr. Peter Dobrev, but more importantly fix those errors!

From the start I have stated that all modern nations are composites of multiple ancestral groups, and thus I have always been opposed to the racial purity theories propagated by many other editors. As an example of this, please look into my more recent edits about Bulgarians being an amalgamation of different ethnic groups. I have used the following sources to show this:

-Graboïs, A. (1980). The illustrated encyclopaedia of medieval civilization. New York: Mayflower Books., p. 148

-The South Slav journal: 43-44 vol.12 no.1-2 Spring-Summer 1989. (1989). The South Slav journal, 43-44 vol.12 no.1-2 Spring-Summer 1989. London: the journal., p. 4

-Ference, G. C. (1994). Chronology of 20th-century eastern European history. Detroit, MI: Gale Research., p. 61

Now before I continue, my understanding is that Sandstein has told me that in this arbitration case I cannot make direct name references to the edits made by other involved editors on pages where there was a relevant conflict. Thus I am not going to state their names or give links to their respective edits.

Continuing on, I tried to reason with the editor who tried to racially profile the First Bulgarian Empire by trying to explain to him that the state was multi-cultural and multi-ethnic. I told him it was inappropriate to do what he was doing. I showed this editor the sources (a few of which are provided above) and I stated in the talk page that "the role of the Bulgars was to incorporate various ethnic groups into their empire. These were the Slav and local Byzantine populations. Since you (the editor) insist that ethnicities be mentioned, then the relevant roles and amalgamation of the various ethnic groups in the formation of the state also must be mentioned." Indeed, this was disregarded by the editor and he continued to push the racial purity perspective. I then researched 20 sources and made them available to everyone. I included page numbers so that the referenced information could be easily found by interested parties. In doing so I tried to explain that it is disingenuous to racially profile a country as "pure" and that indeed there is a difference between Bulgars and Bulgarians. As I stated in the talk page, "the Bulgars were an ancient group, while the Bulgarians are a modern ethnicity that is a composite of several ethnic groups." Please ask yourselves whose comments are divisive, mine or that of the other editor(s).

Thus I repeat, I am using credible academic sources to show the contributions of multiple groups to the formation of a modern state. That is the opposite of what I am being accused of here. In addition, I am being lambasted for edits that I have made in the past, while my recent patience and use of sources in the talk pages is being avoided in the discussion herein. It is true that years ago I made questionable edits and even got involved in a revert war for which I was blocked for 24 hours (the only block I have received in 3.5 years of contributing in Wikipedia). I learned not to get involved in revert wars and therefore began using talk pages to present sources and intellectually debate various issues. A few months ago I was involved in another long talk page discussion. However after reading the sources provided by one of the editors who was countering my arguments, I realized that his premise was backed by better evidence than the one I had presented. Thus I thanked this editor for his impartiality in analyzing the said source and I left the discussion and article never to go back to it again. In summary, I have evolved as an editor, who both respects and presents credible sources and always uses talk pages. Unfortunately, the credible sources that I presented recently were disregarded by other involved editors (including my accuser) who made false statements about me not providing page numbers, the inadmissibility of tertiary sources like Britannica, etc...

There is much more that I want to discuss, however the ground rules laid by Sandstein do not allow me to compose a more detailed defence. I must also say that while I respect Sandstein for originally telling my accuser that I must be given a chance to speak in WP:ANI, I disagree with him for stopping that discussion soon after it began. My hands are tied there and also partially tied here. Despite his opinion on this matter and communicated intention of wanting to rule against me very soon, I believe he is a good administrator and I ask him to look at everything I have recently said and done (both in the WP:ANI discussion and in talk pages) to note that unlike some of the other editors involved in the recent conflicts I do not get involved in revert wars, I respect and propagate the multi-cultural heritage of all modern states, I use reliable sources to back my arguments and I maintain a polite tone as I never use foul language. Thank you for your time.--Monshuai (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Sandstein below, thank you for allowing me to continue.

I must ask what is non persuasive? You said you hadn't read everything I had stated due to time constraints. Have you read it now? If so, I am truly appreciative for you having taken the time to do that.

I have shown that I do not support the Iranian theory that I am accused of supporting. Also, I have never stated that Bulgarians descend only from Thracians. My edits and talk page statements (including efforts to research sources) show the counter opposite! What I have always maintained is that Bulgarians are an amalgamation of multiple groups, and it is unjust to only mention one of their ancestries to the exclusion of the rest of their heritage. In fact, I only support the premise that modern nations are multi-cultural and multi-ethnic. Have I said anything to the contrary?

Furthermore, the evidence presented against me shows my questionable statements from years ago, however it does not focus on the discussion that prompted my accuser to start this process against me. In other words, the user who requested enforcement is the one who is pushing the perspective that the First Bulgarian Empire was racially pure. I was trying (through a number of academic sources) to show him that this is absolutely false.

I stated that I do not get involved in revert warring. I've learned my lesson from 2 years ago. That is why I use the talk pages to present premises that are backed by sources. I have also shown that unlike countries such as Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq etc, the Bulgaria article lede does no include information about the territory's ancient heritage. Why is that? As you may know, modern Arabic nations are also comprised of multiple ancestral groups just as are modern Bulgarians. The question then is, why is it considered acceptable for some Wikipedia articles to include such information in the lede, while that same information is being suppressed by some users in other articles? Why is it OK for many modern ethnicities to cherish their multi-ethnic and multi-cultural heritage, while it is not OK for Bulgarians to do that?--Monshuai (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We probably shouldn't discuss about nationalities of the editors here. (well, at least if there's no obvious ganging up) man with one red shoe 01:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few ground rules, please. This is arbitration enforcement. The purpose of this board is to help a single administrator decide whether they should take enforcement action as requested. Community consensus for or against sanctions is neither required nor sought. There is no voting. Each contributing editor should limit themselves to a single statement in a separate section, as here. That statement should address no other question than whether or not the requested enforcement is warranted. Please do not discuss any other issues, such as the content issues underlying this request, or the conduct of users other than Monshuai (but you may make a separate request regarding them if warranted). There should be no threaded discussion. Disruptive conduct on this board is likely to result in rapid sanctions. Thank you.  Sandstein  23:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Monshuai above, you have had the opportunity to respond at length both in the ANI thread and here. I have considered your statements and find them nonpersuasive in face of the evidence presented. Nonetheless you are free to say whatever you believe is necessary in your defence in your section above. You may also reply to the comments of others in your own section. (By "contributing editor", I did not mean you as the person against whom enforcement is requested, sorry for being unclear.)  Sandstein  13:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the ANI thread, I support this request for sanctions. Monshuai is the paradigm case of a tendentious editor; all his edits are designed to push some national agenda of his, often agendas connected to fringe claims (such as the Aryan/non-Turkic background of the ancient Bulgars, or promotion of continuity between ancient Thracians and modern Bulgarians). This has gone on for too long, and has led to disruption on too many articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose: As I understand it, Arbitration Enforcement enforces a closed Arbitration Committee ruling. There was no ruling at the ANI, therefore, this is the wrong place to enforce a ruling that does not exist yet. In addition, the ruling (had it existed) should not be based on voting but on strength of arguments presented. Furthermore, Monshuai is being accused of not abiding by ARBMAC rules while defending himself in the ANI thread. I really don't find any grounds why he should not defend himself and why he should not have the right to do so in the ANI. Furthermore he fully respected the rules while he defended himself. For the rest, I have already stated my strong support for Monshuai as an excellent contributor in Wikipedia, an honest intellectual that challenges the status quo with arguments that undermine weak conclusions of which Wikipedia is plenty, and also a person that is much more polite that many users who were involved at the ANI. We need more contributors like Monshuai, not less. You can also see my many long comments in the ANI for what I think about this case and its members. In addition, I request that the additional comment on the voter's nationalities at the ANI as told by Athenean above (and as soon as that is done, also this sentence of mine) be striken out of the record, because they are irrelevant, in addition to being incorrect (e.g. preslav is not Bulgarian). Last but not least: Voting was 6-2 at the ANI, (not 10-2 like Athenean is claiming) and two of the "supports" were indeed "weak supports", whereas one "oppose" (mine) was "strong oppose". Kind regards to all! sulmues talk --Sulmues 14:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the indefinite ban proposed by Sandstein bellow is too harsh. If there is really a need for sanctions then a milder one should be applied giving the editor a chance to reform and edit in accordance with wikipedia guidelines.  Dr. Loosmark  23:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have conducted a somewhat limited review (given time constraints) of the very large amount of evidence submitted at [7]. In my opinion, the request has merit. There is extensive evidence of longtime and persistent editing in violation of WP:NPOV, with a view to glorifying Bulgarian ancient history, alleged racial heritage, accomplishments, etc; combined with aggressive WP:BATTLEGROUND-type conduct towards others in that topic area, notably much of this after the WP:ARBMAC warning. This is prototypical nationalist POV-pushing, which Wikipedia is not for (WP:ARBMAC#Purpose of Wikipedia). In my opinion, an indefinite ban from the topic of Bulgaria (broadly construed, including Bulgarians, Bulgarian ancient history, ancient peoples on modern-day Bulgarian territory etc.) is required to stop this. Unless other uninvolved admins disagree, I intend to impose such a ban in about a day under the authority of WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  22:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of objections by uninvolved admins, the topic ban is hereby imposed as described above.  Sandstein  22:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

User requesting enforcement

Theserialcomma (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#Allegations_against_other_editors

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

# [[8]] Tothwolf has restored an uncivil diff which states "Theserialcomma, you aren't fooling anyone here either. You already know the case was not filed against me, it was filed on my behalf by Jehochman against yourself, Miami33139 and JBsupreme due to your wikihounding, harassment, collusion, and gaming of the system." This is an assumption of bad faith of which Tothwolf has been specifically admonished for by arbcom, and has been restricted from making. per point 9 of the arbcom decision [[9]] "9) It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation. Concerns should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all." Tothwolf is in direct violation of this point by linking an old soapbox diff where he gets to rehash his old allegations of which arbcom has reviewed and rejected. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#Allegations_against_other_editors

1. [<Diff>] <Explanation>
2. [<Diff>] <Explanation>
3. ...

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

{{{Diffs of prior warnings}}}

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

tothwolf has been specifically restricted by arbcom to not make allegations against other editors. his talk page comments, which i removed and he restored, are allegations that me, miami, and jbsupreme, are "wikihounding, harassment, collusion, and gaming of the system". these comments, and especially against these users, are exactly what tothwolf have been restricted from making. we are the users who filed evidence against tothwolf to arbcom, and arbcom restricted him because of our evidence. he is undermining/ignoring his restrictions.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATothwolf&action=historysubmit&diff=344695703&oldid=344622521

Related discussion --Tothwolf (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The crux of this seems to be a wikilink to a comment Tothwolf made back on Dec 13, 2009 here. The sentence the link appeared in, and was removed from, is the second sentence in Tothwolf's talk page intro paragraph:

When even ArbCom fails to stop disruptive behaviour, [1] the project is abjectly failing and it is time for me to move on and spend my time on another project. It is sad that the name of the ArbCom case was chosen as it was as that created an inherit bias and may have been a significant factor in it not being properly addressed. I for one hope that I'm completely wrong about Wikipedia failing and things somehow turn around, but that may just turn out to be wishful thinking. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't on first review see how this sentence, or that link, violate the arbcom finding.

Theserialcomma, please explain the specifics here: How does the link violate the finding. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you should visit the diff in question that tothwolf has linked [[10]] which links to [[11]]. tothwolf has been specifically restricted by arbcom to not make allegations against other editors. the diff that tothwolf has restored states "(the case against) yourself, Miami33139 and JBsupreme due to your wikihounding, harassment, collusion, and gaming of the system." claims that me, jbsupreme, and miami33139 are harassing, wikihounding, colluding, or gaming are in violations of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#Allegations_against_other_editors . tothwolf is not allowed to accuse or make allegations of wikihounding or harassing against anyone, let alone the people who filed evidence against him in his arbcom case. tothwolf is gaming the system to use his talk page as a soapbox to link to a diff which rehashes allegations that have been rejected by arbcom. this is a violation of his restrictions. no allegations. no casting aspersions. the violation is obvious. he cannot link to diffs that accuse specific editors of harassment and hounding and he cannot place the link on the top of his talk page. this is a violation of his restrictionTheserialcomma (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am significantly concerned that Theserialcomma acted in a baiting manner here, in several ways; see this warning on his talk page (now deleted by him, as is his right). Other uninvolved admin review is called for. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comment to which Theserialcomma is referring (the one including the diff at issue) is timestamped January 5, 2010. The Tothwolf case was closed on January 25, 2010. I cannot see how his comment violated a remedy that had barely been drafted at the time.

It seems that Theserialcomma is filing this AE request on the grounds that Tothwolf reverted this edit, in which Theserialcomma modified a comment Tothwolf made on his talk page, alleging a personal attack. First of all, it is hard to see how a mere inclusion of a diff can be construed as a personal attack. Secondly, it is concerning that Theserialcomma performed this edit out of the blue in what certainly seems like an attempt to bait Tothwolf into violating his restriction. He should knock it off, and this request should be closed with no action taken.

i can see how this appears like baiting. however, i've been asking tothwolf to remove this comment for a while now because it accuses multiple editors of harassment. the arbcom case closed and admonished and restricted tothwolf for false accusations, so i once again requested the diff be removed. he didn't remove it. i should have gone to ANI and let someone else remove it, or let teh community decide. i see how this looks like baiting, therefore. so i am withdrawing this request and i'm going to ask the community instead whether this is a violation of his restrictions. i don't want to bait him into violating, i think the diff is a violation in itself, and him restoring the allegations, regardless of who removed them, is the issue. however, i accept that this looks bad, and i am withdrawing the request Theserialcomma (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

User requesting enforcement

Nefer Tweety (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan: Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Supreme Deliciousness is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and biographies of living persons violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should the user exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

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

1st revert, 2nd revert, 3rd revert 3 violations of 1RR.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy)

1. Warning by user:CactusWriter "to stop editing Asmahan while on probation.", yet SD continues to edit Asmahan (3 times) in these diffs.
2. Warning by user:Lankiveil told SD to stay "far, far, far away from the Asmahan article for the time being, if you don't want this unpleasantness to escalate further", yet SD continues to edit Asmahan (3 times) like this one.
3. Warning by user:Lankiveil told SD to "avoid making any edits whatsoever that could even remotely be considered to be in violation of your topic ban.", yet SD makes those edits in reference to the nationality and ethnicity of persons: like this one, like this one, like this one.
4. This and this warnings by user:Wizardman Wizardman explained that SD should avoid any possible borderline violations, like this one. SD makes the same sort of edits (3 times) to the Asmahan like this one.
5. Sandstein's comment here in reference to SD's reverts.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Indefinite Block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Supre Deliciousness has made 3 reverts on one day, in direct violation of his 1RR restriction. I ask you to please take action, this time to block him indefinitely, since he has been violating his ban so many times.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Supreme Deliciousness is aware [12]

Those three edits I made were also at talkpages, not articles, and what I did was to strike out the comments from a sock puppet, there was no content changes. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those three reverts listed above are three reverts on three different pages. According to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan, he is restricted to 1rv per week per page. This doesn't seem to be technically a violation of the ruling, and the reverts themselves don't look intrinsically disruptive to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not actionable. I agree with Future Perfect at Sunrise above. Since the reverts concern three different pages, the remedy is not violated. Nefer Tweety, please stop making non-actionable requests, or you may be banned from using this board.  Sandstein  16:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#Brews_ohare_topic_banned

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

# [13], [14], commenting on a physics-related edit war/content dispute

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

Not applicable

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Block, whatever length is required per the ARBCOM remedies

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

This is another ridiculous action brought against me for no reason. Both evidential diffs are from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, not on any physics-related page, and neither are about physics. In particular:

1. The so-called evidenciary diff Exhibit A is simply a suggestion about how one might write an article for accessibility, and is an Ann Landers type advice to the writers.
2. The so-called evidenciary diff Exhibit B is a suggestion for cooperation among feuding parties to generate content instead of struggling, another Ann Landers column unrelated to sanctions.

Unfortunately, Headbomb has no concept of what is inimical to WP, and simply likes to make trouble. Actions should not be brought where no disturbance or harm to WP is involved. Headbomb should have his head handed to him for making trouble over nothing again and again.

The comments made by me are general comments intended to put oil on troubled water, and are in no way physics based, or related in any way to my sanctions. Brews ohare (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That was not about physics. I will not write what I am thinking, because I am supposed the "remain civil". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I find the filing of these reports on Brews and David Tombe rather disturbing and an overreaction to say the least. Strict orthodoxy has prevailed. Congratulations? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 10:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I find these reports disturbing as well, and I believe this constitutes an abuse of the Wikipedia administrative mechanism. Tznikai's more specific restrictions were lifted to allow Brews to modify his diagrams, and previous decisions regarding administrative and off-physics subjects deemed that so long as Brews did not discuss physics per-se, he was Ok. In addition, the timing of this enforcement request smells bad.Likebox (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Very disturbing to see Arbcom abused as a tool by Headbomb to fight an edit war on multiple fronts. Count Iblis (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note also this. Count Iblis (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• And here I thought I was alone in condemning the coruption of this topic ban. I hope Arbcom sees we aren't alone. How much longer will you ignore the community will? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Shibboleths of High Orthodoxy have risen to divide and frustrate the will of the average Wikipedians. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• How many times can Brews and Tombe be punished at the instigation of Headbomb before WP realizes who the real problem is?Clayt85 (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Blocked for a week. The request has merit.

The edits were made to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, which violates Brews Ohare's indefinite ban from editing Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces, as imposed as a discretionary sanction by Tznkai at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

The article at issue is Infraparticle, which is physics-related. With respect to that article, in the cited diffs, Brews Ohare says:

"Perhaps, instead of warring. the various parties could try to help each other out to clarify the article. suggesting what seems obscure, suggesting what WP articles can provide details, and finding sources. Having arrived at a formulation that appears accessible, once the outline is clear, the items needing sourcing and the items that are simply exposition will be clearer, and the whole thing will wind up wonderfully", and

"Attention should be upon making the article more accessible, by including more explanation and links."

This violates his arbitral topic ban "from all physics-related discussions, broadly construed", as well as the even clearer ban from "disputes stemming from physics-related content" as per Tznkai's restriction.

To determine the appropriate sanction, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Enforcement by block advises that "Should any user subject to a topic ban in this case violate that restriction, or any user subject to discretionary sanctions in this case violate a restriction imposed by an uninvolved administrator, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 3 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year." This being Brews Ohare's third AE block, it is set at one week's duration.  Sandstein  07:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

David Tombe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#David_Tombe_topic_banned, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#David_Tombe_restricted

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

# [15], [16], and [17], commenting on a physics-related edit war/content dispute, personal attacks, yadda yadda yadda

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

Not applicable

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Block, whatever length is required per the ARBCOM remedies

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Re to MCPrice the first remedy read "David Tombe is topic banned from all physics-related pages and topics, broadly construed, for twelve months". A content war over physics, in certainly a physics-related topic. Also, he's accused Finell The Anome of acting out of "cowardice", which is a personal attack, which is certain a violation of his indefinite general probation, defined as "[repeated or serious failings] to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum.". Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:MCPrice/Sandstein, upon further review, it is true that David hasn't commented directly on the content. While it's way too close to the fringes of his ban to my liking, especially with his accusations of cowardice, I won't push this. Feel free to close this (or whatever's routine on here). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 07:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Blocking David for the truth doesn't make it less true. Finell acts like a coward, and should be called out as such. All one has to do is look at how he attempts to resolve conflicts. he tries to do so by argumentum ad hominem, or simply ignores. I think this is only a straw man arguement meant to accomplish a means. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to see the the violation by David here. His restriction requires him to be warned first, and he wasn't. His topic ban relates to physics, and in the 3 diffs provided he is commenting on the justice or otherwise of blocks, bans and behaviour. --Michael C. Price ^talk 04:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This enforcement action is not timed properly--- the accusations are over taking sides in another dispute, and the enforcement request seems on its face to be an abuse of the Wikipedia enforcement mechanisms in order to settle private scores.Likebox (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Michael C. Price.  Sandstein  07:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closed as not actionable per the above.  Sandstein  19:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

Supreme Deliciousness 22:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Arab Cowboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

[18]

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

[19][20][21]

He was banned from all articles and their associated talk pages within the scope of the Asmahan case for abuse of alternative accounts: [22] "If you violate this ban through either your main account or through sockpuppets, you will be blocked."

Omar Sharif is a part of the scope of the case as can be seen in its history and also has been mentioned in the arbitration case:[23] [24][25]

Omar Sharif discussion continued from its talkpage to the BLP noticeboard, so that would be an associated page. AC made several posts there in the Omar Sharif discussion: [26][27][28]

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

Not applicable

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Block or ban.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[29]

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

• My reading is that this is a clear violation of the topic ban I imposed. Arab Cowboy blocked for 72 hours. NW (Talk) 22:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

• NickCT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Soledad22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate it, and an explanation how they do so

Reverting against multiple editors since February 13 at Muhammad al-Durrah incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), always careful to fall short of 3RR

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

This is a request for a topic ban of NickCT and Soledad22 from Muhammad al-Durrah incident, or a revert restriction.

Notification of the users against whom enforcement is requested

[30] [31]

Warnings

• User_talk:NickCT#Trolling
• User_talk:Soledad22#Muhammad_al-Durrah_incident

Additional comments

Muhammad al-Durrah incident was promoted to featured article status on January 25. On February 11, User:Huldra complained about its promotion on Wikipedia Review. On February 13, two sporadically used accounts arrived at the article, NickCT and Soledad22, who have very few edits between them; NickCT has made just 170 edits to articles in nearly three years, and Soledad22 217 edits to articles in two years. A checkuser revealed no technical connection between them; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NickCT/Archive.

Between February 13 and today, the two accounts have jointly reverted 22 times against multiple editors, removing material from the lead, adding POV tags, fact tags, and dubious tags, and reordering sections. The issues they have raised are being discussed on talk, but the reverting continues anyway, and now the article has been protected on their version by Malik Shabbaz, who is involved in the talk-page discussion, with three tags in the last paragraph of the lead, something no recently promoted FA should have. See here. Given the proximity of the two accounts' arrival to the off-wiki comments, it seems likely that the disruption will continue regardless of any particular content issue. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malik, I agree that someone needed to stop the reverting, but I was just about to post a request for assistance on AN/I. I don't doubt that you acted in good faith, but we're not supposed to use the tools in disputes we've commented on. As it stands, two barely used accounts have managed to have a recently featured article stuck with three tags in one paragraph of the lead [32] until March 5, thereby supplanting their own judgment for that of the FA reviewers. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statements by NickCT and Soledad22

Statement by NickCT

Wow Slim. Really disturbing. First you claim I'm a sock puppet, now this? This is obviously a bad faith allegation made by an editor who is trying to WP:OWN an article, and is upset by other editors questioning potential POV statements. Apparently, instead of debating and seeking consensus (as the Al-Durrah talk page will show I have done), Slim prefers to mire people who disagree with her in this kind of frivilous arbitration. This is clearly bad faith, and it's the second time Slim has attempted this kind of shinanigans. I think Slim was prompted to do this now as I was demonstrating a lack of consensus for her wording? NickCT (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A note on tagging- I think my tagging of Al-Durrahis inline with WP:TAGGING and specificly Wikipedia:Tagging_pages_for_problems#Disputes_over_tags. I noted this when I tagged, and Slim reverted without discussion or explination. I was actually in the process of consulting admin User:Malik Shabazz over whether tagging was an appropriate action. If Slim thought my tagging was innappropriate, should she have not at least explained why before reverting? Slim has trouble playing nice with editors who disagree with her. NickCT (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, another note, I promise this will be last. I want to add on to something Tiamut mentioned re understanding "SlimVirgin's frustration at being challenged over the content of an article she worked hard to bring up to FA status". I just want to say that I acknowledge and appreciate SlimVirgin's hard work on this article. I think most of it is fairly well written and worthy of FA stutus. I understand her sense of OWNership over the thing, but respectfully suggest she's gone a little too far in dictating what is or isn't an allowable edit. Also, Slim has repeatidly pointed to the small number of edits made during the lifetime of Soledad's and my account as being evidence against us. Does anyone else share this opinion. I'd respectfully suggest I make up in quality what I lack in quantity.NickCT (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Slim's

"have a recently featured article stuck with three tags in one paragraph of the lead [32] until March 5, thereby supplanting their own judgment for that of the FA reviewers"

Slim has repeatidly expressed the view that FA articles are in some sense beyond question. Is this accurate? I think Slim's assertion that FA reviewers agree would agree with her over the current debate is slightly presumptious. NickCT (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Radeksz & @MBz1 re Soledad. I do find Soledad a little loud, and some of his edits in bad taste. But I'd point out that on both sides of the current Al-Durrah/Blood Libel debate there have been some pretty dubious statments and edits which have suggested an agenda. (see MBz1's quoting Golda Meir, THF's claim of some Palestinian press conspiracy). I think we're casting stones in glass houses. Perhaps best not to comb through peoples contribs to try and find an agenda here. Let's concentrate on whether there was disruptive editing. NickCT (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THF - Not sure you are meant to post here, but regardless - I'm not saying it's equal, only suggesting it demonstrates an agenda. And I'm sorry THF but this Pallywood thing is clearly a "press conspiracy theory". NickCT (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Malik Shabazz

I sincerely apologize to SlimVirgin for protecting The Wrong Version, but somebody had to stop the edit-warring. For what it's worth, I agree that Featured Articles shouldn't have tags. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to confirm that Nick had indeed asked my advice concerning tagging the article, about ten minutes after I protected it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soledad22, I respect the fact you consider your edits to be improvements. However, you were warned about edit-warring and nonetheless revert-warred almost every day. Your edits were reverted by five different editors, not only by SlimVirgin. Regardless of the outcome of this request, please read and take to heart WP:Disruptive editing. And please bring your axe to the hardware store, not to Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's false. SlimV reverted the reorder of the Al-Durrahs above the 2 journalists without discussion, basically out of spite and WP:OWN. Removal of the unencyclopedic sentence of the child to "stone throwers" and beach attendance is minor. The Blood Libel link has not been edit warred by me, but by others, I have participated on the Discussion page where others agree the link is POV. Soledad22 (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Blood Libel link has not been edit warred by me, but by others – Sure. You've removed it at least a half dozen times, and four other editors have restored it. But you're not edit-warring, they are. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable! Even as this discussion is going on, Soledad22 is still edit-warring. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malik, I might point out that in deciding what the "right version" of the article is (and reverting to protect it), you've essentially joined the edit war. I would agree however that Soledad's edit was unwise given the current conversation. I'll post to his talk page. NickCT (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tiamut

When there is a dispute over content, there are a number of choices available to editors. One is to remove the content in question to the talk page until consensus regarding its inclusion or phrasing can be achieved. The other is to tag the content in question until a resolution can be found. NickCT and Soledad tried to remove, and then tag the content in question. While it is true that between them they made as many as 20 reverts, it is also true that SlimVirgin alone made as many as 12 reverts.

I can understand SlimVirgin's frustration at being challenged over the content of an article she worked hard to bring up to FA status. That does not however excuse her meeting edit-warring with edit-warring or making bad faith assumption about editors who disagree with her (alleging socking, off-wiki conspiracies, or inability to transcend POV [33] [34], [35]). The article would not have had to be protected with the tags in place if the offending content was simply removed to talk when it was clear that multiple editors found it problematic. Tiamut^talk 20:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that my comments are addressed solely to SlimVirgin's original complaint about what happened at Muhammad al-Durrah incident article. I have at no time looked at any of the diffs pertaining to Soledad's edit history at other articles, and if that is the issue here, then a complaint should have been filed on that. Tiamut^talk 01:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MBz1

Soledad22 is definitely a cause of concern. The user expresses strong POV in his/her edits and removes appropriate information from the articles [36];[37];[38] (In the last diff I absolutely agree with the removing information, but the edit summary is way too strong IMO). This edit [39] shows strong Anti-Jewish tendency of the user style. I would also like to repeat what SlimVirgin said : "214 edits to articles in two years, among them British National Party; The Jew of Malta; Template:Neo-fascism; [40] Ashkenazi intelligence; removed that "international Jewry" were scapegoats on Adolf Hitler; [41] attempted to downplay the proportion of Polish Jews killed at The Holocaust; [42] added something about anti-Christian bigotry among Jews at The Merchant of Venice (2004 film), [43] (and that's just a selection), and who then arrives here objecting to the mention of blood libel in the lead, and adding for good measure that there are too many photographs of Israelis and Jews in the article." IMO Soledad22 should be topic banned on all articles about Jews and Israelis because of a very high and bad-tasted anti_Jewish sentiments in it edits including, but not limited on the articles concerning the victims of the Holocaust and terrorists.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've changed my opinion about Soledad22 after looking more closely at the user contributions. There are quite a few anti-Semitic edits. IMO because of this edit alone the user should be blocked indefinitely. IMO wikipedia will be better off without it. I would also like to voice my concern about NickCT and his supporting of Soledad22. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Tiamut, I find your comment kind of misleading. You claim "I have at no time looked at any of the diffs pertaining to Soledad's edit history at other articles", but SlimVirgin brought everybody's attention to the Soledad's edit history at other articles exactly at Muhammad al-Durrah incident talk page. Not only that, but you, Tiamut, angrily rebuked that very edit. You said "SlimVirgin, I've found a lot of your comments throughout this discussion (above as well) to be frankly unhelpful and off-topic. Instead of trying to tarnish the image of people objecting to the current wording used in the article, claiming they are socks (they were not), calling them anti-Israel (not clear that's true and frnakly irrelevant), ..." So the question is how you could have responded to SlimVirgin comment the way you did, if according to yourself, you "have at no time looked at any of the diffs pertaining to Soledad's edit history at other articles". And, no, I do not think another "complaint should have been filed". This one is good enough to block the user --Mbz1 (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Radeksz

I don't know NickCT but I remember noticing Soledad22 in April of 2009 when he got into a minor spat with someone (not me) on the Federal Reserve Board article which I've edited a lot and which is on my watchlist. At the time I took a look at the user's contributions and was bothered enough by their nature to remember the name, though since the user was relatively inactive I didn't do anything and let it go. So to add to MBz1's concerns please also consider these diffs - there's definitely an agenda here, and it's not a pretty one. Note that some of them are merely indicative of the kind of POV that this person is pushing, while others (some, admittedly, old) show blatant violations of Wikipedia rules and guideline:

History of the Jews of Argentina - making sure to blame the victim

Anti-intellectualism - the faith must not be smeared

Template:Neo-fascism - see above

"Third Position" - (code word for neo-fascism more or less) minor, but telling

Henry Orenstein - minor, perhaps, but telling

The Passing of the Great Race

Gang in the United States - note that the edit summary is false - only the last para is unsourced and that is used as an excuse to remove all "unpleasant" info

Gangs in the United States - this one's almost good for a chuckle; Aryan Brotherhood you see, does not call for White Supremacy, but rather for "white solidarity within the prison system", also removal of sourced material

Janet Napolitano - weaseling

self explanatory, sourced material removed

Jack Kerouac - removing sourced info

and the first edit ever

[44] Franz Boas -defending Kevin MacDonald before defending Kevin MacDonald was cool (among some people)

There's some others too that I'm not going to include. And like some other commentators above I'm also suspicious of the fact that a user with only 265 edits is so adept at "hugging the fence" with respect to 3RR.radek (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Nick - Nick, like I stated above, I am completely unfamiliar with your contributions and edit history. I am also completely uninvolved in the present dispute. I do however find Soledad22's edits very troubling, and part of the an overall pattern documented above. So having reiterated that let me note that my comments were/are meant to apply to Soledad22 and Soledad22 only and not to any other editor.radek (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are personal attacks as those edits were good edits and they helped Wikipedia articles. Is there a rule here that says Palestinian or Zionist editors must spread their edits around, because many do not and that is troubling as well? What matters is contributing to making Wikipedia an honest and good source of information. Personally, looking at SlimVirgin's edit history, I find MUCH that is troubling and suspicious for being POV and WP:OWN.Soledad22 (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Soledad22 - First, you should reply to people in your own section. Second, being critical of a user's edit history is NOT the same as making personal attacks. Third, I think it's pretty obvious that the problems with your edits extend beyond "Palestinian or Zionist" topics.radek (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by George

As a disclaimer, I haven't been paying nearly as much attention to the Mohammad al-Durrah article itself as of late, and I haven't done any research into the edit patterns of these two editors. I've only been (lightly) involved in the talk page discussions, so my comments come from that perspective.

In NickCT's defense, I think he has tried to engage in discussion on the article's talk page. He hasn't always been successful, and sometimes comes off as an editor trying to push a particular view, but I do think he at least attempted some form of dispute resolution or consensus building. His multi-tagging of the article's lead is inappropriate, but it might be possible to resolve such behavior with discussion and explanation. Perhaps mentorship would be an option? (Though mentorship could be handed down in addition to a topic ban on the article, rather than in place of one.)

Soledad22 is another matter. He seems to be far more interested in edit warring and POV pushing than discussion, consensus, or following Wikipedia policies. The edit pattern other editors described above is disturbing, and I'd agree with those who suggested a wider topic ban to restrict Soledad22 from editing any articles on Jewish-related issues. ← George ^talk 00:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3 edits in question: 1) Blood libel link (many others concur), 2) placing the subject article's persons (father & son) ahead of the journalists who covered the article (reverted w/o discussion) by SlimV, and 3) removal of one MINOR non-encyclopedic sentence that smears the child (sneaky guilt-by-association) to stone throwers. That's it. The descriptions here are very troubling, making things out to more than they are. Aren't personal attacks a violation on Wikipedia? Soledad22 (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisO

I've not been following the article much lately either, but Soledad22's behaviour was so clearly out of line that I notified him of the I-P article probation four days ago [45]. It's worth noting that he continued to edit war following the notification. I agree with George that the evidence posted above of an anti-Semitic POV-pushing agenda is worrying; he should be subjected to a wide topic ban on all Jewish-related articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by THF

Equating "quoting Golda Meir" to Soledad's rancid bigotry says much more about NickCT's agenda than MBz1's. I welcome readers to look at the diff NickCT provided of my talk-page edit, and compare it to his characterization, and then ask why he's trying to throw mud on unrelated editors to distract from his own actions. THF (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse George's proposal to topic-ban Soledad22. THF (talk) 11:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rancid...that is a personal attack. I consider your comment rancid and toxic to collaboration. Stick to the 3 edits at hand, not making snarky comments. Thanks.Soledad22 (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tony1

I was a reviewer during the long and rigorous FAC process this article recently underwent. I was impressed by Slim Virgin's high level of skill in balancing the article's angle, in a field that can be politically/culturally sensitive. The article is a valuable example of how diverse sources can be synthesised in a NPOV way. I believe SV conducted her role as nominator with cooperation, responsiveness to criticism, politeness, and attention to fine detail. I was pleased to endorse the nomination: it is a good read, so to speak, and represents among the best of our work (as required of FACs).

It is very disappointing to review the behaviour of the editors who are the subject of this complaint. I believe action to prevent further damage to the project is called for. Tony (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Soledad22

1) Removal of an inappropriate POV link to Blood Libel which many others have agreed is good editing, 2) listing the subject article persons (the father and son, the Al-Durrahs) above the two "journalists", and 3) removal of a trivial connection of the child to "stone throwers", IMPROVES the article and these are basically minor edits in nature. SlimVirgin has very serious problems with WP:OWN and has disrupted others. I will discuss the edits to the article, not personal attacks. These 3 edits are the issue at hand. Thanks!Soledad22 (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@radek Making an edit against misplaced child sacrifice in a religious ritual in an article about a CROSSFIRE-shooting incident IN A HOT BATTLEZONE, where no Arab has even accused Israelis or Jews of blood libel, is a very legit edit! So are the other two very minor edits of mine on this page, and all my other edits are legit as well. Your smear attempts are mendacious and it's meant to distract people from these 3 subject edits where there are others who agree with me. I've never had any problems with others on Wikipedia until this particular article, so this is more "telling" about you, SlimVirgin and some of the other very peculiar editors here than me. I've been researching your edit history, and SlimVirgin's too, and it seems that plenty and plenty of controversy follows. That is very "telling" to me.Soledad22 (talk) 04:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others

Comment by MONGO

While most of us agree that all editors should edit aggressively, Featured Articles are generally expected to be stable. Editors should be encouraged to discuss major changes, discuss especially alterations to sensitive material and respect the hard work the FA contributors have done in bringing an article to featured level. Whenever someone protects (or unprotects) a page and they have even the slightest history of contributions to said page, they may risk the chance of losing their bit.--MONGO 02:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by JzG

Looking at the evidence as presented, an early block or edit restriction on Soledad22 would seem to me to be a pretty urgent requirement here. That user is undoubtedly shedding more heat than light on an area which I think we all agree really does not need that. Guy (Help!) 12:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Following the discussion on WP:ANI, I've indefinitely blocked Soledad22. PhilKnight (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, I've notified NickCT about the WP:ARBPIA editing restrictions. PhilKnight (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phil, just letting you know that the problems with NickCT's reverting continue, though on the talk page, not the article itself. I struck through Soledad's comment on the al-Durrah RfC after he was blocked: just the one RfC comment, not any of his others. Nick has reverted three four times so far. [46] [47] [48] [49] SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting here that two more Soledad socks have been blocked. RHusaini (talk · contribs) turned up at Muhammad al-Durrah incident, and User:DraftCB (talk · contribs) at Death of Jeremiah Duggan, another article I've edited a lot. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 22:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point of order; as was the case before the problem we're having is with you SlimV. This issue was discussed. SlimV you've continuely refused to engage in discussion over stuff like this. I explained my reasoning for the reverts and you chose not to reply. Please try engaging editors who disagree with you before running to admin. NickCT (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SV, I dont think the original strike outs are justified. WP:BAN calls for removing comments made in defiance of a ban, not all edits made prior to a ban. nableezy - 19:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, I really believe it is about the time to let go on the friend of yours and his votes.During his time on Wikipedia he has made very few edits to the articles, but as it was proven beyond the reasonable doubts almost all of them stink with antisemitism, the Holocaust denial and vandalism. You might be interested to see here.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is the comments being struck were not made when the user was banned. There may be another reason to remove them, but that is not one. nableezy - 19:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There cannot be policies written for each and every situation. Sometimes one should use common sense. The user was blocked because of antisemitic edits, POV pushing, the Holocaust denial edits and so on. With such a record the user vote for the article, which directly connected to Jews cannot and should not be taken into account. It is just as simple as that.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, there may be reasons to remove comments besides the user being banned, but the banning is not a reason to remove comments made before the ban was placed. I've stayed out of the actual conversations that have taken place mostly because I dont care, so I dont have any real opinion on the merit of the comments or if there are other reasons for removing them. nableezy - 20:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mbz - With respect, I think "stink with antisemitism, the Holocaust denial and vandalism" is slightly POV (note: we discussed some of Soledad's comments in this respect). As I'd mentioned to you, some of Sole's post certainly seemed a little dubious, but his banning was shinanigans and motivated by SlimV's desire to WP:OWN Al-Durrah.

As to your "interested to see here" - Not sure what the point is here. If you're suggesting I'm doing something innappropriate, please state what it is, then point to policy. Anyway, I don't think this is an appropriate forum, for continued discussion. I invite you to follow up on my talk page. Best NickCT (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin has made 1,392 edits to al-Durrah. I believe SlimVirgin is, both inside and outside the I-P topic area, a top-level editor. Before SlimV, other editors "brought Muhammad back to life", tilting the article toward a narrative advanced by a handful persuasive conspiracy theorists. SlimV dod a great job coming in and making the article coherent but it is a Wiki article, it will continue to change. Now some editors are making challenges and have every right to be treated civilly as they do so. This article is a POV magnet, but we can't censure only those on one side. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second RomaC's sentiments. SlimV's previous efforts ought to be applauded, but her current behaviors needs to be checked. NickCT (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slim was and is doing a great and fair job on the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, Nick, please refrain from telling people that this is not the appropriate forum for continued discussion when you frankly don't know what you're talking about. This is the perfect place for continued discussion, because the issue being discussed is your inappropriate behaviour. On the other hand, you keep bringing up issues you have with SlimVirgin, and this is NOT the appropriate forum for that. If you wish to do so, I invite you to submit a complaint about her in the right place. This forum, however, is about you. Breein1007 (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Breein - as you are doubtless aware, this type of arbitration is launched either because of inappropriate action or behaivior on the part of the accused, or its very launching was generated by innappropriate action/behavior on the part of the accusor (similar to when you accused me of sock puppetry ;-) . Both possibilities deserve discussion.

@Mbz - Doing a great and fair and job involves putting at least a little effort towards working with those who disagree with you. NickCT (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. There was nothing inappropriate about my actions in submitting a SPI. Just because you weren't confirmed to be using sockpuppets does not mean that I did anything wrong. Either way, you are once again bringing up topics that have absolutely nothing to do with this forum. Please stop deflecting attention from the topic at hand. Breein1007 (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact I wasn't sockpuppeting doesn't necessarily mean you were wrong in submitting a SPI. The fact that you submitted it desiring to obstruct/intimidate someone who was correcting your POV pushing does mean you were doing something wrong. Similarly the fact that this AE was submittd by Slim out of desire to WP:OWN Al-Durrah was also wrong. Anyway, this is the wrong forum, let's move to user talk pages if you'd like to continue. NickCT (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Breein1007, I believe we should mostly ignore NickCT comments. After I read this I realized the user has no idea, what he's talking about.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. No idea. Please ignore. NickCT (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

-- samj _in^out 16:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley#Abd_editing_restriction_.28existing_disputes.29

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

Context: This started with me cleaning up after User:LirazSiri (who had created a problematic article under WP:COI for his company/project, TurnKey_Linux_Virtual_Appliance_Library, uploaded a bunch of problematic images and repeatedly spammed both into various articles, templates and categories).

1. [52] Abd removes tags later found to have been appropriately placed on TurnKey_Linux_Virtual_Appliance_Library (then WP:HOUNDs me by reverting other cleanup edits[53])
2. [54] Abd enters existing dispute about WP:COI edits leading to WP:N, WP:V, WP:NPOV etc. on article talk page.
3. [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] Abd not only restores the User:LirazSiri's category spam that I had reverted, but also reverts the {{Non-free logo}} and {{di-no fair use rationale}} tags that I had added because various registered trademarks had been uploaded as "own work" under a liberal CC-BY-SA license.
4. [64] I asked Abd to stop WP:HOUNDing me and they dived head first into the debate, turning it from someone cleaning up after blatant WP:COI-induced vandalism and spamming into an all-out multi-editor dispute (a dozen or so editors have now been involved in some way).
5. [65] Further inflaming the debate, Abd templates the regulars.
6. [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] Abd is now fully engaged in, and central to the debate (which, critically, would almost certainly not have happened without their involvement).
7. [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] Abd follows the debate to WP:ANI where I have requested assistance, claiming that while cleaning up spam & vandalism I am "carrying out a vendetta" (I said I would nominate their article at AfD if they didn't calm down), blaming me for a successful CSD A7 from an anon IP in Spain(!?!) and ultimately calling for me to be blocked. User:Enric Naval agrees that "this is just escalating and drama".
8. User:JzG confirms the validity of my original complaint against User:LirazSiri (adding that "This looks like another of Abd's crusades on behalf of people "oppressed" for abusing Wikipedia for their own ends.") and summarises the situation as follows:

It's not clear this even would be a dispute without Abd's involvement. We have one WP:SPA making blatantly promotional COI edits, and one user making comments about it. We have a way of handling that...

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

# Not applicable.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Block (Note that Abd is just off a 3 month ban for similar behaviour and was already admonished for failing to substantiate allegations)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Abd's behaviour, albeit unusual, is particularly disruptive to the operation of Wikipedia. By joining a conflicted editor and egging them on in a "debate" with an experienced editor about obvious and persistent policy violations, Abd has not only wasted a huge amount of everyones' time but encouraged the problematic editor to go on thinking they have done no wrong (and thus continuing with the same problematic behaviour). What would usually have resulted in a harmless, short (and quite probably effective) block for the problematic editor has now resulted in not one but two WP:ANIs (in which Abd is inexplicably "considering [them]self an originating party") and the revisiting of a surprisingly recent arbitration decision.

• Abd has since admitted to willfully violating the editing restrictions and claims "originating party" status, apparently because they were "about to file a report"(!?!?): "I considered requesting special permission from ArbComm to intervene, but decided that the welfare of the project required immediate action, and my restriction allowed me to file as an "originating party." -- samj _in^out 16:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I also ote that Abd was admonished at the same time for "engaging in personal attacks" and "failing even to attempt to substantiate allegations of misconduct levelled at other editors". Here's a sample of his contributions to the most recent ANI: "revert warring rampage", "gratuitous incivility", "motive to harass", "calculated to cause maximum disruption", "trolled", "quite improper", "vindictive", "drastically exaggerated", "deliberately inflamed", "vendetta", "obsessive and touchy", "much worse than that", "COI", "strong personal opinions", "behavioural issues", "extortion", "harassment", "[not] clearly neutral", "highly biased", "even more inflammatory", "characteristic of harassment", etc. above). -- samj _in^out 18:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [80]

In lieu of presenting extensive evidence, I'll point to this statement by JzG, cited above by SamJohnston: It's not clear this even would be a dispute without Abd's involvement. We have one WP:SPA making blatantly promotional COI edits, and one user making comments about it. We have a way of handling that... This is an opinion supporting my position that I'm an "originating party" within the apparent intention of the sanction. I was an involved editor with TurnKey Linux and began simply by making a few edits that reverted apparent aggressive edits by User:SamJohnston, and I did this to encourage discussion instead of revert warring, which was SamJohnston's approach. I warned LirazSiri about his mistakes, and he seems to have stopped. If not, he can be and should be blocked. Warnings from sympathetic editors are much more effective than tirades and cries of "spam" and "vandalism" and threats to AfD an editor's favorite topic if the editor doesn't "chill" with regard to a different article.

The whole TurnKey Linux affair was an example of successful intervention by me in a dispute, however, resulting in the cessation of disruption and eventually a return of a sufficiently notable article to mainspace, confirmed unanimously at DRV (and, what is possibly relevant, undoing what JzG had done, though certainly the approved article was better than what JzG deleted).

As to the second part of the JzG statement, the "one user" did not merely make "comments about it." That user threatened the COI/SPA off-wiki with retaliatory AfD on a different article, then, when asked to chill, himself, proceeded to retaliate on-wiki, with massive disruption, seeking every possible issue to raise, all at once. Some of the issue have a legitimate basis, others don't. But the intention has become clear: "Don't mess with me!"

I will be requesting clarification from ArbComm over the application of my sanction to this. However, had I waited for approval from ArbComm (I considered requesting it -- ArbComm removed the mentorship provision, which would have allowed much more rapid approval), my expectation was that serious damage would be done, difficult to remediate. This is not a content issue, it is a behavioral issue. The content issues can be and will be resolved normally, if the behavioral issues are addressed. --Abd (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Thanks, I understand the position. However, I was preparing to file an AN/I request over this, as SamJ's disruption had continued, when I saw that SamJ had himself filed. When I reverted some edits of SamJ, that's when he escalated to actual deletion filings. I don't think that ArbComm in the santion intended the "originating party" to be a mere literal allowance, i.e., that I could file an AN/I report over an incident ("originating party"), but am prohibited from commenting on that same incident if I'm not personally mentioned by the filing party. The intention of the sanction would be that I stay out of what is not my own business, and this was very much my business, from prior history, as mentioned, in fact, by JzG (but he's not correct about this having to do with some supposed agenda by me with regard to him -- I only discovered JzG's involvement during my work rescuing TurnKey Linux, a year ago, it could just as well have been another admin, and I've made no recent criticism of JzG's action). However, Sandstein, you are welcome to clarify the meaning of the sanction on my Talk page, and I will respect that pending clarification by ArbComm that would supercede it. I do not consider you "involved" for the purposes of this sanction.--Abd (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: how about a 'back off" to Abd? As invited, Sandstein enjoined me from further comment on this case, and I acknowledged and accepted that. Now, how about a 'back off' to JzG, who is not exactly disinterested here? While Sandstein remains free to act further as chosen, the injunction should satisfy any concern about further possible disruption from me on this, and I've requested clarification on the sanction, supported by Sandstein, so that this won't happen again. Let's get back to the project here. That was my point in the first place.

@Sandstein: As stated, I don't agree with your interpretation, which is why I filed an RfAr/Clarification, to encourage ArbComm to make it very clear. I will say that if the sanction is interpreted by ArbComm as it is being claimed it should be, I expect to respect it, as I attempted to respect the sanction already, but also to retire as an editor, and move all of my work off-wiki, where I cannot be interdicted, and where I will not be tempted to intervene if I see someone kicking someone who is down, which is not a "dispute," it's abuse, and abuse harms the project, and I'd stop the kicking, which has very little to do with the dispute behind it. The only loss for me will be some wikignoming, article work. The process work will not only not suffer, it will probably become more effective. However, my understanding of process is such that I'm obligated to accept your interpretation, and, as promised, I will respect it pending clarification by ArbComm. --Abd (talk) 06:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Thanks. Unfortunately, I don't "accept the verdict here," this isn't a court and it only decides ad-hoc implementation, subject to review by ArbComm if needed, and I don't see sufficient comment (showing understanding of the issues or even otherwise) for me to consider the interpretation permanently authoritative. What I've done is to agree to respect the ban interpretation as proposed (and then enforced) by Sandstein, even though this creates certain problems, pending clarification by ArbComm. I will interpret the ban quite strictly, unless permitted otherwise by Sandstein. Note, however, what it seems that this interpretation would allow me to do: If I have a problem with the behavior of an editor, and I warn that editor, and the editor blows it off, and I believe that the editor's actions are damaging the project, this is a dispute between me and that editor, and I'd be allowed to take that through DR or a noticeboard. I'd be an "originating party." Correct? I do not suggest debating this here, it should be moot for enforcement because of my agreement, and because this is the question that I hope ArbComm will be resolving. --Abd (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• ThreeTwo editors who are not "uninvolved administrators" have commented in the section reserved for such regarding Result, below, twoone of them are not administrators at all (SamJohnston and JzG), and one is (Stephan Schulz) but is quite involved in prior dispute with me. --Abd (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SamJohnston removed his edit, and also struck the above words out. That was not proper, but no harm. The other two still have comments in the section for "uninvolved administrators." I presented evidence at the subject arbitration about Stephan Schulz, I will not repeat it here, but it should be enough that it is not a mere assertion, and, of course, the other editor is JzG, about whom there should be utterly no doubt as to involvement, besides not being an admin any more.

Request close of this enforcement request. While it's open, it will continue to collect coats. The underlying issue is the topic of an RfAr/Clarification, the alleged violation here has been addressed and cannot recur (without me being immediately blocked, I can't exactly fly under the radar), I'm under a voluntarily accepted restriction that exceeds the ArbComm restriction, pending, there is an immediate means of further clarification if necessary (consulting with Sandstein), Sandstein has determined no (further) action at this time, and [81] is irrelevant to this request. --Abd (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by JzG

My heart sinks when I see Abd weighing in to a dispute on behalf of someone who is being "oppressed" for abusing Wikipedia for their own ends (as with Pcarbonn, Jed Rothwell of LENR-CANR.org and so on). I have a nasty suspicion that Abd is mainly interested in this because I was involved in the original deletion and/or deletion review of LirazSiri's article at TurnKey Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

It is unambiguously the case that LirazSiri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account whose purpose is, and always has been, the promotion of TurnKey Linux, a minor Linux project of which he is co-founder. The most recent set of abuses includes adding TurnKey into the high level {{Cloud computing}} template: [82].

I noted in a comment that I am professionally involved in cloud computing, and Abd turned this round to assert that I have a potential COI. WTF? That is so wide of the mark it would be funny if it weren't for the fact that past experience indicates it will be tenaciously asserted until Abd is forcibly removed from this dispute. He asserts that he did not seek permission to violate his probation by becoming involved in the dispute because "the welfare of the project required immediate action" - to stop someone pushing back against a spammer promoting his own commercial interests. Riiiiight. He also describes another editor's actions as extortion. This is a criminal offence. Abd also uses misdirection, for example noting that I was admonished in a case not to use my administrative tools in a dispute where I am involved - I'd be really interested to see diffs showing abuse of tools here, that would be fascinating - while simultaneously, and as noted at the later Abd/WMC case, ignoring the instructions he was given in the same case.

Abd is, to put it bluntly, a monumental time sink in every single dispute in which he's involved, as originator or not. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Echoing Guy here and noting that I am no longer an admin and have a history with Abd but this is a classic case of Abd inflaming disputes by involving themselves and that they are specifically enjoined from doing this by the committee. The wikilawyering to try and wriggle of the hook by the pseudo clarification is a good sign they do not take the restrictions from the committee seriously and are determined to ignore them and not blocking them will only encourage them to do it again and again and again. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears Abd has filed a request for clarification regarding this enforcement request, and Sandstein has also welcomed any guidance from arbitrators about enforcement on the matter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some more history

This does indeed go back a way, as I thought it did. [83]; [84] Abd sets the scene for an exposition of "what Wikipedia did to you that was wrong" (which was: deleting an article on his company that he created and then immediately moved back to mainspace when it was userfied). [85] Abd recruits LirazSiri as a partisan to his dispute with me. You can see most of this from the history of user talk:LirazSiri and Special:Whatlinkshere/TurnKey Linux. This is not a new example of Abd escalating a dispute, it's an old example of Abd pursuing a crusade based on an action by someone he doesn't like. Whether that makes it more or less actionable is hard to say, really.

Separately, I have requested a topic ban for LirazSiri - after an explicit warning nearly a year ago he is still making promotional edits and feigning innocent surprise when told that this is a problem. I think the community can probably handle that. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re the comment that a request to Abd to back off won't do any good: yes, it will, if it's decided it's appropriate: see here [86] (involved) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm extremely sorry for my poor choice of words. I meant, of course, that Abd, as he has stated a number of times, is willing to follow instructions from wiki-authority provided the instructions are sufficiently clear. I did not mean that restricting Abd is "good". Abd has done a lot of good work on this project, reducing disruption – yes, reducing disruption!! including, but by no means limited to, when he "tiptoed in" to my talk page and catalysed the rapid amicable resolution of a dispute about misquotation which had been taking up large amounts of bandwidth and emotion on my talk page and the Judea-Samaria case pages. JzG's statement about a "time sink" is therefore false. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of intervention, by the way, is what I've interpreted the sanction as preventing. Was that a correct interpretation? --Abd (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

After an initial review, the case appears to have merit. Unfortunately, the submitter has presented too many diffs as evidence, most of which do not appear to be violations of the cited remedy. (It is only these that are of interest here.) But at least this and subsequent edits to WP:ANI by Abd seem to violate his restriction from "discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party." This is because the ANI request was framed by SamJohnston as a dispute between him and LirazSiri, and did not mention Abd. Although Abd appears to have been involved in the dispute, he was therefore not an originating party in the sense of the remedy, and, not being named in the ANI request against LirazSiri, had no legitimate need to reply to it. In view of this, I am of a mind to block Abd in enforcement of the remedy, but before doing so invite the comment of fellow admins as to whether or not they agree with this assessment.  Sandstein  18:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• So how about a "back off" to Abd? Defending spammers is not a great way to build your reputation. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that Abd has, so far, managed to rationalize any sanction away as an endorsement of his position, and that he rejects inconvenient communication, I don't think a "back off" will do any good. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Since Abd evidently thinks the sanction is in need of clarification, I have offered this piece of clarification to him [87]. If he accepts that, that's fine with me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Any block of Abd would be intended to deter his future involvement in cases where he is not a party. If he will accept the verdict that his participation here was against the restriction, then no block would be necessary. Unclear whether he will accept that. EdJohnston (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. I've asked him to confirm his acceptance here.  Sandstein  20:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No action. Abd has agreed to abide by the meaning of the restriction as explained above by Future Perfect at Sunrise, "pending some other decision by ArbComm" (which may or may not be issued in the concurrent clarification request). It is therefore not necessary to take enforcement action at this point.  Sandstein  06:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• He may have agreed, but he is up to his old Wikilawyering and "subtle" threatening again, see [88] and [89]. This should be nipped in the bud. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not the subject of this request, though. Any new problems should be addressed by a new request as appropriate. Closing for now.  Sandstein  20:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, violation of 1RR/3RR

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

# [90], first revert on the Kochari article.

1. [91], second revert on the Kochari article.
2. [92], third revert on the Kochari article.
3. [93], fourth revert on the Kochari article.
4. [94], fifth revert on the Kochari article.
5. [95], sixth revert on the Kochari article.

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

# [96] Warning by MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Left to the discretion of administrator.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The edit war, without so much as an attempt to discuss the edits, on the Kochari article is rather symptomatic of all of Interfase's edits, really. On the Azerbaijani-language Wikipedia, he has been busy distorting articles related to Armenian geography by declaring them parts of "Western Azerbaijan". A number of editors have expressed concern that these articles on the Azeri Wikipedia do not correspond at all with those found on the other language Wikipedias. The article on khachkars, for example, on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia have been rechristened as "alban xaçkarları" (Caucasian Albanian khachkars), something which is not supported by any source except those published by the government of Azerbaijan. Articles on Armenian churches have similarly been deprived of their identity, and have, once more, been rechristened as "Albanian temples" (see for example the entry on the Saint Sargis Monastery, which is dubbed Avey məbədi. Attempts to remove these erroneous interwikis have been unsuccessful, since the stupid bots keep re-adding them, but also because the above edit wars show how desperate some are to fudge the facts so one cannot tell what's truth, what's fiction.

I think we can save that for another conversation but I think it's necessary that the administrators know these facts as well.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[97]

On Kochari I reverted edits which I identifited as a vandalism. They removed interwikis to azwiki's article which also talks about Kochari dance. I returned them. --Interfase (talk) 11:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. In the Russian Wikipedia, there are several articles about different national versions of Kochari and disambig (ru:Кочари). There is an article about the Azeri dance (ru:Кочари (азербайджанский танец)). Article in Azeri Wikipedia (az:Köçəri) only about Azeri dance (Köçəri — Azərbaycanın milli rəqslərindən biri == Kochari - Azeri folk dance). User Interfase himself confessed that on his user talk page - ru:Обсуждение участника:Interfase#Кочари. --hayk (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history of the article, I see that it is just about the removal of interwikis. Interfase adds Azeri and other interwikis to the article, which is quite in line with the rules, and other users keep on removing it. In particular, Hayk (talk · contribs) made as many rvs as Interfase, but he is not mentioned in this report. I don't really understand why those interwikis should be removed, and why the person who inserts them is being reported, even if he does nothing wrong by adding them, while those who remove it are clearly wrong, and they are the ones who should be reported. Grandmaster 06:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering why is it that any new account which is suspicious from one side is directly blocked while nothing is done when the exact same thing is done from the other side? Also, Grandmaster has some explaining to do because some of the reports he files are reverts back to content that was reached by a consensus; basically the consensus version that he himself also supported. Here for instance. Reverting under the cover of reverting sockpuppetry is not a valid justification for reverting a wording agreed by all sides. - Fedayee (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Both Hayk and Interfase need a slap on the wrist - I concur with Grandmaster regarding Hayk (talk · contribs). I don't really understand whether the iwiki is appropriate here, but judging from the page history, both Hayk and Interfase are responsible for the edit war. Neither of them are really making any attempt to explain themselves on the article's talk page. @Fedayee - Not sure I understand your comment re "Grandmaster has some explaining to do ". NickCT (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've placed Interfase under supervision for 3 months, which restricts him to 1RR/week. PhilKnight (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

Theserialcomma (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

- Should Tothwolf make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Tothwolf may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement

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

# [[98]] "not one of these three individuals (Theserialcomma, JBSupreme, and Miami33139) has ever made a single positive contribution to an article in this subject area and are clearly not here to build Wikipedia [99] [100] [101] (I never really was able to find anything constructive in these three contribution histories). Based solely on their contribution histories, these three individuals clearly much prefer to attack others (not just myself) and bulk remove content instead of improving Wikipedia."

Explanation: In Tothwolf's arbcom case, 3 main editors (JBsupreme, Miami33139, Theserialcomma) filed evidence of tothwolf's long term uncivil behavior and paranoid/unsubstantiated allegations. as a result, the arbcom case closed with the result of tothwolf being admonished and restricted from making any future uncivil comments against us or any other editors - or he shall be blocked. tothwolf's behavior has remained unchanged. the diff posted shows he is still engaging in uncivil accusations against the same users from whom he's restricted.

diff 2: [[102]] Don't email me, don't contact me, don't bloody show up in IRC channels where you know I visit and brag "I'm gonna get Tothwolf banned!"

Explanation: i've never contacted him off-wiki (and he's contacted me twice - i forwarded each to Arbcom's mailing list), nor have i been on irc with him (ridiculous). per tothwolf's restrictions, he is not to make unsubstantiated allegations without evidence. he just left a message on my talk page - against my requests for him to stay away - claiming i've 'emailed, contacted' and 'showed up on IRC' channels. he's paranoid, delusional, and arbcom has restricted him from making these uncivil allegations. he needs to be stopped.

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

{{{Diffs of prior warnings}}}

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

block ; i further request that tothwolf is topic banned from making any allegations about me, or contacting me, or discussing me. [his accusations show that he is either trolling in order to harass me, or he's completely delusional]. either way, he's restricted from this behavior, and so these restrictions should be enforced and tightened.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Tothwolf has been gaming the system since his arbcom restrictions, testing the waters to see how uncivil he can be without repercussions. i hope that an uninvolved admin will scrutinize his restrictions and his behavior and come to the conclusion that the sanctions that resulted from this 2 month arbcom case are worth enforcing.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

i haven't contacted tothwolf's talk page, but he's aware of this, since he just posted on my talk page

That section reads that Tothwolf does not want you editing his talk page, so I've notified him.  Sandstein  20:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Why am I not surprised Theserialcomma? How many times do you have to be told by myself and others (including multiple administrators) to leave me alone?

I'm quite tired of you misquoting me and editing my words to suit your personal "desires" as you did above, and as you did repeatedly during the ArbCom case [103] (my responses to which were unfortunately moved to the talk page [104] by MBisanz [105] which appears to have led to those misquotes/false statements flying under the radar during the ArbCom case). While I did not mention you by name in my comments, Theserialcomma, I certainly did link to diffs to back up what I said (otherwise you would simply run to an admin, AN/I, or AE here and link to [106] as you've done before).

Theserialcomma, you also made some very misleading statements above... JBsupreme presented no evidence in the ArbCom case [107] and both you and Miami33139 didn't want any part of the ArbCom case when it was still in the RFAR stage as "Hounding of Tothwolf". [108] [109]

To summarise part of this [110] AN/I discussion: "Unfortunately, due to the case name, the material I presented was apparently thrown out and ignored by the person who wrote the draft decision. The original RFAR working name was "Hounding of Tothwolf" [111] but Manning Bartlett attempted to go with a more neutral name of "Tothwolf" [112] when he moved it from the RFAR stage to an open case. The case name discussion from Manning Bartlett's talk page can be found here."

Theserialcomma, the personal attacks you continue to throw around while continuing to make statements such as "he's paranoid, delusional", etc. need to stop right now. This already came up in the last AN/I discussion here where I replied [113] to your last attacks: "You also need to stop referring to me as "paranoid", "delusional", "deviant", etc. That is a personal attack. You began attacking me with such statements after Miami33139 began making them. It's also quite obvious that you are not even medically qualified to make such claims; one of the very first things you are taught is: Don't diagnose unless you have a treatment plan."

Theserialcomma: I'm tired of your on-wiki and off-wiki attacks. This has been going on for nearly a year [114] [115] (full discussion) [116] (full report) (contribs) and clearly you simply being told to leave me alone (repeatedly, by multiple administrators and other editors, no less) isn't going to be effective. I've now emailed ArbCom, and while they obviously can't really stop your off-wiki actions, perhaps this time your on-wiki behaviours will finally be addressed.

You've done this sort of thing to many other editors in the past, eventually leading to some of them finally blowing up at your harassment or baiting and getting blocked, or in the case of most, simply leaving Wikipedia. You apparently seem to enjoy being disruptive and causing strife for others and to be quite honest I'm not sure why someone didn't catch on to you much, much earlier. Wikipedia is not a game where you "win!" when you attempt to get someone "indef'd". [117]

Theserialcomma: Let me be quite blunt with you, continuing to try to get me "banned from Wikipedia" isn't going to stop me from calling you out on your disruptive behaviours and harassment of other editors.

--Tothwolf (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Blocked for 72 hours, escalating from the previous 48, for the reply above alone. It is not a good idea to reply to an enforcement request for personal attacks with ... yet more personal attacks.  Sandstein  22:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

Supreme Deliciousness 10:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

[118]

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

[119], [120], [121]

She was topic banned from "Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the duration of three months. (For the avoidance of doubts, this includes all pages or discussions related to the topic, broadly construed."

The comment she made here is clearly a discussion comment related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, broadly construed. In the article she had also added stuff related to the Palestinian-Israel conflict so its a part of it: [122]

Note, this is info added later, so admins should take a second look: She also discussed the controversial I-P article Sheikh Jarrah on Nsaum's talk page [123] in a manner that suggested she was trying to use Nsaum as a meatpuppet to circumvent her topic ban.

It can also be argued that her edits to the Israeli art student scam AFD contravene the topic ban. Particularly considering that the reason Gilabrand got topic banned in the first place was spamming I-P related hate material into that very article.

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

Not applicable

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Block or ban.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[124]

Palestine is not mentioned once on the article in question. The only argument that could be made is that similar editors are involved. The only thing left to say is: BOOOOOOO Cptnono (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Her comment in the edit summary touches the Israel-Palestinian conflict by her questioning Factsonthegrounds edit, she was banned from all pages or discussions related to the topic, broadly construed, therefor she violated it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh bummer. I see what you are getting at but it really wasn't against the spirit of the sanction. An argument could also be made that she was baited. From my understanding AE frowns upon and seldomly takes action against offenses like this. I guess we'll see though.Cptnono (talk) 11:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How was she baited into [125] this edit? Yes, Gilabrand was blocked for this by Sandstein, but clearly Gilabrand saw and made a connection. Going over the details of edits such as this and this seems to indicate an unwillingness to abide by the restrictions imposed. Unomi (talk) 12:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I struck out my comments above as they were made while I was under the impression that the I/P restrictions had been in place for a while. Unomi (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Gilabrand was topic-banned from I-P articles for the edits she made to Israeli art student scam. Participating in the AfD discussion for that article is clearly a violation of her topic ban. Insisting, as she did, that this article has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (except in the mind of the person who created it), when she has made edits like this to the article, is not only an assumption of bad faith, but is richly ironic. How she or anyone can argue that her edits to the AfD fall outside the scope of her topic ban is bewildering, to say the least. Tiamut^talk 12:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could be argued that voting on that AfD was a violation of the topic ban, but that does not appear to be the argument that Supreme Deliciousness made above. Evil saltine (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it could but it looks like there are other diffs on other articles. If she screwed up somewhere else she screwed up. I can't full on retract my BOOO for the report presented (more diffs needed on other articles for it to matter) but other stuff is other stuff. A better prepared report would be easier to assess since we all know it is coming up for a few of us. Happy editing.Cptnono (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gilabrand was topic banned for her edits to the article that is up at AfD, in which she herself inserted material on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In other words, her disruptive and pointy edits there made it part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To now claim that it has nothing to do with it, is pure hypocrisy. Its the fact that she made an edit at all that is at issue here, and not the contents of those edits. If I am topic-banned from all science articles due to disruptive edits I made at Global warming, and then Global warming is up for an AfD and I comment inn that AfD, its quite a stretch for me to argue that the article in question doesn't fall under the scope of my topic ban. Capisce? Tiamut^talk 12:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, Tiamut. you should now better than that. It is (present tense) not I/P conflict article. Please kindly let her be.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Mbz1, but I'm not the only one who sees it as an I-P related article, even without Gilabrand's having made it so, by her edits there. User:Avraham seems to as well [126], as he listed it at both the Israel and Palestine wikiprojects to alert their project members to its being at AfD. Tiamut^talk 22:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Tiamut, it does not work this way. It is one of the rare cases, when 1+1 is not equal 2. Palestine and Israel in separate lists do not add to I/P conflict.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note this ANI where Gilabrand has edited an article on Zimbabwe Israeli relations, removing information on Zimbabwe's take on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Please advise on the enforcement decision regarding this, will this require a new entry? SGGH ^ping! 15:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has blocked for 48, see below. SGGH ^ping! 17:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. The word "Palestine" is never mentioned in the article in question
2. The article has absolutely nothing to do with I/P conflict

I suggest:

1. Speedy close this request
2. Block Supreme Deliciousness for harassing the user with this request--Mbz1 (talk) 12:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the link Supremedelicious provided, Gilabrand also discussed a controversial I-P article (Sheikh Jarrah) on Nsaum's talk page: [127].

She also never responded to the original ANI about posting hate material into Israeli art student scam, which suggests she doesn't accept that she did anything wrong. Factsontheground (talk) 12:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A talk page of a user cannot be considered a page that is related to I/P conflict article.

She was sanctioned for what she's done to your article. What other responses you need to hear.

Kindly leave her alone, better safe your time to come up with a new conspiracy theory.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to leave her alone, but I find it difficult with her deleting my comments, posting on my talk page, posting on other people's talk pages about my edits, etc.

Also I-P topic bans also cover discussing I-P topics on talk pages. Factsontheground (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Factsontheground, Do you know that you started editing the section that states: "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators." I hope you do not consider yourself to be " uninvolved administrator". She has the right to post at your page, and talk to other editors about her concerns over your edits. It is not a part of her ban.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since an "incident" on my talk page is mentioned above, I feel the need to comment: This whole situation appears to be turning into some sort of witch hunt, with several users trying to find an angle that will "stick" in order to "punish" an editor they may have an issue with. Remember: "anything can be 'revealed' if you go over it enough with a fine-tooth-comb." --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 15:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

In the cited edit ([128]), Gilabrand stated in the edit summary "this article has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (except in the mind of the person who created it)". For the sake of argument I am ignoring the inappropriate deletion of Factsontheground's comment and taking this as if she had replied to his comment with what she said in the edit summary. With that we have this exchange:

This user is topic banned from Israeli-Palestinian conflict topics. Factsontheground (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (except in the mind of the person who created it) - Gilabrand

Gilabrand here clearly mentioned the Israeli-Palestinian conflict solely for the purpose of defending herself against Factsontheground's implied allegation that she violated the topic ban. If Factsontheground had not accused her of a violation, she would likely not have mentioned the conflict. This is not meant to say that Factsontheground did anything wrong.

I think it is not in the best interest of Wikipedia to say that this violates the topic ban. It is clearly necessary for the accused to mention the topic in order to mount a defense against an alleged topic ban violation. The argument presented by Supreme Deliciousness appears to be that that necessary mention in itself constitutes discussion of the topic, which itself is a violation of the topic ban. Enforcement in this case would effectively deny an editor accused of violating a topic ban the ability to defend themselves against the accusation. I do not believe that is the intention of the discretionary sanction as specified by Arbcom. Making a reasonable statement rebutting an accusation does not fall under "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." Also, Gilabrand would have to mention the topic on this page in order to make a statement, thus violating the topic ban. Therefore, I recommend against a block/ban. Evil saltine (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above applies to this version of the enforcement request. Evil saltine (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the merits of the original complaint, I have now blocked Gilabrand for this edit, which was brought up today in an ANI thread and clearly constitutes a breach of the ban. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That renders moot the discussion about the previous edits. Closing.  Sandstein  18:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]