Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement - Wikipedia

2 people in discussion

Article Images

Important information

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arab Cowboy (talk · contribs · block log) blocked for 72 hours
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Arab Cowboy 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 [1] Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [2][3][4] He was banned from all articles and their associated talk pages within the scope of the Asmahan case for abuse of alternative accounts: [5] "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:[6] [7][8] 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: [9][10][11] 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 [12] Discussion concerning Arab Cowboy Statement by Arab Cowboy Result concerning Arab Cowboy 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

Arab Cowboy (talk · contribs · block log) blocked for 72 hours

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

Request concerning Arab Cowboy

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: [1]

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

[2][3][4]

He was banned from all articles and their associated talk pages within the scope of the Asmahan case for abuse of alternative accounts: [5] "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:[6] [7][8]

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: [9][10][11]

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

[12]

Discussion concerning Arab Cowboy

Statement by Arab Cowboy

Result concerning Arab Cowboy

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

Request concerning NickCT and Soledad22

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

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

[13] [14]

Warnings

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 [15] until March 5, thereby supplanting their own judgment for that of the FA reviewers. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Discussion

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 [16] [17], [18]). 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 [19];[20];[21] (In the last diff I absolutely agree with the removing information, but the edit summary is way too strong IMO). This edit [22] 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; [23] Ashkenazi intelligence; removed that "international Jewry" were scapegoats on Adolf Hitler; [24] attempted to downplay the proportion of Polish Jews killed at The Holocaust; [25] added something about anti-Christian bigotry among Jews at The Merchant of Venice (2004 film), [26] (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

[27] 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 [28]. 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

Result

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

Continuing problems

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. [29] [30] [31] [32] 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

Discussion

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

Resolved

– Wrong forum, no action required

Dear Wikipedia editors, This is a formal request to have my personal information removed from your website. The information posted by user 'Jtir', is an infringement of my privacy rights. The user who posted them did so without my authority. I have persistently asked him to remove this information without any success or comment from him/her. I am having problems relating to the posting of my private, personal information.

Please attend to this matter at your earliest possible convenience, so that I can refrain from taking further action. Regards, Gerry McLoughlin Naples Florida

P.S. My Naples based information and name are posted 3/4 of the way down the page link below. His Username: Jtir The page in question: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk:Cellulosic_ethanol\ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.2.232 (talk • contribs)

Mr McLoughlin, this is not the proper forum for such requests; that would be WP:OVERSIGHT. However, to save you the trouble of making an oversight request: The information at issue appears to be publicly available WHOIS information ([33], [34]). As such, there is no basis, legal or otherwise, on which to request its removal from this site. Please be advised of our policy regarding legal threats. Sandstein 15:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

No action after Abd (talk · contribs) has agreed to abide by the restriction as clarified to him.

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

Request concerning Abd

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).

[35] 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[36])
[37] Abd enters existing dispute about WP:COI edits leading to WP:N, WP:V, WP:NPOV etc. on article talk page.
[38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] 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.
[47] 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).
[48] Further inflaming the debate, Abd templates the regulars.
[49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] Abd is now fully engaged in, and central to the debate (which, critically, would almost certainly not have happened without their involvement).
[58] [59] [60] [61] [62] 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".
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

[63]

Discussion concerning Abd

Statement by Abd

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

~~Three~~Two editors who are not "uninvolved administrators" have commented in the section reserved for such regarding Result, below, ~~two~~one 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 [64] 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: [65].

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. [66]; [67] 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). [68] 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 [69] (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

What Abd would hope for

What I'd hope for, in fact, is that ArbComm would reconsider the sanction itself, not confine itself to providing crisper definitions of the terms. What, exactly, was the problem that the sanction addressed? I have not demonstrated how ineffective the sanction is, because I don't violate WP:POINT. However, there is a situation where it's becoming clear to me that I need to go to ArbComm again. As an "originating party." And there will be no doubt that I'm an originating party. It actually should be simple, the facts are clear, but ... the facts were also clear with the two adverse parties on which I filed RfArs before. The filings were simple, not complicated. They became complicated when hosts of previously involved editors piled in with accusations about me that were actually irrelevant to the narrow point of both cases. Lost in all this is that in both arbitrations, ArbComm confirmed my complaint, but then reprimanded me for how I pursued it. Both situations were long-standing problems, admins had thrown their hands up in despair over them. And I brought them closer to resolution with community consensus, and both administrators no longer have the tools as a consequence, though that is not what I asked for. In other words, I tackled two difficult problems. The claim seems to be that I should have done better, and I'd certainly agree that I could have. But for years, nobody had both "done better" and been effective. Is ArbComm irritated that it finally had to bite the bullet and face the situations? It would seem so! Therefore it does not want to see more of that kind of nuisance. Therefore it attempts to cut off what is seen as the root of the problem (me) without being too obvious. So it orders me to MYOB. Apparently, the wiki is not "my business." It's theirs and everyone else's, eh? The problems will continue, and it is not actually about me or the other editors. It's about abusive structure. And that structure abuses everyone, including the arbitrators. --Abd (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Result concerning Abd

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 [70]. 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 [71] and [72]. 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

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

Request concerning Interfase

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: # [73], first revert on the Kochari article.

[74], second revert on the Kochari article.
[75], third revert on the Kochari article.
[76], fourth revert on the Kochari article.
[77], fifth revert on the Kochari article.
[78], sixth revert on the Kochari article.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): # [79] 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

[80]

Discussion concerning Interfase

Statement by Interfase

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

Result concerning Interfase

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

Tothwolf (talk · contribs) blocked for 72 hours.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Tothwolf 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 # [[81]] "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 [82] [83] [84] (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: [[85]] 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 Discussion concerning Tothwolf Statement by Tothwolf 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 [86] (my responses to which were unfortunately moved to the talk page [87] by MBisanz [88] 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 [89] as you've done before). Theserialcomma, you also made some very misleading statements above... JBsupreme presented no evidence in the ArbCom case [90] 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". [91] [92] To summarise part of this [93] 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" [94] but Manning Bartlett attempted to go with a more neutral name of "Tothwolf" [95] 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 [96] 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 [97] [98] (full discussion) [99] (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". [100] 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 Result concerning Tothwolf 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

Tothwolf (talk · contribs) blocked for 72 hours.

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

Request concerning Tothwolf

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: # [[81]] "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 [82] [83] [84] (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: [[85]] 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

Discussion concerning Tothwolf

Statement by Tothwolf

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 [86] (my responses to which were unfortunately moved to the talk page [87] by MBisanz [88] 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 [89] as you've done before).

Theserialcomma, you also made some very misleading statements above... JBsupreme presented no evidence in the ArbCom case [90] 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". [91] [92]

To summarise part of this [93] 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" [94] but Manning Bartlett attempted to go with a more neutral name of "Tothwolf" [95] 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 [96] 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 [97] [98] (full discussion) [99] (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". [100]

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

Result concerning Tothwolf

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

Request concerning Gilabrand

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: [101]

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

[102]

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 maded here is clearly a discussion comment related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, broadly construed..

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

[103]

Discussion concerning Gilabrand

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 [104] 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

Statement by Gilabrand

Comments by others about the request concerning Gilabrand

Result concerning Gilabrand

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

In the cited edit ([105]), 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