Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Jaakobou

No action. Jaakobou (talk · contribs) reminded not to use provocative terms needlessly and to be mindful of maintaining a positive editing environment.

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

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

Request concerning Jaakobou

User requesting enforcement: Tiamut^talk 17:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: Jaakobou (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, specifically the sections on Editors reminded and Editors Counseled.

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

[1] In this edit to Muhammad al-Durrah incident, Jaakobou reverts additions I was in the process of discussing with another editor on the talk page. Besides the summary revert, it was the edit summary I found problematic ("undo POV and muqawama apologetics.") Why?
I asked Jaakobou not to use the word so frequently three weeks ago here. In this extended discussion on his talk page, he agreed not to. Following his edit cited above, and given his earlier pledge, I ask him if he is trying to provoke me [2]. I also ask him to self-revert given that he has altered unrelated content. He refuses to do so and accuses me of provoking him [3]. To which I respond [4].
[5] Then, in this edit to his talk page, he accuses me of provoking him by "pushing the attacking Jews is legitimate "unrest"[6] angle" (?!?). Both another editor (RomaC [7]) and myself [8] take issue with that characterization and ask him to strike. He does not, instead choosing to slightly modify his comment, justifying his personal attack by further misrepresenting my position and the article content under discussion. [9].
[10] On the Muhammad al-Durrah incident talk page, he reuses the exact phrase that prompted me to go to his talk page in the first place, writing, "You've been editing wikipedia for long enough learn what balance is and these muqawama apologetics are inexcusable."
[11] He then goes to the article Avigdor Lieberman. Citing a "soft talkpage consensus and merit-less note by Tiamut", he restores a WP:SYNTH addition that was earlier objected to by at least two other editors besides me, threatening to restart an edit war that has since abated. This singular focus on me, when I hadn't commented or edited there since December 31st (and when I wasn't the last to comment either), also comes off as WP:Hounding, which a review of some of the AE requests filed will show is an issue that has been raised previously (under the name "stalking" or "unhealthy obsession").
[12] His talk page comment explaning his edit describes Hamas as an "anti-semitic muqawama group".

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): Arbitration Enforcement requests involving Jaakobou (2008-2009):

02.2008: AE complaint filed by Eleland re Jaakobou (No result)
02.2008: AE complaint filed by Jaakobou against Number 57 (No result)
02.2008: AE complaint filed by Jaakobou re Eleland (No result)
02.2008: 2nd AE complant filed by Jaakobou re Eleland (Result: Jaakobou received a final warning about using AE as a weapon for block shopping)
03.2008: El C's complaint regarding Jaakobou mocking of my user page contents (Result: Jaakobou apologizes and no action is taken)
03.2008: Tiamut's first AE complaint re Jaakobou (Result: Jaakobou is banned from all Israel and Palestine related pages for a week for inappropriate talk page behaviour.)
03.2008: Jaakobou's AE request "other editors' activity, specifically Tiamut, Nickhh, Sm8900 and Nishidani, should be given proper examination and possible sanctions should be considered when their activity is placed in comparison with my own." (Result: Discussion closed by Thatcher with "THIS ENDS NOW"]
04.2008: 3rd AE complaint by Jaakobou re Eleland (No result)
04/05.2008: 4th AE complaint by Jaakobou re Eleland (No result)
06.2008: Pedrito's AE complaint re Jaakobou (No result)
11.2008: Tiamut's second complaint at AE re Jaakobou (Result: Jaakobou given a final warning about soapboxing. While there was no clear consensus on the subject, the issue of his stalking me was raised at this time.)
05.2009: SlimVirgin complaint at AE re Jaakobou (No result)

A couple of other related threads (2009):

10.2009: Wikiquette alert filed by George where uninvolved commentators suggested opening an RfC to deal with racist commentary
12.2009: [13] WP:AN complaint by Jaakobou against SlimVirgin that turned into a discussion of whether or not he should be community banned

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): The problem (this time and almost every time) is inappropriate talk page behaviour and soapboxing accompanied by a WP:BATTLE attitude on Israel-Palestine related article talk pages, directed largely towards editors who edit there whose POV is not his own. (There is a case to made for WP:DE and WP:TE as well.) The solution? Perhaps a lengthy topic ban as these problems only seem to emerge in the Israel-Palestine editing arena. He has done some good work on digital media and in helping new editors by responding to their request for help.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User:Ynhockey has found a diff attesting to inappropriate talk page commentary of my own at another page from about 10 days ago. I admit that comment was needlessly belligerent and that the personal anecdote, while interesting, is not relevant to article improvement discussion. I apologize for having degraded the quality of the discussion. Tiamut^talk 18:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Henrik, thank you for the clarification. I wasn't implying that Sandstein had no right to be involved. Only that I would prefer that he didn't handle the case himself. He is of course free to refuse that request. Tiamut^talk 18:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest to anyone reviewing this case that they take the trouble to read through at least some of the AE requests, and the two most recent threads (Wikiquette alert and WP:AN complaint). I realize it is a lot to review, but the background is relevant. Tiamut^talk 18:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Pantherskin, I'm not trying to harass Jaakobou. This is the third time I've filed an AE complaint regarding his behaviour, but the first request was acted upon and the second resulted in a warning, so its not exactly like they were frivolous complaints. Its possible that I'm reading more into Jaakobou's comments than is there because of our lengthy and rather toxic history of interactions. But its also quite possible that my complaint of being hounded by him, for being a Palestinian and not sharing his POV, is a legitimate one. If you look at the AE complaints filed by El C and by me and review the Wikiquette alert, I think you will see that there is evidence for a pattern of harassment characterized by bigoted talk page commentary that is designed to push buttons. I have tried my best to ignore this over the last little while, but its happened too many times for me to just turn the other cheek. Tiamut^talk 19:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question to the admins watching this page: Are the normal rules of engagement suspended at AE? Because in the comments below by editors (four of whom I have had content disagreements with), I see an awful lot of bad faith speculation bordering on personal attacks, with a dash of soapboxing just to spice it up a little. I'm trying to be gracious, but its gotten a little out of hand, no? Tiamut^talk 21:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Ynhockey, "bigoted talk page commentary" is a fair description, given the conclusions made by uninvolved editors in this Wikiquette alert. Tiamut^talk 14:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein, as to why the use of "muqawama" is a problem, as Gatoclass perceptively points out, to Jaakobou, the term is equivalent to "terrorism". So when he is calling me a "muqawama apologist", he is actually calling me an apologist for terrorism. Much as Okedem, in his comments, suggest I am a Hamas apologist. These are bad faith assumptions as to my motive in editing and amount to personal attacks. Furthermore, when he uses the term three time in two days, after he agreed not to use it three weeks previous, it is, as Gatoclass notes, a form of harassment. Tiamut^talk 14:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Cptnono, I started User:Tiamut/muqawama after discussions with Jaakobou made it clear that it was being misconceived as solely a synonym for terrorism. It actually covers a wide spectrum of resistance actions, as you can read there (its still a work in progress though). As for the res of your comment, I would once again like to remind you to stop using my user page (or identity) as evidence of bad faith on my part, as you have in the past [14].

While Jaakobou claims that my primary contributions to the Avigdor Lieberman article have been to revert him, a quick review of my edits there will show this description is rather incomplete, as I made an effort to forge compromise formulations, and participated heavily on talk to that end. A review of Jaakobou's last 6 article edits there, show that 4 were either wholly or essentially reverts to include the words "which advocates the destruction of Israel", after the words "Hamas". [15] [16] [17] [18] This sentence fragment was first added by Jaakobou on April 9, 2009 [19], with the edit summary "rm death sentence hyperbole and clarify the context of Hamas' agenda with the accusation of treason". Please note that the source cited does not use these words to describe Hamas, and reports without mincing words that Lieberman explicitly called for the execution of Arab MKs who met wih Hamas.

With the alteration of his statement here, Jaakobou also accuses me of using "a euphemism" to describe violence against Jews at the Muhammad al-Durrah incident. This is a misleading statement that assumes bad faith, despite the fact that I explained the reasons for my change of "rioting" to "unrest" in the lead of the article on the talk page. Please further note that the sentence in question is not explicitly discussing violence against Jews, but rather refers to the general climate on the day that Muhammad al-Durrah, a 12-year old boy, was shot and killed.[20] That said, I have no intention of whitewashing anything, and in light of the substance of Jaakobou's edits to the Avigdor Lieberman article, such an accusation seems rather hypocritical. Tiamut^talk 20:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [21]

Discussion concerning Jaakobou

Statement by Jaakobou

For starters, I couldn't have hounded Tiamut to Muhammad al-Durrah incident, where I've contributed over 160 edits while she contributed less than 15. The same goes for the Israeli politician (Avigdor Lieberman) page where I've made about 150 edits while her contributions amount to 6; mostly reverts on the Hamas descriptive.[22][23][24]

I have found Tiamut to be disruptive and confrontational on multiple Israel-related articles recently. If it were this anti-Zionist/Israel commentary on the Israel talkpage here, or a pro-Hamas/Hezbollah (antisemitic organizations[25][26][27]) attitude on talkpages[28] and article space (see above) and her userpage.[29][30]

Also, Tiamut is making a very serious misrepresentation here on arbitration enforcement by neglecting to mention vital information.

"This is the third time I've filed an AE complaint regarding his behaviour, but the first request was acted upon and the second resulted in a warning"[31]

In the second case she filed, there were 5 admins objecting any action, supporting that my conduct was well within proper etiquette and PhilKnight's quick move to ignore them and file a warning to me was just as quickly noted as a faulty assessment of the case by two other admins.[32][33] Similar misrepresentations occur too often whenever Tiamut mentions me which makes for a very uncomfortable feeling.

Tiamut is also erroneous in her understanding of Arabic. 'Muqawama' is a culture of popular sentiments and not "actions" as she states here. Knowing the full breadth of cultural meaning behind the term, I do not use is as a synonym for terrorism. It is an extremely common term and there's nothing to take offense from its usage. My use of the word "apologetics" in reference to an edit I was in strong disagreement with was probably not optimal though. Tiamut inserted an inherently improper euphemism - here 1 2 - for assaults made on Jews in Israel by Palestinians (Second Intifada) and I was trying to make a clear and precise note of the issue without writing endlessly about it.

This complaint seems to be about a wiki-hounding and harassment claims over two articles Tiamut barely touched and a common Palestinian terminology used in reference to content discussions. The complaint uses a big list of events from as far as 2 years ago, most of which between me and banned editors -- friends of Tiamut. This list neglects samples where Tiamut was warned by 2 uninvolved admins for improper behavior[34] and her being chastised by 2 other high profile contributors (both are admins as well) for poor talkpage conduct.[35][36] Putting these together, I feel some form of breach of the final decision had occurred.

Comment regarding Gatoclass' notes:
Gatoclass interprets bad faith not just with me but also with Cptonio as can be seen here. The keeping of close contacts between Tiamut and Gatoclass can be observed here. Gatoclass, who shares the same POV as Tiamut, made superficial observation into my comments. Defending a friend is a valiant act and I think everyone should have friends like you, Gatoclass, but there is no history of harassment here. Certainly not on articles Tiamut has barely touched and almost exclusively to revert me, at that.

Comments by others about the request concerning Jaakobou

Comment by Sandstein

This request lacks a signature and a notification diff and cannot be processed. It is strongly recommended to use the template {{Sanction enforcement request}} for such requests, as instructed in the header. Also, the specific remedy that was violated or under which action is requested should be cited if possible. Sandstein 17:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I tried to to use template, but the coding would not work for me. I left all the text therein as is (there was no diff of notification field, but I've added it now). Give me a second to point to the exact remedy. In the past, we only had to cite the case and the other AE request that garnered warnings to have a request considered. Tiamut^talk 17:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I've added them. And Sandstein, I hope you don't take offense to this, but given that we had a pretty heated run in with one another over Nableezy's case and it wasn't that long ago, I'd appreciate it if someone else handled this request. However, your opinion, should you care to share it, is more than welcome. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 17:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is no "case", as such, to be handled by one person; enforcement actions are individual actions and if I do not respond to this request, another administrator may or vice versa. But if you do not want my assistance with your request, that is certainly your prerogative. Sandstein 19:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm sorry if I've offended you with my request. Perhaps it was ill-advised. As I said above, your comments would be welcome. I just felt that in case there was any lingering bad feelings about how I handled your response to the request against Nableezy, it might be better if someone else took up this request. Forgive my impetuosity. Tiamut^talk 19:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've looked at the evidence that Tiamut provided and honestly don't know what ought to be done. Much seems to turn around the use of the word "muqawama", apparently translating to "resistance" and possibly having the connotation of "terrorism", but since I don't speak Arabic (or Hebrew) I don't really understand what the problem with the use of that word is. Arbitration enforcement is neither a venue for resolving content disagreements nor is it a substitute for dispute resolution. As to conduct issues, the only thing that's evident is that Tiamut and Jaakobou have a long history of conflict, but I can't tell who (if anybody) bears most of the blame for that. I can't immediately think of an enforcement measure that would be appropriate to the situation. My inclination would be to refer both editors to dispute resolution, but if these conflicts continue, a mutual interaction ban or something similar might be considered. Sandstein 06:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Thomasbraun321

I went to thank Jaakobou for some help on a link I wanted to add and noticed a link here. A look at Tiamut's personal page goes to show that they are organized to provoke anti-Isreali emotions, with links to articles hostile to Israel and some Palestinian apologetics, not based on facts. IMO, Jaakobou is 100% correct reintroducing the text he did and that Tiamut is pushing propaganda by suggesting that attacks on Jews are 'unrest' and then he complains against Jaakobou after the talkpage comments support Jaakobou. That is not an attitude of respect for historical truth and promotion of peace through mutual understanding. Lies will never enable peace. Thomasbraun321 (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ynhockey

It appears that Tiamut is trying to turn a content dispute into another attempt to ban Jaakobou, just so that in the next attempt it would be possible to add another diff of "look, he was complained against so many times, so he must be doing something wrong" (note also that some of those complaints were made by banned editors). None of the "offending" diffs Tiamut posted break any policy, and the only traces of soapboxing I can see are actually in discussions between Tiamut and Jaakobou on user talk. By contrast, Tiamut does her share of soapboxing and often displays belligerent behavior on article talk. Here's one recent amusing example. Someone who makes a comment like that doesn't really have room to complain against problematic talk page behavior. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: It appears that now Tiamut is calling Jaakobou a racist bigot, hopefully this makes it clear who has a WP:BATTLE attitude (emphasis mine):

But its also quite possible that my complaint of being hounded by him, for being a Palestinian and not sharing his POV, is a legitimate one. If you look at the AE complaints filed by El C and by me and review the Wikiquette alert, I think you will see that there is evidence for a pattern of harassment characterized by bigoted talk page commentary that is designed to push buttons.
— User:Tiamut, [37]

Although, it is possible that I'm reading more into Tiamut's comments than is there because of our lengthy and rather toxic history of interactions.(copied comment) I apologize if my comment transmits a WP:BATTLE attitude of my own, but I felt it was important to show the doublespeak involved here. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Henrik

Note: I've reformatted this request into using the standard format for readability. I will wait for further statements before expressing an opinion.

@Tiamut: As a general matter, having taken previous actions in arbitration enforcement cases does not mean that you are disqualified from taking actions in other cases involving the same editor or group of editors. If errors have been made, they can be addressed in appeals, which will be closed and reviewed by other administrators. henrik•talk 18:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jiujitsuguy

I am an uninvolved editor having never edited the article or articles in question. I have reviewed Tiamut’s complaint and I believe that it is baseless, grounded in bad faith and wholly without merit. Rather than being based on a legitimate grievance, Tiamut’s complaint appears to be an insidious attempt to censor content and silence Jaakobou simply because his view does not comport with hers.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Pantherskin

I doubt that anything can be worked out here. Whether Jakoubou violated the spirit of remedy 4) and 5) is apparently in the eye of the beholder. There is no clear-cut violation, and it seems that his main offence was having a strong point of view. That of course is not forbidden, in fact it can be helpful in ensuring balance and quality in controversial topic areas. What I see though is a pattern of using arbcom enforcement request to harass one's opponents, thus ironically being in violation of the exact principles that are invoked in these requests.--Pantherskin (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Okedem

I've seen nothing in the diffs that breaks any rules. Jaakobou sometimes uses strong language, but often that cannot be avoided. I find Tiamut's sixth claim particularly amusing (regarding [38]); is Tiamut here to defend Hamas' honor? The people who so often sent suicide bombers into buses and restaurants? This organization's charter cites the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and in article seven, clearly calls for the murder of all Jews ("[...]the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."). Are we supposed to call them "freedom fighters" or something? I think that claim puts Tiamut's complaint in the proper light. okedem (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "muqawama" - I find it particularly troubling that Tiamut is trying to create the impression that the word "muqawama" is derogatory or biased. It is not a term like "terrorist", applied to some groups, which vehemently dispute it ("we're freedom fighters"). It is a word used by the people themselves, in a positive connotation (from their perspective). In fact, to call Hamas a "muqawama group" is even quite redundant - as their article can tell us, Hamas is "an acronym of حركة المقاومة الاسلامية Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamat al-Islāmiyyah, meaning "Islamic Resistance Movement"". Al-Manar, Hezbollah's TV station, calls itself "qanat al-muqawama" ("Station of the Resistance"). A couple of very simple examples for context - an Al Jazeera opinion column, praising the Muqawama, and an article explaining Hamas' rage when the Palestinian Authority dropped the word as a core principle. To pretend this word is derogatory is insulting to all of us. okedem (talk) 08:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cptnono

I'm not seeing anything actionable in the differences provided. It appears to be two editors getting on eachothers' nerves. The one concern I see is the use of edit summaries to make comments that come across inflammatory. Jaakobou (along with everyone else) should take care to not use edit summaries to make a point. A quick reminder and some monitoring should suffice.

~~I can't tell if "muqawama" is a dirty word or not. A quick Google search shows Tiamut's subpage that does not make it look all that bad.~~ He also refrained from using muqawama in regards to Tiamut and was instead applying it to a group that might be (I haven't watched the video so don't know). I see nothing wrong with the other differences. An editor is allowed to make edits even if others are discussing or have discussed it previously. I didn't see any edit warring or blatant (enough to require AE) breaches of content guidelines.

Although turning this around to blame Tiamut might be appealing: this AE is regarding Jaakobou. He is accountable for is own actions. I think Tiamut should take notice of all the editors counter punching though. An editing style that draws so much criticism might mean something.Cptnono (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@FormerIP. I'm not terribly familiar with it. Maybe it is like Zionist where it can be used with a derogatory tone but is not necessarily? I guess it would be helpful if Jaakobou explained its connotation in the last edit difference mentioned. A little more caution/using something else if the term comes up in the future would be good.Cptnono (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Striking out bits after Okedem's explanation. Continuing to call Tiamut an apologist might be a bad idea but using in reference to a potentially related group seems to be just fine.Cptnono (talk) 08:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

?

This user supports the right of all individuals and groups to violently resist military aggression by other parties, but due to an alleged consensus she is afraid to name particular individuals or groups which certain administrators find to be unacceptable.

Tiamut has an infobox on her userpage supporting violent resistance and a sandbox creating an article based on the term. "muqawama apologetics" was inappropriate but I can't say I blame him for feeling that way. I think FormerIP is right on. It can come across offensive and it is easy enough to not use it. The same should go for those that use Zionist in a way that may be perceived as derogatory but that strays a little to far off topic for here.

The other diffs still don't jump out at me as being actionable.Cptnono (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Gatoclass: Several people have expressed concerns over the user page recently. It doesn't matter why she has it the way she does it matters that it encourages a battlefield mentality amongst users. That is something for a another AE. I was simply pointing out that Jaakobou has reason to think she is apologetic to the cause (I unintentionally misrepresented him there since it was her edit that he was pointing too). After learning more trough my AE, I understand that it is not OK to make such a charge but I honestly don't see how any objective person can fault him to the extent Tiamut is attempting here.Cptnono (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to apologize for misrepresenting Jaakobou. I am also truly not trying to pin the blame on Tiamut. However, I do believe her actions should be considered in the conflict especially if a sanction is imposed on Jaakobou. I think both editors should steer clear of strong words just to be extra careful.Cptnono (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by FormerIP

It does seem to me that "muqawama" is meant here as a derogatory epithet and it is reasonable for Tiamut to object.

Regarding Cptnono's comment based on looking at her subpage - yes, but it is not entirely clear what the subpage is for. The term appears to me to have a literal Arabic meaning "resistance" and a different meaning as an adopted term in English, which is more akin to "terrorist", perhaps with additional connotations of ignorance and dogma thrown in (happy to be reliably corrected on this).

Whilst Jaakobou has repeated the epithet, it is not entirely clear (AFAICT) that he has subsequently directed it at Tiamut in particular. However, given Tiamut's objection, I can't see why repeated use of the term is helpful. Perhaps the issue could be resolved by Jaakobou agreeing to use English where English will do. --FormerIP (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@okedem and cptnono. Yes, clearly the word itself is widely used in the context of Palestinian politics. However, it also seems to be used in English to describe a certain type of mindset [39]. I may be wrong, but it doesn't seem widely used to denote a factional tendancy or similar except when it is used in English, in which sense it seems to be used mainly in sources that can broadly be described as "anti-Palestinian". So, it looks to me similar to "Jihadi" or "Zionist" (as suggested above) - capable of being applied neutrally, but also capable of being derisory. --FormerIP (talk) 12:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gatoclass

Jaakobou has a history of harassment with Tiamut, most notably with his parroting of an image Tiamut left on her talkpage that almost got him sitebanned. Tiamut apparently feels Jaakobou is using the word "muqawama" as a euphemism for "terrorism", and Jaakobou's own comments regarding the term indicate that is the case. Accusing Tiamut of "muqawama apologetics" is thereby equivalent to accusing her of "terrorist apologetics" which is a clear breach of WP:CIVIL. I think Jaakobou needs to stick to his commitment not to use this term, which is not at all necessary since there are plenty of English alternatives that do not carry such offensive overtones. Continuing to do so after repeatedly being asked not to is going to look very much like another case of harassment in my opinion. Gatoclass (talk) 14:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono, the userbox on Tiamut's page to which you refer was placed on a number of userpages a long time ago, as a means of expressing solidarity with a user who was told to remove a more explicitly political userbox. It's been there a long time, on a number of userpages, with no-one complaining about it, and your bringing it up in relation to this case can only serve to deflect attention from the issue at hand. Gatoclass (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and one other thing. Jiujitsuguy, please don't describe yourself as an "uninvolved editor" when your editing history demonstrates otherwise. As you ought to know by now, "uninvolved" on this project does not mean "I haven't edited this particular article in the topic area yet." Gatoclass (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Jaakobou

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

First of all: This is not a discussion of Tiamut's behavior. If an editor other than Jaakobou has breached provisions of an arbitration case, open a separate enforcement case. Otherwise take it to a dispute resolution forum.

After having read this, I'm inclined to close this as not actionable. While Jaakobou's remarks did not reach the collegial nature I would expect of wikipedia editors, the cited remarks don't reach the severity where blocks or sanctions are merited. I would strongly urge Jaakobou to not use the term muqawama, and instead choose to use English terms, with more plain meanings. Likewise avoid discussing the outside motivations of editors and organizations.

For what it is worth, I read the AN debate here as having a rough consensus for a three month topic ban, but it appears to never have been enacted. I would, again, urge Jaakobou to reconsider his editing approach, and preferably try to be a model of civility and collegiality, even and especially with editors with background and views from the other side of the I-P conflict. While individual cases and posts may sometimes not be individually actionable, a large number of cases of borderline conduct can over time amount to grounds for sanctions.

I will await any comments from colleagues. If none are forthcoming, I intend to close this as no action in a reasonable timespan. henrik•talk 15:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having followed this since it was opened, I am inclined to agree with your assessment, henrik, and second your recommendation for closing with no action. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 17:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well and endorse the above recommendations. Sandstein 17:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michaeljefferson

Michaeljefferson (talk · contribs) blocked for a week for violating his Scientology topic ban.

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

Request concerning Michaeljefferson

User requesting enforcement: Cirt (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Michaeljefferson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Single_purpose_accounts_with_agendas

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: # [40] = edit to page Volunteer Ministers (article about Church of Scientology program)
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): # [41] Topic-banned from Scientology-related pages, by admin Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): User is already topic-banned. Request block, followed by a log of the block at the bottom of WP:ARBSCI.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [42] Cirt (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Michaeljefferson

Statement by Michaeljefferson

Comments by others about the request concerning Michaeljefferson

Result concerning Michaeljefferson

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

Blocked for one week and logged at case page. henrik•talk 10:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Cirt (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal

No action because the requisite warnings were not issued. Verbal (talk · contribs), Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs) and BullRangifer (talk · contribs) are now warned.

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

Request concerning Verbal

User requesting enforcement: Ludwigs2 22:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Verbal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy#Discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: Verbal has been engaged in a tendentious effort to prevent development of the article, using multiple reversions, refactoring of talk page contents, and a general refusal to participate on the talk page. I have made several requests for participation, and asked/warned him about problematic behavior, all to no avail.

incidences of reverts without explanation:

[43] Verbal - first reversion of article, just to demonstrate that this goes back before my arrival on the page
[44] Verbal - reverted to remove dispute tags
[45] Verbal - reverted to remove dispute tags again
[46] Verbal - reverting content, and removing dispute tags yet again
[47] Verbal - reverting content, and removing dispute tags once more
[48] Verbal - last removal of dispute tags (to date)

Talk page actions

[49] refactoring my talk page comments
[50] requesting reason for POV tag, which (as you can see) I gave
[51] tendentious and non-productive commentary
[52] re-adding tendentious and non-productive commentary after another editor refactored it
[53] The entirety of Verbal's justification for removing the dispute tag the last time

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): in edit summaries- these are only the requests I made directly after verbal removed the tags; there are at least two other requests aimed more genearlly or to other editors

[54] warning in edit summary that continued removal of dispute tags would result in enforcement request
[55] warning in edit summary that continued removal of dispute tags would result in enforcement request

In his talk page

[56] first entry in a talk page conversation where I repeated ly ask him to refrain from reverting changes without engaging in talk page discussion
[57] second entry in a talk page conversation where I repeated ly ask him to refrain from reverting changes without engaging in talk page discussion
[58] third and final entry in a talk page conversation where I repeated ly ask him to refrain from reverting changes without engaging in talk page discussion

Similar behavior on Atropa Belladonna

[59] undiscussed reversion
[60] second undiscussed reversion

only contribution to talk page was this:

[61]

despite the fact that I explicitly requested comment from him here:

[62]

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): I would like to ask for the following sanctions

That verbal be barred from editing Alternative medicine for a period of one month, so that the current content dispute can be resolved in timely and productive fashion.
That verbal be generally warned that tendentious editing of this type is unacceptable, with a statement that continuing such behavior will result in stronger punishments.
That verbal be specifically warned against the removal of dispute tags without proper discussion.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: There are several editors involved in the current debate on the talk page, and while the process is not entirely smooth, all of the rest of us are participating in talk and moving the process along. only Verbal refuses to participate in that fashion, and the clear pattern of disruptive reversions, refactoring, and other poor editing practices speaks to a specific problem with his attitude.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: notification of request

Discussion concerning Verbal

Statement by Verbal

Comments by others about the request concerning Verbal

Please comment only in your own section.

Statement by Hipocrite

Collapsed threaded discussion that does not address the enforcement request. Sandstein 06:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Someone wrote somewhere on wikipedia

OK, I get that the BLP situation has been festering for a long time, and I get the argument that we have an ethical responsibility to cut through the crap and actually do something about material with the potential to cause real-life harm. I was thinking through the implications, and I have a serious question.

Suppose that I've concluded that our medical articles contain a great deal of material that is incorrect, misleading, and promotional; that presents isolated preliminary studies as if they were conclusive truth; and that presents discredited or unproven treatments in an overly credulous fashion. Suppose I had concrete data indicating that regardless of our hidden disclaimer, Wikipedia is among the most prominent sources of medical information (e.g. PMID 19390105, PMID 19501017, etc).

A reasonable person could conclude that erroneous or misleading medical information on Wikipedia has at least as much, if not far more, potential for real-life harm than does biographical-article vandalism or the presence of neutral/positive but unsourced statements. Following this train of thought to its logical conclusion, would extreme measures (of the sort envisioned and carried out on BLPs) not be equally or more justified, on the same ethical grounds, in our medical articles? Again, this isn't a trick question - it's a serious train of thought sparked by the recent BLP flap.

For your consideration. Hipocrite (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with this request for arbitration? stmrlbs|talk 01:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Hipocrite is saying (in a somewhat indirect fashion) that (1) medical articles (broadly put) should be put to higher standards the way BLPs are, and (2) that Verbal's (to my mind otherwise unjustifiable) behavior is an effort at implementing point 1 unilaterally. Point 1 might be an interesting conversation - I disagree with it (at first sight) for a couple of reasons, but I'd be willing to consider it - but even if point 1 were an accepted standard, Verbal's behavior would not even be close to an appropriate implementation. I've seen BLP edits that were abrupt, but I've never seen any that were tendentious and non-communicative.

or maybe I'm misreading Hipocrite's intent; I'm sure he'll clarify if so. --Ludwigs2 02:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

I have, as an administrator working at AE, inserted these subheaders to limit threaded discussion. Please consider that AE is not a part of dispute resolution and is not a forum to discuss content disputes or broader philosophical issues. Any statements should be narrowly focused on the contested conduct by Verbal and whether or not administrators should take arbitration enforcement action against him. Other statements may be removed or collapsed by administrators, as I did with Hipocrite's contribution above. Sandstein 06:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Stmrlbs

as per Henrik's request for more comments from the other involved editors, I think Ludwigs2 main problem with Verbal is his pattern of reverting without discussion. Then when Verbal does come to discussion, it is in a very "combative" point of view, instead of in a way that is helps to come to some kind of consensus. If you notice, Verbal's first action on the talk page after his reverts was to "refactor" (a nice way to say remove) Ludwigs2's comments [63] - a combative move - and yet Verbal still did not add any comments of his own to the discussion until 2 days later [64]. Verbal has been warned about reverting without discussion (or ignoring discussion) before in other areas [65][66]. The other editors recently involved in editing alternative medicine (including me) did revert each other, but the reverts were followed by discussion. I think the other editors were trying to follow WP:BRD. stmrlbs|talk 00:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BullRangifer

We're dealing with an editor (Ludwigs2) who has a long block log for doing exactly what they have been doing now.

This is a case of a pusher of fringe POV (Ludwigs2) refusing to engage in collaborative editing, but instead waging a war on two fronts: (1) continuing to make highly disputed edits after they had been reverted by multiple editors, while (2) carrying on a very unpleasant series of stonewalling discussions. This made reversion the only avenue left by other editors. We couldn't keep up with discussing a number of issues raised by the continued use of the article itself as a battleground. BRD means that contested edits should not be made again, and again, and again. Ludwigs2 seemed to think that carrying on a discussion gave them the right to continue to make controversial edits while the discussions were in progress, even though they weren't finished or any consensus was reached. That is wrong and it was explained to them repeatedly with no success. In fact, at one point Ludwigs2 actually stated "I don't honestly care" if their manner of edit warring had upset me.

Basically we're dealing with a disruptive editor who is accusing one of those who was attempting to stop an edit war. We tried to simply revert back to the longstanding stable version and get Ludwigs2 to stop edit warring and stick to discussing. Only then could we come up with a consensus version of any changes that might need to be made. Here's how I explained it in this section:

The key word is "discussing". Discussion is good, but making changes without consensus is counterproductive. Be patient. Making changes to the lead is always a sensitive issue because changes there are supposed to reflect changes to the actual content of the article. Yes, wordings in the lead can be written awkwardly or poorly and can be improved, but substantive changes need a very solid consensus based on changes in the body of the article.

Have you noticed the references section at the bottom of this talk page? It's there for a reason. It's there so that editors can copy (NOT edit) questioned content from the article and together with editors who hold opposing POV work on revising it here. Only after there is a consensus does the new version get used to replace the old version. That's what's known as collaborative editing. It takes a lot of good faith and the ability to write for the opponent. While that may grate on one's nerves, at least enable it.

My major objection to this latest debacle has been regarding process rather than content. When consensus gets violated, all hell breaks loose. We need to avoid edit wars. This article has been quite stable for some time until a newbie came along and boldly removed content they didn't like. It was restored and they did it again. That started an edit war and I rebooted the situation so we can start collaborative editing. I'm perfectly willing to discuss changes, but do it here, not by making controversial edits. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

and in a reply to User:Gandydancer, whose repeated deletions without discussion started the whole debacle:

I will commend you for then doing the right thing. You stopped editing and have stuck to discussing. That's the right thing to do, in contrast to Ludwigs2 and Stmrlb. They have continued to edit war, instead of to exclusively discuss. That's very unwikipedian and a blockable offense. Ludwigs2 knows this, as their long block log can attest.

The existence of a discussion doesn't give a right to make an edit or press forward with a deletion. That violates the BRD cycle. The discussion should proceed until a consensus has been reached before making more edits. This whole thing has been characterized by the idea (applied by Ludwigs2) that making controversial changes is okay as long as a discussion is in process. That's not collaborative editing. That's edit warring. It is only the successful resolution of the discussion, resulting in an agreement, that allows editing to begin again.

That's why I rebooted back to the pre edit war status and encouraged a discussion on each point of discussion, even providing subsections for doing so. As each point is discussed and a consensus emerges, we can make ONE edit that we can all agree upon and defend and mark that section as "resolved", then move on to the next section. I am very disappointed to see that Ludwigs2 has reverted back to the tactics that led to their numerous blocks for edit warring, and I fear that will have to happen again. I have repeatedly asked for the edit warring to stop and to stick to only discussing things. Only after a consensus emerges should edits be made.

Rather than arguing about content right now, I want to get a statement from Ludwigs2 as to whether the process I describe is a reasonable one or not. I want a promise from Ludwigs2 that they will stick to discussion and not wage a war on two fronts, one on this talk page and one simultaneously on the article. -- Brangifer 07:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 hasn't yet given me such a promise.

Then Ludwigs2 replied in a very uncollaborative manner:

Brangifer: I'm sorry that you object to the process we've been using, but I don't honestly care. I suggest that you stop reverting, stop explaining why we can't make changes to the page, and start discussing the changes we are trying to make. the first two are non-productive; the second might get us somewhere. I've made multiple comments on this talk page that you have not yet addressed; do you want to start with those? --Ludwigs2 18:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To which I replied:

You should care. You aren't the only editor here, and you don't own this article. If you're not willing to care, then stop edit warring, leave the editing table, and find something else to do. I have a real life and it's impossible to fight an edit war on two fronts. You're demanding discussion of controversial edits that should not have been made at all. It's impossible to keep up with such a situation, which necessitates reversion of multiple edits. Since those edits shouldn't have been made, it's proper to do that. Above I'm proposing an alternative to edit warring and I hope you will promise to accept it. It's nothing other than standard practice required by our policies. I'm asking you to abide by them, and I want promises from you. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this reveals the "other side of the story" here. This whole complaint is not only frivolous, but an abuse of the proper use of this page. I had already been tempted to file an AN/I complaint about the edit warring by Ludwigs2, but being a patient man, I was hoping that appeals might help. Instead Ludwigs2 made this frivolous complaint. Therefore I will do what I would have done if I had filed the complaint. I request that Ludwigs2 be spanked with a wet noodle and topic banned from alternative medicine topics for a period of time. Ludwigs2 should get the same and greater a "punishment" than they are requesting against Verbal in light of the frivolous nature of their complaint. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection is a good thing in light of the fact that Ludwigs2 was refusing to stop making very controversial and disputed edits to the article. That article has previously been a war zone and they were rekindling old flames which we were trying to put out. Discussion alone is the way forward, not an endless repetition of disputed edits that violate BRD and BATTLE. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Henrik and I share exactly the same POV regarding collaborative editing:

" As soon as it was clear that there was opposition to a content change, editing should stop .."[67]

I had repeatedly tried to get Ludwigs2 to understand this point, but without success. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Stmrlbs in reply to BullRangifer

Just wanted to reply to BullRangifer's statement "That's the right thing to do, in contrast to Ludwigs2 and Stmrlb. They have continued to edit war, instead of to 'exclusively' discuss. That's very unwikipedian and a blockable offense. Ludwigs2 knows this, as their long block log can attest." BullRangifer is criticizing in others what he is guilty of himself. If you look at the History, you will see I made a grand total of 3 changes in January [68]. Of those 3 changes, I made one revert in relation to this disagreement. I reverted Verbal [69] because he was reverting and saying in the change history that Ludwigs2 neede to "take it to talk" when it was plain to see that Ludwigs2 was discussing the changes and Verbal was just reverting with no discussion. The previous 2 changes I made were to delete a comment by an Australian comedian about Alternative medicine as part of a comedy routine[70] - I didn't think this was a valid RS. The other change was minor - to add a couple of words to clarify a statement [71]. 3 changes in total, of which one was a revert. Yet BullRangifer says that I continued to edit war. Now look at his history on Alternative Medicine [72] - from the Jan 25 to the 28, all of BullRangifer's edits were reverts- the last revert going back 4 days from the Jan 28 to Jan 24. Also note that he made these changes [73] [74] in January with no talk page discussion despite his statements that people shouldn't change the article without discussing the changes first. BullRangifer seems to want to set standards for others that he doesn't seem to think he needs to follow himself. stmrlbs|talk 07:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BullRangifer in reply to Stmrlbs

I never said that NO edits can ever be made without previous discussion. The BRD cycle usually allows initial attempts at making changes to articles, especially when they, as the two examples you noted ([75] [76]), were well-sourced, uncontroversial, and made before any of this debacle. They were good additions which were uncontested and are now part of the article. If they had been reverted, I would have discussed and not restored them. That's what Ludwigs2 wasn't doing. My request that Ludwigs2 stick to discussion until a consensus was reached was well within wiki policies and our way of working. Attempting to force one's version against the opposition of multiple editors isn't proper and is sanctionable. BTW, I still haven't gotten any promise from Ludwigs2 that they will not use that edit warring tactic again. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ludwigs2 in response to BullRangifer

I feel I need to point out (in response to BullRangifer's rather heated comments above) that my main interest - clearly stated in multiple places, and evidenced by an examination of the diffs - was to retain the dispute tags on the article during discussion. This is also why I filed this enforcement request: dispute tags are both appropriate and necessary where there is material on a page that is questionable (as a warning to the reader, if nothing else). Had Verbal not been so aggressive and tendentious about removing the dispute tags, I would have happily continued to discuss things in talk and seen no need to make further edits in article space.

BullRangifer is (of course) complicit in removing these tags. I did not extend the enforcement request to him, however, because despite his tendencies towards name-calling ("Pusher of fringe POV" my ass...), he is at least communicative, and shows a willingness to discuss matters.

I would, however, ask him to refactor the several personal comments he made about me in the above sections, as I find his tone objectionable. Can someone please request he do that? --Ludwigs2 19:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BullRangifer in response to Ludwigs2

Of the total of four edits I made to the article (Ludwigs2 made 15 with many reverts) after the whole debacle started (by Gandydancer's two edits on 01/24/2010), three were reverts and one other edit was used to restore Ludwigs2's tag (which was inadvertently deleted in a revert) with the edit summary "reinstating your change. Better to tag and discuss, rather than make non-consensus changes", which was a not-so-subtle suggestion to Ludwigs2 that the tag was good, but making non-consensus edits was bad. One of those reverts did not involve any tags and was a revert of a totally non-consensus and radical change, which I reverted per BRD. That accounts for 3 out of 4 of my edits.

The fourth was made after explaining why I was going to do it. It reverted a number of changes, including a total rewrite of the lead made by DavidOaks which left out some very important elements which were required by agreements made when three articles were merged. It was simplest to restore back to a previous version by Ludwigs2 using this edit summary "per talk am restoring to version by Ludwigs2 of 10:45, January 24, 2010. Now no changes without consensus! The edit warring must stop." That revert restored a version that was reasonably close to the pre edit war status, but a tag(s?) made by Ludwigs2 also got lost in that shuffle.

Ludwigs2 then reverted me, but not by solely restoring the tag(s?), but by restoring the whole mess, and it really was a mess. The formatting was all screwed up and lots of refs had been lost. Ludwigs2's edit summary accused me of doing it without discussion, but I had at least explained why I was going to do it. Ludwigs2 should have discussed in the place I had made for discussion, rather than once again attempting to force disputed content into the article.

So two of the four edits actually favored Ludwigs2, a fact which seems to have passed unnoticed in the complaint above. Now that we've each had our say, I see no reason to really discuss this much more. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Sandstein by Ludwigs2 - re: warnings

The linked section says, specifically "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator". I believe this is intended for cases where an administrator begins the enforcement action him/herself, to ensure that administrators do not peremptorily impose sanctions without giving the user an opportunity to amend the behavior. I am not an administrator, and have no ability to impose sanctions on my own, and Verbal (a frequent editor on these types of articles and a participant on other homeopathy enforcements) is well aware of the homeopathy restrictions; so I doubt this condition applies. If you examine the diffs, you'll see that I asked Verbal repeatedly to desist from this behavior, which is the most I can do as a normal user, including at least one instance where I stated explicitly that I would resort to arbitration enforcement if the dispute tags were again removed (which they were, and so here we are). If you do not consider that sufficient warning, then I would be satisfied if you now gave Verbal a explicit, direct warning to refrain from removing dispute tags entirely, and to refrain from reverting the article without subsequent substantive discussion in talk (where substantive is defined as discussion aimed at creating consensus, rather than mere attempts at bullying). Given that, I would have no objection to this request being closed, since an explicit warning of that sort would allow me to re-open the request for enforcement with a stronger case if the behavior recurs.

I have nothing against Verbal personally (though I can't swear that that feeling is mutual), but I see no reason to struggle with any editor who participates in such non-communicative, tendentious fashion. If he wants to work on the page (which apparently he does) he can participate and work towards consensus like any other editor. --Ludwigs2 22:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. having just read your previous comment more fully, I would like to request that this case be handled by a different administrator. I have reason to question your impartiality on this issue. you seem to be talking about imposing sanction solely on me, when my behavior was in no way worse (and in many ways much better) than Verbal's. --Ludwigs2 22:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Verbal

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

I am inclined, as a preliminary preventative measure, to block both Verbal and Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for the recently ongoing edit-warring on Alternative medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). If no other admin objects, I'll do so as soon as Verbal has had an opportunity to make a statement above. Sandstein 06:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to insert myself administratively; I see I've edited this article as recently as 18 January. That said, it seems to me that the dispute is more than bilateral - both BullRangifer (talk · contribs) and Stmrlbs (talk · contribs) have also reverted the disputed content in the past day or so - and so page protection might be a better option than individual blocks. But it's your call (or at least, not mine). MastCell ^Talk 21:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have currently protected the page to help ensure that none of the involved parties would continue, but without prejudice towards any other measures replacing the protection. I would not be opposed to an action such as Sandstein proposed: protection prevents all editors from editing it, blocks only prevent individual editors. Feel free to unprotect when other measures have been taken. henrik•talk 23:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm taking a stab at closing (not necessarily resolving) this. The comments by the involved editors above are not very helpful. The principal issue that I can identify is an edit war mainly between Verbal and Ludwigs2, with some involvement of others, at Alternative medicine, which is a topic related to homeopathy and therefore subject to the remedy. Blocks are no longer necessary now that the page has been protected, but to prevent continued edit-warring, I intend to make both Verbal and Ludwigs2 subject to a six month, one revert per week restriction on articles related to homeopathy, and unprotect the page. Should any other involved editors continue the edit-war, they may also be restricted without further warning. Unless other admins disagree, I intend to implement this sanction within a day or so. Sandstein 21:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I now notice that the request does not contain a diff of a prior warning of the sort required by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy#Discretionary sanctions, second paragraph. I am asking Ludwigs2 to provide a diff of such a warning; if it is not provided; I may not impose discretionary sanctions against Verbal. Sandstein 21:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I take [77] to mean that the required warning (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren) has not been issued to Verbal, and it appears that it has not been issued to Ludwigs2 either, I may not issue discretionary sanctions. The request is therefore closed without action, but a warning is issued to all parties to the edit war, who may be sanctioned without warning the next time they engage in an edit war or other disruptive conduct. Sandstein 06:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tothwolf

No action. The alleged action by Tothwolf (talk · contribs) is outside the scope of the relevant arbitration remedy.

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

Request concerning Tothwolf

User requesting enforcement: Theserialcomma (talk) 23:34, 30 January 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: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Proposed decision#1.1 "uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Tothwolf may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below."

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: {{{Diffs of edits that violate it, and an explanation how they do so}}}
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, and topic ban from ever emailing me via wikipedia again. he doesn't have my email address, so the only way he can contact me is via wikipedia. he should not attempt to email me again.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Today Tothwolf has contacted me off-wiki via wikipedia email with some sort of paranoid threat, accusing me of being someone named "Toner" and/or "V".

I'm incapable and unwilling to deal with paranoid/delusional and threatening ideations on or off wiki. The exact quote from Tothwolf to my email is "Toner, (or do you prefer V?) you've been told over and over to leave me alone and I suggest you take their advice and disengage." I am forwarding the email to arbcom and the clerks mailing list right now.

This is a blatant violation of arbcom's findings. He is not welcome to contact me via wikipedia email to make delusional speculations as to my identity.

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

[[78]]

Discussion concerning Tothwolf

Statement by Tothwolf

Comments by others about the request concerning Tothwolf

Comment by Sandstein

I do not believe that this request is actionable. First, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf is not yet closed; this means that its proposed decision is not yet enforceable. Any conduct relevant to that case should be brought to the arbitrators' attention so that they may consider taking it into account in their decision. Second, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Proposed decision#Tothwolf restricted reads in relevant part: "Should Tothwolf make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith ...", emphasis mine. An e-mail is not an edit. Sandstein 07:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

actually, the arbcom case is closed, and tothwolf has already been warned on his talk page by the clerk of the decision. if you click the link of the case which you posted, it states "Case Closed on 21:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)" furthermore, he's now trying to out me on the COI page, based on this report i just filed to enforcement. he has somehow construed this report, where i've called his bizarre and harassing email "delusional", as an admission of my identity(!!!) look at [[79]]. he goes into disturbingly erroneous detail about my supposed identity, and he's invented a COI based on this my alleged identity which he's concocted. this is flat out crazy, an assumption of bad faith, and outing. i have no idea how he came to the decision that i am female blogger, but i would imagine that he's attempted some stalker level research, which somehow led him to the conclusion that i'm a woman. furthermore, in his stalker/outing report, he also accuses me of off-wiki harassment, which is a definite violation of his arbcom restriction.

Theserialcomma (talk) 07:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC) 07:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the case is closed, sorry; I was confused because you linked to the proposed decision rather than to the final decision. Nonetheless, an e-mail is offsite conduct; it is not an edit and is therefore outside the decision's scope. As to the new edit on COIN, administrators there can decide whether it merits action under the restriction. Sandstein 08:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not sure what you aer thinking. accusing me off off-wiki harassment in his stalker, outing report, is a direct violation of his restriction. if this isn't the place to get arbcom enforcement against blantant violations, how are COIN admins supposed to know about his restrictions? Theserialcomma (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

actually, forget it. i'm sure you know better than i do that tothwolf writing "Theserialcomma's blog and edits to the BLP article, because I have been the victim of both off-wiki and on-wiki harassment from Theserialcomma for months" [[80]] a few days after the arbcom case closed and warned him "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 ruling below."</> is just totally acceptable accusations for him to be making. i'm also sure that him writing "Now that Theserialcomma has effectively "outed" themselves, [81] I would appreciate it if some uninvolved editors and administrators with BLP experience would have a close look at her edits to Tucker Max. Theserialcomma aka 'V' has a long history of bashing Tucker Max on her blog"[[82]] is just totally acceptable behavior. furthermore, the fact that tothwolf has vaguely threatened me via email shouldn't be considered either. i should just wait for the COI admins to figure this one out, cause that makes sense.

i'm being harassed, dude. i don't know why you don't see it. Theserialcomma (talk) 08:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now applied an enforcement block for the COIN edit as described at WP:COIN#User:Theserialcomma and Tucker Max. However, this request is about the alleged e-mail, which is not covered by arbitration enforcement remedies for the reasons explained above. Sandstein 08:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional incidents from Blaxthos

Involved admins may be interested in these accusations, which appear to both (1) make unsubstantiated accusations; and (2) carry the assumption of bad faith. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:04, 31 January 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.

Enforcement declined. As explained above, e-mails are off-wiki activity and therefore outside the scope of this arbitration case. The procedure for dealing with perceived off-wiki harrassment is explained at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#Dealing with harrassment. Sandstein 12:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kengiuno

Kengiuno (talk · contribs) topic-banned for six months from Scientology.

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

Request concerning Kengiuno

User requesting enforcement: Cirt (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Kengiuno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Single purpose accounts with agendas

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

[83] Disruptive editing, on the topic
[84] Adding spam links
[85] Disruptive editing, adding unsourced spam
[86] Disruptive editing, on the topic

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

[87] Warning by Hqb (talk · contribs)
[88] Warning by Hqb (talk · contribs)
[89] Warning by IBen (talk · contribs)
[90] Warning by IBen (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Please apply Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Single_purpose_accounts_with_agendas to the account. Cirt (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Please note per the prior case, COFS, the articles disrupted by the account are also currently under probation. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [91] Cirt (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Kengiuno

Statement by Kengiuno

Comments by others about the request concerning Kengiuno

Result concerning Kengiuno

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

Awaiting a statement by Kengiuno, but this seems to be a clear-cut case to which this remedy should be applied. Sandstein 21:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kengiuno topic-banned for six months as a single purpose account with an agenda, per request, and also notified about discretionary topic ban. Sandstein 19:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THF

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

Request concerning THF

User requesting enforcement: John (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: THF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding#Editorial process

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: 1. THF adds {{NPOV}} tag (00:12, 3 February 2010)

2. THF restores {{NPOV}} tag after I removed it (00:52, 3 February 2010)

3. THF restores {{NPOV}} tag after Jehochman removed it, Swarm restored it, and Jehochman had removed it again (16:15, 3 February 2010)

4. THF restores {{NPOV}} tag after Swarm restored it but self-reverted after my warning and request to do so, and after my request to THF to desist.. (03:34, 5 February 2010)
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): 1. Gentle warning by John (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (02:28, 3 February 2010)

2. Second warning by John (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (20:31, 4 February 2010)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Topic ban requested, as it seems like this will be the only way to prevent this user from disrupting the progress of this article. Consideration should be given to a broader topic ban for this editor if that is possible.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Swarm (talk · contribs · logs) was involved in tag-team reversions with this user to restore the NPOV tag in breach of seeming consensus at the article talk, but to his credit, seems to have desisted and was good enough to self-revert when I requested that he do so. The two users between them made a total of 7 reverts over a 51-hour period, in spite of being reverted by a total of 5 other editors, in clear breach of WP:EDITWAR and the article probation linked above. See also Talk:Waterboarding#NPOV where WP:IDHT seems to be in evidence on THF's part. --John (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Informed here

Discussion concerning THF

Statement by THF

I regularly patrol WP:NPOVN. The severe NPOV violation in the lede of Waterboarding was brought to my attention on the NPOVN page. I participated in the discussion, saw no one justify the existing language, and, in good faith, placed an NPOV tag combined with discussion of the problem. The removal of the NPOV tag quite plainly violated WP:NPOVD, which says the tag is not to be removed when placed in good faith until a consensus is reached on the discussion--and as the talk page plainly shows, there is no consensus. I've made an argument about why the article violates NPOV and that argument has not been previously addressed in the archives--or, for that matter, on the talk page. Instead, people are trying to cut off discussion by abuse of the AE process to tell people not to discuss the matter on the talk page? I fail to see how discussion on the talk page of an argument not previously made is disruptive. What seems to me to be disruptive is editors threatening people with sanctions for using the talk page the way the talk page is supposed to be used. I've made no substantive edits to the article itself, much less substantive edits against consensus.
I note, however, that the current version of the page violates NPOV and BLP, since it falsely implies that living people have definitively committed international war crimes.
I also object to John and Jehochman's repeated violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and John's abuse of jumping to the AE process when there are intermediate steps to dispute resolution possible. I don't know who Swarm is, and I fail to see why I should be penalized for his edits or for a notice placed on his talk page.
Please note that I have not violated 1RR since the so-called "second warning," which I viewed as a bad-faith attempt to preclude reasoned discussion, which is further demonstrated by this AE request.
John's request reflects a severe problem of WP:KETTLE: he has violated 1RR multiple times removing a legitimate tag (which merely indicates the existence of a good-faith dispute), and he has violated Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waterboarding#Dispute_resolution by edit-warring and escalating to AE instead of normal WP:DR procedures. THF (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning THF

Result concerning THF

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

Nefer Tweety

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

Request concerning Nefer Tweety

User requesting enforcement: Supreme Deliciousness (talk)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Nefer Tweety (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: [92]

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

1. [93] - If you take a look at some of the sources posted at the talkpage: [94](showing Omar is of lebanese descent/origin) and even previous discussions half a year ago where an admin mediated: [95] (Conclusion, we must follow what the reliable sources say) Nefer Tweety removes that Sharifs parents are Lebanese and that Sharif is of Lebanese ethnicity while in the edit summary claiming "Sources do not say that Omar himself was of Lebanese ethnicity or that the parents were themselves Lebanese. This is already discussed on the Talk page.", this is a direct violation against the principle of consensus: "such as misrepresenting consensus or poisoning the well, is disruptive."

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy): Not applicable. No warning required, but I want to point out that Nefer Tweety has been warned before about other things related to this:[96] Warning by admin CactusWriter

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Since the case ended december 14th, Nefer Tweety has removed Sharifs background: 1 2 3 4 5 times.

The findings of facts and scope of the facts say that [97] the dispute is biographies of Middle-Eastern persons who have been described as having more than one ethnicity and/or nationality, with Asmahan being the locus of the dispute, and editors Nefer Tweety being involved. If you take a look at the history of the Sharif article and the evidence presented at the arbitration case, the Omar Sharif article is a part of the case. and has been mentioned as part of the case: for example: [98]

I would also like to point out that Nefer Tweety has violated principles in the past but the admin decided not to act at that time: [99]

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

Discussion concerning Nefer Tweety

Statement by Nefer Tweety

Comments by others about the request concerning Nefer Tweety

Result concerning Nefer Tweety

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

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

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

[a]

[b]

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