Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:24, 27 February 2010

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

Supreme Deliciousness

Not actionable. Nefer Tweety warned not to continue making invalid requests.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Supreme Deliciousness is aware [1]

Statement by Supreme Deliciousness

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

Discussion concerning Supreme Deliciousness

Comment by Fut.Perf.

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

Result concerning Supreme Deliciousness

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

Brews ohare

Brews ohare (talk · contribs) blocked for a week.

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

Request concerning Brews ohare

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

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#Brews_ohare_topic_banned

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: # [2], [3], commenting on a physics-related edit war/content dispute
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): Not applicable
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Block, whatever length is required per the ARBCOM remedies

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Discussion concerning Brews Ohare

Statement by Brews Ohare

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

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

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

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

Comments by others about the request concerning Brews Ohare

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

Result concerning Brews Ohare

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

Blocked for a week. The request has merit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Tombe

Not actionable.

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

Request concerning David Tombe

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

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#David_Tombe_topic_banned, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#David_Tombe_restricted

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: # [4], [5], and [6], commenting on a physics-related edit war/content dispute, personal attacks, yadda yadda yadda
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): Not applicable
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Block, whatever length is required per the ARBCOM remedies

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Re:MCPrice/Sandstein, upon further review, it is true that David hasn't commented directly on the content. While it's way too close to the fringes of his ban to my liking, especially with his accusations of cowardice, I won't push this. Feel free to close this (or whatever's routine on here). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 07:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Discussion concerning David Tombe

Statement by David Tombe

Comments by others about the request concerning David Tombe

Comment by Hell in a Bucket

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

Comment by Michael C Price

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

Comment by Likebox

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

Comment by Sandstein

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

Result concerning David Tombe

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

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

Arab Cowboy

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

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

Request concerning Arab Cowboy

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

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: [7]

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

[8][9][10]

He was banned from all articles and their associated talk pages within the scope of the Asmahan case for abuse of alternative accounts: [11] "If you violate this ban through either your main account or through sockpuppets, you will be blocked."

Omar Sharif is a part of the scope of the case as can be seen in its history and also has been mentioned in the arbitration case:[12] [13][14]

Omar Sharif discussion continued from its talkpage to the BLP noticeboard, so that would be an associated page. AC made several posts there in the Omar Sharif discussion: [15][16][17]

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): Not applicable
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Block or ban.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[18]

Discussion concerning Arab Cowboy

Statement by Arab Cowboy

Comments by others about the request concerning Arab Cowboy

Result concerning Arab Cowboy

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

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

NickCT and Soledad22

Request concerning NickCT and Soledad22

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

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

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

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

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

Notification of the users against whom enforcement is requested

[19] [20]

Warnings

Additional comments

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

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

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

Discussion

Statements by NickCT and Soledad22
Statement by NickCT

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

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

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

Re Slim's

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

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

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

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

Comments by Malik Shabazz

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

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

Comments by Tiamut

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

I can understand SlimVirgin's frustration at being challenged over the content of an article she worked hard to bring up to FA status. That does not however excuse her meeting edit-warring with edit-warring or making bad faith assumption about editors who disagree with her (alleging socking, off-wiki conspiracies, or inability to transcend POV [22] [23], [24]). The article would not have had to be protected with the tags in place if the offending content was simply removed to talk when it was clear that multiple editors found it problematic. Tiamut^talk 20:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comments by MBz1

Soledad22 is definitely a cause of concern. The user expresses strong POV in his/her edits and removes appropriate information from the articles [25];[26];[27] (In the last diff I absolutely agree with the removing information, but the edit summary is way too strong IMO). This edit [28] shows strong Anti-Jewish tendency of the user style. I would also like to repeat what SlimVirgin said : "214 edits to articles in two years, among them British National Party; The Jew of Malta; Template:Neo-fascism; [29] Ashkenazi intelligence; removed that "international Jewry" were scapegoats on Adolf Hitler; [30] attempted to downplay the proportion of Polish Jews killed at The Holocaust; [31] added something about anti-Christian bigotry among Jews at The Merchant of Venice (2004 film), [32] (and that's just a selection), and who then arrives here objecting to the mention of blood libel in the lead, and adding for good measure that there are too many photographs of Israelis and Jews in the article." IMO Soledad22 should be topic banned on all articles about Jews and Israelis because of a very high and bad-tasted anti_Jewish sentiments in it edits including, but not limited on the articles concerning the victims of the Holocaust and terrorists.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comments by Radeksz

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

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

Anti-intellectualism - the faith must not be smeared

Template:Neo-fascism - see above

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

Henry Orenstein - minor, perhaps, but telling

The Passing of the Great Race

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

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

Janet Napolitano - weaseling

self explanatory, sourced material removed

Jack Kerouac - removing sourced info

and the first edit ever

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

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

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

Comments by George

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

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

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

Comments by ChrisO

I've not been following the article much lately either, but Soledad22's behaviour was so clearly out of line that I notified him of the I-P article probation four days ago [34]. It's worth noting that he continued to edit war following the notification. I agree with George that the evidence posted above of an anti-Semitic POV-pushing agenda is worrying; he should be subjected to a wide topic ban on all Jewish-related articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by THF

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

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

Comment by Tony1

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

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

Comments by others

Result

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

Formal request for removal of unauthorized personal information to be deleted from your website as outlined under U.S. laws.

Resolved

– Wrong forum, no action required

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

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

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

Mr McLoughlin, this is not the proper forum for such requests; that would be WP:OVERSIGHT. However, to save you the trouble of making an oversight request: The information at issue appears to be publicly available WHOIS information ([35], [36]). As such, there is no basis, legal or otherwise, on which to request its removal from this site. Please be advised of our policy regarding legal threats. Sandstein 15:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abd

Request concerning Abd

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

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley#Abd_editing_restriction_.28existing_disputes.29

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: Context: This started with me cleaning up after User:LirazSiri (who had created a problematic article under WP:COI for his company/project, TurnKey_Linux_Virtual_Appliance_Library, uploaded a bunch of problematic images and repeatedly spammed both into various articles, templates and categories).

[37] Abd removes tags later found to have been appropriately placed on TurnKey_Linux_Virtual_Appliance_Library (then WP:HOUNDs me by reverting other cleanup edits[38])
[39] Abd enters existing dispute about WP:COI edits leading to WP:N, WP:V, WP:NPOV etc. on article talk page.
[40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] Abd not only restores the User:LirazSiri's category spam that I had reverted, but also reverts the {{Non-free logo}} and {{di-no fair use rationale}} tags that I had added because various registered trademarks had been uploaded as "own work" under a liberal CC-BY-SA license.
[49] I asked Abd to stop WP:HOUNDing me and they dived head first into the debate, turning it from someone cleaning up after blatant WP:COI-induced vandalism and spamming into an all-out multi-editor dispute (a dozen or so editors have now been involved in some way).
[50] Further inflaming the debate, Abd templates the regulars.
[51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] Abd is now fully engaged in, and central to the debate (which, critically, would almost certainly not have happened without their involvement).
[60] [61] [62] [63] [64] Abd follows the debate to WP:ANI where I have requested assistance, claiming that while cleaning up spam & vandalism I am "carrying out a vendetta" (I said I would nominate their article at AfD if they didn't calm down), blaming me for a successful CSD A7 from an anon IP in Spain(!?!) and ultimately calling for me to be blocked. User:Enric Naval agrees that "this is just escalating and drama".
User:JzG confirms the validity of my original complaint against User:LirazSiri (adding that "This looks like another of Abd's crusades on behalf of people "oppressed" for abusing Wikipedia for their own ends.") and summarises the situation as follows:

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

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): # Not applicable.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Block (Note that Abd is just off a 3 month ban for similar behaviour and was already admonished for failing to substantiate allegations)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[65]

Discussion concerning Abd

Statement by Abd

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by others about the request concerning Abd

Comment by JzG

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

It is unambiguously the case that LirazSiri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account whose purpose is, and always has been, the promotion of TurnKey Linux, a minor Linux project of which he is co-founder. The most recent set of abuses includes adding TurnKey into the high level {{Cloud computing}} template: [66].

I noted in a comment that I am professionally involved in cloud computing, and Abd turned this round to assert that I have a potential COI. WTF? That is so wide of the mark it would be funny if it weren't for the fact that past experience indicates it will be tenaciously asserted until Abd is forcibly removed from this dispute. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Abd

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

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

[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]

@@ Line 381: / Line 381: @@
 I will be requesting clarification from ArbComm over the application of my sanction to this. However, had I waited for approval from ArbComm (I considered requesting it -- ArbComm removed the mentorship provision, which would have allowed much more rapid approval), my expectation was that serious damage would be done, difficult to remediate. This is not a content issue, it is a behavioral issue. The content issues can be and will be resolved normally, if the behavioral issues are addressed. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 18:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
+:@Sandstein: Thanks, I understand the position. However, I was preparing to file an AN/I request over this, as SamJ's disruption had continued, when I saw that SamJ had himself filed. When I reverted some edits of SamJ, that's when he escalated to actual deletion filings. I don't think that ArbComm in the santion intended the "originating party" to be a mere literal allowance, i.e., that I could file an AN/I report over an incident ("originating party"), but am prohibited from commenting on that same incident if I'm not personally mentioned by the filing party. The ''intention'' of the sanction would be that I stay out of what is not my own business, and this was very much my business, from prior history, as mentioned, in fact, by JzG (but he's not correct about this having to do with some supposed agenda by me with regard to him -- I only discovered JzG's involvement during my work rescuing TurnKey Linux, a year ago, it could just as well have been another admin, and I've made no recent criticism of JzG's action). However, '''Sandstein, you are welcome to clarify the meaning of the sanction on my Talk page, and I will respect that pending clarification by ArbComm that would supercede it. I do not consider you "involved" for the purposes of this sanction.'''--[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 18:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 ====Comments by others about the request concerning Abd ====

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