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

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) User against whom enforcement is requested Arab Cowboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated [1] Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [2][3][4] He was banned from all articles and their associated talk pages within the scope of the Asmahan case for abuse of alternative accounts: [5] "If you violate this ban through either your main account or through sockpuppets, you will be blocked." Omar Sharif is a part of the scope of the case as can be seen in its history and also has been mentioned in the arbitration case:[6] [7][8] Omar Sharif discussion continued from its talkpage to the BLP noticeboard, so that would be an associated page. AC made several posts there in the Omar Sharif discussion: [9][10][11] Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) Not applicable Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Block or ban. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [12] Discussion concerning Arab Cowboy Statement by Arab Cowboy 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)

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

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

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

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

Notification of the users against whom enforcement is requested

[13] [14]

Warnings

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

Additional comments

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

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

Malik, I agree that someone needed to stop the reverting, but I was just about to post a request for assistance on AN/I. I don't doubt that you acted in good faith, but we're not supposed to use the tools in disputes we've commented on. As it stands, two barely used accounts have managed to have a recently featured article stuck with three tags in one paragraph of the lead [15] until March 5, thereby supplanting their own judgment for that of the FA reviewers. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by Tiamut

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

I can understand SlimVirgin's frustration at being challenged over the content of an article she worked hard to bring up to FA status. That does not however excuse her meeting edit-warring with edit-warring or making bad faith assumption about editors who disagree with her (alleging socking, off-wiki conspiracies, or inability to transcend POV [16] [17], [18]). The article would not have had to be protected with the tags in place if the offending content was simply removed to talk when it was clear that multiple editors found it problematic. Tiamut^talk 20:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

Comments by MBz1

Soledad22 is definitely a cause of concern. The user expresses strong POV in his/her edits and removes appropriate information from the articles [19];[20];[21] (In the last diff I absolutely agree with the removing information, but the edit summary is way too strong IMO). This edit [22] shows strong Anti-Jewish tendency of the user style. I would also like to repeat what SlimVirgin said : "214 edits to articles in two years, among them British National Party; The Jew of Malta; Template:Neo-fascism; [23] Ashkenazi intelligence; removed that "international Jewry" were scapegoats on Adolf Hitler; [24] attempted to downplay the proportion of Polish Jews killed at The Holocaust; [25] added something about anti-Christian bigotry among Jews at The Merchant of Venice (2004 film), [26] (and that's just a selection), and who then arrives here objecting to the mention of blood libel in the lead, and adding for good measure that there are too many photographs of Israelis and Jews in the article." IMO Soledad22 should be topic banned on all articles about Jews and Israelis because of a very high and bad-tasted anti_Jewish sentiments in it edits including, but not limited on the articles concerning the victims of the Holocaust and terrorists.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

Comments by Radeksz

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

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

Anti-intellectualism - the faith must not be smeared

Template:Neo-fascism - see above

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

Henry Orenstein - minor, perhaps, but telling

The Passing of the Great Race

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

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

Janet Napolitano - weaseling

self explanatory, sourced material removed

Jack Kerouac - removing sourced info

and the first edit ever

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

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

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)

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

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

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)

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

Comments by ChrisO

I've not been following the article much lately either, but Soledad22's behaviour was so clearly out of line that I notified him of the I-P article probation four days ago [28]. It's worth noting that he continued to edit war following the notification. I agree with George that the evidence posted above of an anti-Semitic POV-pushing agenda is worrying; he should be subjected to a wide topic ban on all Jewish-related articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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)

Comment by Soledad22

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

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

Comments by others

Comment by MONGO

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

Comment by JzG

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

Result

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

• Following the discussion on WP:ANI, I've indefinitely blocked Soledad22. PhilKnight (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

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 ([29], [30]). 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)

Abd

Request concerning Abd

User requesting enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

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

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

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

1. [31] 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[32])
2. [33] Abd enters existing dispute about WP:COI edits leading to WP:N, WP:V, WP:NPOV etc. on article talk page.
3. [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] Abd not only restores the User:LirazSiri's category spam that I had reverted, but also reverts the {{Non-free logo}} and {{di-no fair use rationale}} tags that I had added because various registered trademarks had been uploaded as "own work" under a liberal CC-BY-SA license.
4. [43] I asked Abd to stop WP:HOUNDing me and they dived head first into the debate, turning it from someone cleaning up after blatant WP:COI-induced vandalism and spamming into an all-out multi-editor dispute (a dozen or so editors have now been involved in some way).
5. [44] Further inflaming the debate, Abd templates the regulars.
6. [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] Abd is now fully engaged in, and central to the debate (which, critically, would almost certainly not have happened without their involvement).
7. [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] Abd follows the debate to WP:ANI where I have requested assistance, claiming that while cleaning up spam & vandalism I am "carrying out a vendetta" (I said I would nominate their article at AfD if they didn't calm down), blaming me for a successful CSD A7 from an anon IP in Spain(!?!) and ultimately calling for me to be blocked. User:Enric Naval agrees that "this is just escalating and drama".
8. User:JzG confirms the validity of my original complaint against User:LirazSiri (adding that "This looks like another of Abd's crusades on behalf of people "oppressed" for abusing Wikipedia for their own ends.") and summarises the situation as follows:

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

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

# Not applicable.

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

• Abd has since admitted to willfully violating the editing restrictions and claims "originating party" status, apparently because they were "about to file a report"(!?!?): "I considered requesting special permission from ArbComm to intervene, but decided that the welfare of the project required immediate action, and my restriction allowed me to file as an "originating party." -- samj _in^out 16:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• 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)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [59]

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)

@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)

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

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

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

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

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

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: [60].

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

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

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

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

Some more history

This does indeed go back a way, as I thought it did. [61]; [62] Abd sets the scene for an exposition of "what Wikipedia did to you that was wrong" (which was: deleting an article on his company that he created and then immediately moved back to mainspace when it was userfied). [63] Abd recruits LirazSiri as a partisan to his dispute with me. You can see most of this from the history of user talk:LirazSiri and Special:Whatlinkshere/TurnKey Linux. This is not a new example of Abd escalating a dispute, it's an old example of Abd pursuing a crusade based on an action by someone he doesn't like. Whether that makes it more or less actionable is hard to say, really.

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

Re the comment that a request to Abd to back off won't do any good: yes, it will, if it's decided it's appropriate: see here [64] (involved) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

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

• Since Abd evidently thinks the sanction is in need of clarification, I have offered this piece of clarification to him [65]. If he accepts that, that's fine with me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Interfase

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

Request concerning Interfase

User requesting enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

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

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

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

1. [67], second revert on the Kochari article.
2. [68], third revert on the Kochari article.
3. [69], fourth revert on the Kochari article.
4. [70], fifth revert on the Kochari article.
5. [71], sixth revert on the Kochari article.

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

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

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

Left to the discretion of administrator.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[73]

Discussion concerning Interfase

Statement by Interfase

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

Comments by others about the request concerning Interfase

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

Result concerning Interfase

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

Tothwolf

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

Request concerning Tothwolf

User requesting enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

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

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

# [[74]] "not one of these three individuals (Theserialcomma, JBSupreme, and Miami33139) has ever made a single positive contribution to an article in this subject area and are clearly not here to build Wikipedia [75] [76] [77] (I never really was able to find anything constructive in these three contribution histories). Based solely on their contribution histories, these three individuals clearly much prefer to attack others (not just myself) and bulk remove content instead of improving Wikipedia."

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

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

{{{Diffs of prior warnings}}}

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

block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

Result concerning Tothwolf

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