Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Wikipedia:AutoEd.

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

Jmh649

No action taken in respect of respondent; filer topic banned for 3 months
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Jmh649 User requesting enforcement olive (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Jmh649 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Peremptory_reversion_or_removal_of_sourced_material Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [1] Moves this content and source to the talk page citing a need for a better source. "However, Phil Goldberg in his 2010 book American Veda, in reviewing the state of the research on TM, says that most of the experts he spoke to said that the bulk of the 600 TM studies "rise to professional standards.", but leaves in this content, ...The Jerusalem Post, The Canadian, and the Encyclopedia of Occultism & Parapsychology, some of the research has been "criticized for bias and a lack of scientific evidence". [2] Examples/list of journals that have published TM research. James cites WP:OR. Moved to talk page [3] Content removed is sourced to a chapter authored by three scientists from the National Institutes of Health and by an assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University Medical Center. Vogel, the first editor of the book, is a former president of the American Heart Association. Removed [4] Source details: Yin Paradies, "A Review of Psychosocial Stress and Chronic Disease for 4th World Indigenous Peoples and African Americans," Ethnicity & Disease, Volume 16, Winter 2006, p. 305. Removed [5] Source details: Gian Mauro Manzon, Relaxation training for anxiety: a ten-years, systematic review with meta-analysis", BMC Psychiatry 2008. Removed [6] Source detail: Micozzi, Marc (2007), "Complementary and Integrative Medicine in Cancer Care and Prevention: Foundations and Evidence-Based Interventions", New York: Springer Publishing Company. Source cited research done at the Niwa Institute for Immunology in Japan and Loyola University Medical School -- information that the author says is consistent with a large body of research of some nearly 40 studies done at a broad range of universities. The deletion also removed information that cited studies funded by the National Cancer Institute. Removed [7] Source details: Pelletier, Kenneth (2000), The Best Alternative Medicine, New York:Simon & Schuster. Pelletier, M.D., Ph.D., is a Clinical Professor of Medicine at theUniversity of Arizona School of Medicine and a Clinical Professor of Medicine at the University of California School of Medicine, San Francisco; he was formerly a Clinical Professor of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine. Removed [8] Source details:Black DS, Milam J, Sussman S (August 2009). "Sitting-Meditation Interventions Among Youth: A Review of Treatment Efficacy". Pediatrics 124(3): e532. According to the website, Pediatrics "has the highest 5-year impact factor among journals in the pediatrics field... "is among the top 2% most-cited scientific and medical journals" and, "is the most-cited journal in the field of pediatrics." "This review summarizes the results from four randomized controlled trials on Transcendental Meditation, three of them funded by the National Institutes of Health. Removed Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) To my knowledge James has not received a formal warning per the TM arbitration He has received informal warnings from fellow involved editors warning he has deleted sourced content including my evidence presented during an AE. [9] Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) While I personally don't see that James shows any signs of changing his behaviour, it is also critical to me and to the proper function of Wikipedia arbitrations that the correct and fair procedures be followed. I request a formal warning for James rather than sanctions or ban unless the admin dealing with this sees differently. If the pattern of removing RS content continues, I will be back here asking for a topic ban. Additional comments by editor filing complaint This is an ongoing pattern of behaviour that seems to be based on a point of view. [10][11]. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified:[12] Replies/Comments: Perhaps Doc doesn’t understand the word “preemptory”…his own evidence is proof that he removed sourced content in a manner which violates the arbitration [13] Then his bad faith comments further violate: [14] Eight instances of removing reliably sourced content is more than enough to recommend that a editor be warned his actions may be moving into an area that is sanctionable per an Arbitration. The TM research is a controversial topic. There is no definitive or right position and statements on this page that imply otherwise are just opinion. The arbitration does not allow for removal of sourced content because an editor thinks his opinion is the right one. Where are the diffs supporting sanctionable, tendentious editing? I have no idea why a 1RR sanction is being suggested as template for action here. Per "poking": James has attempted to have me topic banned before. He succeeded here where Future Perfect sanctioned me for making two legitimate reverts in months, and with out allowing me to defend myself. In the same time period, James made 5 possibly 6 reverts. In the second AE here James attempted to have me sanctioned for one strongly worded comment, he failed and was reprimanded for ABF comments and for the trivial nature of bis request. I'm dismayed to see an admin suggest a vaguely-construed, topic ban for three editors, on the back of this request for warning, with out presenting one single diff to support, while at the same time suggesting discussion on this page is a basis for banning. His use of two Notice Board discussions where discussion is controversial and the topic is highly contentious to imply some vague wrong doing is also concern. His suggestion that a new editor with under 1,000 edits [15], who is still learning the ropes, should be topic banned again with out diffs or reason is inappropriate from any neutral admin. This is not the place to debate the "interior" aspects of the sources themselves. If they are controversial, Arbitration clearly demands collaborative discussion is the way to deal with the issues, not peremptory deletion.(olive (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)) @Courcelles: This is the standard established by Will Beback based on his understanding of the TM arbitration and which he applied to me when I moved content from an article to a talk page because I missed the necessary text in the source. This is the standard all editors with one exception abide by on the TM pages. He says: Deletions like this are disruptive and harmful to the content. Consider this an informal warning not to delete material peremptorily again. If there are repetitions I will request an official warning and enforcement. Will Beback talk 21:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC) I made one move of content. How is it then, that Doc James made 8, but his deletions of sourced content are neither disruptive nor harmful but my one move is. Where are the edits of my tendentious editing. Are requests for mediation I've made, and am in the process of making again, rather than prolonging circular discussion, tendentious moves. What "argument" am I trying to win by asking an editor be warned. Where are the diffs of that argument. Is it OK for Will Beback to ask for a warning for one move but not for me to ask for a warning, for 8. Is it Ok for James to take me to AE for one strongly worded comment and for him to be reprimanded for that, but asking for a warning for 8 deletions of reliable sourced content is reason to request an extensive topic ban. Courcelles this is a double standard, in addition to that you are accusing me of something I didn't do and are doing so without evidence.(olive (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)) Discussion concerning Jmh649 Statement by Jmh649 1. I posted here [16] regarding the us of the Goldberg source for the text we see. This is the text that was added "says that most of the experts he spoke to said that the bulk of the 600 TM studies "rise to professional standards."" Which basically says I polled my friends and they agree with me. The text was returned in this edit [17]. I have not subsequently removed it. A group of them continuously re add removed questionable text such as in this edit here [18] 2. I have edited many thousands of articles and never seen a list in which journals articles on the topic have been publish ( especially not in the lead ). The TM movement is continually trying to associated there practices with legitimate scientific institution as one can see here [19] 3. Discussed in depth here and here with discussion at WP:RS here 4. The diff does not support the info provided 5. Why are we attempting to refute a 2006 Cochrane review with a "a 1989 meta-analysis". Per WP:MEDRS we should be using research in the last 5 years. One can read the conclusions of the Cochrane review here Krisanaprakornkit T, Krisanaprakornkit W, Piyavhatkul N, Laopaiboon M (2006). "Meditation therapy for anxiety disorders". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (1): CD004998. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004998.pub2. PMID 16437509. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Cochrane reviews are the foremost evidence based source. 6 and 7. This source does not meet WP:MEDMOS for health claims. Is discussed here Here is the amazon page for the book [20] Here is the study on visual acuity mentioned [21]. It involved 48 men and was done by the Maharishi International University, Fairfield, Iowa. The angina study was neither controlled nor blinded. [22] 8. The discussion of this removal is here [23]. It was removed because the reference does not support the text in our article. The text was "reported that randomized controlled trials on Transcendental Meditation found a reduction in blood pressure and improvement in vascular function relative to health education." It failed verification Summary To summarize we have a serious issue here. We have a small group of editors who primarily or only edit TM articles who continue to misuse and misquote sources in an attempt to prove that TM has a degree of scientific support which is not shown by a careful review of the scientific literature. They have been taken much information out of context and are trying to use Wikipedia for advertising purposes. In this edit on Jan 14th 2011 [24] User:Littleolive oil again changed a summary of the research that was decided on in this RfC. A change which she was previously put under a 1RR for and for which User:TimidGuy was topic banned [25]. The other editor involved User:Edith_Sirius_Lee has been subsequently topic banned [26] and has not edited any other area of Wikipedia since. When I made my first edit to this topic area Jan 19th, 2010 in this edit [27] the best quality piece of research in the field of TM had been kept from the article. What I refer to is a 2007 review of TM and other meditation techniques by the AHRQ [28]. It has been contentious ever since with it conclusions being brought up many times [29]. So do we wish Wikipedia to be written by those who are here to write an encyclopedia or those who are here to promote a religious movement? The arbitrators time analyzing this case is as always appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC) P.S. The dif of prior warning does not link anywhere. My so called POV as linked here [30] is explained in this 2008 systematic review article published by AHRQ [31] Reply to TimidGuy There is ongoing confuse wrt what type of source is required to make what kind of claim. If we are discussing a social/religious movement than one would use a textbook of religious studies, if one is trying to claim that a herb or meditation improves vision or reduces heart disease a review article in a well respected scientific journal would be required. The section on "maketing of TM" that TimidGuy links to [32] is social science (the study of religion). This edit TimidGuy made [33] adds medical claims and links to an alt med textbook with the conclusions presented as scientific fact. The section on "Amrit Kalash" improving heart function has again been returned by TimidGuy in this group of edits [34]. The one statement added "Research suggests that Amrit Kalash can reduce the frequency of angina in patients as well as lower systolic blood pressure and improve exercise tolerance" is supported by "Nezu, Christine; Tsang, Solam; Lombardo, Elizabeth; Baron, Kim (2003), "Complementary and Alternative Therapies", in Nezu, Arthur; Nezu, Christine; Geller, Pamela et al., Handbook of Psychology: Volume 9: Health Psychology, Hoboken: Wiley, pp. 591-614" Pg 569 says [35]: The herbal mixture MA-631 may be used to prevent and treat atherosclerotic vascular disease (Hanna, Sharma, Kauffman, & Newman, 1994). Herbal mixtures MAK-4 and MAK-5 have been found to be effective in angina patients in signi“cantly reducing angina frequency and systolic blood pressure, and in improving exercise tolerance (Dogra, Grover, Kumar, & Aneja, 1994). But why are we using a psychology textbook to make health claims of herbal remedies? Well lets look at the ref she quotes found here [36]. This is the same unblinded NON placebo controlled study of 30 people. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC) P.S. Here is the link to WP:RSN which TimidGuy claims shows consensus accepting the validity of the "McGraw Hill Medical book" in the way it was used. [37] User:Hipocrite"The book appears generally reliable, but the paragraph presented substantially over-reaches, doing a deep-dive into the text to twist it into saying what it dosen't say"? User:ScienceApologist"Hilariously, the hypertension study quotes p values as high as p=0.2 and has no control (it only compares to another stress-reduction technique that doesn't claim magical basis). Their conclusion is about as biased in favor of their preferred technique as they could muster. The other study is multimodal so is not really indicative as to whether relaxation techniques actually helped or not since a variety of other lifestyle modifications were involved. To say that either of these studies is worthy of inclusion as WP:MEDRS for the TM article is POV-pushing, obviously. Rather sad." Topic ban Based on this discussion I would like to request a topic ban of User:Littleolive_oil, User:TimidGuy and User:Early morning person. The 1989 review that is being used to contradict a 2006 Cochrane review has been re added again here. Have brought to WP:RS [38] was previously discussed at WP:RS here and support was for its removal. Comments made elsewhere about this case Per Olive's posting at ANI Comment by Will Beback The article in question, Transcendental Meditation research, is largely devoted to presenting research on that technique's physical and medical effects on the human body. The Wikipedia community has developed an enhanced guideline for deciding which sources are suitable for writing about medical claims. WP:MEDRS It is appropriate and necessary to apply those higher standards to this article. Jmh649 asserts that he is a practicing emergency room physician. If so he has received an extensive education in medical science and been certified to a high level of competence in that field. As a part of his professional duties he would necessarily read and evaluate the same kinds of studies that are discussed in this article. By comparison, I believe Littleolive oil has said her expertise is in the visual arts. No one else editing the article has claimed any special scientific training either. It is not surprising that one of us humanity major-editors could mis-read or mis-evaluate a technical paper, and a more knowledgeable editor should clean up after us. It's important that Wikipedia exclude sketchy medical information for the same reason that it's important to exclude sketchy material on living people. First, do no harm. TM is in some respects selling a medical product. The research article should not become an advertisement which relies too heavily on movement sources or gives undue weight to remarkable claims. Jmh649 is not promoting any fringe views: quite the opposite.   Will Beback  talk  09:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Comment by TimidGuy WP:MEDRS indeed. Here are the sources with research reviews deleted without consensus by Jmh649 (and in most cases deleted without any prior discussion): Pediatrics BMC Psychiatry Journal of Ethnicity and Disease Integrative Cardiology: Complementary and Alternative Medicine for the Heart (McGraw-Hill Medical) Complementary and Integrative Medicine in Cancer Care and Prevention: Foundations and Evidence-Based Interventions (Springer) The Best Alternative Medicine (Simon & Schuster) Here are some of the sources regarding scientific research on TM dded by Will Beback and Jmh649, or proposed for addition[39][40][41]: Christian Research Journal The Future of Religion: Secularization, Revival, and Cult Formation (a book published in 1985) The Skeptic's Dictionary 'The Canadian (newspaper) The Jerusalem Post Encyclopedia of Occultism & Parapsychology Student BMJ At the same time, Jmh649 tries to get MEDRS changed so that he can exclude a widely used standard medical textbook on heart disease that says that TM has been shown to have benefits.[42] Let's look at some of Jmh649's counterclaims: 3. He neglects to say that he deleted this McGraw Hill Medical book without consensus and that the eventual consensus at RSN was in favor of it as a reliable source 4. He says the diff doesn't support the info provided. The deleted source appears at the end of the diff: "Yin Paradies, A Review of Psychosocial Stress and Chronic Disease for 4th World Indigenous Peoples and African Americans, Ethnicity & Disease, Volume 16, Winter 2006, p. 305" 5. He doesn't understand WP:NPOV, claiming that a source is a refutation of his favored source and should be deleted. He explains that he deletes this research review published in 2008 because it referenced a meta-analysis of 146 studies published in 1989, yet he defends replacing it with a narrow 2006 Cochrane review that looked at a single study with 38 subjects on TM published in 1980. (The Cochrane review only looked at studies on adults who were diagnosed with an anxiety disorder, whereas the other anxiety research is on a broader population.) 6&7. It's fine if he thinks these studies are without merit, but in Wikipedia we generally go with what reliable secondary sources say. He needs to explain why this book from a top academic publisher isn't a reliable source. 8. He says the source didn't support the text in the article that said that randomized controlled trials have found a reduction in blood pressure. Here's what the source says: "Study Design: RCT ... TM group decreased from before to after test in SBP, HR, and CO during acute stress simulation, and in SBP to a social stressor compared to controls; marginal differences in DBP" and "Study Design: RCT ... TM group decreased daytime SBP and marginally decreased DBP compared to controls" Jmh649 has repeatedly deleted sourced material without consensus and without prior discussion. Per the arbcom, this is a problem, and he should be warned. TimidGuy (talk) 12:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Jmh649 Comment by Woonpton I have watched the TM and TM-Sidhi pages for almost three years, since TimidGuy alerted me to the problems with TM-affiliated editors defending poor-quality TM-affiliated research [43] by responding on my talk page to a chance comment I made somewhere to the effect that a particular TM claim was not supported by data. The refutation he suggested I should look at, that he apparently expected would effectively answer my concerns about the claim, was so partisan, so apparently clueless as to the conventional protocol for scientific debate, so replete with ad hominem attacks on the critic, so bereft of actual responses to the important criticisms of the research, so obviously without substance or merit, that red flags went up all over the place in my mind; if this was the best the TM-affiliated researchers could come up with as a rebuttal to criticism of the research, then the research must be even worse than I thought. That was in February 2008; I've had those two TM pages on my watchlist on and off ever since, and actively participated there for a few months in 2009-2010 until becoming demoralized by the futility of the effort. (In the interest of clarity, I should probably add that AFAIK there were no problems identified with my editing, and I was not included as a party to the arbitration even though I was actively editing the TM pages at the time.) Were I still participating there, I would argue on that talk page that none of the sources in the paragraph cited (I think this is being discussed elsewhere simultaneously, so I'm not sure I saw that paragraph here or somewhere else) are very high quality sources, and would suggest that better sources, such as the fairly recent independent meta-analyses that spell out the inferior quality of most of the TM research in detail, should be used to establish the poor quality of the research. But having watched endlessly repeated arguments where those higher quality sources have been rebutted and "refuted" and nitpicked almost out of existence in service of a POV, I can guess why poorer quality sources are being reverted to. If someone here can do something to address this problem, it would be a great service to the encyclopedia. Woonpton (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Comment by Fladrif I concur with the assessment of this by Woonpton, Will and the uninvolved Admins who have commented below, as well as with Doc's response. The problem in these articles is not Doc's quite proper insistence that medical claims be sourced in accordance with WP:MEDRS, the problem is in the persistent efforts of other editors who insist on (i) including low-quality, questionable and non-reliable sources to advance extraordinary health claims for various TM-Movement techinques and products (ii) misinterpreting and attempting to obfuscate the conclusions of high-quality independent reliable sources which do not support those extraordinary health claims and which find fault with the sources they would prefer to rely upon and cite. The editors, other than the complaining editor, most actively doing so have been TimidGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who seems to have been slowed only a little in this endeavor by the TM ArbCom and his subsequent temporary topic ban at AE. The editor second most active in this regard has been Early morning person (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Clearly, no AE sanction is warranted with respect to DocJames. He has not violated the TM ArbCom decision by merely following WP:MEDRS. The suggestion by the Admins below that AE sanctions may be warranted against other editors whose improper editing Doc is merely trying to correct and clean up in accord with Wikipedia policy and guidelines has more than passing merit. Fladrif (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Jmh649 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. No action, frivolous request. No tangible case has been made that the edits described above were either "peremptory" or "to excess". The Arbcom ruling referred to can obviously not be interpreted as if it forbade any and all removal of sourced content; that would hamper editorial responsibility excessively. There can always be valid editorial reasons (due weight, balance, structure of article) for removing content. There is no sign the removals in this case were not motivated in good faith by a desire to improve the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Concur with above. There's nothing actionable here. Courcelles 11:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC) I disagree. There is no action to take against Doc James, but James has pointed out many issues with the filer's actions. Personally, I think that the POV pushing/tendentious editing exhibited in continuously trying to use sources to make sure their point of view is gotten across rather than just picking the best 20 or 30 sources and writing the article is something that discretionary sanctions was designed to prevent. NW (Talk) 14:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Actually, I agree, the filers conduct does need to be examined. My earlier comment was only to the extent that the original complaint is without merit. I note that the filer was on a 1RR restriction around three months of last year, but am not yet sure that returning to that is proper. Courcelles 14:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure that a revert restriction would really help much; tendentious editing is often something that can only be dealt with via a topic ban. Do you think that would be a good idea? NW (Talk) 21:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Actually, I would. The 1RR restriction, if it was designed to stop the disruption, has failed. (It was largely worth mentioning to put the history into context.) The problem with littleoliveoil's editing is not now a propensity to edit war, but more disruptive and tedious editing, and attempting to use AE to win the disagreement, something this forum is not designed for. Some time (under 90 days) away from the topic for Littleolive oil would be, IMO, beneficial for all sides. Courcelles 18:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Done. NW (Talk) 21:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC) I think my colleagues above are reaching the right result for the wrong reasons. In particular, the principle says essentially that excessive peremptory removals are disruptive. The question to ask should therefore not be whether the editor is acting in good faith, but whether the removals, taken objectively, have a disruptive effect. Good faith edits that have a disruptive effect are still sanctionable if the editor is unable or unwilling to correct them. In this case, I think that it has not been demonstrated that the edits have an objectively disruptive effect, and therefore I concur that no action should be taken with respect to Doc James. I voice no opinion with respect to the propriety of any action against the filer. T. Canens (talk) 07:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by TFighterPilot

Appeal request declined, 1 week block stands.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED). Appealing user TFighterPilot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – TFighterPilot (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC) Sanction being appealed 1 week block Administrator imposing the sanction HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification. Statement by TFighterPilot I didn't revise twice. I edited once and revised once. My first edit was not a revision. I'm only trying to make Wikipedia NPOV, but being in a minority, I don't have an army of revisers like the Palestine crowd has. I'm bound to make more edits, because if I won't, no one else will. Statement by HJ Mitchell This is TFighterPilot's second block in three days for violation of the 1RR restriction at Hummus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Upon the expiry of the previous block, he appears to have jumped straight back into the same edit war. The second revert (which lead to the first block) was reverted by a third party while TFP was blocked and TFP twice reverted that today. He didn't label the first revert as a revert, but it changed the term "Palestine" in the same sentence as the previous edit war was about. First revert, 20:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Second revert, 18:17, 19 January 2011 (this was the direct cause of the first block) Third revert (first today) 09:13, 22 January 2011 Fourth revert (second today) 12:31, 22 January 2011 The second and current block is a direct result of this edit. The blocks both came through WP:ANEW. And, just for the avoidance of doubt, I am opposing this appeal. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1) Statement by (involved editor 2) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by TFighterPilot For the reasons given by HJ Mitchell I agree with this block and would decline the appeal.  Sandstein  20:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC) Result of the appeal by TFighterPilot This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I'm amazed that we live in a world where hummus is considered politically sensitive. That said, extra care need to be taken where there are cultural or ethnic disagreements and a 1RR restriction followed up by escalating blocks when violated is an appropriate response. User:TFighterPilot's appeal is not convincing why this block was an inappropriate remedy to a fairly clear-cut violation. I'm declining the appeal, and will close this request in a few hours unless others weigh in with contrary opinions before then. henrik•talk 17:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Decline this appeal, and if it happens again, give serious consideration to a topic ban from the Hummus article. Courcelles 18:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

GHcool

Blocked 55 hours by Courcelles and topic banned for 2 months from the end of the block
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning GHcool User requesting enforcement  nsaum75 !Dígame¡‎ 18:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested GHcool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:WikiProject_Arbitration_Enforcement/Israel-Palestine_articles - 1RR addendum. Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it The article Hezbollah has been in the Islamic Terrorism category since at least January 2009[44]. On January 8, 2011 User:Supreme Deliciousness removed several categories (terrorism in Lebanon, Islamic Terrorism and Islam and Anti-semitism) from the Hezbollah article[45] and stated that they didn't belong in the article and when they were re-added he stated there was no consensus for their inclusion. Since then there has been edit warring and 1RR gaming over their inclusion with SD removing the category/criticism and USer:GHcool re-adding it. There has been extensive talk page discussions about their use, with "Islamic Terrorism" seeming to be the the most touchy category, but no definitive resolution so-far. The article is under ARBPIA 1-RR rules, and as evident, both editors have violated the law several times if not in actuality, then in spirit by waiting until exactly 24 hours has passed. GHCool's violations On 1/17 at 21:21[46] re-adds Islamic Terrorism category. He/she again reverts SD's removal On 1/22 at 00:12am[47] then again at 1/22 at 18:56[48] Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) GHCool [49] Warning by EdJohnston (talk · contribs) Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Enforcement as admins see fit Additional comments by editor filing complaint The article Hezbollah has been in the Islamic Terrorism category since at least January 2009[50]. Since the article has been in the category for at least two years, I will leave it up to the Admins to decide who must bare the burden of proof, ie: should it remain in the category until a decision is reached at the talk page, or should it be removed from the category until a decision is reached at the talk page. I will be filing a separate AE enforcement for 1-RR against SD. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested notified Discussion concerning GHcool Statement by GHcool I re-add the category every time I have met the burden of proof. Before, the article had no section on academia's labeling Hezbollah as an Islamic terror organization. Since then I added several academics. Supreme Deliciousness moved the goalpost and said I needed academics from countries other than the US and Israel. I met that challenge when I added academics from other countries. Supreme Deliciousness then made all sorts of special pleading, reverted the category, and then lowered his own goalpost by adding the view of an ex-British MP who has no authority on terrorism or Islam or any other topic I can think of. I tried to remove this idiocy as a violation of WP:Undue weight, but Supreme Deliciousness doesn't appear to play by his own rules, much less Wikipedia's. If Supreme Deliciousness wants a "grab bag" section of "other views" on Hezbollah, I don't mind since such a section will open the floodgates to the dozens (hundreds?) of non-experts who think Hezbollah is terrorist. --GHcool (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning GHcool Result concerning GHcool This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Blocked for 55 hours. Second violation of the I-P 1RR this month. Courcelles 18:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness

Blocked 24 hours by Courcelles and topic banned for 2 months from the end of the block
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Supreme Deliciousness User requesting enforcement  nsaum75 !Dígame¡‎ 18:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC) 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 Wikipedia:WikiProject_Arbitration_Enforcement/Israel-Palestine_articles - 1RR addendum. Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it The article Hezbollah has been in the Islamic Terrorism category since at least January 2009[51]. On January 8, 2011 SD removed several categories (terrorism in Lebanon, Islamic Terrorism and Islam and Anti-semitism) from the Hezbollah article[52] and stated that they didn't belong in the article and when they were re-added he stated there was no consensus for their inclusion. Since then there has been edit warring and 1RR gaming over their inclusion with SD removing the category/criticism and GHCool re-adding it. There has been extensive talk page discussions about their use, with "Islamic Terrorism" seeming to be the the most touchy category, but no definitive resolution so-far. The article is under ARBPIA 1-RR rules, and as evident, both editors have violated the law several times if not in actuality, then in spirit by waiting until 24 hours has passed. On 1/21 at 4:12am SD removes the category[53]. On 1/22 at 4:23am, SD reverts GHCool's removal of Islamic Terrorism from the article Hezbollah [54] and at 4:27 he reverts the removal of a section from the BBC. The both edits are added back and on 1/23 at 4:23am he re-removes the category[55] then at 4:25 he re-adds the BBC section[56]. Realizing he's technically in violation of 1RR he self-reverts[57] and [58] and waits until 20 more minutes have passed before re-reverting the changes[59] and [60]. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) Supreme Deliciousness [61] and [62] Warning by Daniel J. Leivick (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Oren0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Enforcement as admins see fit Additional comments by editor filing complaint Since the article has been in the category Islamic Terrorism for at least two years, it might help calm things if the Admins would decide who must bare the burden of proof, ie: should it remain in the category until a decision is reached at the talk page, or should it be removed from the category until a decision is reached at the talk page. I have also filed an AE request against GHcool for 1-RR violations. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested notified Discussion concerning Supreme Deliciousness Statement by Supreme Deliciousness - copied over as requested from the user talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Reply to Courcelles: I did not revert 3 times within 48 hours. I did not at any point make more then 1 rv within 24 hours. Thats some reverting against a user who is forcing his pov into the article, there were at least 4 (or 5) editors who objected to that cat with only GHcool wanting it in. The talkpage shows clearly that there is no consensus to have them, and me following what happened at the talkpage and not breaking the 1rr is not "gaming the system". Reply to GHcool: In June 2009 Ghcool repeatedly added the cats. [63] [64] Although I was not there at that time, I was told that "We have discussed them before, and only GHschool kept adding them." Ghcool also notified WP Israel, [65], and not any Arab notice board. At the recent talkpage discussions, only GHcool wants the cats, no one else, (These two comments are by two socks:[66][67] ) Me, Funk Monk, Lihaas and علی ویکی all object to its inclusion. I have not "moved the goalpost" as GHcool claims, I have always said the same thing, I objected to its inclusion based on that its a minority pov only held by a handful of countries and individual people, and GHcool has still not shown any source saying anything else. I never removed the views by those academics he had added, but they are povs by individuals that Hezbollah is "terrorist" not facts, they are minority views. So I added the British Mp and U.S. Representative views in the same position, not as "facts" but as views from those people. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Supreme Deliciousness I re-add the category every time I have met the burden of proof. Before, the article had no section on academia's labeling Hezbollah as an Islamic terror organization. Since then I added several academics. Supreme Deliciousness moved the goalpost and said I needed academics from countries other than the US and Israel. I met that challenge when I added academics from other countries. Supreme Deliciousness then made all sorts of special pleading, reverted the category, and then lowered his own goalpost by adding the view of an ex-British MP who has no authority on terrorism or Islam or any other topic I can think of. I tried to remove this idiocy as a violation of WP:Undue weight, but Supreme Deliciousness doesn't appear to play by his own rules, much less Wikipedia's. If Supreme Deliciousness wants a "grab bag" section of "other views" on Hezbollah, I don't mind since such a section will open the floodgates to the dozens (hundreds?) of non-experts who think Hezbollah is terrorist. --GHcool (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Comments by un☯mi Enigma cites repeated gaming of the system and "past history", is that something that could be substantiated / explained further? un☯mi 20:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy Supreme Deliciousness has been topic banned before. [68] No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Comment by Aliwiki I don't see any example of Wikipedia:Gaming the system in Supreme edits; but obviously user GHcool was gaming the system when he wrote a YES on the talk page, then he self-interpreted his YES as consensus of Wikipedian users and tried to mispresent the view of just 5 countries on behalf of 192 existing countries. Indeed this is a great disdain toward all Wikipedia users and all citizens of those 187 countries.--Aliwiki (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Supreme Deliciousness This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Blocked 24 hours. Three reverts in 36 48 Courcelles 19:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC) hours, as explained in the block note. Courcelles 18:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC) I think a medium-term (maybe 2 or 3 months) topic ban might be appropriate here in addition to the block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC) I concur. In light of the repeated gaming of the system, and the past history, I think something more than a 24 hour block is in order, and a topic ban seems appropriate. Enigmamsg 19:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC) I concur with the topic ban, though I would favour one for both parties than for just one. Courcelles 19:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Yes, I meant to suggest it for both parties. How about 2 months each, then? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Go ahead, though in my mind it should be for the entire area of conflict rather than this specific article, though I'll leave that decision up to the drafter. Two months strikes me as fair. Courcelles 02:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Supreme Deliciousness

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

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

Sanction being appealed

Extent of the topic ban, want an amendment (suggestion below)

Administrator imposing the sanction

HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[69]

Statement by Supreme Deliciousness

I was blocked for 24hours, and on top of that later given a 2 months topic ban from all Arab-Israeli conflict articles as a result of this enforcement: [70]

The enforcement is about me doing several reverts at Hezbollah.

I'm not saying that all my reverts there were right, they were not, but you have to take into consideration that I was reverting back to the consensus version according to the talkpage where GHcool was the only one who wanted to have the cat, and everyone else did not.

This is not an excuse for what I did, but it has to be taken into consideration. I was also active on the talkpage and there was no problem with any of my comments or the content of my edits, only the amount of reverts.

Based on my reverts at Hezbollah, I don't believe that a 24 hour block and on top of that a 2 month topic ban from all Arab-Israeli articles are appropriate, the "punishment" does not fit the "crime". It is way out of proportion.

So I am suggesting an amendment to the topic ban:

• Considering that I have already been blocked for 24hours.

• That my 2 month topic ban is changed so its only for the Hezbollah article.

• And on top of that, I'm put on a 1 rv per week restriction on all Arab-Israeli conflict articles for the duration of the two months topic ban from Hezbollah.

Reply to T. Canens: You don't think my suggestion is more fair?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Supreme Deliciousness

• If HJ Mitchell wants to modify the sanction, it is of course his prerogative. Otherwise, I'm not convinced that the two-month topic ban is so grossly excessive or fundamentally unfair that it exceeded the enforcing admin's discretion, and think that the appeal should be declined. T. Canens (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• @SD: Okay, I'll explain a bit more. The question at an appeal like this is not "what is the fairest sanction for this misconduct". Since fairness is a highly subjective concept, there may not even be an answer to that question. Rather, for each case of misconduct there is a range of reasonable sanctions that could have been imposed. All of them are fair; perhaps some are fairer than the others - again, it depends on the viewer. For us to intervene on the substantive (as opposed to the procedural) aspects of the sanction, you need to show that your sanction is outside that range of reasonable sanctions - in short, that the sanction is unreasonable. We will not, or at least should not, second-guess the enforcing admin on the fine details. T. Canens (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. While I might not have imposed that ban myself, discretionary enforcement actions are called "discretionary" because the ArbCom has recognized that enforcing admins enjoy considerable discretion. Such actions should therefore not be modified except for compelling reasons, which are not presented here.  Sandstein  21:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Xebulon

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

Request concerning Xebulon

User requesting enforcement

Tuscumbia (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

AA2, ethno-nationalistic battleground conduct

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

1. [71], the User Xebulon uses an extreme nationalistic and racist language to express his feelings on Azerbaijani editors such as Importantly, this casts doubt whether Wikipedia editors with Azerbaijani passports are fit to contribute to this encyclopedia. Keep this in mind and think twice when violating Wiki rules.
2. [72], please see incivil/disrespectful comments
3. [73], response to editor reporting him for violation of Wikiquette
4. [74], one of responses to an editor requesting him to use reliable sources
5. [75], a response to an admin placing tags in the article with POV reference to Azerbaijan
6. [76], another emotional response

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

1. [77] Warning by Tuscumbia (talk · contribs)
2. [78] Warning by Tuscumbia (talk · contribs)
3. [79] Warning by Tuscumbia (talk · contribs)
4. [80] Warning by Pol430 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
5. [81] Warning by Ronz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
6. [82] Warning by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

WP:block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

For some time now, the user has been engaged in edit-warring but apart from that he makes impolite and disrespectful remarks (diffs provided above). The last one he did on Caucasian Albania talk page Importantly, this casts doubt whether Wikipedia editors with Azerbaijani passports are fit to contribute to this encyclopedia. Keep this in mind and think twice when violating Wiki rules is completely of racist nature and unacceptable. The user has been warned against his conduct a number of times on various boards including one on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts but still continued to use inadequate language. Please take measures. Tuscumbia (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[83]

Discussion concerning Xebulon

Statement by Xebulon

User:Tuscumbia is an abusive account that apparently found a new way of edit warring: reporting his opponents to administrators by falsely accusing them of transgressions that he himself was accused of several times recently. His usual mode of operations include making frivolous and untrue accusations against his opponents [84], and then showcasing these false warnings as a record of purportedly improper conduct. Because of his poor English, User:Tuscumbia does not understand the flow of discussion, and unreasonably considers some remarks as offensive.

I commented on a well-known fact that Azerbaijan is an authoritarian and repressive country as categorized by Freedom House, Amnesty International and Transparency International. Azerbaijani state limits public access to the Internet (see former President Clinton’s remarks here: [85], and its leadership made public statements inviting its citizens to attacks Armenians in public Internet-based forums. My remark is not incivility or ethno-nationalistic battleground conduct. However, I regret if it may have sounded that way.

Despite this, User:Tuscumbia himself makes offensive, ethnically-motivated attacks on his opponents. Talking about Wikipedia editors and Armenian authors, User:Tuscumbia says here [86]: “I am saying they [Armenians] are naturally biased.” Here [87] he says: “And, please, for the love of God, don't refer to Hewsen. Why would he ever write anything in favor of Azerbaijan, Baku or Azerbaijanis considering the fact that he's of Armenian heritage and quite possibly biased.” User:Tuscumbia attacks reputed academics for their alleged (and unconfirmed, by the way) Armenian identity. This is a typical ethno-nationalistic battleground conduct.

User:Tuscumbia continuously removes well-sourced, good-faith edits (here: [88]), complementing his acts of vandalism by making such uncivil remarks: “what exactly are trying to ionvent?” (see here: [89])

User:Tuscumbia was blocked here [90], as early as in March 2010. Here, despite the warning, User:Tuscumbia continued edit warring and was warned more severely here [91]. Shortly thereafter he was topic-banned to edit article on Armenia and Azerbaijan for as many as three months here [92]. Then, User:Tuscumbia when emerged from this ban, went back to his habit of edit warring and blunt refusal to engage in civilized dialogue when invited to do so. User:Tuscumbia’s most widespread type of abuse are unreferenced reverts that he fails to address on talk pages. Here are the examples. When asked in discussions to present evidence from external sources or from stable Wikipedia articles, User:Tuscumbia evades dialogue [93].

The most recent notice of sanctions filed against User:Tuscumbia by a Wikipedia administrator accuses him of refusal to assume good faith (here [94]), after which User:Tuscumbia engaged in a meaningless refutation of his misdeeds. This is not the first time User:Tuscumbia engages in false attacks on his opponents [95]. Not surprising, this and that [96] frivolous reports were both dismissed.

User:Tuscumbia does not understand the policy on WP:REVERT. I suggest to block User:Tuscumbia for a serial lack of compliance with "Assuming Good Faith" requirement.

Result concerning Xebulon

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

• Waiting for statement by Xebulon.  Sandstein  08:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)