Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive55

User requesting enforcement

Cirt (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Single_purpose_accounts_with_agendas

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

# = edit to page Volunteer Ministers (article about Church of Scientology program)

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

# Topic-banned from Scientology-related pages, by admin Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

User is already topic-banned. Request block, followed by a log of the block at the bottom of WP:ARBSCI.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Cirt (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

User requesting enforcement

Ludwigs2 22:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy#Discretionary sanctions

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

Verbal has been engaged in a tendentious effort to prevent development of the article, using multiple reversions, refactoring of talk page contents, and a general refusal to participate on the talk page. I have made several requests for participation, and asked/warned him about problematic behavior, all to no avail.

incidences of reverts without explanation:

1. Verbal - first reversion of article, just to demonstrate that this goes back before my arrival on the page
2. Verbal - reverted to remove dispute tags
3. Verbal - reverted to remove dispute tags again
4. Verbal - reverting content, and removing dispute tags yet again
5. Verbal - reverting content, and removing dispute tags once more
6. Verbal - last removal of dispute tags (to date)

Talk page actions

1. refactoring my talk page comments
2. requesting reason for POV tag, which (as you can see) I gave
3. tendentious and non-productive commentary
4. re-adding tendentious and non-productive commentary after another editor refactored it
5. The entirety of Verbal's justification for removing the dispute tag the last time

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

in edit summaries- these are only the requests I made directly after verbal removed the tags; there are at least two other requests aimed more genearlly or to other editors

1. warning in edit summary that continued removal of dispute tags would result in enforcement request
2. warning in edit summary that continued removal of dispute tags would result in enforcement request

In his talk page

1. first entry in a talk page conversation where I repeated ly ask him to refrain from reverting changes without engaging in talk page discussion
2. second entry in a talk page conversation where I repeated ly ask him to refrain from reverting changes without engaging in talk page discussion
3. third and final entry in a talk page conversation where I repeated ly ask him to refrain from reverting changes without engaging in talk page discussion

Similar behavior on Atropa Belladonna

1. undiscussed reversion
2. second undiscussed reversion

only contribution to talk page was this:

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

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

I would like to ask for the following sanctions

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notification of request

Please comment only in your own section.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ludwigs2 hasn't yet given me such a promise.

Then Ludwigs2 replied in a very uncollaborative manner:

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

To which I replied:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User requesting enforcement

Theserialcomma (talk) 23:34, 30 January 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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Proposed decision#1.1 "uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Tothwolf may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below."

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

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

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

{{{Diffs of prior warnings}}}

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

block, and topic ban from ever emailing me via wikipedia again. he doesn't have my email address, so the only way he can contact me is via wikipedia. he should not attempt to email me again.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Involved admins may be interested in these accusations, which appear to both (1) make unsubstantiated accusations; and (2) carry the assumption of bad faith. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

User requesting enforcement

Cirt (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Single purpose accounts with agendas

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

1. Disruptive editing, on the topic
2. Adding spam links
3. Disruptive editing, adding unsourced spam
4. Disruptive editing, on the topic

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

1. Warning by Hqb (talk · contribs)
2. Warning by Hqb (talk · contribs)
3. Warning by IBen (talk · contribs)
4. Warning by IBen (talk · contribs)

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

Please apply Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Single_purpose_accounts_with_agendas to the account. Cirt (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Cirt (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

User requesting enforcement

Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Nefer Tweety (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

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

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

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

Not applicable. No warning required, but I want to point out that Nefer Tweety has been warned before about other things related to this: Warning by admin CactusWriter

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

block or bann.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Nefer Tweety is aware

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan#Consensus is not a remedy. Please specify the remedy that you wish to be enforced. In the case of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan#Discretionary probation sanctions, you must also provide a diff of a warning as specified in that remedy.  Sandstein  17:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that its not a remedy, its about a breach of a principle, the text at the top of this page says that "if a user is likely to be acting in breach of the principles and decisions in a closed arbitration case" which no warning is required for (I think because he is involved in the arbitration case), and he has previously got a warning about his behavior. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

While all parts of Arbitration Committee decisions are binding, only remedies are enforceable by administrators. See Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Final decision: "Remedies and enforcements, once the case has closed as described below, may be enforced by intervention by administrators, usually in the form of blocks on accounts and IP addresses." I will correct the header of this page accordingly. If no enforceable remedy is linked to, this request may be closed soon.  Sandstein  14:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, when I asked the drafter of the case wizardman about the principles, he said that nr 1 "technically are to be followed by everybody, and if violated they are usually sanctioned by the community through a block or something else." so if someone violates a principle, specially someone involved in the case, where do I go to bring admin attention to that violation against the principle? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Statements of principles in arbitration cases are merely restatements of policy. Their violations can conceivably be sanctioned as any other violations of policy, such as violations of WP:NPOV. But in this case, I do not immediately see how the (single?) cited edit violates the principle of consensus-building, or at any rate to such an extent as to warrant a block. This seems to be mainly a content dispute, which AE is not for resolving.  Sandstein  23:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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

For the reasons given above, unless another admin objects, I intend to close this request as not actionable in about 24 hours. I'll take a look at the request below separately.  Sandstein  23:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: This noticeboard is exclusively for enforcing decisions of the Arbitration Committee. Those decisions must take the form of remedies which explicitly prohibit a given behaviour. Principles are not binding, and therefore do not do so. Admittedly, an editor's behaviour, whilst not prohibited by a remedy in a committee decision, may still be disruptive. But i such a case, the matter should be brought to a more general administrator noticeboard—such as AN or ANI—and not to AE. It is imperative, for a couple of reasons (no need to go into them now, as they are obvious), that we only action complaints filed here if they can be actioned within the scope of an arbitration remedy.

Per Sandstein, this complaint is not covered by any arbitration remedy, and so we cannot action it. If the filing party wishes it to be actioned, he should start a thread at ANI. A closure would also have my backing. AGK 23:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Also concur. This noticeboard has a very simple and narrow focus: enforcing existing arbitration remedies, to keep a certain minimum standard of conduct. And if we want to keep it manageable, it should stay that way. More general noticeboards with a wider audience are better places to deal with broader problems. henrik•talk 07:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

So closed.  Sandstein  18:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

User requesting enforcement

Nefer Tweety (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2010 (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

The remedy:

Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is prohibited from making changes to any article about a person with respect to the ethnicity or nationality of that person for one year. Should this restriction be violated, Supreme Deliciousness may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

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

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

1. SD is soliciting a meat puppet to do his editing on Asmahan where he is restrcited by Arbitration case.
2. SD found guilty of meat puppetry and violating the arbitration restriction.
3. SD places an open invitation to meat puppetry, again to evade his ban to which no other than Nableezy complies.
4. Nableezy rushes to peform SD's edits using SD's specific references.
5. Motion granting SD privilege to edit Talk pages of biographies with respect to ethnicity and nationality is voted down leaving SD with no such privilege.
6. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 violations of 1RR.

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

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

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

Indefinite Block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

1. Supreme Deliciousness is acting up again. He's filing an arbitration enforcement request against me, when he is clearly the guilty party. He's become too crafty at fooling the arbitrators and the system with his "borderline" violations and endless complaints that are a waste of time for all involved.
2. On 30 December 2009, User:CactusWriter filed this AN/I report against SD for meat puppetry. SD was soliciting User:Nableezy to edit Asmahan on his behalf as a way around his ban from the Asmahan arbitration case. SD was found to have violated his ban and was blocked very briefly and clearly insufficiently.
3. SD is now doing the same thing again on Omar Sharif; he is posting an open invitation to meat puppetry that immediately gets accepted by Nableezy. Again, he is posting the references for Nableezy on the Talk page and Nableezy is doing the editing using SD references, again as a way around his ban.
4. SD is prohibited from influencing the nationality or ethnicity of a biography on Wikipedia. Not only is Omar Sharif a biography, it was also part of the Asmahan case as SD concurs and again, SD is using a meat puppet to do his editing of ethnicity and nationality in violation of his ban.
5. In spite of all the warnings that SD has received against editing Asmahan, from CactusWriter, Lankiveil, and Wizardman, SD continues to edit Asmahan in a way that influences her ethnicity and nationality. more specifically, he has been the reason for the edit wars on both Asmahan (and now, Omar Sharif), as was pointed out in Cactus's complaint on AN/I.
6. SD is not permitted to edit the Talk pages of biographies to influence their ethnicity or nationality. This privilege was voted down here. The privilege of editing the Talk pages was taken away from SD and therefore his edits on the Talk page of Omar Sharif were a violation.
7. It is clear that Nableezy is using SD's specific sources to edit the article for SD, as per SD's original request on Asmahan. SD did not have to repeat the request Nableezy; Nableezy is complying anyway.
8. It is clear that SD and Nableezy have learned from the meat puppetry lesson of December 2009 when they got caught, and they are now doing it in a more subtle way.
9. I ask you to please take action, this time to block him indefinitely, since he has been violating his ban so many times.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Supreme Deliciousness is aware

My only restriction and topic bann can be read here: Everything Nefer Tweety talks about in his enforcement request is made up. I have not gotten any further sanction from any admin that I am not allowed to edit any article or making post at any talkpage.

I have not made any changes to any article about a person with respect to the ethnicity or nationality. I am not topic banned from any article and I am not topic banned from any talkpage. There is nothing in my topic bann that says that I am not allowed to talk about ethnicity at talkpages. Me making posts at talkpages is not "an open invitation to meat puppetry", I have not asked anyone to be my meatpuppet.

I once asked a neutral editor to get involved in the Asmahan article and told him that it was totally up to him what he wanted to do, and although I do not agree with the block, I have already received a block for that edit, here:

If you take a close look at all the diffs he has provided they do not lead to what he is claiming.

For example:

In Diffs of prior warnings:

• nr2, he links to is an edit I made before the arbitration even started.(update, he has now changed that link to another one, that still is not a violation against my topic bann or restriction)
• nr3, the first link I have already gotten blocked for, the second link was me posting at talkpage that I am allowed to do and the third link is also me posting at talkpage that I am allowed to do.
• nr4, is not true, Nefer Tweety has presented it as I asked Wizard about a different sentence, nr4 when in fact, this was the one I asked him about as can be seen here: and later when i did an edit that an admin interpretated as a violation of the one I asked about (not the one Nefer Tweety talks about) I already received a block for it. (update, after I exposed this he changed the link )

In Additional comments by editor filing complaint: nr4 he claims that "SD is prohibited from influencing the nationality or ethnicity of a biography on Wikipedia" having that sentence linking to my topic ban, - that is not what my topic ban says.

Its just an endless of empty comments from NT, claiming I am behind the latest edit war at Omar Sharif when I haven't made one single edit at that article for several months while Nefer Tweety himself has reverted Sharif background at least 5 time since the case ended. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Response to comment by Arab Cowboy: Note This post was deleted by Arab Cowboy in this edit, and I have re added it here: If anyone is interested about reading more about Arab Cowboys so called "cleanstart" attempt you can read more here: and see how he after he created the Medjool account simultaneously continued to use the Arab Cowboy account editing articles and making posts at talkpages with both accounts at the same time and how he used the Medjool account to repeatedly violate his topic ban and restriction and how he used the Medjool account to defend his own edits he had made as "Arab Cowboy" at the Asmahan talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC

I am not anybody's "meatpuppet". What we have here is an overly nationalistic pair of users. One of them brings sources to show why he right, the other just shouts No. There are a ton of sources saying the Sharif's parents were Lebanese, yet Nefer Tweety continues to remove that information. Such behavior should not be tolerated. nableezy - 19:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The restriction of the arbitration case reads Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is prohibited from making changes to any article about a person with respect to the ethnicity or nationality of that person for one year. Should this restriction be violated, Supreme Deliciousness may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below. Are there any diffs of SD making such changes to an article or not? If not this is simply frivolous. If SD, or any other editor, posts reliable sources on a talk page and I see it I may very well use those sources. This is not a topic I particularly care about, so I dont plan on hunting down sources myself. But if the sources are supplied, and I myself read them and agree that they support an edit, I may, of my own will, make the needed changes to an article. Nothing in the arbitration case prevented AC from doing the same, at least until this happened. nableezy - 06:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

AC, you miss the point. The point is that SD is not restricted from making such edits to a talk page. What I, or anybody else, does, after independently verifying the sources, is irrelevant. SD is not prohibited from adding sources to a talk page. You cannot read the arbitration decision to say otherwise, it specifically says that SD may not make changes to any article about a person with respect to the ethnicity or nationality (emphasis added). SD did not do that. When Arbcom has banned editors from both articles and talk pages they have made that explicit in the restriction. SD is allowed to make these edits to talk pages. The issue here is the seemingly mindless campaign by NT to remove things that can be sourced to eight different sources. nableezy - 07:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

NT, none of the talk page edits by SD that you have listed are reverts. nableezy - 15:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan#Consensus is not a remedy. Please specify the remedy that you wish to be enforced. In the case of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan#Discretionary probation sanctions, you must also provide a diff of a warning as specified in that remedy. If no enforceable remedy is linked to, this request may be closed soon. Also, please format the request correctly.  Sandstein  14:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have re-added the above comment which was removed by your recent edit. Please edit more carefully. The request is still not usefully formatted.  Sandstein  16:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The request has again been somewhat chaotically revised and the header structure seems to have been lost. There may be actionable stuff here, including ban violation by proxy, but the request is not yet usefully presented. We still don't have an enforceable remedy cited, and the numerous undated diffs do not provide a clear picture. It's not very clear, for instance, which alleged infringements took place after the most recent enforcement block or other enforcement action. I think I'll pass on this, but if another admin has the time to research this de novo, they're of course welcome.  Sandstein  23:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll pass too. It isn't much to ask that the data be presented within the standard template. I note that at least one critical detail—the arbitration remedies that are alleged to have have been violated—has been omitted. I don't mean to be a stickler for procedure, but it really isn't much to ask that things be presented logically and as directed. I'll happily look at this again if the thread is tidied up and if all the information that seems to be absent is submitted. AGK 23:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This is yet another case where Supreme Deliciousness is igniting edit wars. SD was a primary party to a prolonged discussion on the Talk page of Omar Sharif in which sources of "Lebanese descent" were closely scrutinised by an admin, Sancho, and the conclusion of which was that Omar Sharif could NOT be classified as "of Labenese descent". SD's source that was used by Nableezy to prove Omar Sharif's "Lebanese descent" states, according to SD, "Published book: Encyclopedia of the modern Middle East: "The son of a wealthy merchant of Lebanese descent, Sharif was born Michel Chalhoub". It is clear that the source claims that Omar's parent, the wealthy merchant, was of Lebanese descent, not that Omar himself was of Lebanese descent. Admin Sancho had specifically told SD: "SD, avoid original research. Even the leap from "Sharif's parents were Lebanese", to "Sharif is of Lebanese descent" is going too far in an article about a living person". SD is very well aware of this directive from Sancho, so for SD to rely on the archiving of that directive to ignite yet another edit war on the same issue is indeed disruptive and is indeed in violation of SD's sanction on the editing of nationality and identity of a person.

Also, the SD/Nableezy meatpuppetry collaboration on pushing a "Lebanese descent" on Omar Sharif, a living person who personally denied this alleged association/descent on Egyptian television (Nile Cinema) on 4 September 2009 (information I had added in September 2009 and which was removed by no other than Nableezy), is a serious violation of the principles of editing biographies, and their repeated reverts to this effect is a violation of the Asmahan arbitration remedy in this case. Nefer Tweety's attempts to remove the false allegations of SD/Nableezy was therefore justified.

Nefer Tweety seems to be a novice Wikipedia programmer, they are doing their best presenting case, so it would help pointing out to them where the case is not correctly presented. The remedy that is in violation states:

"===Supreme Deliciousness topic banned===

3.2) Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is prohibited from making changes to any article about a person with respect to the ethnicity or nationality of that person for one year. Should this restriction be violated, Supreme Deliciousness may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Passed 7 to 0 at 19:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

===Supreme Deliciousness restricted===

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

Passed 6 to 0 (2 abstained) at 19:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC) --Arab Cowboy (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, SD has violated the 1RR clause of the same remedy with these 5 reverts, all done within minutes of each other: 1, 2, 3, 4, as well as 5. SD had previously had no interest at all in Copt or Coptic identity articles, and his reverts of my edits on those articles was another example of harassment, stalking, disruptive editing, and igniting of edit wars. I did not have the time to pursue that matter further, however, after the WP:CLEANSTART account Medjool that I had created (to end SD's harassment and stalking of me) was blocked as a result of SD's yet another complaint, SD pursued the matter further on Arbitration Enforcement seeking additional sanction above and beyond the block, so for SD to claim that he had already been blocked for his meatpuppetry is defeated by his own previous actions.

As Nefer Tweety correctly points out, SD was found guilty of meatpuppetry on Asmahan, and he is again pursuing meatpuppetry on Omar Sharif. SD distorts the conclusion of the prolonged and very tedious discussion on the Talk page of Omar Sharif that had been had with Admin Sancho, thus igniting yet another edit war between Nefer Tweety and SD's own meatpuppet, Nableezy. SD now has the nerve to file yet another Enforcement complaint against Nefer Tweety! This kind of ongoing disruptive editing and violation of the stated remedy (on both accounts of the 1RR and the ban on editing nationality and ethnicity of a person) cannot be tolerated and the Asmahan arbitration decision must therefore be enforced.

SD's main aim is to silence every editor that dares oppose his biased POV and his pushing of a Syrian agenda on Wikipedia. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Today, Nableezy removes a perfectly legitimate source from Omar Sharif in favor of another that alleges Lebanese anscestry, in spite of Omar Sharif's own denial of that anscestry. This is destined to ignite yet another edit war on the article.--Arab Cowboy (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Today, SD again edits the Talk page of Omar Sharif, providing an unreliable source that tells a lie, in a way that impacts Omar Sharif's nationality and ethnicity. This is not allowed under his sanction. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Response to Cactus

Cactus, as NT points out, the only difference between this sanction that was DEAFEATED by committee vote and the remedy that was violated in this case is SD's privilege to edit Talk pages and provide them with reliable sources in reference to the ethnicity and nationality of a person. It is therefore clear that SD has no such privilege to make these edits to Talk pages. You (Cactus) and at least 2 other admins, as NT also posted above, have explained the remedy of this case to SD with clear and stern warnings to "stop editing Asmahan while on probation", to stay "far, far, far away from the Asmahan article for the time being, if you don't want this unpleasantness to escalate further", to "avoid making any edits whatsoever that could even remotely be considered to be in violation of your topic ban", and to "avoid any possible borderline violations". Yet SD has clearly flushed all of you all's warnings down the toilet and continued to edit Asmahan and cross his other sanctions' "borderlines", including the 1RR.

In reference to the same editor's violations, you were also too technical at least once in the past, last summer, when you stopped short of blocking SD on a 3RR count for edit waring. You are again allowing SD to get away with countless "borderline" violations as you choose to see them. Only a purely dogmatic person would only read the letter of those sanctions and not see the clarifications of 3 admins and SD's clear violations for what they really are. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

By his own admission today, Nableezy would not have made the nationality and ethnicity changes to Omar Sharif's biography had he not seen and used SD's sources, because Omar Sharif was not within Nableezy's area of interest. This clearly demonstrates that SD's edits on the Talk page of Omar Sharif resulted in changes to the ethnicity and nationality of Omar Sharif within the article. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 07:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is my understanding of this case: An edit by Supreme Deliciousness on February 1 asks for changes to Omar Sharif's ethnicity on the article talk page. Two days later, during an edit war between Nefer Tweety and Nableezy, Nableezy used reference information from SD's talk page edit.

The remedy against SD banned Supreme Deliciousness from making any changes to a person's ethnicity on article pages -- but does not mention Talk pages. Therefore this is not a direct violation of the ban.

Nableezy was previously cautioned in December about acting as a proxy for Supreme Deliciousness at Asmahan because of SD's topic ban. At that time, SD had made a direct appeal to Nableezy. However, in this case, no evidence is presented that SD made an appeal to Nableezy concerning the Omar Sharif article, or that Nableezy acted on anything but their own volition. Therefore there is no evidence of a proxy violation.

In a discussion on my talk page, I told Nefer Tweety that this does not appear to be a direct ban violation requiring action at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, but it could be appropriate to make a request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment to extend Supreme Deliciousness's ban to include talk pages and associated pages. — CactusWriter | ^needles 17:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Cactus you say that my edit here, you say that I "ask for changes".. can you please clarify how I "asked" for anything in that edit? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Cactus, there was no need for SD to repeat the meat puppetry invitation to Nableezy. Nableezy had received the message the first time on Asmahan and has been acting on it. Even a child would have gotten the message. Nefer Tweety (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Nefer Tweety, there has been no meatpuppet invitation, and I have already been blocked for that misunderstanding when I asked a neutral editor to get involved, and admin Cactus has told Nableezy that he is free to do what ever he wanted at Asmahan (which he haven't even done) and Nablezzy has also been editing the Omar Sharif article for a long time. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Cactus, the point is that Nableezy got the message from SD and acted on it, making ethnicity and nationality changes to the article of Omar Sharif that he would not have otherwise made, as he admitted above. This is the meat puppetry. SD was directly banned from making changes to the article, and the administrators warned him against making edits that could be remotely considered in violation of his topic ban, and he did not comply and he made those changes to the article by proxy. SD has also violated the 1RR remedy as shown in the diffs provided by AC. Nefer Tweety (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Cactus, "as per your comments above" only? You seem to be ignoring other people's comments. Again, you are sticking to technicalities and ignoring the repercussions. What about the 1RR violations? Were they also not covered? Nefer Tweety (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC) (Moved from section below,  Sandstein  14:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

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

Per the comments above, this complaint is not actionable and can be closed. It is based on talk page edits by Supreme Deliciousness -- however edits to talk pages are not covered by the remedy against Supreme Deliciousness. And any rejected alternative proposal in the development of that remedy (as cited in this case) has no validity.

Please note that this noticeboard is for breaches of remedies only. As stated in the instructions under "Conduct not covered by the ruling": A Request for amendment may be filed if the existing sanctions are inadequate, or help may be requested at the administrators' incident noticeboard. If other actions by an editor under topic ban are disruptive or counter to WP policies, than a request for an amendment expanding the parameters of the topic ban can be made. — CactusWriter | ^needles 02:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been asked to take another look at this. I agree with the above. Diff 1 is not a revert or an edit to an article, diffs 2, 3 and 5 are not actually diffs, diff 4 is not by Supreme Deliciousness, and the diffs listed under number six are not reverts. No violation of the remedies has been established. This request is not actionable and I am so closing it.  Sandstein  14:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Result: Mooretwin blocked for one week, probation extended for 3 months. --Elonka 18:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

User requesting enforcement

O Fenian (talk) 10:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Probation for disruptive editors

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

1. First revert
2. Second revert within 7 days of the first, a breach of his 1 revert per week probation

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)

Administrator discretion, but Mooretwin has a lengthy block log for edit warring

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Mooretwin claims the second revert is not a revert, but it is a clear partial revert of this edit, and his summary even makes it clear he is undoing the actions of another editor. The wording may not be identical, but that is not necessary it is still a partial revert. O Fenian (talk) 10:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

LOL. The second one wasn't a revert! It was also part of a dialogue on the Talk page with Gnevin which resulted in agreement - why would anyone wish to punish an editor for taking part in a constructive dialogue? Finally, according to Elonka "partial reverts" aren't included, if that is what fellow-editor O Fenian is arguing. It's nice to know there are fellow editors out there ganging up to try to get others banned, though - O Fenian acting here on behalf of Domer48 and BigDunc - see here and here. Is that acceptable, desirable or mature behaviour? Petty wouldn't be in it. Maybe I should follow suit? Oh, and I object to the probation, anyway, as I was only put on probation as a scapegoat to make it look like Elonka was being "even-handed" in dealing with Domer48. I didn't, however, engage in a campaign of harassment against Elonka as Domer48 did. Mooretwin (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

O Fenian, could you please link to the decision imposing the 1 revert per week probation that you allege has been infringed?  Sandstein  18:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Elonka placed MooreTwin on 1RR per week here. BigDunc 18:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I had hoped that it is logged on the case page would be sufficient. The notification informing Mooretwin of it is here. O Fenian (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any 1R restriction for Mooretwin on the case page log, just a probation, that's why I asked. Can you please provide the diff of the edit with which the 1R restriction was imposed?  Sandstein  18:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC) – Never mind, I found it, here. Waiting for a statement by Mooretwin.  Sandstein  18:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Mooretwin claims the text was "different", it was not different to any significant degree it was virtually identical. Attempting to add a paragraph for the second time with virtually identical wording is a revert, by the accepted definition of the term. If as Mooretwin says "It was also part of a dialogue on the Talk page with Gnevin which resulted in agreement - why would anyone wish to punish an editor for taking part in a constructive dialogue?", if there was any such agreement why did Gnevin make this edit to remove the so-called agreed upon text? O Fenian (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

(Silly bickering unrelated to the request removed.  Sandstein  22:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC))

This is a very poor block of a good faith edit. I removed the text from GAA requesting an improved reference. Mooretwin duly supplied the reference and after some back and forth we reached a compromise which improve the text. Isn't discussion how we are meant to avoid edit wars? Gnevin (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I feel your timeline is confused. Mooretwin's revert was made at 21:29 on 7 February, when the section you linked to looked like this. There was no discussion by Mooretwin prior to edit warring, all the discussion came after. O Fenian (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm finding it difficult to find your request for this block or your request to maintain this block with in the bounds of good faith . Are you seriously suggesting we block a user for 3 months for a 2 minute lag in between adding a requested reference and leaving a curiosity on the talk page which shows there willingness to engage in discussion ? Gnevin (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a diff where I requested any sort of block, or strike your comment. My quite correct point is that Mooretwin did not discuss whether his edit would be acceptable on the talk page prior to making it, he just went ahead and made it anyway. He did not attempt to come to any sort of agreement prior to making the edit, he went ahead and edit-warred despite his probation. O Fenian (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You are the user listed as the User requesting enforcement here . So you maybe you be not requested a block out right but for a user with Mooretwin's history it was the most likely outcome. Why would a edit which adds a requested reference be considered edit warring? As I say I take a very low view of this request for enforcement, your splitting hairs over 2 minutes in between discussion and edit. Your highlighting an edit which lead to a discussion and an improvement of the article and is not even a revert . All that aside. I've made my point Gnevin (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I am simply pointing out that any discussion and/or agreement took place after the edit was made, which was not in the slighest obvious in your first post. "Isn't discussion how we are meant to avoid edit wars?" you asked, the whole point is that Mooretwin edit warred prior to discussing. The two minutes is quite irrelevant in my opinion, even if he had posted one hour before it would be meaningless. He did not wait for agreement, he did not wait for consensus, he reverted without doing either of those. O Fenian (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the length of the block, but the less disruption Mooretwin is able to cause the better in my opinion. Perhaps Rockpocket could provide a diff to where he objected to Domer48's probation recently being extended by three months? O Fenian (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware his probation was extended by three months; I understood Domer's complaint to be that the original probation was invalid, I didn't realize it was an extension. I would note, however, that I tried to offer some advice to help Domer get his block rescinded, but he made it clear my input was unwelcome. There is only so many times one is going to try to help when that help is rebuffed with insults. That said, I would suggest the same extension length be applied to both editors (should a sanction be deemed necessary). Rockpocket 01:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Further, Mooretwin emailed me and asked me to draw attention to his explanation on his talk page. I'm happy to do that since I do find it compelling. In short, he points out that: the person he is alleged to be edit-warring with asserts he was not; that the edit in question was not a revert but an amended text (with a new reference) to address a concern; and he immediately went to the talk page where he engaged in a dialogue that eventually resulted in consensus. This appears to me a reasonable example of how we should be editing in order to improve our encyclopaedia: be bold, use sources, engage with others. Rockpocket 02:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The edit in question was a revert, by the definition of revert. The reference may have addressed the concern, but there was no way Mooretwin could known that for definite in advance. If you are even familiar with Mooretwin's editing you will know revert then post to talk is a common tactic. In my opinion the correct example of how we should be editing is not to revert edits without discussion resulting in a consensus as to whether proposed text is acceptable, this did not happen did it? That on this occasion another edit war did not happen may be correct, but this method of editing is how Mooretwin has caused dozens of other edit wars. O Fenian (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

arbitral sanctions are imposed only in particularly problematic topic areas. The GAA has never been consider part of The Troubles in any great way. Has never had any significant edit warring over the troubles that I am aware of. Yet a other reason why I consider this block a bad block. This is surely a case of WP:IAR? Gnevin (talk) 10:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The definition of Troubles relating to the case includes "Irish nationalism", which clearly includes the GAA. O Fenian (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That definition is also pretty much the definition of Category:Ireland, you've clearly issues with this editor and I think it's a bad road for wiki to go down when good faith edits can be ambushed used for Wikipedia:Wikilawyering and WP:GAMEGnevin (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I assume that nearly every edit is made in good faith, but that doesn't take away from the breach of the sanctions, MT is aware of the 1rr yet he chose to breach it, doesn't matter what his intentions were, good or otherwise. Hundreds of editors have been blocked for good faith edits. If I make 4 reverts my defence can be that they were made in good faith? We are responsible for our own edits simple, nothing to do with wikilawyering or gaming, don't breach and no sanction can get apllied. BigDunc 12:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If you really accepted edits in good faith, you would accept he didn't "choose" to breach it . Blocking an editor for 3 months for a technical and accidental breach (if that is even what it was) makes no sense. And if this were not Mooretwin, but someone of a persuasion closer to your own, you would be calling foul too. I'm sick of the partisan color-blindness on display here: robustly defending one editor for something then actively persecuting other for essentially the same thing. This infraction had zero direct impact on you Domer or O Fenian, and did the project no harm whatsoever, leaving one with the impression that you saw an opportunity to get one over on an editor you consider an adversary. Its telling that everyone else who has commented, and who doesn't have that axe to grind, finds this sanction to be disproportionate. Rockpocket 17:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The telling thing is that the people who allege the sanction to be disproportionate are performing revisionism on the events. What has his wikilawyering over reverting got to do with anything? Nobody can dispute the basic facts. He chose to edit war, making two reverts in less than a week. He did not discuss the edit before making it and wait for consensus. You talk about axes, well you are well known for having an axe to grind against certain Irish editors. O Fenian (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"You are well known for having an axe to grind against certain Irish editors" Oh really? "well known"... "certain Irish editors"... do you write for a tabloid gossip column or something? Who exactly are you referring to? Perhaps you mean Domer: who I have never blocked, but have unblocked and have, several times, argued strongly on his behalf when others have tried to have him indefinitely blocked. Likewise, Big Dunc. Likewise, Sarah. Likewise, MickMacNee. e.g. If not them, then perhaps you could provide some actual evidence to support such a ridiculously obtuse claim. If you can't or won't provide something better than unsubstantiated nationalist mudslinging that has nothing to do with this discussion, the honorable thing is to withdraw it. Rockpocket 19:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

4 reverts and you know your in a disagreement and as such you know if you should be discussing the issue, you can claim good faith your editing history will show disruptive editing. Adding a reference requested on a talk page and changing the text is a good faith edit and it's a major stretch to call it a revert. What annoys me here is that the so called edit war which I apparently was in but unaware of until 3 days later lead to a great compromise. Gnevin (talk) 13:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to do with edit wars how simple do you want it, 1RR per week means revert no more than once per week he didn't do that he reverted twice. You also say your editing history will show disruptive editing have you looked at MT's history? IMO, Mooretwin and Domer shouldn't have been on probation in the first place as it was placed on spurious grounds, but that is beside the point.BigDunc 16:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Gnevin seems to have things back to front again, like he did with his timeline of events. Mooretwin's edit was a revert according to policy, the only "major stretch" is claiming restoring a paragraph that had been removed by another editor is not a revert. O Fenian (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Question Why is Rockpocket editing the section below? He is the furthest from an uninvolved admin that you could find on Troubles cases. BigDunc 16:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• I concur. O Fenian (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Answer I have never edited the article in question and never sanctioned the editor in question, therefore I'm perfectly entitled to edit the section below. It took a little longer than usual for the label anyone who disagrees with you as involved tactic to appear, but you got there in the end. Rockpocket 17:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the article it is to do with The Troubles AE, also who says I disagree with you, IMO the probation shouldn't have been placed on either Mooretwin or Domer. BigDunc 18:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you will find it was made explicitly clear that those admins who had past experienced with the Troubles editors were to be considered uninvolved too. Sandstein has enacted more administrative sanctions in this case than I have, as it happens, so by definition I can't be the furthest from an uninvolved admin that you could find on Troubles cases.

We may be of the same opinion on this probation (I doubt it actually, as its not clear to me what happened to result in the probation in the first place, so I can't really offer an opinion on its appropriateness. I look forward to the promised RfC so I can the justifications of each participant), but the difference is this: I offered help to both Domer and Mooretwin get unblocked when their situations came to my attention. One editor welcomed that help, one rebuffed it. Irrespective, if either wishes to make a case to ArbCom or try to get a community consensus: I'll be the first to help. If your objective is to address the unfair sanction equally, rather than favor one editor over the other, then why on earth do you choose to condemn Mooretwin, but not Domer, for the same infraction (a 1RR/week violation under the same probation)? Rockpocket 19:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall and am open to correction but when has Sandstein ever edited an article Troubles related? He is carrying out his admin duties as a regular editor here at AE. And where have I condemened Mooretwin? BigDunc 19:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea if he has or not (but given pretty much anything can be considered Troubles related these days, I expect he probably has!). To be clear: neither of us has edited the article involved, but both of us have been involved in Troubles AE in the past. The fact that I have edited other Troubles related articles (Sandstein may or may not have) is beside the point, as ArbCom made it clear that experience in the area does not constitute "involvement". With regards to selective condemnation, perhaps that is a slightly harsh choice of words. But you did report the transgression and volunteer, above: "You also say your editing history will show disruptive editing have you looked at MT's history?" and "MT is aware of the 1rr yet he chose to breach it, doesn't matter what his intentions were, good or otherwise." I did not see you pointing out similar justifications in support of Domer's recent block for 1RR recently. Quite the opposite, in fact, you instead chose to question the blocking admin extensively. Edit-warring is edit-warring, 1RR is 1RR irrespective of who is doing it. Ironically, this lack of consistency is exactly the same thing you express frustration at in others Rockpocket 20:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That is not a "substantial change of text" by any stretch of the imagination! BigDunc 19:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Mooretwin should be unblocked, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I see certain editors here are shooting the messenger, and are voicing the so called good faith edits in regard to the breach of the sanctions by MT but not showing any good faith to the editor who posted this report. Are editors not supposed to bring breaches here? If bringing a breach here are you then part of a big conspiracy against the editor in question? The latest posts by MT on his talk page is laying the blame for his actions at the door of 4 editors, O Fenian, Domer, Scolaire and myself, this is a BS. He is responsible for his own actions and no amount of wikilawyering by editors will change that. BigDunc 14:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've changed my mind (sorry Mooretwin), but perhaps it's time for a black/white approach. If one breaches intentionally or not, partially or not, one get blocked. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Since when did community consensus only involve admins? We have a couple claiming community consensus below which frankly I dont' see. BigDunc 16:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Tyrenius Rockpocket et al. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

My first impression on looking at the edits were that the second wasn't a revert. On looking at it more closely it is a technical revert for the purposes of 1RR and therefore the same sanction should apply to Mooretwin as to other editors in a similar position: a one week block and advice to use the undo button a little bit more judiciously. A three month block would be way over the top and unjust given the good faith nature of the edits in question. Valenciano (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

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

I find the request to have merit. At , Mooretwin was made subject to a 1R/week restriction until roughly 11 February 2010 as provided for by WP:ARBCOM/TROUBLES#Probation for disruptive editors and WP:ARBCOM/TROUBLES#Terms of probation. With his edits of 23:55, 1 February 2010 and 21:29, 7 February 2010 he violated this restriction. Both edits were reverts as defined at WP:3RR#Application of 3RR ("A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part"); indeed, both edits were made using the WP:UNDO feature as can be seen from their edit summaries. In view of the policy's clear language, Elonka's wrong advice that "partial reverts" are allowed is immaterial; moreover, the second revert was not partial: it re-added all the content that the previous editor had removed but added another reference, which is not the "attempting to find a compromise" that Elonka would have allowed. The reverted material at issue relates to the Troubles and is thus within the scope of the case.

The applicable remedy, WP:ARBCOM/TROUBLES#Enforcement by block, provides that "participants who violate the terms of the probation may be blocked for an appropriate period of time." In determining the appropriate period, I take into account that Mooretwin has been blocked nine times previously, each time for edit warring or violating revert restrictions, and that the two most recent blocks (in 2009) have had a duration of one month. It therefore appears that even blocks of this length are not sufficient to effectively prevent him from reverting excessively. For this reason, I believe that an appropriate length of an effective preventative block is three months. I am now imposing this block, but will lift it if Mooretwin instead agrees to abide by a complete topic ban from any content and discussions related to the Troubles for these three months.

Independently of the block or ban, I am also re-imposing the one revert per week probation upon Mooretwin for an indefinite duration.  Sandstein  22:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I find this to be a disproportionate response. For all the edit-warring, name calling, bad-faith and POV pushing that goes on in this sphere, largely tolerated, I consider it unwise to sanction someone over this. Replacing questioned content with a supporting reference, then going to the talk page to discuss the matter in good faith may well fall foul of the letter of the probation, but its very hard to believe it falls foul of the spirit of the probation. We are supposed to be encouraging editors to add sources and engage on the talk page. This sends the opposite message. Moreover, a 3 month block and a indefinite probation is extraordinary, given the circumstances. The probation was due to expire in just a few days. I strongly urge the blocking admin to rescind the block and indefinite probation. Instead, a much more suitable response would be to warn the editor to be more careful in future and, if he felt some action was required, simply extend the probation for some finite period. At the very least, consult with the admin who placed the probation and get their opinion on the transgression. Rockpocket 00:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I've taken note of the above argument and of those on the user talk page. There is, I feel, no point in discussing whether the second revert was a "good" or a "bad" revert, and no need to wait for the opinion of the admin imposing the probation or of other editors. The terms of the probation prohibit all reverts, no matter whether they are part of an edit war or part of a constructive discussion. To abide by the probation, Mooretwin should have proposed the edit at issue on the talk page and let another editor make it. This is harsh but necessary: arbitral sanctions are imposed only in particularly problematic topic areas, and probations again only on editors that have been disruptive in that problematic field. If there was a third opportunity - after the arbitration and the probation - for a discussion on the merits of an editor's editing in each case a probation was infringed, probations would be nearly unenforceable. Instead, to remain enforceable and predictable, arbitral sanctions must be obeyed to the letter, save in truly exceptional circumstances, and if the sanctioned editor acts according to what they believe is the spirit rather than the letter of the sanction then they must be ready to take the risk that - as here - an administrator disagrees. A 1R/week restriction in a very limited topic area is not a very onerous restriction indeed, so there is almost no conceivable case where violating it is really necessary. For these reasons, I decline the request to lift the sanctions.  Sandstein  06:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I accept that absolutist AE philosophy, though it's not an interpretation I agree with. But even if you feel that way, what is exceptional in this case is the severity of the sanction. It appears punitive to block someone for three months for such a trivial transgression, when the difs show the editor did not intend to edit war. So trivial, even the person he "edit warred" with questions your decision. As you are aware (having declined his unblock request), the other editor who was put on the same probation was blocked for a week and had their probation reset for a recent, comparable transgression. If you feel a sanction is automatic, then it is logical to show some parity in the extent of the automatic sanction. One of the biggest complaints I hear from editors is over inconsistency in administration, this is a prime example. Rockpocket 07:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I've explained my thinking about the block duration above. It's a simple matter of escalating blocks: If two one month blocks have not been sufficiently preventative, then maybe a three month block will; moreover, the block will be lifted if Mooretwin agrees to abide by a topic ban instead. With respect to inconsistent enforcement, yes, sanctions may be inconsistent, but then consistency would not be reasonable to expect given that sanctions are imposed by many different administrators. Some infringers may get lucky and be treated leniently, others not; it all evens out on average. What matters is that the individual sanction is appropriate to the specific situation, without regard to how others may have been treated in similar (but never quite identical) situations. The best way for editors to avoid inconsistent (or other) sanctions is not to infringe arbitral restrictions in the first place.  Sandstein  08:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I don't even remember declining the unblock of the other editor (who was that?), much less that he was in a similar situation. As explained above, I tend to look at each case individually.  Sandstein  08:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You declined a review of Domer's 1 week block which was placed for a undisputed second revert in violation of the same probation (the validity of which he disputed). So compare: 1 week + a reset probation vs. 3 months + indefinite probation. An undisputed revert vs. a technical violation (if even that, I'm not convinced the second edit was actually a revert). Past block logs are comparable.

There will be disparity between sanctions from different admins, but when attention is drawn to such an extreme disparity, one might expect admins to take them into account and adjust their sanction accordingly, rather than maintain a position that has drawn a significant level of concern from a number of uninvolved editors in good standing. Given this impasse, it may be prudent to get further admin input at AN. Rockpocket 18:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was sanctioned relatively lightly for his infringement by another admin, that does not compel me to sanction this case of infringement equally lightly. You are free to disagree and to also use lighter sanctions should you ever decide to engage in arbitration enforcement. I have advised Mooretwin about how he may appeal this block on his talk page.  Sandstein  19:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I am still coming up to speed on the situation, but my initial thoughts are:

1. I would not have classed Mooretwin's second edit as a revert, since it involved a substantial change of text. He may have used the "undo" button to start the edit, but it clearly wasn't a classic "undo" revert.
2. There are cases where reasonable administrators may disagree on the best course of action. So even though the edit may not have been a revert by my definition, if Sandstein defined it as a revert by his own definition, I would say he was acting within the realm of administrator discretion.
3. A three-month block for a questionable revert does feel excessive. However, Mooretwin does have a history of disruption in this topic area, so neither do I feel the block is completely unreasonable.
4. An indefinite probation is not supported by the current rules of the Arbitration case (check the community-imposed changes at the bottom of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles). The maximum allowed is 6 months.

It would probably be helpful to get some opinions from other administrators as to whether or not the second edit was a revert or not, and for Sandstein to be open to engaging in a good faith discussion with other uninvolved administrators, to determine a consensus on the best way to deal with the situation. In the meantime, keeping Mooretwin blocked seems reasonable. He does have the option, as Sandstein said, to be unblocked if he's willing to give his word to avoid articles in the topic area for the time being. --Elonka 19:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to briefly address your point four, what I am enforcing (on this board, at least) is the Arbitration Committee decision, not any later community sanction. The Arbitration Committee decision, which does not limit probation (indeed, the remedies' wording suggests that all probation is indefinite) is not subject to amendment by the community, and remains in force until amended by the Committee itself.  Sandstein  20:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

But you know what, this is getting tedious. Elonka, you seem to have more experience in this topic area; feel free to amend my sanction in whatever way you deem appropriate.  Sandstein  21:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Elonka, given the growing number of editors who have expressed disquiet over the extent of the sanction for a questionable revert (I'm counting five or six here and on your, Sandstein's and Mooretwin's talk page), I would urge that block be revoked and the probation reset to expire three months from the incident. If there is to be a block (and I really can't see the point unless as punishment, as the difs clearly show the incident unintentional) then at least reduce it to 1 week. This way both editors under this probation can have little complaint about bias. I would also suggest that that both editors be warned that next time either of them transgresses the block will be longer. The alternative is likely another needlessly long and distracting debate at AN, as I'm pretty sure Mooretwin will appeal. Finally, I would urge these editors attempt to get away from this tit-for-tat reporting of each others transgressions. At the risk of sounding like Sarah Palin (which is not something anyone should cherish) this "gotcha" culture is doing no-one any favors, least of all the project. If an incident is not serious enough for those involved to consider it an breach, then just leave it be. Rockpocket 00:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

To my knowledge, everyone who has commented in those venues was an involved editor, and what we really need are uninvolved opinions. My own inclination here is to follow Sandstein's lead, and leave the block in place, or possibly replace it with a 90-day topic ban. The problem is, the Troubles case doesn't explicitly allow topic bans, which means it's easier to block an editor entirely, than simply to temporarily restrict their editing from part of the project. Then again, if administrators here at AE were willing to support a topic ban, that might work. So, can we achieve a consensus to apply a 90-day topic ban? This ban on Mooretwin would include both the articles, and their related talkpages, but would not include comments placed in other namespaces (such as at administrator noticeboards). Would that be a reasonable way to proceed? --Elonka 02:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)This block is not only draconian but inappropriate. 1RR is a device to stop edit warring, not a goal in itself. The goal is to improve the encyclopedia, which is why one of the oldest policies is WP:IAR: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." (emphasis in the original). Two users were in dispute, the other being Gnevin, who has stated above:

This is a very poor block of a good faith edit. I removed the text from GAA requesting an improved reference. Mooretwin duly supplied the reference and after some back and forth we reached a compromise which improve the text. Isn't discussion how we are meant to avoid edit wars? Gnevin (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This should be the end of the matter. We should strongly discourage restrictions being used as a weapon by editors against others, when those editors are nothing whatsoever to do with the content in question, and particularly when, without their gratuitous intervention, there would actually be no problem at all. I note User:O Fenian has not been editing the relevant article and is not a participant in the "dispute". I note also that the block was placed for one reason, which turned out not to be the case, so another reason was substituted to justify the block. It wasn't a straight revert, but a modification of content with a reference, which Gnevin, the other editor involved, approves. If this is deemed to be a technical violation of 1RR, I suggest a technical block of ten minutes, with time served already. Ty 04:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Gnevin, Tyrenius and Rockpocket, up to a point anyway. These restrictions are not a club with which to beat opponents (and if you have opponents, or act as if you do, your card will end up being marked too), nor are they a shield to hide behind. Editors who are on probation would be very well advised to exercise great prudence in reverting, and indeed all editors should do so. There's rarely an urgent need to revert anything but vandalism, and even Randy from Boise's skeletons can wait for a day or two. Where I have most trouble is with Sandstein's rationale for a three month block. A word to the wise is sufficient. Sadly in Mooretwin's case it needed a three day block by WMC last summer to act as a reminder, but that was a reminder that stuck for over six months. If only the usual suspects would all behave for six months after a block we'd be as happy as pigs in shit and AE could shut down. I'd let Mooretwin twist in the wind for a bit just to remind him, once again, that there are no deadlines on Wikipedia, and that there is no need to be reverting anything but plain vandalism. A week or thereabouts would seem to be the right order of magnitude. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Given we now have further, uninvolved comment along the same lines, it pretty clear there is not a consensus for the sanction as it stands. I'm therefore going to make a proposal. I feel Ncmvocalist hit the nail on the head. The issue should not be about blocking because a line has been crossed, the issue is looking at the purpose of the remedy that Mooretwin was under, and asking what do we need to do to ensure that purpose is fulfilled. Therefore I intend to enact Ncmvocalist's solution:

"if Mooretwin is not willing or able to comply for the future, then the sanctions should stand. However, if he is, the block should be lifted and no topic ban is necessary; all that would be required is for the probation clock to restart to ensure that further sanctions do not become necessary. (If he were to violate this principle again, either carelessly or otherwise, then all bets are off).

I'll leave it a day or two more to address objections, but then I will ascertain whether Mooretwin is willing to comply. If he is, I will unblock him with time served and reset the probation from the day of the edit. This gives the community ample to to ensure he is willing and able to edit in an acceptable manner. If we find ourselves back here again then all bets are off. But on the other hand, a dim view will be taken if the same, small group of editors take it upon themselves to police every single one of Mooretwin's edits looking for an innocuous slip up. In other words, if it does you no harm and it does the project no harm, go and do something more constructive than reporting other editors for the sake of it. Rockpocket 18:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you should not do this. In this section, there are currently three admins (you, Tyrenius and Angusmclellan) who disagree with the sanction, whereas I (evidently) and Elonka (mostly, it seems) support it. There are also a handful of opinions either way by a few apparently involved editors here and on the user talk page. Per the motion cited in the red box at the top of this page, enforcement actions are not required to have positive consensus in their favor; rather, "clear, substantial, and active community consensus" against an enforcement action is required to overturn it. Should you undo an enforcement action absent such consensus, which is not present here, you yourself may become subject to sanctions by the Arbitration Committee. Moreover, your contributions indicate that you have edited numerous articles in the area of conflict (I didn't check the substance of the edits). While this does not make you an involved editor, strictly speaking, it means that you might not be best suited to be the one to ascertain consensus in this case.  Sandstein  19:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

On these points, at least, I am 100% in agreement with Sandstein. Rockpocket, it would be unwise for you to use tools in this matter. Your insight is welcome, but you've been editing too much in this topic area to be considered sufficiently uninvolved to make a controversial action like that. --Elonka 20:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That is utterly ridiculous, Sandstein. It says a lot for your judgment that you consider Elonka's earlier comments in support of your disproportionate response; and your evermore desperate attempts to justify them against a clear administrative consensus is tedious. I made clear this action was subject to objection. You have objected, therefore we can now spend another week debating this - frankly - outrageous bureaucratic waste of everyone's time at AN. Good work. Rockpocket 21:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me there is a clear consensus that the block is excessive and needs to be changed. I disagree that Rockpocket is an involved editor re. this matter. I also point out again there was no problem to start with. This is just rules wonkery. I have asked for more input at AN/I. Ty 21:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• I would say that the three month block is quite excessive. A 24 hour block would have sufficed in this particular instance. I would have no issue with converting the 3 month block to a 3 month topic ban though. Is there any reason that avenue wasn't pursued? NW (Talk) 21:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• The reason is that the arbitration remedy only allows blocks, not topic bans. Otherwise of course I would have used a topic ban. But in my sanction I offered to unblock Mooretwin if he agrees to abide by a "The Troubles" topic ban, so it's really his choice.  Sandstein  22:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

A topic ban is not an appropriate response in the context of the supposed transgression. The big box at the top of this page also says ArbCom decisions are designed to be coercive, not punitive. They guy was trying to do the right thing, and actually did the right thing to advance the encyclopaedia, but fell foul of a technicality. Why on earth punish him for that? All that is needed here is an extension of the probation, to ensure that he continues doing the right thing to the best of his ability, and a clarification of how avoid accidentally falling foul of the probation again. Anything else hurts the project, it does not help it. Further, Mooretwin has asked me to post an appeal on his behalf. It can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Input_requested. Rockpocket 23:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, there definitely seem to be differing opinions here. As a reminder to everyone, we, as administrators, should strive to set a good example of how disputes should be resolved and consensus reached. In that vein, I'd like to at least summarize the the suggestions so far, which are:

1. Keep Mooretwin's 3-month block and indefinite probation in place
2. Lift the block entirely (or lift it as "time served"), and place him under probation for another 3-6 months
3. Reduce the block to 1 week, plus 3-6 months probation
4. Replace the block with a 90-day topic ban from the Troubles articles

Perhaps the administrators here could list the above options, in their order of preference, and we could see if we could determine consensus that way? My own preferences (from most preferred to least) are: 4, 3, 1, 2. --Elonka 00:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• 2, 3, 4. I'm not listing the current option as a "preference" because putting anyone under that restriction is tantamount to forcing him to choose between an indef topic ban or an indef block. Editing under a zero tolerance, indefinite 1RR/week with an explicit promise of increasing blocks (starting a 3 months), bearing in mind we have a team of editors ready and willing to scrutinize and report every single edit for a technical violation, is near impossible. We should call it what it is. Rockpocket 02:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• 2, 3, 4, 1 (most preferred listed first). Ty 07:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• 4, 2, 3, 1. (most preferred listed first). NW (Talk) 12:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Elonka has been watching Yes, Minister I think: option 1 is apparently there only to shepherd us towards the "right" decision. Not quite by the book though as "is commended" seems to have been missed. Either 2 or 3 is close enough. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• For the reasons given above, I prefer 4 or 1 (equal preference, Mooretwin's choice) to 2 or 3 (also equal preference). Since 4 cannot be implemented as an enforcement action under the current remedies, it would need Mooretwin's agreement or, theoretically, broad positive consensus as a community sanction.  Sandstein  20:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• It would seem that the consensus is boiling down to options 2 or 3. We can probably accommodate this somewhat by reducing the block to one week, starting from the time it was implemented, February 9. Or in other words, Mooretwin's block should be reset to an expiration date of February 16, and his probation reset to expire on May 9. Does that sound reasonable? --Elonka 21:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Rockpocket 23:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Good solution. Ty 06:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe that a discussion involving only six editors (even after an ANI announcement), where at least two do not agree with the other four and there is no clear plurality for any one solution, does not amount to the "clear, substantial, and active community consensus" required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.  Sandstein  13:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Six administrators is generally more than you would see in any AE discussion. Elonka, myself, Rockpocket, Tyrenius, and AngusmcLellan all seem to think that the third option is a reasonable compromise. I think that is certainly enough to change the original enforcement action. NW (Talk) 13:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, six administrators is much in AE terms, but six people are not the community. What is required is substantial community consensus.  Sandstein  14:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

What's required is either "the written authorization of the Committee" or "a clear, substantial, and active community consensus". It's been posted on AN/I, and all of the community who wished to participate are now in agreement. It would demonstrate collegiate spirit to acknowledge that and avoid taking up any further unnecessary time over this. Ty 15:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please drop the stick, Sandstein. There is a point where conviction in process becomes intransigence. Simply being the first to dish out a disproportionately block that has zero support does not give you a veto when everyone else who commented can reach an agreement on a more suitable response. Moreover, previously your stated Elonka was free to amend your sanction in whatever way she deemed appropriate. If you have changed your mind, you should probably strike that. Finally, if anyone else would like to offer their opinion on the options under discussion, I'm sure it will be given the consideration it deserves. Rockpocket 17:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have proposed that Elonka modify my sanction as she deems fit, and of course she remains free to do so. What I still object to is the characterization of this discussion as constituting sufficient community consensus to overturn my sanction absent such agreement by me. Rockpocket, since you are very certain what constitutes an appropriate sanction in this case, may I assume that you will continue to help out with patrolling this noticeboard even where no issues dear to your heart are concerned? We could use some more admins here.  Sandstein  18:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

My opinion of what is appropriate is no more inherently correct that yours. I may have a strong opinion and argue it robustly, and I expect you do too, but where we appear to differ is that I will not try to enforce my solution if becomes clear that it is not shared by other admins. Irrespective of who blocks first, or what rules I could cite to support my position, the right thing to do in all cases is consider all the responsible opinions expressed and apply the approximation of the consensus. The consensus to modify your sanction may be small in number, but in comparison there is no consensus to maintain it. This is why I find your position inexplicable. To answer your question: this issue is not "dear to my heart". I was asked for assistance and my understanding of our job was to assist editors. I'm currently in the process of a transcontinental relocation and am trying to get an article to FA status. Therefore I have limited time to take on other responsibilities. However, If your request is genuine, I'll give you my word that once I have settled in my new location, I will try and spend some of my time here to help out. If your request was sarcastic, then your point is duly noted. Elonka has expressed concern that there is a personal issue between us which is distracting from this issue, therefore I'll now disengage from here. If you wish to continue to communicate with me you can do so on my talk page. Rockpocket 19:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I've done so. More generally, I'm reproducing what I said to Elonka elsewhere, because it may help others understand why I am continuing to discuss this. I'm not really objecting to a reduction of the sanction on the merits. The reduction is unlikely to have much of a practical impact with respect to preventing disruption - after all, Mooretwin can be easily reblocked if he continues reverting too much. Rather I object because I strongly dislike admins second-guessing, rather than supporting, each other in the area of arbitration enforcement. Arbitration (and its enforcement) is one aspect of the project that's not really subject to the consensus mechanism. If we treat it as though it were, the net effect is the weakening of the arbitration mechanism and the empowerment of the ethno-religious battleground editors that are normally the main focus of AE. I've expanded a bit on this on Rockpocket's talk page. For this reason, I consider it a collegial obligation to support and help enforce any AE action that can reasonably be supported by the wording and intent of the relevant remedy, even if I myself would have made a completely different decision. Such is the nature of administrative discretion. I believe that if all administrators were to adopt this approach, it would help substantially in reducing the general level of battleground-type disruption.  Sandstein  21:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

User requesting enforcement

Elonka 22:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance#PHG restricted

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

1. POV-pushing at Good Article Nomination
2. PHG attempting to re-open old issues against consensus at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance
3. POV-pushing at GA nom

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

1. Warning by Elonka (talk · contribs)
2. Warning by Elonka (talk · contribs)
3. Warning by mentor Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
4. Warning by mentor Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

Extension of PHG's topic ban for another year, due to disruption at Franco-Mongol alliance. Ban should include not only article edits, but also participation at GA/FA nom, since his behavior there has been disruptive as well.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The original topic ban was on PHG (talk · contribs), a user who has since changed his name to Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs). His original topic ban, placed in March 2008, prevented him from making any edits in the entire topic area of medieval or ancient history for one year. This ban was extended in April 2008 to also require that PHG use only English-language sources, and use a mentor (Angusmclellan) to assist with sourcing. Further problems were reported in July 2008. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance for a long list of statements from established editors who were expressing concerns about PHG's use of sources. PHG has two specific POVs that he's been pushing, for over two years now: (1) That the Mongols "conquered" Jerusalem in 1300, and (2) that there was an alliance between the Europeans and the Mongols. Actual mainstream history, is that Jerusalem may have been subject to a Mongol raid at one point, but was not conquered; and that though there were attempts towards alliance, the attempts were unsuccessful. The Arbitration Committee investigated PHG's behavior in 2007/2008, agreed that PHG was misusing sources, and banned him from the medieval history topic area for a year.

Officially, the topic ban expired in 2009, but now that the Franco-Mongol alliance article is up for a Good Article Nomination, PHG (Per Honor et Gloria) has resurfaced, and is resuming old tactics: Cherry-picking sources, pushing the same old POVs, and attempting to restore the article to the kinds of things it said back in 2007 that led to the ArbCom case in the first place. Of particular concern is that he is de-railing the GA nom, by dragging back up his "there was an alliance" POV, insisting that the lead sentence of the article be re-written to say that there was an alliance. This is making GA review extremely complex, as we don't want to have to re-debate this entire thing over again.

One of the things that makes PHG's POV-pushing so damaging, is that he (usually) tends to stay very civil, and his edits always look well-sourced. However, when experienced editors go in and actually look at the information he's trying to add, it becomes clear that PHG is not fairly representing what the sources say, and that he's also pulling in questionable sources, such as fragments of statements from works that are centuries-old, or fragments from footnotes of books that are from long out-of-date historians, or works that are of unclear provenance. Repeated requests to PHG to desist have been made at the article talkpage, and at his user talkpage, by both myself (Elonka), and PHG's mentor, Angusmclellan (talk · contribs). PHG promised Angus in email that the problems were over, but then continued with disruptive actions, which are escalating at the GA nom. Accordingly, I am asking at AE that the topic ban be reinstated for another year. If necessary we can proceed to a full ArbCom "Request for Amendment", but I'm hoping that a simple AE request will cover it. Thanks, Elonka 22:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

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.

Nice trap! Elonka threatens me of prosecution a few days ago telling me "Do not edit it, do not participate at the talkpage, do not participate at the GA nom." at the Franco-Mongol alliance page, in itself a rather unethical threat... Then she nicely invites me to respond to her on that very page , I am stupid enough to answer to the invitation , and now she uses that as a justification to implement her initial threat. Isn't this wonderful?

My edits, my good humour, my civility, my sourcing

Altogether, I must have done about 20 edits to the Franco-Mongol page and its Talk Page in the last two weeks or so. I have been taking pains to make extremely well-sourced statements with mainstream academic online references so that all I write can be checked by anybody. No disputes, respecting the content of other contributors: Wikipedia editing at its best . But no, Elonka seems to resent the very fact that I simply contribute, however professionally, to the Franco-Mongol alliance page, an article I created two years ago.

• To use Elonka's own words, I tend to remain "very civil" because I do think it is important to be so, and to respect the others. I do tend to resent incivility or the callous treatment that some Administrators give to other users "Stop…." "Enough…": we are no cattle, we are not members of a boot camps or prisoners, just unpaid volunteers. As a gesture of goodwill, I have even made small presents to Elonka , explaining her several times that I wanted to please her and be her friend .

• My sources "look good", because they are good: I remain very factual in my contribution and as often as I can link to scholarly online Google Book references so that everybody can check for themselves, and, if desired, can correct the Wikipedia content accordingly. I have learned to do this for contentious issues, so that the sources can be accessed by anyone who has doubts. You will see that virtually all online references in the Franco-Mongol article today were added by myself.

Oh! Jerusalem!

Elonka has been forcing her point of view on the relationships between the Franks and the Mongols in the 13th century, attacking the main contributor on the subject (me) if my views did not fit hers.

Most significantly, she has attacked me strenuously for several years for claiming that the Mongols were in Jerusalem in 1300 (a nice academic source). Elonka's problem now is that User:Srnec painstakingly studied the sources himself and strongly challenged her former interpretation, declaring that "the modern, reliable sources say unequivocally that the Mongols were in Jerusalem" . It turns out that the raid of 10,000 to 20,000 Mongols resulted in huge depredations reported in detail by Muslim sources . Elonka herself has been forced to change her writing to the Mongols "probably" raided Jerusalem in 1300! . After pursuing me so harshly for so long for writing about the Mongols and Jerusalem in 1300, this is quite a change isn’t it? I think a small word of apology for getting the facts wrong, and accusing me unduly, would have been in order, but, no, all she can find is sending me here. The problem I believe is that Elonka makes very strong statements, and pursues other users harshly based on factually wrong premises. Just as she misrepresented facts for Jerusalem, there are many more instances where she takes such a stance, and you have to follow it, or else.

I think our responsibility as Wikipedians is to follow the sources punctiliously (I've become much better at that, and I'm now making sure all my contributions can be checked online whenever possible), and to make sure that power-hungry or drama-hungry individuals do not skew the facts too much. Best regards to all, and happy editing! Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 06:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The editing restrictions against PHG expired long ago, so I don't see that this is a legitimate venue for discussion of alleged current problems with PHG's editing. Gatoclass (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I would advise more care on PHG's part in (a) locating sources that discuss topics in reasonable depth (b) avoiding sources that discuss topics superficially and (c) interacting in a less bristly way with those who point out either (a) or (b). I personally noted PHG's edits to Marseille which were slightly oddball. He inserted an unduly large image of Hellenistic coins with a slightly POV caption and introduced an alternative image of a map already in the gallery; after my cleanup, he then placed the images on the talk page. The coin images originated in his article Greeks in pre-Roman Gaul, a well trodden subject. PHG's version of the article had not located sources with extensive sections devoted to that topic (Rolland, Ebel, King) and he was initially reluctant to take this on board, perhaps personalizing the discussion in favour of his own version a little too much. I had objected to the undue prominence he had given to a throwaway sentence in a general Ancient History volume that Glanum might have been originally a Greek settlement. Subsequently, although not immediately, he withdrew this statement and used one of Ebel's books on Transalpine Gaul to rejig the article and resolve most of my misgivings. Like all articles, a more systematic summary of the main sources I mentioned would result in a more satisfactory article. I have cleaned up the article subsequently, introducing images of the remains of the Greek harbour in Marseille and an inscription in Gallo-Greek on a pre-Roman tablet. PHG has so far been more cooperative and I hope this will continue without the necessity for any further action. There are still fascinating details that can be included about sites like Glanum, where Greek elements mix freely with Celtic ones - Greek architecture was adopted but with Cetlic measuring units, Celtic deities were still worshipped, etc, etc. All of this is in the sources, waiting to be summarised.

So my advice to PHG is to be more careful in locating principal sources, to avoid those that don't treat a topic in depth, and to avoid going on the defensive when it is pointed out that he has not done so. There is no need to personalize discussions when editing articles that are completely mainstream. Mathsci (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have seen ample justification for the original topic ban and its extension. Now immediately after it has expired, I had to observe that the same old problems resurface virtually unchanged. In fairness, the one visible change is that he dresses his POV pushing (and even his personal attacks against Elonka) in very polite words now, where in the beginning he could be highly caustic. But that is really just sugar-coating on the actual problem. As strange as it seems, PHG appears entirely unable to view historical topics from a neutral distance, and to look at his favorite details in the light of a larger context. Over several years, all arguments by others have washed right off him without leaving any traces of insight. So while this "enforcement request" may come after the restrictions to enforce have actually lapsed, I still see an ongoing need for damage control. Whichever is the formally correct path to get there, I will support an indefinite extension of his topic ban. --Latebird (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Gatoclass appears to be right: the only enforceable remedy from this case has already expired, so there's nothing to enforce here. If problems persist, a new ArbCom decision (or other form of dispute resolution) is needed to resolve them. If no other admins disagree, I'll close this request as not actionable.  Sandstein  06:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

So closed.  Sandstein  06:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)