Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:34, 28 January 2010

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342

517design

517design (talk · contribs) placed under ARBAA2 supervision.

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

Request concerning 517design

User requesting enforcement: Grandmaster 14:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: 517design (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

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

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): # [7] Warning by Grandmaster (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): revert limitation of 1 rv per week

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Nagorno-Karabakh is a highly sensitive article, and was a subject of a number of arbitration cases. The intro of that article is based on consensus, reached after many months of discussions, mediation, etc. 517design (talk · contribs) shows no intention of working towards consensus, and edit wars to have the article to reflect his vision of the situation. Despite my warning about recent arbitration case on the article's topic, and possible sanctions, he continues to edit war. He reverted the article many times within the last 3 days. According to Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement, Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. In the view of the above, I suggest that 517design is placed on a revert limitation, as despite the warning he continues to edit war and shows no intention of reaching consensus with other involved editors, or following the dispute resolution procedures. Grandmaster 14:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [8]

Discussion concerning 517design

Statement by 517design

Comments by others about the request concerning 517design

Once again the lamentable failings of Wikipedia administrators rear their ugly heads. Long ago, rather than properly address the issue, they concocted the disgraceful AA2 sanctions. And how they love those sanctions, it gives them the excuse to swing their tiny little banhammers around like a baby with its toys. The result is that anyone who regularly edits articles related to the sanctions will INEVITABLY find themselves under AA2 sanctions and then be severely limited in their editing. Parallel to this, complete newcomers to the subject (or to Wikipedia) can come and make as many reverts and additions as they like - good or bad, but all sanction free. This is the core reason behind Grandmaster's complaint. It is not that the edits by 517design are disruptive, it is that 517design needs to be put on the same level as all other editors working on AA2 related articles. Meanwhile, the same old problems continue, but at a rate of 1 revert a week rather than 3 a day, and articles are always at risk of drive-by anonymous edits that regular editors can't revert because they would be breaking sanctions. Administrators think that is a good solution. What I think of administrators can't be said here. Meowy 17:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning 517design

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

Meowy, here you can download the complete database of all of Wikipedia. If the administration of this site is not to your liking, you are free to set up, run and administer your own site. While you chose to remain here, please limit yourself to on-topic comments about the question in hand at these requests. henrik•talk 18:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was going to wait until 517design had a chance to reply here, but given this comment on the talk page of the affected article, I think I'm just going to go ahead and conclude this report. 517design is hereby placed on civility supervision, supervised editing, and revert limitation pursuant to the remedies of the above-linked arbitration case. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notified and logged. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neftchi

Neftchi (talk · contribs) blocked for 72 hours and required to provide rationale on talk page when reverting (except for blatant vandalism).
Meowy (talk · contribs) indefinitely banned from commenting on any Armenia or Azerbaijan arbitration enforcement request (on any page) not related to him.

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

Request concerning Neftchi

User requesting enforcement: Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: WP:ARBAA2

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: 1. [9], First revert of controversial material; 2. [10], second revert, made within 24 hours of the above, in violation of his ArbCom restriction
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): [11] Warning by Moreschi (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Left to the discretion of administrator (block, along with tighter restrictions perhaps?)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: It's probably inconsequential that I say this, but Neftchi's edits are usually characterized by the "hitting and running" of articles. His comment that there has been no talk on the article in question rings hollow when he completely refrains from doing so on any article. I feel that far more tighter restrictions be imposed so that he is encouraged to use the talk page to resolve disputes, rather than clicking on the revert button to undo whatever he dislikes.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[12]

Discussion concerning Neftchi

Statement by Neftchi

I undid the removal of a large section of sourced material from the article, which was not discussed and agreed at talk, and such removal is pretty much the same thing as vandalism. See here for the removal by MarshallBagramyan. I just restored sourced material that was removed without any discussion or consensus, and invited those who removed it to discuss it at talk first. Admins should not encourage such POV edits as removal of large chunks of text without consensus. Neftchi (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does not constitute the "same thing as vandalism" by your simply saying so. The sources that are being used in that section are highly parisan and clearly unreliable. At least two established users (Meowy and myself) have expressed our reservations on the inclusion of that same material on other articles in Wikipedia. You, on the other hand, have yet to offer counter-arguments with perhaps the exception of crying "vandalism". You were explicitly warned by Moreschi to refrain from making drive-by-reverts and no sooner had I removed the contentious material, you reverted me, in clear violation of your 1RR (per 24hr) parole.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Neftchi

This request seems odd amid traditional edit-ninja pattern, practised by several Armenian users. The article history of Azerbaijani culture is one of the examples when a new Armenian editor appears out of the blue to revert another without reply at talk. I don't think this particular request is the best way to settle such disagreements. Brand[t] 08:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The revert restriction was imposed for a reason - precisely to curtail and prevent the edit wars that you so fervently decry.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of material can't properly be addressed. The unique selling point of Wikipedia is its usefulness in the dissemination of lies and propaganda, and those that run Wikipedia seem happy for that to remain the case. A whole publishing and PR industry is being built to use Wikipedia for that purpose. For this particular example, as long as Armenians at state level continue with their total disregard for anything approaching media management (excusing their inactivity by saying that these sort of Azerbiajani lies are such obvious lies that they can be ignored), and as long as all Armenian organisations are interested only in producing their same, tired old "by Armenians for Armenians" responses, this particular chunk of lies and propaganda is going to be difficult to counter. But I'll try. So much that is done on Wikipedia is done for purely personal reasons - like the satisfaction that is gained through kicking other editors where it hurts them the most. Time to put on my heaviest pair of kicking boots. Meowy 16:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's now two unhelpful, aggressive and battleground-like WP:AE statements in one day from Meowy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a user with an unfortunately long topic-related block log. I've had enough. Under the authority of WP:ARBAA2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement Meowy is hereby indefinitely banned from commenting on any arbitration enforcement request (on any page) related to Armenia or Azerbaijan where he is not either the requesting editor or the subject of the request. Sandstein 19:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Neftchi

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

Reverting without discussion is one of the more destructive things one can do to the collaborative spirit needed to successfully build articles, especially in areas of nationalistic or ethnic strife. All recent editors have shown a lack of collaborative spirit, using terms like "propaganda" "obnoxious" and "lies" in edit summaries of Azerbaijani culture, while the talk page has astoundingly had just one single edit since June, made after this request was posted. I hope all parties will reconsider their own behavior.

However, this is a clear violation of the revert restriction imposed by Moreschi, and Neftchi's statement does not give a convincing rationale why this violation was necessary. Per Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement I have suspended Neftchi's editing privileges for 72 hours. Also, Neftchi is for the duration of the revert restriction required to post a note on the talk page explaining his rationale whenever he reverts any article in the subject area, excepting cases of blatant vandalism. henrik•talk 21:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ashill55

Ashill55 (talk · contribs) is a new user and should be reached out to rather than templated. No enforcement actions necessary at this time.

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

Request concerning Ashill55

User requesting enforcement: O Fenian (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Ashill55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final remedies for AE case

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

[13] First revert
[14] Second revert in less than 24 hours, thus a violation of 1RR
[15] Third Revert.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): # [16] Warning by O Fenian (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Unsure

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Both edits are a revert to a wording the same editor has previously added, ie "Warnings never reached" which is not what the source says

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [17]

Discussion concerning Ashill55

The same editor was editing as 88.108.156.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) prior to creating an account. The editor is a single purpose account dedicated to inserting the same unsourced wording that is seemingly contradicted by the reliable source already cited in the article, and edit warring to retain it. I am not interested which methods administrators use to deal with this matter, providing the editor stops edit warring to add unsourced content. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ashill55

Comments by others about the request concerning Ashill55

Result concerning Ashill55

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

This appears to be a new user, please try explaining the issue to him before coming here. New users are not expected to immediately understand all our policies and procedures. A personalized message is usually more successful than posting templates (especially multiple copies of the same template). henrik•talk 15:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jaakobou

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

Request concerning Jaakobou

User requesting enforcement: Tiamut^talk 17:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: Jaakobou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles, specifically the sections on Editors reminded and Editors Counseled.

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

[18] In this edit to Muhammad al-Durrah incident, Jaakobou reverts additions I was in the process of discussing with another editor on the talk page. Besides the summary revert, it was the edit summary I found problematic ("undo POV and muqawama apologetics.") Why?
I asked Jaakobou not to use the word so frequently three weeks ago here. In this extended discussion on his talk page, he agreed not to. Following his edit cited above, and given his earlier pledge, I ask him if he is trying to provoke me [19]. I also ask him to self-revert given that he has altered unrelated content. He refuses to do so and accuses me of provoking him [20]. To which I respond [21].
[22] Then, in this edit to his talk page, he accuses me of provoking him by "pushing the attacking Jews is legitimate "unrest"[23] angle" (?!?). Both another editor (RomaC [24]) and myself [25] take issue with that characterization and ask him to strike. He does not, instead choosing to slightly modify his comment, justifying his personal attack by further misrepresenting my position and the article content under discussion. [26].
[27] On the Muhammad al-Durrah incident talk page, he reuses the exact phrase that prompted me to go to his talk page in the first place, writing, "You've been editing wikipedia for long enough learn what balance is and these muqawama apologetics are inexcusable."
[28] He then goes to the article Avigdor Lieberman. Citing a "soft talkpage consensus and merit-less note by Tiamut", he restores a WP:SYNTH addition that was earlier objected to by at least two other editors besides me, threatening to restart an edit war that has since abated. This singular focus on me, when I hadn't commented or edited there since December 31st (and when I wasn't the last to comment either), also comes off as WP:Hounding, which a review of some of the AE requests filed will show is an issue that has been raised previously (under the name "stalking" or "unhealthy obsession").
[29] His talk page comment explaning his edit describes Hamas as an "anti-semitic muqawama group".

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

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

A couple of other related threads (2009):

10.2009: Wikiquette alert filed by George where uninvolved commentators suggested opening an RfC to deal with racist commentary
12.2009: [30] WP:AN complaint by Jaakobou against SlimVirgin that turned into a discussion of whether or not he should be community banned

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Cptnono, I started User:Tiamut/muqawama after discussions with Jaakobou made it clear that it was being misconceived as solely a synonym for terrorism. It actually covers a wide spectrum of resistance actions, as you can read there (its still a work in progress though). As for the res of your comment, I would once again like to remind you to stop using my user page (or identity) as evidence of bad faith on my part, as you have in the past [31].

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [32]

Discussion concerning Jaakobou

Statement by Jaakobou

For starters, I couldn't have hounded Tiamut to Muhammad al-Durrah incident, where I've contributed over 160 edits while she contributed less than 15. The same goes for the Israeli politician (Avigdor Lieberman) page where I've made about 150 edits while her contributions amount to 6; mostly reverts on the Hamas descriptive.[33][34][35]

I have found Tiamut to be disruptive and confrontational on multiple Israel-related articles recently. If it were this anti-Zionist/Israel commentary on the Israel talkpage here, or a pro-Hamas/Hezbollah (antisemitic organizations[36][37][38]) attitude on talkpages[39] and article space (see above) and her userpage.[40][41]

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

"This is the third time I've filed an AE complaint regarding his behaviour, but the first request was acted upon and the second resulted in a warning"[42]

In the second case she filed, there were 5 admins objecting any action, supporting that my conduct was well within proper etiquette and PhilKnight's quick move to ignore them and file a warning to me was just as quickly noted as a faulty assessment of the case by two other admins.[43][44] Similar misrepresentations occur too often whenever Tiamut mentions me which makes for a very uncomfortable feeling.

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

This complaint seems to be about a wiki-hounding and harassment claims over two articles Tiamut barely touched and a common Palestinian terminology used in reference to content discussions. The complaint uses a big list of events from as far as 2 years ago, most of which between me and banned editors -- friends of Tiamut. This list neglects samples where Tiamut was warned by 2 uninvolved admins for improper behavior[45] and her being chastised by 2 other high profile contributors (both are admins as well) for poor talkpage conduct.[46][47] Putting these together, I feel some form of breach of the final decision had occurred.

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

Comments by others about the request concerning Jaakobou

Comment by Sandstein

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Thomasbraun321

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

Comment by Ynhockey

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

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

But its also quite possible that my complaint of being hounded by him, for being a Palestinian and not sharing his POV, is a legitimate one. If you look at the AE complaints filed by El C and by me and review the Wikiquette alert, I think you will see that there is evidence for a pattern of harassment characterized by bigoted talk page commentary that is designed to push buttons.
— User:Tiamut, [48]

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

Comment by Henrik

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

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

Comment by Jiujitsuguy

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

Comment by Pantherskin

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

Comment by Okedem

I've seen nothing in the diffs that breaks any rules. Jaakobou sometimes uses strong language, but often that cannot be avoided. I find Tiamut's sixth claim particularly amusing (regarding [49]); is Tiamut here to defend Hamas' honor? The people who so often sent suicide bombers into buses and restaurants? This organization's charter cites the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and in article seven, clearly calls for the murder of all Jews ("[...]the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."). Are we supposed to call them "freedom fighters" or something? I think that claim puts Tiamut's complaint in the proper light. okedem (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment by Cptnono

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

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

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

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

?

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

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

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

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

Comment by FormerIP

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

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

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

@okedem and cptnono. Yes, clearly the word itself is widely used in the context of Palestinian politics. However, it also seems to be used in English to describe a certain type of mindset [50]. I may be wrong, but it doesn't seem widely used to denote a factional tendancy or similar except when it is used in English, in which sense it seems to be used mainly in sources that can broadly be described as "anti-Palestinian". So, it looks to me similar to "Jihadi" or "Zionist" (as suggested above) - capable of being applied neutrally, but also capable of being derisory. --FormerIP (talk) 12:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gatoclass

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

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

Result concerning Jaakobou

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

Sulmues

Sulmues (block log) blocked for 1 week and 3-month civility suspension reset; will end on April 26, 2010.
Athenean (talk · contribs) is encouraged to limit interaction with Sulmues.

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

Request concerning Sulmues

User requesting enforcement: Athenean (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: WP:ARBMAC#Principles#Decorum

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

Back in December, this user was placed under the following 3 month civility supervision [51] by User:Moreschi for outbursts such as these [52] [53] [54]. Since then, he has continued posting trolling comments such as these [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] (the "Trojan Horse" is a reference to Greek editors), calling me a vandal [73], while here [74] he is making the false accusation that Albania had to be protected because of "vandalism" on my part, when in fact it was *I* who requested semi-protection [75] because the article was plagued by IPs. Here is talking smack [76] [77] [78] [79] in Albanian with the indef-blocked User:Lceliku (translation available on Google Translate).

Particularly odious is his restoration of this TOV by User:Lceliku [80] with the mendacious excuse that the guy "welcomed" me and I "banned" him. When I became irate [81] [82] over this, his response was to mock me [83] [84].

Lately, he is also now falsely accusing me of breaking 3RR [85] [86] when in fact I did no such thing.

Here he is trying to disrupt an SPI I have filed [87] [88] by somehow implying that I'm anti-Albanian and that therefore the checkuser should take this into account.

The final straw, however, was that even though Moreschi explicitly warned him that further accusations of vandalism against me would constitute a breach of his revert parole and hence would be blockable [89], he has continued to do so [90] [91]. There is a clear pattern here of incivility, bad faith assumptions, trolling, and personal attacks since he has been put on civility parole. This is intolerable and has got to stop. I originally posted at ANI but was told by Sandstein to come here. Athenean (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): # [92] Warning by Moreschi (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): 1 week block per the terms of his civility parole [93].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Even after I posted at ANI and he should have gotten the hint to back off, now he is continuing with this [94]. I mean, he never misses a chance to make a dig at me even when welcoming a new user . This is unbelievable. Athenean (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [95]

Discussion concerning Sulmues

Statement by Sulmues

Comments by others about the request concerning Sulmues

Just to save time I'll copy from what I said on AN/I after seeing this: I have to admit looking at all of the diffs (and digging through contributions for quite a while) that it looks like both of you have been a little hot headed and it may be better served for you guys to just back away from each other. Sulmues may be throwing words like vandal around a bit loosely but I can't deny that it does appear you are following him around a bit as well (just recently accusing him of being a banned user here) and taking barnstars off of his userpage is a bit much. Too much wikilawyering is not good in the longrun.

While as Athenean said he was not under civility warning and Sulmues was I have to admit that looking at everything I'm kind of shocked they both weren't under one. There is no doubt that Sulmues has been a bit hot headed but there the fact that he is under a warning does not give someone the right to fan the flames and try to get a response and then cry foul if you get one. In many ways the new user welcome you just linked does not seem far from the mark. If it is decided that Sulmues needs a short block because of the previous warning I can understand that but to be honest I think what is most needed is a strong warning for both editors to back away from each other and they should both be held accountable when they do not. While Athenean has been quick to claim he is being harassed by Sulmues it strongly appears that it goes both ways and very well may be that Athenean is doing more. I'll repeat what I said when this was only at AN/I why don't you both sit down. James (T|C) 19:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it wasn't me who fanned the flames to get a reaction. This whole started when I undid [96] this series of POV edits by Sulmues using bogus sourcing [97] [98] [99] (he replaced a perfectly good source with one source that doesn't have an ISBN or page number, and another one that is a website, not to mention all the stuff about "protecting their country from greek invadors"). He then went to Moreschi saying that I am "continuously" vandalizing articles, not once, but twice, and even though he was explicitly warned by Moreschi that further accusations of vandalism would result in a block. At that point I had had enough and decided to post on ANI. Granted, the barnstar thing was a bit silly on my part, but I was incensed at that moment. Now that I have calmed down, I see that it was wrong-headed of me. But that's not what this is about, the barnstar thing is tangential. It's about him calling me a vandal and accusing me of being tendentious on Albania-related topics, which I very much resent. First, my edits to articles such as Epirus (region) and Himare (and many others) have greatly improved articles that were a cluttered ungrammatical mess before I edited them. I invite anyone to look at them and tell me. Second, as my contribs log shows, I edit a great variety of articles, not just Albania related ones. In the last few days alone, I edited History of democracy, List of cities by time of continuous habitation, Anatolia, Turks of Western Thrace, Greeks in Turkey, Kabylie, Berber people, Heliocentrism, just to name a few off the top of my head. Sulmues' accusations are mud-slinging designed to inflame the atmosphere, and it seems he has succeeded. If anyone is fanning the flames to get a reaction, it is him, and this is the reaction. Athenean (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What really impressed me in User:Sulmues is when he failed to promote his nationalistic agenda on several articles (Evangelis Zappas, Souliotes, Moscopole etc) due to lack of arguments and sources, he initiated a policy of wp:npas violations and wp:incivility in discussion pages, as a last resort. Having a great desire to battle with this 'national injustice' his userpage became a field of propaganda accusing contributors of beeing paid by enemy governments [100] on the same time he declared that 'the Greek-Serbian mafia blocked a number of ex Albanian contributors' [101] [102] [103]. In general, according to him, wikipedia hides the truth about his country [104].

The most annoying fact is that he awarded User:Lceliku [105], after he posted this unacceptable comment [106].Alexikoua (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover his edit count [107], on talk pages is mainly focused on irredentism views (Albanian_National_Army, Greater_Albania, Moscopole, Souliotes, Pelasgians, John_Kukuzelis-edit warred with Bulgarian contributors.) The same 'battlefields' of some ex- Albanian contibutors (now blocked).Alexikoua (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Sulmues

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

Sulmues (block log) blocked for 1 week for multiple breaches of decorum in direct contravention of the civility suspension which he was placed under by Moreschi.
Athenean (talk · contribs) is encouraged to limit interaction with Sulmues as much as possible. I recommend that if civility is breached by Sulmues that you do not respond at all, but instead simply come here and file an enforcement request.

Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to specifically mention it, but Sulmues' block resets his 3-month civility suspension which will now end on April 26, 2010. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notified and logged. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 193: / Line 193: @@
 For starters, I couldn't have hounded Tiamut to [[Muhammad al-Durrah incident]], where I've contributed over 160 edits while she contributed less than 15. The same goes for the Israeli politician ([[Avigdor Lieberman]]) page where I've made about 150 edits while her contributions amount to 6; mostly reverts on the Hamas descriptive.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avigdor_Lieberman&oldid=334944245&diff=prev][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avigdor_Lieberman&oldid=335165745&diff=prev][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avigdor_Lieberman&oldid=339940317&diff=prev]
-I have found Tiamut to be disruptive and confrontational on multiple Israel-related articles recently. If it were anti-zionist jeering on the Israel talkpage [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel&diff=prev&oldid=337819033 here], or a pro-Hamas/Hezbollah (antisemitic[http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,553724,00.html][http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/international/europe/12france.html?_r=1][http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/14/international/europe/14france.html] organizations) attitude on talkpages[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAvigdor_Lieberman&action=historysubmit&diff=334895827&oldid=334894765] and article space (see above) and her userpage.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tiamut/Userpage/poem&diff=prev&oldid=182672290][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Tiamut/Userpage/poem]
+I have found Tiamut to be disruptive and confrontational on multiple Israel-related articles recently. If it were this anti-Zionist/Israel commentary on the Israel talkpage [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel&diff=prev&oldid=337819033 here], or a pro-Hamas/Hezbollah (antisemitic organizations[http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,553724,00.html][http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/international/europe/12france.html?_r=1][http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/14/international/europe/14france.html]) attitude on talkpages[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAvigdor_Lieberman&action=historysubmit&diff=334895827&oldid=334894765] and article space (see above) and her userpage.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tiamut/Userpage/poem&diff=prev&oldid=182672290][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Tiamut/Userpage/poem]
 Also, Tiamut is making a very serious misrepresentation here on arbitration enforcement by neglecting to mention vital information.
 * "This is the third time I've filed an AE complaint regarding his behaviour, but the first request was acted upon and the second resulted in a warning"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=next&oldid=339975004]
-In the second case she filed, there were 5 admins objecting any action, supporting that my conduct was well within proper etiquette and PhilKnight's quick move to ignore them and file a warning to me was just as quickly noted as a faulty assessment of the case by two other admins.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJaakobou&action=historysubmit&diff=252247642&oldid=252247024][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJaakobou&action=historysubmit&diff=253414395&oldid=253403013] Is this a smear tactic or an honest mistake? That is not my place to determine.
+In the second case she filed, there were 5 admins objecting any action, supporting that my conduct was well within proper etiquette and PhilKnight's quick move to ignore them and file a warning to me was just as quickly noted as a faulty assessment of the case by two other admins.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJaakobou&action=historysubmit&diff=252247642&oldid=252247024][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJaakobou&action=historysubmit&diff=253414395&oldid=253403013] Similar misrepresentations occur too often whenever Tiamut mentions me which makes for a very uncomfortable feeling.
+Tiamut is also erroneous in her understanding of Arabic. 'Muqawama' is a culture of popular sentiments and not "actions" as she states [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&action=historysubmit&diff=340358806&oldid=340358145 here]. Knowing the full breadth of cultural meaning behind the term, I do not use is as a synonym for terrorism. It is an extremely common term and there's nothing to take offense from its usage. My use of the word "apologetics" in reference to an edit I was in strong disagreement with was probably not optimal though. Tiamut inserted an inherently improper euphemism - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_al-Durrah_incident&diff=prev&oldid=339697764 here 1][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_al-Durrah_incident&diff=prev&oldid=339696045 2] - for assaults made on Jews in Israel by Palestinians ([[Second Intifada]]) and I was trying to make a clear and precise note of the issue without writing endlessly about it.
-This complaint and the misdirection within are, I believe to be, in contrast of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Final_decision Final decision].
+This complaint seems to be about a wiki-hounding and harassment claims over two articles Tiamut barely touched and a common Palestinian terminology used in reference to content discussions. The complaint uses a big list of events from as far as 2 years ago, most of which between me and banned editors -- friends of Tiamut. This list neglects samples where Tiamut was warned by 2 uninvolved admins for improper behavior[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATiamut&diff=311550197&oldid=311461027] and her being chastised by 2 other high profile contributors (both are admins as well) for poor talkpage conduct.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIsrael&action=historysubmit&diff=337820350&oldid=337819629][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABattle_of_Jenin%2FArchive_9&diff=310597527&oldid=310591316] Putting these together, I feel some form of breach of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Final_decision final decision] had occurred.
+Comment regarding Gatoclass' notes:<br>
+Gatoclass interprets bad faith not just with me but also with Cptonio as can be seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&action=historysubmit&diff=340342453&oldid=340339867 here]. The keeping of close contacts between Tiamut and Gatoclass can be observed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gatoclass&diff=prev&oldid=335896226 here]. Gatoclass, who shares the same POV as Tiamut, made superficial observation into my comments. Defending a friend is a valiant act and I think everyone should have friends like you, Gatoclass, but there is no history of harassment here. Certainly not on articles Tiamut has barely touched and almost exclusively to revert me, at that.
 ====Comments by others about the request concerning Jaakobou ====
@@ Line 256: / Line 261: @@
 ::Tiamut has an infobox on her userpage supporting violent resistance and a sandbox creating an article based on the term. "muqawama apologetics" was inappropriate but I can't say I blame him for feeling that way. I think FormerIP is right on. It can come across offensive and it is easy enough to not use it. The same should go for those that use Zionist in a way that may be perceived as derogatory but that strays a little to far off topic for here.
 ::The other diffs still don't jump out at me as being actionable.[[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk:Cptnono|talk]]) 14:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
+:::@Gatoclass: Several people have expressed concerns over the user page recently. It doesn't matter why she has it the way she does it matters that it encourages a battlefield mentality amongst users. That is something for a another AE. I was simply pointing out that Jaakobou has reason to think she is apologetic to the cause. After learning more trough my AE, I understand that it is not OK to make such a charge but I honestly don't see how any objective person can fault him to the extent Tiamut is attempting here.[[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk:Cptnono|talk]]) 00:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 =====Comment by FormerIP=====