Taxus Baccata

User requesting enforcement

Athenean (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Purpose_of_Wikipedia, Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Decorum, Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Editorial_process

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

See related ANI thread for evidence and community discussion: Wikipedia:ANI#Propose_community_ban_of_User:Monshuai

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

1. [1] Warning by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs)
2. [2] Warning by Alison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

Indef block appropriate sanction under WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions rule, recommended topic-ban from Bulgaria-related articles (this section edited by Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

At the time of writing at ANI, there were some 10 users in favor of a ban, with only 2 against (one is User:Gligan, who is also Bulgarian, the other is User:Sulmues). Particularly telling is that Bulgarian users alone are 3-1 in favor of sanctions (Tourbillon, Tomatoman, Preslav for, Gilgan against). In response to his claims that he is always polite and has improved from his early days, here's two diffs from right before he became aware of the ANI report I filed [3] [4]. They speak for themselves. Athenean (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

He was notified of the ANI discussion on his talkpage [5], and has now been notified that it has moved to WP:AE [6]. Athenean (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must cover the allegations against me even whilst I am limited in what I am allowed to say. Future Perfect at Sunrise states that I support the claim that the Bulgars are Iranian (Aryan) and not Turkic. This is patently false! As I stated before, years ago I believed that all theories about the Bulgars' ancestry be included in the respective article, as there did not seem to be absolute consensus amongst academics regarding their origins. I was also under the impression that Dr. Peter Dobrev's (of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences) Iranian-Bulgar theory was properly referenced and peer reviewed. However after studying the issue I came to the conclusion that his theory was not supported by a majority of the academic community and therefore most of the evidence pointed to the (Hunno-Bulgar) Turkic theory being correct. In other words, through intense research and education I came to view the Iranian hypothesis that I previously supported as being what Wikipedians refer to as a fringe theory. Therefore I stopped supporting its inclusion and all my edits hence forth were in favour of the Hunno-Bulgar Turkic theory. I have also read about the theory proposed by Dr. Shin Yong-Ha that the Bulgars originally stem from the Korean Peninsula as the Bu-Yeo culture that then migrated to the region presently known as Greater Mongolia. It seems Dr. Shin's premise directly ties to the primary theories about the Bulgars' Altaic (Turkic) origins. In other words, there is growing evidence that the Bulgars stem from central regions of north-eastern Asia. In light of this I was the one that made the edit that the Bulgars are associated with the Turkic Huns and that they originate in the steppes of Mongolia. Further still, I added another constructive edit (removed consequently by another editor) that according to academics the Bulgars were comprised of loosely confederated steppe peoples of various backgrounds. Thus I have shown that with hard work and in-depth research of numerous reliable sources I can not only admit my past errors of supporting a fringe theory of Dr. Peter Dobrev, but more importantly fix those errors!

From the start I have stated that all modern nations are composites of multiple ancestral groups, and thus I have always been opposed to the racial purity theories propagated by many other editors. As an example of this, please look into my more recent edits about Bulgarians being an amalgamation of different ethnic groups. I have used the following sources to show this:

-Graboïs, A. (1980). The illustrated encyclopaedia of medieval civilization. New York: Mayflower Books., p. 148

-The South Slav journal: 43-44 vol.12 no.1-2 Spring-Summer 1989. (1989). The South Slav journal, 43-44 vol.12 no.1-2 Spring-Summer 1989. London: the journal., p. 4

-Ference, G. C. (1994). Chronology of 20th-century eastern European history. Detroit, MI: Gale Research., p. 61

Now before I continue, my understanding is that Sandstein has told me that in this arbitration case I cannot make direct name references to the edits made by other involved editors on pages where there was a relevant conflict. Thus I am not going to state their names or give links to their respective edits.

Continuing on, I tried to reason with the editor who tried to racially profile the First Bulgarian Empire by trying to explain to him that the state was multi-cultural and multi-ethnic. I told him it was inappropriate to do what he was doing. I showed this editor the sources (a few of which are provided above) and I stated in the talk page that "the role of the Bulgars was to incorporate various ethnic groups into their empire. These were the Slav and local Byzantine populations. Since you (the editor) insist that ethnicities be mentioned, then the relevant roles and amalgamation of the various ethnic groups in the formation of the state also must be mentioned." Indeed, this was disregarded by the editor and he continued to push the racial purity perspective. I then researched 20 sources and made them available to everyone. I included page numbers so that the referenced information could be easily found by interested parties. In doing so I tried to explain that it is disingenuous to racially profile a country as "pure" and that indeed there is a difference between Bulgars and Bulgarians. As I stated in the talk page, "the Bulgars were an ancient group, while the Bulgarians are a modern ethnicity that is a composite of several ethnic groups." Please ask yourselves whose comments are divisive, mine or that of the other editor(s).

Thus I repeat, I am using credible academic sources to show the contributions of multiple groups to the formation of a modern state. That is the opposite of what I am being accused of here. In addition, I am being lambasted for edits that I have made in the past, while my recent patience and use of sources in the talk pages is being avoided in the discussion herein. It is true that years ago I made questionable edits and even got involved in a revert war for which I was blocked for 24 hours (the only block I have received in 3.5 years of contributing in Wikipedia). I learned not to get involved in revert wars and therefore began using talk pages to present sources and intellectually debate various issues. A few months ago I was involved in another long talk page discussion. However after reading the sources provided by one of the editors who was countering my arguments, I realized that his premise was backed by better evidence than the one I had presented. Thus I thanked this editor for his impartiality in analyzing the said source and I left the discussion and article never to go back to it again. In summary, I have evolved as an editor, who both respects and presents credible sources and always uses talk pages. Unfortunately, the credible sources that I presented recently were disregarded by other involved editors (including my accuser) who made false statements about me not providing page numbers, the inadmissibility of tertiary sources like Britannica, etc...

There is much more that I want to discuss, however the ground rules laid by Sandstein do not allow me to compose a more detailed defence. I must also say that while I respect Sandstein for originally telling my accuser that I must be given a chance to speak in WP:ANI, I disagree with him for stopping that discussion soon after it began. My hands are tied there and also partially tied here. Despite his opinion on this matter and communicated intention of wanting to rule against me very soon, I believe he is a good administrator and I ask him to look at everything I have recently said and done (both in the WP:ANI discussion and in talk pages) to note that unlike some of the other editors involved in the recent conflicts I do not get involved in revert wars, I respect and propagate the multi-cultural heritage of all modern states, I use reliable sources to back my arguments and I maintain a polite tone as I never use foul language. Thank you for your time.--Monshuai (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Sandstein below, thank you for allowing me to continue.

I must ask what is non persuasive? You said you hadn't read everything I had stated due to time constraints. Have you read it now? If so, I am truly appreciative for you having taken the time to do that.

I have shown that I do not support the Iranian theory that I am accused of supporting. Also, I have never stated that Bulgarians descend only from Thracians. My edits and talk page statements (including efforts to research sources) show the counter opposite! What I have always maintained is that Bulgarians are an amalgamation of multiple groups, and it is unjust to only mention one of their ancestries to the exclusion of the rest of their heritage. In fact, I only support the premise that modern nations are multi-cultural and multi-ethnic. Have I said anything to the contrary?

Furthermore, the evidence presented against me shows my questionable statements from years ago, however it does not focus on the discussion that prompted my accuser to start this process against me. In other words, the user who requested enforcement is the one who is pushing the perspective that the First Bulgarian Empire was racially pure. I was trying (through a number of academic sources) to show him that this is absolutely false.

I stated that I do not get involved in revert warring. I've learned my lesson from 2 years ago. That is why I use the talk pages to present premises that are backed by sources. I have also shown that unlike countries such as Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq etc, the Bulgaria article lede does no include information about the territory's ancient heritage. Why is that? As you may know, modern Arabic nations are also comprised of multiple ancestral groups just as are modern Bulgarians. The question then is, why is it considered acceptable for some Wikipedia articles to include such information in the lede, while that same information is being suppressed by some users in other articles? Why is it OK for many modern ethnicities to cherish their multi-ethnic and multi-cultural heritage, while it is not OK for Bulgarians to do that?--Monshuai (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We probably shouldn't discuss about nationalities of the editors here. (well, at least if there's no obvious ganging up) man with one red shoe 01:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few ground rules, please. This is arbitration enforcement. The purpose of this board is to help a single administrator decide whether they should take enforcement action as requested. Community consensus for or against sanctions is neither required nor sought. There is no voting. Each contributing editor should limit themselves to a single statement in a separate section, as here. That statement should address no other question than whether or not the requested enforcement is warranted. Please do not discuss any other issues, such as the content issues underlying this request, or the conduct of users other than Monshuai (but you may make a separate request regarding them if warranted). There should be no threaded discussion. Disruptive conduct on this board is likely to result in rapid sanctions. Thank you.  Sandstein  23:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Monshuai above, you have had the opportunity to respond at length both in the ANI thread and here. I have considered your statements and find them nonpersuasive in face of the evidence presented. Nonetheless you are free to say whatever you believe is necessary in your defence in your section above. You may also reply to the comments of others in your own section. (By "contributing editor", I did not mean you as the person against whom enforcement is requested, sorry for being unclear.)  Sandstein  13:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the ANI thread, I support this request for sanctions. Monshuai is the paradigm case of a tendentious editor; all his edits are designed to push some national agenda of his, often agendas connected to fringe claims (such as the Aryan/non-Turkic background of the ancient Bulgars, or promotion of continuity between ancient Thracians and modern Bulgarians). This has gone on for too long, and has led to disruption on too many articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose: As I understand it, Arbitration Enforcement enforces a closed Arbitration Committee ruling. There was no ruling at the ANI, therefore, this is the wrong place to enforce a ruling that does not exist yet. In addition, the ruling (had it existed) should not be based on voting but on strength of arguments presented. Furthermore, Monshuai is being accused of not abiding by ARBMAC rules while defending himself in the ANI thread. I really don't find any grounds why he should not defend himself and why he should not have the right to do so in the ANI. Furthermore he fully respected the rules while he defended himself. For the rest, I have already stated my strong support for Monshuai as an excellent contributor in Wikipedia, an honest intellectual that challenges the status quo with arguments that undermine weak conclusions of which Wikipedia is plenty, and also a person that is much more polite that many users who were involved at the ANI. We need more contributors like Monshuai, not less. You can also see my many long comments in the ANI for what I think about this case and its members. In addition, I request that the additional comment on the voter's nationalities at the ANI as told by Athenean above (and as soon as that is done, also this sentence of mine) be striken out of the record, because they are irrelevant, in addition to being incorrect (e.g. preslav is not Bulgarian). Last but not least: Voting was 6-2 at the ANI, (not 10-2 like Athenean is claiming) and two of the "supports" were indeed "weak supports", whereas one "oppose" (mine) was "strong oppose". Kind regards to all! sulmues talk --Sulmues 14:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the indefinite ban proposed by Sandstein bellow is too harsh. If there is really a need for sanctions then a milder one should be applied giving the editor a chance to reform and edit in accordance with wikipedia guidelines.  Dr. Loosmark  23:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have conducted a somewhat limited review (given time constraints) of the very large amount of evidence submitted at [7]. In my opinion, the request has merit. There is extensive evidence of longtime and persistent editing in violation of WP:NPOV, with a view to glorifying Bulgarian ancient history, alleged racial heritage, accomplishments, etc; combined with aggressive WP:BATTLEGROUND-type conduct towards others in that topic area, notably much of this after the WP:ARBMAC warning. This is prototypical nationalist POV-pushing, which Wikipedia is not for (WP:ARBMAC#Purpose of Wikipedia). In my opinion, an indefinite ban from the topic of Bulgaria (broadly construed, including Bulgarians, Bulgarian ancient history, ancient peoples on modern-day Bulgarian territory etc.) is required to stop this. Unless other uninvolved admins disagree, I intend to impose such a ban in about a day under the authority of WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  22:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of objections by uninvolved admins, the topic ban is hereby imposed as described above.  Sandstein  22:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

User requesting enforcement

Theserialcomma (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

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

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

# [[8]] Tothwolf has restored an uncivil diff which states "Theserialcomma, you aren't fooling anyone here either. You already know the case was not filed against me, it was filed on my behalf by Jehochman against yourself, Miami33139 and JBsupreme due to your wikihounding, harassment, collusion, and gaming of the system." This is an assumption of bad faith of which Tothwolf has been specifically admonished for by arbcom, and has been restricted from making. per point 9 of the arbcom decision [[9]] "9) It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation. Concerns should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all." Tothwolf is in direct violation of this point by linking an old soapbox diff where he gets to rehash his old allegations of which arbcom has reviewed and rejected. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#Allegations_against_other_editors

1. [<Diff>] <Explanation>
2. [<Diff>] <Explanation>
3. ...

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

{{{Diffs of prior warnings}}}

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

block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

tothwolf has been specifically restricted by arbcom to not make allegations against other editors. his talk page comments, which i removed and he restored, are allegations that me, miami, and jbsupreme, are "wikihounding, harassment, collusion, and gaming of the system". these comments, and especially against these users, are exactly what tothwolf have been restricted from making. we are the users who filed evidence against tothwolf to arbcom, and arbcom restricted him because of our evidence. he is undermining/ignoring his restrictions.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATothwolf&action=historysubmit&diff=344695703&oldid=344622521

Related discussion --Tothwolf (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The crux of this seems to be a wikilink to a comment Tothwolf made back on Dec 13, 2009 here. The sentence the link appeared in, and was removed from, is the second sentence in Tothwolf's talk page intro paragraph:

When even ArbCom fails to stop disruptive behaviour, [1] the project is abjectly failing and it is time for me to move on and spend my time on another project. It is sad that the name of the ArbCom case was chosen as it was as that created an inherit bias and may have been a significant factor in it not being properly addressed. I for one hope that I'm completely wrong about Wikipedia failing and things somehow turn around, but that may just turn out to be wishful thinking. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't on first review see how this sentence, or that link, violate the arbcom finding.

Theserialcomma, please explain the specifics here: How does the link violate the finding. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you should visit the diff in question that tothwolf has linked [[10]] which links to [[11]]. tothwolf has been specifically restricted by arbcom to not make allegations against other editors. the diff that tothwolf has restored states "(the case against) yourself, Miami33139 and JBsupreme due to your wikihounding, harassment, collusion, and gaming of the system." claims that me, jbsupreme, and miami33139 are harassing, wikihounding, colluding, or gaming are in violations of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#Allegations_against_other_editors . tothwolf is not allowed to accuse or make allegations of wikihounding or harassing against anyone, let alone the people who filed evidence against him in his arbcom case. tothwolf is gaming the system to use his talk page as a soapbox to link to a diff which rehashes allegations that have been rejected by arbcom. this is a violation of his restrictions. no allegations. no casting aspersions. the violation is obvious. he cannot link to diffs that accuse specific editors of harassment and hounding and he cannot place the link on the top of his talk page. this is a violation of his restrictionTheserialcomma (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am significantly concerned that Theserialcomma acted in a baiting manner here, in several ways; see this warning on his talk page (now deleted by him, as is his right). Other uninvolved admin review is called for. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comment to which Theserialcomma is referring (the one including the diff at issue) is timestamped January 5, 2010. The Tothwolf case was closed on January 25, 2010. I cannot see how his comment violated a remedy that had barely been drafted at the time.

It seems that Theserialcomma is filing this AE request on the grounds that Tothwolf reverted this edit, in which Theserialcomma modified a comment Tothwolf made on his talk page, alleging a personal attack. First of all, it is hard to see how a mere inclusion of a diff can be construed as a personal attack. Secondly, it is concerning that Theserialcomma performed this edit out of the blue in what certainly seems like an attempt to bait Tothwolf into violating his restriction. He should knock it off, and this request should be closed with no action taken.

i can see how this appears like baiting. however, i've been asking tothwolf to remove this comment for a while now because it accuses multiple editors of harassment. the arbcom case closed and admonished and restricted tothwolf for false accusations, so i once again requested the diff be removed. he didn't remove it. i should have gone to ANI and let someone else remove it, or let teh community decide. i see how this looks like baiting, therefore. so i am withdrawing this request and i'm going to ask the community instead whether this is a violation of his restrictions. i don't want to bait him into violating, i think the diff is a violation in itself, and him restoring the allegations, regardless of who removed them, is the issue. however, i accept that this looks bad, and i am withdrawing the request Theserialcomma (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

User requesting enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

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

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

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

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

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.
5. Sandstein's comment here in reference to SD's reverts.

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

Indefinite Block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Supreme Deliciousness is aware [12]

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

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

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

User requesting enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#Brews_ohare_topic_banned

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

# [13], [14], commenting on a physics-related edit war/content dispute

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

Not applicable

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

Block, whatever length is required per the ARBCOM remedies

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blocked for a week. The request has merit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

User requesting enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

David Tombe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#David_Tombe_topic_banned, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#David_Tombe_restricted

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

# [15], [16], and [17], commenting on a physics-related edit war/content dispute, personal attacks, yadda yadda yadda

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

Not applicable

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

Block, whatever length is required per the ARBCOM remedies

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Re:MCPrice/Sandstein, upon further review, it is true that David hasn't commented directly on the content. While it's way too close to the fringes of his ban to my liking, especially with his accusations of cowardice, I won't push this. Feel free to close this (or whatever's routine on here). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 07:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User requesting enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

Arab Cowboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

[18]

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

[19][20][21]

He was banned from all articles and their associated talk pages within the scope of the Asmahan case for abuse of alternative accounts: [22] "If you violate this ban through either your main account or through sockpuppets, you will be blocked."

Omar Sharif is a part of the scope of the case as can be seen in its history and also has been mentioned in the arbitration case:[23] [24][25]

Omar Sharif discussion continued from its talkpage to the BLP noticeboard, so that would be an associated page. AC made several posts there in the Omar Sharif discussion: [26][27][28]

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

Not applicable

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

Block or ban.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[29]

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

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