Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 06:04, 20 April 2011 (→Tiamut: closed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 06:04, 20 April 2011 by Sandstein (talk | contribs) (→Tiamut: closed)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) "WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Misplaced Pages:AutoEd.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Shortcut

    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 informationShortcuts

    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:

    1. ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. 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, or is no longer an administrator; 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:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
    3. 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:

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

    1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. 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-en@wikimedia.org).
    Modifications by administrators

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

    1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
    2. 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:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
    341342343344345346

    Uruandimi

    No action taken at the moment. T. Canens (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning Uruandimi

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Sean.hoyland - talk 21:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Uruandimi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

    This report concerns the behavior of Uruandimi (who I think is also Special:Contributions/212.64.94.231 when logged out) at Palestinian refugee. In a nutshell, Uruandimi appears to be an inexperienced editor who does not understand what is required of him with respect to article content edits and talk page use.

    Things have gone downhill from there. There were a number of other problematic content edits (e.g. here and here) but the main problem seems to be the non-stop soapboxing and refusal to get the point on the talk page.

    See

    It's concerning that it's also at nl:Overleg:Palestijns vluchtelingenprobleem too. Both Carwil and I have tried to be patient, explain policy (repeatedly), ignore the occasional assumption of bad faith and soapboxing but we aren't really getting anywhere.

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

    The user has not been officially informed about the sanctions by an admin. Carwil and I have informed the user about the sanctions amongst other requirements on the article talk page (here) and at User talk:Uruandimi. It didn't help.

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

    Official notification of the sanctions, some kind of warning, whatever it takes.

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Response to Sandstein. I appreciate that the problem may be too much information but all I can say is that that's one of the main issues that needs to be addressed, Uruandimi filling the talk page up with his own partisan opinions. There isn't a content dispute because there are no sources, nothing, just Uruandimi trying to impose his personal views on Misplaced Pages. The links to subsections in the article are diffs in the sense that they represent the difference between when a subsection wasn't there and it's current state. Each subsection could be presented as actual diffs with dates and well-explained descriptions but the diffs would contain exactly the same information as the subsections. Each subsection could be further broken down into individual diffs representing each sentence written by Uruandimi in principal and I could provide a date and well-explained description for each one spelling out how it fails to comply with the policies and guidelines of the project. Many of those descriptions would be identical and they would form sets of descriptions that demonstrate a pattern. But what would be the point ? The pattern is far more obvious by simply reading what he has written on the talk page. It can be summarized as an inexperienced editor who doesn't understand what is required of him with respect to article content edits and talk page use in an article covered by the sanctions. I think the problem is obvious if you read what he writes, even from one subsection picked at random. It's possible that he has walked away but at the very least I think he needs official notification of the sanctions and some kind of gentle reminder from someone he might listen to that there are rules and they apply to him. It doesn't seem much to ask. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

    Response to EdJohnston, yes, Uruandimi is certainly being highly tendentious and is clearly trying to push his personal POV. I could post diffs of some problematic statements he's made e.g. referring to the term "Palestinian" as "an odious national identity." which he had the good sense to reword here although he chose to retain his description of the identity as a "discriminatory, utterly fraudulent denomination" which apparently he would like to "cleanse" from Misplaced Pages. Then there is this edit where he argues that we are commiting "history fraud and a hideous act of discrimination" by using the term Palestinian refugee in the same way reliable sources use the term. However, I'm not trying to get the guy into trouble for the things he has said or the unsourced content edits he's made. He is welcome to his opinions, I just think it would be better for the project if he stopped putting them on the talk page and making content edits based on them rather than reliable sources, read the policies/guidelines/sanctions and started to comply with them. I'm prepared to start removing his comments from the talk page if he continues this way but I would rather not. It's looking more like he's walked away so perhaps the issue has gone away and no action is necessary anyway...hard to tell. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Uruandimi

    Statement by Uruandimi

    The issue is about including the PLO Covenant, which calls for Israel's destruction, in a new section called "attitudes and policies of the Palestinian Arabs" on this page. By including the text of this government document, I would like to show that (1) the Palestinian Arab community officially nurtures a negative and hostile attitude towards Israel and the Jews; (2) that this attitude has been a matter of Palestinian Arab policy for a long time (the page on Yasser Arafat's predecessor Amin al-Husseini shows that this policy actually dates back to the '20's of last century); and (3) that this attitude and policy possibly caused such large numbers of Palestinian Arabs to become refugees in the first place.

    However, including the PLO Covenant would 'ruin' the current narrative on the Palestinian refugee page, whose authors seem to assume that Israel and the Jews initiated the expulsion or caused the flight of the Palestinian Arabs from their homes. Among other demands, Sean.hoyland and Carwil told me that for the PLO Covenant to apply to the Palestinian refugees, I must provide a reliable source stating that the Palestinian refugees are actually Palestinian Arabs. The sanction was announced just as I was about to suggest that the burden of proof is on them since in my opinion, the Palestinian refugees and the Palestinian Arabs are one and the same.

    If people want to continue to prevent a paragraph on the PLO attitudes and policies from being included on this page, they must quote a reliable source which says (1) that there is a difference between the Palestinian refugees and the Palestinian Arabs; (2) that the PLO Covenant does not apply to all the Palestinian Arabs; and (3) that the PLO was not recognized by the Arab League (1964) and 100 nations, the United Nations General Assembly (1974), the EU, Israel and the USA (1993) to solely represent all the Palestinian Arabs.

    With kind regards, --Uruandimi (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

    Comments by others about the request concerning Uruandimi

    I may comment more later, but for now I want to clarify one thing. Uruandimi alleges on this page, "Sean.hoyland and Carwil told me that for the PLO Covenant to apply to the Palestinian refugees, I must provide a reliable source stating that the Palestinian refugees are actually Palestinian Arabs." Sean and my comments are on the record at Talk:Palestinian refugees, but this understanding of our request lacks any basis I can remember. I did say, "If you want to discuss the political views of Palestinian refugees, most of whom cannot take part in PA elections, look for research on the topic, and don't quote documents written decades ago." This was one of many requests for reliable sources relating Palestinian refugees to the material that Uruandimi has posted from the PLO Covenant and Hamas documents. Neither Sean nor I have objected to Palestinian refugees being Palestinians or Palestinian Arabs (the term Uruandimi prefers). Instead, we have insisted that a chain of connection—Palestinian refugees to Palestinians to PLO/Hamas to PLO Charter/Hamas Covenant—is not sufficient to place contentious discussion of the Charter/Covenant on the Palestinian refugees page. At least not without reliable sources connecting Palestinian refugees to the Charter/Covenant.--Carwil (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

    I apologize for engaging here in some of the content dispute; my intent was instead to clarify something which I allegedly said (according to Uruandimi), but did not.
    More importantly, I'm interested in being able to work with Uruandimi on the basis of shared adherence to Misplaced Pages policies, the avoidance of polemics and POV-pushing, the inclusion of material on each page that is strictly relevant to the topic at hand, and consistent reliance on reliable sources.
    Sean and I have both tried to indicate these needs to Uruandimi, and have at various times tried to provide examples of what such behavior looks like. While we can continue to try, there is a sense that WP policies and practices are being willfully ignored or that our advice doesn't carry weight. For that reason, I think both an arbitration-related notification (to emphasize the seriousness of avoiding tendentious and repetitions editing) and further involvement from other editors (to clarify the meaning of WP policies for the page under discussion in particular) would be useful.
    While I might have waited longer before bringing this material here to AE, I was strongly motivated to share the arbitration notice, and only did not because I learned it must be shared by an uninvolved administator.--Carwil (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

    Result concerning Uruandimi

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

    There is only one actual diff in the evidence section, and I do not see how it reflects more than a content dispute, which AE does not decide. The links to whole discussions are not helpful; evidence should be submitted in the form of dated and well-explained diffs. Without objection, I intend to close this report as not warranting a warning.  Sandstein  19:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

    I find that Uruandimi's comment above seems to go against WP:BURDEN: "If people want to continue to prevent a paragraph on the PLO attitudes and policies from being included on this page, they must quote a reliable source which says (1) that there is a difference between the Palestinian refugees and the Palestinian Arabs;..." Should he modify his statements here in the AE to make clear that he understands our policy and will agree to follow it, I could imagine this report might be closed with no warning under ARBPIA. Sean.hoyland seems to be arguing that Uruandimi's argument at Talk:Palestinian refugee is ipso facto tendentious, and this is a plausible claim. It seems like Uruandimi wants to employ Palestinian refugee as a coatrack for things that could be treated in other articles. Uruandimi has attempted to insert his preferred material into the article seven times since April 5. Since there is no consensus yet to support these changes, this is starting to look like edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

    Closing as no action taken at the moment, since the editor reported has not been editing since April 10. If the situation recurs, feel free to re-report. T. Canens (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

    Tiamut

    Jaakobou warned not to make meritless requests.  Sandstein  06:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


    Request concerning Tiamut

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    User:Jaakobou on behalf of good order, despite not being involved/aware of the situation.
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Tiamut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    discretionary sanctions, more strictly, Further remedies
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. Revert
    2. Revert
    3. Revert


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

    All Israel-Arab related articles are under WP:1RR, as noted in the further remedies. Both Tiamut and RolandR are experienced editors with a knowledge of the arbitration and its remedies.

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

    A) A slap on the wrist sanction against Tiamut, and B) A review of possible tag team mentality and consideration to impose a "tag-team" warning and/or ban on the people involved in the recent edit-warring. e.g. two editors who have helped each other break policy in a blatant manner will be placed on a deferred sanction to not repeat such actions for a time period under discretion by reviewers of this submission.

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Refuses to accept anyone else's opinion on Talk page. Is editing against consensus.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
    Diff


    Discussion concerning Tiamut

    Statement by Tiamut

    Comments by others about the request concerning Tiamut

    Hmm, it is regrettable that Jaakobou is restoring a half-baked and demonstrably fraudulent filing of a now-blocked sock.

    Revert 1 was at 07:27, 18 April 2011. What is marked as "Revert 2" above isn't anything of the sort; it is a diff including "Revert 1" + a typo correction. What is marked "Revert 3", then, is actually #2. At it is time-stamped 10:34, 19 April 2011, that is outside of the 24h window.

    Yes, edit-warring can still be sanctioned even if the edits are not technically in violation of policy or restrictions, but as this case involves a now-exposed mini sockfarm, one of which was apparently the initial creator of the problematic material, this case should be dismissed. Jaakobou should be cautioned against blindly restoring Arbitration filings without first investigating exactly what is being restored, IMO. Tarc (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

    • Please calm down. Arbitration committee restrictions, such as WP:ARBPIA:General 1RR restriction, are a serious matter. If one culprit was blocked, it is more of a reason to review the behaviour of others as well. Jaakobou 20:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
      • I am the epitome of calm, but I do not revert AE filings willy-nilly. I note the "I've now noticed..." line below, and hindsight is 20/20 and all, but it might've been a good idea if you'd looked first before you leaped to revert me. Tarc (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Regardless if reverts were within 24 or 26 hours, you shouldn't have been deleting the thread to begin with. Mind you, deleting AE threads is a prerogative of the admins.
          Regards, Jaakobou 22:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Sigh. Normally I would not, but since it was filed by a blocked-shortly-thereafter-sock, and since it contained an obviously false accusation, I took the liberty of doing so. It is not your place to lecture me on what I should or should not do. I will also note that User talk:Tarc is a blue-link, and that perhaps in the future you simply, y'know, ask "hey, why did you do that?" Tarc (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

    Question: I'm very concerned regarding behavior where multiple editors edit-war and, on the face of it, this seems to be such a case. Am I missing something that it is immediately dismissed and labelled as "frivolous"? Jaakobou 21:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

    Question 2: Does everyone who post here get threatened for being blocked if the situation reported does not result in a block on someone? Why am I being threatened over a situation where clear edit warring has occurred? Jaakobou 21:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

    Side note: I've now noticed that the diffs overlap and that Tiamut has indeed made only 2 reverts rather than 3, and that they were made within 26 hours and not 24. I'm not sure this should be considered as good form, esp. considering 4 editors with 5 usernames were edit-warring, but it is not a literal violation of 1RR. Jaakobou 21:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC) + 21:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

    Result concerning Tiamut

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
    • This is a clearly frivolous request, exactly per Tarc. I invite Jaakobou to explain why they should not be sanctioned for filing a frivolous request, since by restoring the request they are taking full responsibility for it. T. Canens (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Agreed, and looking forward to Jaakobou's explanation.  Sandstein  20:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Suggest closing with no action and a warning to Jaakobou not to file clearly meritless requests. As Tarc says, there has been no 1RR violation, and it looks as though the only person recently edit-warring at Arab citizens of Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was the now-blocked AFolkSingersBeard (talk · contribs). The report's allegations concerning tag-teaming etc. are unsupported by any submitted evidence. If multiple editors are reverting changes by one editor, this does not necessarily mean tag-teaming, but more often simply that the one editor's changes do not have consensus.  Sandstein  05:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Sounds reasonable. Just to make it absolutely clear: when you restore an edit by a blocked sockpuppet, you take full responsibility for the edit. Therefore, before you restore it, you must verify that the evidence provided supports the alleged misconduct, and, at a minimum, that there is no obvious misrepresentations of fact. In this case, it is obvious, once one reviews the diffs, that there is simply no plausible argument for finding a 1RR violation. T. Canens (talk) 06:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)