User talk:Arcticocean

"First, you know, a new theory is attacked as absurd. Then it is admitted to be true, but obvious and insignificant. Finally it is seen to be so important that its adversaries claim they themselves discovered it." Where this user currently is, the time is 04:10, Saturday 15 June 2024. This is the user talk page for AGK. You can also send this user an internal email. I have taken 68,260 actions on Wikipedia: 54,362 edits, 3,301 deletions, 2,661 blocks, and 7,936 protections. You are welcome to reverse any of them, except if my reason mentioned "checkuser", "arbitration", or "oversight".

Topic ban

regarding the topic ban there is a small part of an article I have been working on User:Nableezy/Al-Azhar mosque that mentions the head of the mosque issuing a fatwa calling for war in 1967 against Israeli and another fatwa calling for peace in the late 70s. Id like to finish that article up and those are the only sentences dealing with the I/P area in the article. Can I finish that or not? nableezy - 21:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• I guess there wouldn't be a problem with that. I'll allow you one edit. Regards, AGK 21:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Slightly confused, I am allowed one more edit to that page? Or one more edit to that page regarding the conflict? Would the rest of that page be covered in the topic ban because of the 30 or so words related to it? nableezy - 22:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• You are allowed to make that edit, which I will count as exempted from the topic ban. (It needs to be exempted because, to answer your second question, yes, it does fall under the topic ban.) Is that more clear? AGK 22:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• The words are more clear but I cannot understand the judgment. I can't see how an article about a mosque founded in the 900s in Cairo, an article currently at 60kB, would as a whole fall under the topic ban because of two sentences that barely touch on the conflict. If I were to remove those two sentences would I then be free to edit the article? Looking at how topic bans have been enacted, for example the Judea and Samaria case, articles that are for the most part outside of the area but include sections touching on it are outside of the topic ban except for the section of the article related to the conflict. I cant understand how that article would fall under the topic of "I/P conflict broadly interpretation" no matter how broad the interpretation. Are you saying I am not allowed to add anything to the architectural history or the history while Egypt was under the rule of the Ottomans because of two sentences that touch on the conflict? nableezy - 23:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• I was going on your definition of whether the article was within the scope of the topic ban, but as you're now telling me that the article actually doesn't relate to the topic areas in question, I would consider you free to edit. I think you have to use your own discretion in evaluating whether something is affected by the topic ban; I don't want to be specific or issue case-by-case evaluations (which are conducive to wikilawyering). AGK 23:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that clears it up (thought you might have looked at the article before answering). Also, since I am free to edit, could you please delete Al-Azhar Mosque so I can move my draft over it? nableezy - 23:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course I looked at the article; I simply gave up trying to evaluate the scope of every sentence because I'm not familiar with the subject area. And I'd direct you to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers in answer to your question. AGK 23:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This was a shockingly bad decision on your part, AGK. Even if one were to accept your claim that Nableezy's presence at Gaza War has been disruptive (which I and many others do not), you might have considered a more circumscribed ban, limiting him from editing that page only for the next four months. As it is, all you have accomplished is to prevent an excellent and informed contributor from contributing to an area which needs more informed editors who have the ability to get along with most editors from all sides of the debate. Perhaps you might reconsider your decision? Tiamut^talk 08:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

And one can't help but noticing that other editors whose conduct on I-P pages was raised recently at AE seem to have gotten off rather more lightly. Eg User:Shuki - who it has to be said has led something of a charmed life when one compares what they get up to with what sanctions have ever hit them - whose section simply lapsed without action. User:Cptnono, whose sins included calling another editor a "dirty liar" on at least one occasion on their talk page and whose case was closed by your good self, was simply given a restriction requiring them not to comment on contributors on talk pages, something you would have thought was covered anyway by existing guidelines that apply to everyone already. As far as I can tell on the Gaza War page, Nableezy was restoring sourced information that several other editors were removing. There were issues on all sides there, but of course he looked worse in that light, as you often do when you're one against a group of like-minded editors who've formed a bloc - especially when that group then descends on WP:AE to really twist the knife in. --Nickhh (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you both for your comments. I'm sorry that you feel that the sanction was too harsh, but, having reconsidered it, I don't agree.

  Editors who cannot helpfully contribute (and no, thirteen reversions about the same sentence is not by any definition helpful) to one article typically cannot contribute to most in that subject area. When such an editor is brought to AE, it is quite ordinary for them to simply be told to stay away from that topic area; that is what, in placing this sanction, I have done. Given that there is such a well-founded basis for this sanction, there is no reason why I should allow Nableezy another chance… Comments on this note, rather than along the (in this case, not very valid) lines of "But he didn't do much wrong" and "The others were worse", would be welcome.

  In response to the suggestions that Nableezy is the less damaging of many disruptive influences on the article, I say that that does not in itself excuse his misconduct. If another editor is misbehaving, then bring them to AE, and action will be taken that is appropriate to the disruptiveness of their contributions. Where I handle the complaint, I certainly will have little sympathy. AGK 09:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I'm sorry however that it does not address the main point I raised at AE, which is that Nableezy had already committed himself to not editing the Gaza War article. Clearly, he acknowledged that his actions were not contributing to a resolution of the issues there. That willingness to unilaterally disengage should be commended, and not met with further punishments based on your unproven belief that he will be disruptive elsewhere. Again, sanctions are meant to be preventative, and not punitive. Please think again about what message you are sending to him and other editors. It does come off as a terrible double standard. Especially when others who were brought to the noticeboards just before him failed to admit any wrongdoing and got away scot free. Tiamut^talk 10:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

And one more thing AGK, Nableezy was not edit-warring himself. The wrongdoing of the editor who filed the complaint, who was removing the sentence in question (actually that constituting the only edits he made to the page), was not even addressed in your sanction. Whereas Nableezy pursued all dispute resolution options, all Stellarkid did was to remove the sentence over and over again. Please do read over the diffs again particularly those presented by Nableezy. There is a double standard in the decision itself, and not just as compared to other cases. Tiamut^talk 11:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm here to say that I also think this was a bad decision. It was especially wrong to extend the ban to all IP related articles, for which you gave no reason whatever. What is your justification for that? And why have you taken no action (apologies if I missed it) against the pov-pushers who endlessly insisted that the lead paragraph of Gaza war only contain the Israeli perspective? The lesson you seem to be giving is that perpetual pov-pushing is a good tactic since anyone who patiently opposes it will be banned eventually. Zero^talk 11:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi AGK, I know nothing about the circumstances that led to the topic ban, but based on my experience of him, Nableezy is an editor who does his best to edit within the policies and to see things from both perspectives. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm only popping in for a few moments to read my talk page messages, so I can't fully deal with this matter at present, but I promise that I'll have fully re-considered the topic ban by tomorrow evening. It may well be the case that I have been too severe here (although that would surprise me, as typically I have more complaints about me being too lenient than too severe!), and I am not at all ruling out the possibility that I misjudged the situation. The disadvantage of working at AE is that, unlike the initial arbitration decision (which can be thought over by the arbitrators for some weeks on the PD and workshop pages), decisions are made almost instantaneously—in part because requests for input from other administrators are rarely answered. Thank you all in advance for your patience. AGK 13:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Nableezy is an SPA and, as such, a six month topic ban is equivalent to a six month block. This seems a tad similar to basically telling him that his presence is entirely unwelcome in Wikipedia; which I'm sure was not the original intent. In that resepct, there is room to shorten the sanction given, possibly to a 2 week block -- and to enforce some type of long term 1RR/DE warning instead. Nableezy has demostrated a battle approach and a tag-team mentality, but these things can change if he's given a resonable chance at a comeback. I understood your concern, AGK, that a block at this point seems punitive and that it doesn't quite cover the long term extent of the problem discussed, but I think Nableezy would rather have a humble option at returning than the current situation where he's banned from the only subject he edits for a whole 6 months. I would like to see some acknoledgement by Nableezy towards the issues raised. I can't see all the justifications made or the comments by his compatriots (let alone notes left by numerous topic-banned fans on his talkpage) as a great start but he could be given that chance if we see an attempt at change. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

AGK, as part of your reappraisal of the evidence, I hope you will consider the following. Your ruling teaches that an editor should be banned for six months for inserting a RS cited phrase that improves NPOV of an article. And that an editor who deletes this RS cited phrase every time it is inserted, making the article more POV, but then runs to the AE page to lodge a complaint, should be rewarded. Is that really your intention? Jaakobou's suggestion to tone down the punishment is completely wrong - this ruling should not be toned down, it should be reversed. I think that will be obvious if you take the time to look at the change Nableezy was making and check the citation he provided - and if you think about which version of the disputed sentence is more NPOV and which one improves the project. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree here with Jgui. Adding hyperbole titles to each and every article about clashes/incidents between Israelis and Arabs does not "improve[s] NPOV of an article". Not all Arabs are following this culture of victim-hood and it is offensive to look at/present them as if they all do. In that sense, several POV pushers would love adding the word "massacre" to each and every battle Israel waged against militants but would never add a title like heroic XXX operation to an incident where an Arab lynched Jewish civilians. Its a case of severe POV pushing and certainly not an issue of improving neutrality. Hyperbole language may be acceptable in fringe medias or even in quotation marks in mainstream ones but it is not befitting of this project as actual titles of articles. In that sense, we have Allahdad incident and not Allahdad extermination even though the latter was used on several instances. The same rule of encyclopedic conservatism should follow for everyone. Also, I find these multiple justifications for continuous edit-warring unbelievable. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, are you talking about the same case? This AE is about a *single* page - the "Gaza war" page. And this complaint is founded on the argument that Nableezy has violated WP policies by inserting the following into the article: "The [Gaza War] has been called the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة) in the Arab world" Notice that the statement is cited to a RS periodical, which contains the sentence: "Known in the Arab world as the Gaza Massacre, Operation Cast Lead ...". So we have a RS periodical that states *exactly* what Nableezy is putting into the article, and you are talking about "Arab victim-hood" and "POV pushing" and "hyperbole language" and "fringe media". Excuse me - are you serious? This lede paragraph is introducing the "Gaza war" to all WP readers, and as such it is highly appropriate that it lists all widely used terms that the war is known by. And since you and Stellarkid think its fine to include the Israeli Defence Force's name for the war, and the Israeli media's name for the war, can you please explain how it is not OK to include the Arab name for the war? And can you explain how including only the Israeli side's name for the war, but excluding the Arab name for the war, is NPOV? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Jgui,

You've completely missed the point of this project if you think that terms like "massacre" are worthy for inclusion as an article title when the side using this title also declared a "divine victory" (yes, Hamas copied Hezbollah) and has video's of their officials saying "we desire death as you desire life". Hyperbole narrative language doesn't fit this project's purpose and I beg the difference between terms like "operation case lead" and terms like "ethnic cleansing"/"massacre"/"catastrophe"/etc. I can give you multiple examples of this nature where a Jewish term for an event is just as bad and should not be used (see also WP:SOAP).

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, funny but I thought the point of this project was to be comprehensive, NPOV, uncensored, and thorough - but apparently you think none of those is important in this instance. If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that "terms like massacre" are "hyperbole narrative language" that should be censored out of WP, or at least out of "article titles" (which this actually isn't since its in the body of the article, but no matter). This is truly an extraordinary claim, considering the large number of articles we have that include "massacre" in their titles - there's a partial list of them here. One of the many is 1929 Hebron Massacre. This also concerns a military action in Palestine where many non-combatants were killed - although they were Jewish in this instance. So would you argue that the title of that article should be changed because it includes this "hyperbole narrative language"?. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you really comparing the 1929 Hebron Massacre with the battle between the IDF and rocket launchers in Gaza? As I've noted, there's a dissonance between Hamas narratives and terminology misuse can easily turn into hyperbole if we were to use terms like "massacre" for every time Arabs waged war on Israel and lost. More-so when they also called the events a divine victory in inner circles. There is nothing neutral in giving one dissonance narrative without giving the other, and certainly, neither is an actual official name. This project is indeed supposed to be comprehensive and I fully support noting the massacre narrative in the body of the article but this is also meant to be an encyclopedia and names should be constructed in a conservative manner, per official mainstream naming conventions.

p.s. its getting hard to continue taking the arguments at their face value where at first you compared "Gaza massacre" with a completely neutral naming convention ("operation cast lead"), and now you compare a small percentage of Gaza population finding themselves in harms way (after Hamas declared war on Israel) with the successful extermination of a thousand+ year old community.

p.p.s. I would prefer that we discuss the issue of Nableezy's conduct and how it could be improved upon rather than the controversial content changes.

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, the point is that we can't name articles according to an Israeli POV. If there are alternative names, we generally list these in the first sentence, and it matters not what the names are, so long as we have reliable sources for them. That was the principle Nableezy was trying to uphold. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Where is the Israeli POV in the term 'Operation cast lead' exactly? "Divine victory" was also a common Hamas descriptive for the Gaza fighting. I don't suppose you'd think that adding both "Divine Victory" and "Massacre" is a great way for leading into the article. Certainly not in what Nableezy was doing. e.g. repeatedly adding it while ignoring the discussion page and playing dangerously close to 3RR on numerous occasions while reporting others for 3RR violations.

Btw, Hamas also had a military name for their operation. I suggest we look into that one rather than into promoting the hyperbole propaganda-war narratives any of the sides was using into the first sentence.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

We call it "Gaza War," which implies the POV that it was, indeed, a war, rather than aerial bombardment followed by a ground invasion. Then we say it was called Operation Cast Lead by the IDF, which further militarizes it. Not satisfied, we add more Israeli military POV by saying the Israeli media call it the War in the South. Then someone tries to add the Arab name, and they're reverted, reported, and topic-banned. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirign,

I guess you missed all the reports on hundreds of rockets that hit southern Israeli cities (and disbanded children's classrooms). Otherwise, why would you describe the war in the south as if Hamas didn't partake in militancy on Israeli civilians and add smilies to your comment(?!). I think you should apologize and re-factor your last comment.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

According to the NY Times -- not hundreds but thousands. They give the figure 8000 (rockets and mortars). [1]Stellarkid (talk) 02:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Testimonials don't count of course, particularly from the likes of myself, one of the banned of 4, but evidence of positive appraisels for someone subject to a topic ban from people on the other side of the divide, or from three editors in high standing for their noted fairness and impartiality, should hold some weight. If only because they come from people who have an intimate memory of, and knowledge of, exchanges on difficult pages from which they gained their impressions. This kind of evidence review can't be expected of an outside admin. But I think, when you get Jalapenos do exist,Malik Shabazz, IronDuke,Sean.hoyland,JGGardiner,The Squicks and SlimVirgin expressing their regret at the outcome, and appreciation of Nableezy's moderation, then it does suggest the 4 month topic ban looks harsh. This is one of the most difficult areas in wikipedia, and requires rigourous supervision, but at the same time, one should keep in sight the fact that good, solid content-contributing, responsive and empathetic editors are extremely scarce. Nableezy was one of them. Regards Nishidani (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Taking another day to consider this matter, and to digest the numerous talk page messages and e-mails relating to the Nableezy sanction that have been sent to me. AGK 01:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Good heavens! I just stepped into a big pile here. As the complaining editor, I would like to add my 2cents. While it is true I made a few reverts of this "massacre" issue, mostly I did offer alternatives, or revert to someone else's alternatives. I (and others) discussed this copiously on the talk page -- most of it is already archived. I personally did very little other editing on this article, finding the Gaza Massacre a major turn-off since it is so clearly POV. It's not enough that "Gaza Massacre" redirects to the Gaza War article, but we must pretend that it is an "alternative name" as well and stick it in the lede! Perhaps there is some WP precedent for this? It is my honest and considered belief that Nableezy was attempting to war in this term rather than deal with the pages and pages of archived objections in an honest attempt to collaborate. As I said, he is well liked despite the fact that he has a clear POV that he tries to shoehorn into this and other I-P articles. Interestingly, it appears that as soon as he was away from the article, some of the above sympathetic editors have taken up his cudgel with the same tired arguments and with as little effort (so far) to collaborate or read the previous month's discussion. These particular editors were not here over the last month or more when when the discussion was taken. I think it highly unfair that they are suggesting that Gaza Massacre should now be in and should not be removed, something like a monument to Nableezy, it seems. I believe a 4 month "sentence" is not unreasonable under the circumstances. He can still communicate on user-talk pages and there is plenty of material outside of the I-P section that he can work on -- such as the article he was talking about at the beginning of this section. I support your original decision and think it fair. Thank you. Stellarkid (talk) 02:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Stellarkid here admit his intensions to povedit the article. Nableezys response to him in AE prove it [2]. Stellarkids reverts is against the policy based in long discussions on talkpage and without consensus. Its a worser violation than Nableezys. He shows his battlementality here, defend his hipocritical AE request and show no change of mind and even subtly try to round up Cptnono to continue. [3]. He should be indef. topicbanned if anybody. Any administrator can interfere under the sanktions and enforce it (AGK, hello!). That would be good for Wikipedia. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 04:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Stellarkid has been a princess (not in a weird way) compared to several editors. You know who you are and I am included in that list. He was taking what he saw as not having consensus for inclusion + multiple editors contending the line and making the change. Questionable form but I don't think it reaches the habitual level of disruption needed for a topic ban. He has even made arguments laying out why there is a POV concern with massacre as a title without it being based on it being a really mean word like many others have. And we shouldn't be changing the subject anyways. Cptnono (talk) 07:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Cant understand why you defend him and his way of arguing. Even if your arguing been way to lengthly you have atleast kept your arguing around policy and and shown you read policy befor you refered to it. Not just povpushed and reverted as your main contribution to the article. Dont exspend that cred on those not deserve it. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 07:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Length and I have been a jerk. I get what you are saying but I don't think Stellarkid deserves more than a talking to at this time. I can go into detail ( uh-oh :) ) on why I think but it isn't my decision to make and even if it was this case wasn't about him or me or you or anyone else.Cptnono (talk) 07:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Section break added for readability's sake. AGK 11:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Hi AGK. Its been a few days now. Anything to add regarding your review on the situation? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 20:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to procrastinate, but, due to IRL busyness, I'll need one more day. I haven't yet read all of the messages that have been sent to me regarding this. As a preliminary comment, though, I am seeing little evidence that the sanction itself was invalid; a more difficult question is whether it was too severe. Final follow-up to come shortly. Regards, AGK 22:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think taking one's time salutary and proof of diligence. There is no doubt that the I/P area attracts people with strong POVs (b) It requires rigorous monitoring, and little tolerance for making hard and fast rules creak (c) However, in the history of editorial conflict and arbitration, arbitrators tend to look at the evidence regarding one infringer, without assessing context. (d) it was salutary, whatever one's private beliefs about individual justice, to see that in the recent Arbcom ruling, members of both sides were sanctioned. For it takes two to tango, and up to that point, the sanction system was being manipulated by editors who would drive, by individual or tagteam behaviour, their 'adversaries' into a danger zone (3RR), often to see how their POV/NPOV principles held up under pressure, and then leap to AN/1 to get a judgement against the other editor registered, have him or her removed, and thereby take out the opposition stalwarts, picking them off, one by one. (e) in the present instance, Nableezy, a longtime editor of that page, was picked off by a relatiove newcomer who shows no discriminating knowledge of editorial principles, or consensual editing on the basis of what archival debates tell us is generally agreed. (f) the evidence may warrant a sanction against Nableezy applying Arbcom decisions strictly (g) but, I think most longterm editors, on both sides, thought it unbalanced because Nableezy's crime was that of losing patience with a recalcitrant POV. Had his accuser's record been examined, and he/she too been subjected to review and a sanction, then justice would have been done. I cannot help but insist that in this area, outside administrators do well to learn to take a very severe attitude where there is evidence or an air that the system of sanctions may be manipulated. Signs of poor editing, lack of familiarity with the many relevant criteria that should inform redaction, and lack of empathy with all POVs, should be noted, most particularly in plaintiffs who denounce editors of long-standing, with a record of good working relationship with most other editors, from whatever side, in the I/P area. There are many testimonials that Nableezy works well and empathetically with almost everyone. Is there a comparable record for Stellarkid? An unenviable task, sir. Regards Nishidani (talk) 11:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Taking an unsympathetic approach to a newcomer who tattles on an editor of "the other side", whilst not considering the merits of the complaint itself, would be preserving the status quo. That is not what a subject area as contested as this one is in need of. Many of the comments presented to me so far have focussed on Nableezy's good working relationship with the other contributors to this subject area; but that does not excuse the approach that he has been shown to take when faced with edits that he disagrees with. When a change is made (even if it may be said to be pushing a non-neutral POV) with which an editor disagrees, the correct response is to open discussion over the edit on the article talk page. The incorrect response is to revert; and an even more incorrect one is to revert twelve times, as Nableezy did.

I would much sooner topic ban every editor of a contested subject area than allow them all to run wild. Little activity in a subject area is a thousand times preferable to an embarrasingly POV-ridden, poorly sourced article. Think, if you will, of the reaction in both cases of external subject academics reading the article in question. In the first, an academic might be enticed to help us expand what little we have on the I/P conflict. In the latter, they would most probably look in, see the war that we're having behind the scenes, laugh at the mess that we're in, and walk away. The long-term impact of misconduct is equally as important as the perceived severity of it in comparison to the sanctions that are usually handed out. If I need to be hard on some editors to make the life of those who are too scared to edit easier, then so be it. AGK 11:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to come back on this. I'm just troubled by a pattern, undoubtedly aleatory, that has increasingly seen editors in good standing being taken out by editors who lack any record for patient article building. The I/P area articles are mostly unreadable because committed talent, with a good memory for the difficulties of many texts, is shortening by the month.

I considered the merits of the complaint. I was present over much of the lunatically intensive multi-archived discussions and editing for some 40 days. I read, not only Stellarkid's AN/I report, but much of the relevant archives

Archive 9

Archive 11

Archive 15

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 22

Archive 26

Archive 48

Stellarkid's arguments appear to ignore all this material, where the edit Nableezy defended had been endlessly discussed, but had stuck, with consensual support by strong rule-respecting editors. Cerejota, impeccably neutral, with no POV either way, summed it up well when he remarked way back:

'However, to focus in content, the reality is that people want to remove the name (Gaza Massacre), provided by more sources than 99.9999% of the content in wikipedia.'

Sean Hoyland likewise has been in on that article almost from the beginning, and when Cptono reopened the case in archives 48, he remarked:

What's changed since this line with 6 citations with quotes obtained consensus? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

In the last archive, when, finally, a highly efficient, meticulous and level headed admin came in to clean up the mess, namely Slim Virgin, Nableezy dropped her a note.

'SV, specifically the "Gaza Massacre" references need to be there, it has been challenged and removed too many times in the past for it to be there without any references. Nableezy (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

She replied:-

Can you add one, and post the rest on the talk page? I can't see anyone questioning it now. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC) (archive 51)

At that point, since no one was questioning the phrase it appears SV didn't think it even required a citation. That was 4 months ago.

You raised the point about what an academic might think. I think, as someone academically published, that any academic would say qualitative contributions to a subject is not, as a very general rule, improved by contributions coming in from people who are unfamiliar with the background of that subject, its peer-review material, its textual negotiations over evidence, esp. when much they object to has already been challenged or discounted in the subject's prior literature etc.

I'm not justifying Nableezy's reversions, but they are not irrational. It's just that dozens of people accepted that text who are no longer present on the page, and the page is now predominantly edited by a majority that is, once more, trying to get it elided. You are right to sanction Nableezy, but to do so harshly, while saying, of all people, Nableezy whose behaviour for intelligent negotiation is confirmed by many, 'ran wild' in a way that might put off future editing from new, academically grounded wikipedians, is odd. Most academics I know laughed when I told them I worked on I/P articles, for only someone with excessive leisure and a streak of masochism would willingly enter an area that requires extenuating hours, and days of explaining the ABC of composition to every newby or anonymous I/P that drifts in. What you need is encouragement to people who (a) have shown strong commitment (b) have stayed the course (c) have an acknowledged empathy with editors who disagree with their POV and work equably to find compromises. Nableezy has this, and is subject to a severe sanction. The other editor has neither, and his qualifications in this regard are ignored, suggesting that newbies with poor experience are encouraged over practiced editors who make occasional lapses. Still, I'll shut up. I think even my comments here run dangerously close to transgressing my perma-ban. Regards. No need to reply. I have, when active, always told fellow editors to take administrative sanctions on the chin, and not to whinge. Nableezy hasn't. Nishidani (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I havent actually asked for any change for the sanction, but your reasoning is faulty. You say the correct response is to open discussion over the edit on the article talk page. The incorrect response is to revert; and an even more incorrect one is to revert twelve times, as Nableezy did. I did that, I opened an RfC, I went to the RS/N, I went to the NPOV/N. I tried to get as many people as possible to look at the issue, and if consensus had been against me I would have been fine with that. Also, if you looked at the diffs closely, you can see that not all 12 are reverts. Multiple different sources were added to try to settle the issue, it was not simply reverting the words it was adding or changing sources to meet the objections. Whereas I actually tried to follow WP:DR, Stellarkid has done nothing but remove the phrase. If you are strictly looking at the reversions then you should look a bit harder. Here are the removals by Stellarkid:

• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12] (the last two in quick succession after he had just seen the sanctions for edit-warring on this issue

These are about 90% of Stellarkid's edits to the page, whereas the 12 you sanctioned me for represent around 2% of my edits to the page. Stellarkid has done almost nothing on that page but try to remove a name for the conflict, a name for which 10 sources were provided, and 2 sources explicitly saying that it is the name used in the Arab world. Stellarkid repeatedly removed well-sourced text for reasons not consistent with policy, and repeatedly misrepresented both the sources and policy to do so. He has argued that WP:NONENG disqualifies Arabic sources when it in fact does the exact opposite, he has argued that WP:BURDEN means something other than providing a verifiable reliable source meets that burden when it says exactly that. You judge my presence on the page as not a helpful one on the basis of less than 2% of my edits to that page, not looking at the history of this issue and the history of Stellarkid's involvement in the topic area (where he has in the past opposed a name used by historians as an article name because it has the word Palestine in it). I dont really care about this anymore, and whether or not you reduce the sanction does not matter to me, but you need to more closely examine the issues instead of looking at a list of diffs for 10 seconds and making a determination from that. If you do that you can quickly see that I tried to use every DR process available, and that Stellarkid has done nothing but edit-war his favored POV in to, or the opposing POV out of, the article. But I really dont mind the topic ban, I dont have to waste my time removing straight-forward BLP-violations, or reverting POV-laden edits that violate guidelines mandated by an ArbCom case, or dealing with any number of the other wastes of time that editing in the area brings. nableezy - 19:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Reconsideration

Thank you all for your comments. Having considered the initial complaint (again) and all the comments that have been offered in relation to this thread, I find that my decision to topic ban Nableezy was warranted; but I also find that the length of the sanction was excessive. First, I respond to three important points that were, explicitly or in passing, raised:

• Scope of topic ban. The initial complaint cited diffs of poor conduct in one article; my sanction applied to the wider topic area. This was because in numerous topic areas, and especially in those that are highly contested (eg., ones that have been the focus of one or more arbitration case), the POV wars and the editing community are identical. Removing a disruptive editor from one article simply pushes them into another, where the cycle of arrival-disruption-ban is repeated. On that basis, I have included in the sanction on Nableezy all articles within the subject area in question. Some quiet editing time will do him good.
• Strict on one side; lenient on the other. Nableezy has been banned for misconduct on an article whilst others who are equally as, if not more, guilty remain at large; this I accept. I consider Nableezy's ban to be the first of a few to come, however. The sanction is a step up in severity, but that does not render it invalid. It simply raises the bar for later actions. I would like for those who disrupt in future to be brought to account on AE, where the disruption is within the scope of an arbitration case, and to ANI, where disruption in other areas is concerned. Where it is me who processes the complaint, they will meet with little sympathy.
• Wider problems with the subject area. The I/P subject area does, according to some assessments, continue to be plagued with problems in filling a neutral POV. The Gaza War article seems no exception. I am beginning to think that a blanket prohibition on making more than one revert of the same piece of content is in order. Perhaps then everybody would be inclined to discuss their changes: the present conflict involves a clash of approaches between reasonable and unreasonable, in which the former try to discuss disputed content in the face of flat reversion by the latter. That is not an environment that is conducive to good content production.

Second, I am adjusting my initial sanction of Nableezy, after much consideration. The ban on editing article content is reduced from four months to two; and the ban on editing article talk pages is reduced to one. These times are relative to the initial sanction.

Again, thank you all for your input. Further comment is welcome. AGK 19:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Log updated. AGK 19:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your readiness to listen, reconsider, and, I think most commendably, suggest a blanket ban on more than one revert of the same piece of content (b)allowing that the measure taken against Nableezy is just the beginning of your active supervision of other editors in the area. Best Regards.Nishidani (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry AGK, but your reconsideration is simply not good enough. Nableezy was not the one being disruptive at Gaza War; he was upholding a longstanding consensus. Yes, consensus can change, and in recognition of that Nableezy opened multiple dispute resolution discussions to gauge to what degree it had changed. During that time, rather than awaiting the outcome of those discussions, editors lie Stellarid, disruptively reverted out the text under discussion.

Nableezy is a great editor, who follows dispute resolution procedures. If you truly thin that his behaviour at Gaza War was disruptive, the sanction should be limited to that page only, since there is no evidence of any disruption elsewhere (at least none that you have pointed to or invoked).

I would also note that my complaint about Cptnono was initially poo-pooed by you when you said the commentary in the complaint was too long and you hoped no one expected any admin to read it. You only changed your mind and decided to comment after a complaint was made against Nableezy. You gave a silly warning to Cptnono not to comment on contributors for 6 months (he's not supposed to comment on them ever). You did not not even log a formal notification of the ARBPIA santions (which was all I had requested for being called a "dirty liar", amongst other things). Then you uickly went about handing down this sledgehammer decision to Nableezy.

While you may pride yourself on being somehwat lenient, the impression your decisions have given me are that you are biased. Consider the case of Shuki as well, which was up on the board beore Nableezy's and after Cptnono's. You completely ignored it and evidence was presented there of edit-warring across multiple articles. Yet, for some reason, only Nableezy was worthy for singling out?

Very disappointed with this trun of events. Tiamut^talk 09:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this about Nableezy or me? My actions have mistakes aren't Nableezy's and his aren't mine. I'm not sure if AGK is aware, but I'm the one who called Tiamut a dirty liar. Sometime ago (before the AE against me) I took Tiamut's swooping to comment on the side of Nableezy as tag team POV pushing. I was an idiot and was saucy and said it. I wish I could take it back but what I was able to do was take a Wikibreak and then offered a sincere apology. I can apologize again and if Tiamut is still upset I understand but I hope she does know that I know how horrible saying that was. I also know that if I make personal attack I'm getting a block (it sucks that it took having that over my head to knock it off) and plan on making it indefinite for myself even though I may not be instantly blocked if I do it afterward. I got the warning I needed and I'm going to follow it. I'm going to continue trying to get Jujitsu guy on board with being much nicer and I wish it would have been more successful with Mr.Anon. If AGK thinks that retroactively blocking me is needed then that is his decision. I hope that isn't necessary but do know that calling someone a liar is completely not OK on Wikipeida.Cptnono (talk) 10:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

"Upholding consensus" is not an excuse for edit warring. I would also be interested in seeing where that consensus was formed: was a discussion ever held on the article talk page, say? Implying that I am persecuting Nableezy is laughable, so I won't comment on that part of your comment except to ask you to be reasonable. My adjustment was quite reasonable, and I won't be reconsidering the matter for a second time without a more convincing argument. Oh, and a point of correction: that "silly warning" was a direct ban—enforceable by the removal of editing privileges. AGK 20:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't take a genius to see that you've sanctioned a good careful editor when the article is awash with POV editors who have impunity. 86.155.18.89 (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"Upholding consensus" is not a good description of what Nableezy was doing. A more accurate description is "upholding a Neutral Point of View". That is what Wikipedia editors are enjoined to do. Frankly, this has gotten rather surreal. All of this long discussion has only served to show that you, AGK, do not have any good reason to ban Nableezy. You should just admit it. Zero^talk 23:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I truly do appreciate the support and kind words, but AGK does have a reason to impose a topic ban, I was edit-warring. There really is not a whole lot more to say about that. I would hope that AGK sees that while I did indeed edit-war over this issue that there was another user hitting undo just as often, and without trying to go through the processes laid out in WP:DR. If AGK is willing to put in the time and aggravation in cleaning up some of the nonsense that goes on in this topic area then we should all clap our hands and say bravo. nableezy - 23:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) In response to IP 86. and Zero: It really doesn't matter how often you repeat a false statement; it remains false. Nableezy reverted where he should have discussed, and received a ban for that. That is good reason. I grow weary of having to contest arguments that are built on total claptrap. AGK 23:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy edit-warred and reverted, but he did discuss. Further, he admitted to edit-warring. If you think a two-month topic ban is fair for him, than you should have given one to Stellarkid too, and Cptnono, and me, and many others who reverted concerning that one sentence. Instead, you topic banned one the most universally well liked and respected editors at that page. And you gave a warning to Stellarkid about discretionary sanctions he already knew about.

I think you should admit your decision was a piss poor one. Full stop. I'm seen editors much more disruptive than Nableezy get very mild treatment, and despite your claims to the contrary, you've gone on to give the same very mild treatment to other editors. Stellarkid, who after reporting Nableezy for edit-warring, went on to edit war to try to get his way with Nableezy out of the picture, got a wrist slap by you, based on your rather weak reasoning invoking technicalities.

There is no longer any question for me: you are biased, your judgement is poor as regards these cases, and if you think you can handle arbitration, you are 100% wrong. One of the most important things in arbitration is doing thorough research and upholding the appearance (at least) of evenhandedness in your dealing with editors on opposite sides of a dispute. You have failed miserably in this case. Even people who have opposed the content Nableezy was restoring think that to be true.

Where can voice my opposition to your bid to be arbitrator by the way? It is very dangerous for someone like you to have that power in our community, and I strongly oppose. Tiamut^talk 09:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, if you believe that an editor must be formally notified on the sanctions prior to any action being taken, why did you fail to notify Cptnono of them? Does that mean the next time (god forbid) he does something wrong, he will not be sanctioned? Please deliver formal notification immediately so that this supposed technicality is not cited in the future as an excuse for inaction. Tiamut^talk 10:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't decided whether I am running for the committee this year or not, yet. I made preparations to do so last year—even to the point of writing my candidacy statement—and then withdrew, so it would be unwise to draw conclusions from my recent edits. By "having someone like you [with] power in our community", do you mean somebody who is willing to slam a ban on the POV-pushers? If so, I welcome your opposition. But you can't voice it quite yet. The voting period has not yet begun, although it will have come next month.

Regarding your other comments: sure, he discussed a little; but the fact remains that he edit warred. For that, he was sanctioned. I'm in the progress of examining everybody's conduct, but there's a lot to work through—especially where no AE reports have been filed on them, and I have to look into everything without any starting point. So don't accuse me of partisanship quite yet. I'm scrutinising everybody.

I would admit that the Stellarkid outcome was far from ideal. I think I made that clear in my closing statement. As it happens, some other uninvolved sysops are opining that they don't think a notification was necessary; so that outcome may be built upon yet.

I must admit that I'm struggling to see what it is you demand from me—other than to simply stay the hell away from the article and give everybody a free reign. If you try and tell me what it is you want, then maybe I can refine my activities to better help get this article into shape. For every piece of criticism you've offered, I have given it serious consideration and evaluated whether my position is the correct one. All-knowing I am not, and I can concede where I'm wrong; so just tell me what it is that you want, rather than drag my name through the dirt at every turn. I'm trying to work for the project, just like you are. AGK 12:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I want you to be fair, consistent, and to keep in mind our core policies when making decisions regarding editors in this realm.

Nableezy did not discuss "a little". He discussed a lot. He opened the RfC on the issue. He took the issue to the reliable sources noticeboard. He and others (like myself) who supported the inclusion of "Gaza massacre" based on our understanding of WP:NPOV asked that those opposing it not continually revert out material that had been in the article for 10 months. We asked that they allow the discussions Nableezy initiated to run their course so as to try to forge a new consensus about how to deal with the material, while avoiding edit-warring in the interim. Perhaps we should have agreed to the removal of the material until a new consensus could be forged. But my understanding of our policies is that material that has been in an article for some time, which is supported by sources, and is line with NPOV, should not be removed simply because a handful of editors persistently and disruptively resist its inclusion by edit-warring it out.

By sanctioning Nableezy while failing to sanction Stellarkid, you have done exactly the opposite of what you should have, in my opinion, and that of many others. As Nableezy has said to you above, and a fact that is easily verifiable by looking at the contribs history of that page, of his contributions to the article (over 600 edits) only a fraction has been concerned with the term "Gaza massacre". The rest have added important material that has resulted in the development and improvement of that article. Stellarkid, conversely, has done nothing but remove the term "Gaza massacre". He has made hardly any other edits to the article at all. Similarly, and as was presented in the case opened against him, his edits at many other articles in the I-P realm involved removing sourced material he does not like, rather than adding anything of value. How you can sanction an excellent content contributor like Nableezy (whose most recent magnum opus was Al-Azhar mosque, perhaps one of the finest Wiki articles around) for four months (then two), while failing to sanction Stellarkid, defies all reason. It shows you did not do any real research into these users contributions, or their relationships with other editors.

Didn't it occur to you that when over dozen editors have objected to, or commented in support of Nableezy on his talk page, from boths sides of the I-P divide that perhaps you had erred in your decision? Nableezy is one of the most reasonable and responsible editors in the I-P topic area. Yes, he edit-warred. So have I. So have most of us. He could have been blocked for 72 hours for edit-warring. But to topic ban him for four months!?! What other evidence of disruption in this domain is there? Was any presented? Was any cited? No. In the case of Stellarkid however, the opposite is true.

At this point, if I were in your shoes, I would lift the topic ban on Nableezy. I would consider the time served as adequate penance for the edit-warring at Gaza War. If you believe he will continue to edit-war there, you could restrict the remainder of his two-month sanction to an article ban there only. (I don't think he will however, given his committment, prior to even being sanctioned, to stay away from the article altogether). Alternatively, you could consider that the last 9 days have been like a 9 day block for edit-warring, since Nableezy's primary contributions are to the I-P realm and he has been unable to do participate as a result of your decision. The message has been received, and after further sanction would simply be punitive. (Something you said you wanted to avoid when you declined sanctioning Cptnono for personal attacks, citing that too much time had gone by). Next, I would either article ban and/or topic ban Stellarkid for two months, since he has shown willfully disruptive behaviour at Gaza War, continuing to edit war after getting Nableezy topic banned. He has also disruptively deleted information from other I-P articles, information that was well-sourced and relevant. Finally, I would also formally notify Cptnono on the ARBPIA restrictions for the sake of good record keeping. I would note that Nableezy actually asked an admin to notify him of those sanctions months ago when he became aware of them, showing just what a great sense of fair play he actually has.

I am very sorry for being harsh in my assessment of your actions. And I hope you can forgive me for any offense I may have caused you. I do hope you seriously reconsider what has happened here and take the appropriate action to remedy the situation. I'm not perfect and I may be wrong in the remedies I have suggested. But I do believe that what I have suggested is the fairest course of action available based on the editing histories of all those involved. I'm not trying to score any points or eliminate any enemies. I make these suggestions with what is best for the project in mind. I also hate to see a great editor have their reputation unduly tarnished by a lapse in judgement to which they admitted and have committed to not repeating again. Tiamut^talk 13:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I commended your readiness to revise and listen. But in using a technicality to withhold a severe sanction from an indifferent editor or two, while blindly applying a technicality (3RR) to blot the record of an outstandingly productive and consensual editor, looks bad. I know that remonstrance itself looks partisan. If acted on, it gives the unfortunate impression that an arbitrator can be swayed by factions to override principles. But the principles, one often has to remind even the finest and most neutral arbitrators, only exist to be applied in order to ensure that an environment conducive to work of encyclopedic quality is secured. That has been lost sight of, sir, in the present instance. Regards Nishidani (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Signpost, 2 Nov 2009

• Article contest: Durova wins 2009 WikiCup

• Conference report: WikiSym features research on Wikipedia

• Election report: 2009 ArbCom elections report

• Audit Subcommittee: Inaugural Audit Subcommittee elections underway

• Dispatches: Wikipedia remembers the Wall

• News and notes: Strategic planning, November conference, brief news and milestones

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• WikiProject report: Project banner meta-templates

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No hash out of it

Glad you found & took it this way. -DePiep (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice section header :-). Regards, AGK 00:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Betacommand - no fault

You are the only person so far who has found "no fault" in Betacommand's actions. The only way you could have found no fault, when even his ardent supporters could not reach that conclusion, is by not reading a single thing, and coming there to blindly support Betacommand no matter what. It's time for wikipedia administrators to stop creating situations where they don't exist. It's done, it's over, your comment was added long after the fact, lacks all credibility, and shows poor judgment on your part for gratuitously (in all ways) posting it. Talk about beating a dead horse. --69.225.3.198 (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

My comment was a preliminary one. Maybe you're right, and Betacommand's conduct is actionable, but what I looked at didn't seem to be. I'm no supporter of Betacommand, so I reject that aspect of your message. Sorry if I aggravated you; such was not my intention. I simply made a passing comment whilst briefly browsing AE. Regards, AGK 23:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I accept your apology. Please be more careful in the future about passing comments. That's not a page where people go lightly and comments that can impact the results should be carefully developed. AN/I's a great place for brief passing comments already, and there doesn't need to be another AN/I on wikipedia. --69.225.2.24 (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Your comments on ANI are difficult to disagree with. Best, AGK 22:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

They're very easy to disagree with if you don't want wikipedia to be a more civil place and consider incivility not a problem as long as you can hang out with your buddies. It's either an encyclopedia, and it needs all editors and administrators, especially, to understand that, or it's the world's highest rated and most-incivil social network. It acts too often like the latter, due more to the supporters of editors like Betacommand, than to the bad seeds themselves. I keep hoping en.wiki will have a mass coming-to-their-senses. --69.225.2.24 (talk) 03:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

AA2, and possible sockpuppetry

Seeing how you are so well versed in AA2, you might want to peruse this article. It would appear that 173.77.168.53[13], 12.229.112.98[14] and Hudavendigar have reverted/changed this article to the same version following reverts by Gazifikator, apparently in an attempt to sidestep Hudavendigar's restriction of 1RR(which he has violated 3 times)[15]. Odd how this article isn't heavily patrolled, considering the fervent attitude which accompanied my inclusion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and 173.56.118.177[16], appears to edit the same as Hudavendigar. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

First: drop the attitude. When I placed you on notice, it was not an attack. There is no need to be discourteous. Second: I've placed Gazifikator and Hudavendigar on discretionary sanctions notice for their questionable approach to editing in recent days. Third: 12.229.112.98 is blocked for undoing in furtherance to earlier reversions, which itself constituted an edit war. Fourth: I leave the the 173 addresses unblocked, as neither has edited terribly recently. If one or both become active again, ping me and I'll do something about it. Last: I can't conclusively say from behavioural evidence whether either of the accounts belongs to Hudavendigar, although it would not surprise me, so I would say that sockpuppet investigations should be the next port of call. Regards, AGK 20:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It did read like an attack - even if you didn't realise it. You added text with the words "If you engage in further inappropriate behavior", without giving any example of inappropriate behavior by Kansas Bear. As punishment, I sentence you to a flood of Turkish / Azerbaijani pov-warriors arriving at your talk page, wailing for "justice" and blocks on anyone reverting their POV edits. Meowy 15:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour" is a conduct warning; and giving out conduct warnings is part of an administrator's job. To claim it was an attack is just silly. And a flood of POV warriors? I welcome their complaints; always an entertaining read. :) AGK 23:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

But, there wasn't a first instance of "inappropriate behaviour", so using the word "further" is not correct. Meowy 03:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Court of Session (Scotland)

Dear reader: please, please, please participate in this peer review of Court of Session (Scotland). A quick "looks good", "section X is poorly written", "the stuff on Y needs better references", or whatever would even by itself be greatly appreciated. Talk page watchers, don't fail me now. AGK 00:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Springbok Club

I agree that the topic has minimal notability and sharply divided views, which makes it hard to achieve NPOV. Deletion may be the best route. Note that the club is somehow connected to the Swinton Circle, which appears more notable but just as controversial. That article isn't ripe for deletion but you might want to watchlist it.   Will Beback  talk  01:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Armenia-Turkey Relations

I am glad someone like yourself is paying attention to this article. It has been a playground, like many other articles on similar topics, of pov and ethnic propaganda editing. Modest attempts I had made to inject some balance have been viciously attacked. My reverts have been almost solely to undo vandalism and pov distortions of the content I had contributed. I have always provided references and included explanations, but that hardly slows down dedicated pov editors as you may have noticed by now. I am open to suggestions so as to filter my inputs through an objective party and stop endless and unproductive editing. Please track my inputs and their fate in this article--Murat (talk) 03:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem with reverting edits that constitute a "POV distortion" is that it is difficult to have such an edit treated as vandalism. This is because administrators are not subject experts, and so they have a hard time ascertaining what is a minor change and what is a deliberate attempt to skew the point of view of an article. Where article quality is being affected because of a disagreement between editors over aspects of content (including questions of whether a given sentence is not of a neutral point of view), you should take it to discussion—and have an administrator protect the article, if necessary, by contacting one (eg myself) directly, or by filling a request at page protection requests. Take care when editing this subject area to: (1) favour discussion over reversion when faced with an edit you disagree with; and (2) involve an administrator if an editor is being acutely unhelpful and unwilling to discuss disputed changes. If you honour both parts of this advice, then I don't think any further action (such as filtering your contributions through a third party) will be necessary. Staying on the right side of Wikipedia policy is really not as difficult as most people would think. AGK 23:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Notice

Hi. With regard to this, please be informed that Gazifikator was on 1RR restriction since June: [17] He was blocked repeatedly for violation of the restriction. Same for MarshallBagramyan: [18], his restriction is listed here: [19] These users are already on editing restriction, and do not need to be notified. They both must observe 1RR on all articles. Grandmaster 07:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Although it is grossly misused by certain administrators, AA2 editing restrictions, like ALL WIKIPEDIA RESTRICTIONS are meant to stop disruptive editing on articles, they are not meant to be used as a petty, pedantic way to inflict retrospective punishments on editors whose edits were not disruptive, or for administrators to show they are tough guys. Meowy 15:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I have already compared the operating of AA2 to that of the court system in Myanmar and similar dictatorships (or to "control orders" in Britain). The system is, you first accuse someone of a trumped-up offense, appear to be generous by just giving them a set of restrictions, but make those restrictions so confining that they are guaranteed to be broken. That gives you the excuse to sentence them for a real offense, the breaking of those court-applied restrictions. That will then lead to more "offenses" being committed under the same impossible restrictions, and to heavier sentences since by now the "offender" is a confirmed, convicted criminal. It does take time, but it is a way to get someone hanged for an unproven litter-dropping incident. Meowy 16:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your decision

I appreciate that you had wanted to give me a topic ban but that you were over-ridden by WP rules. I will voluntarily restrict myself to one revert per day (throughout the I-P area) for the period that you would have banned me for. Further, I will try to take a bit of a vacation from WP altogether, except perhaps for the talk pages, since I agree with my family that I spend far too much time here.

I also appreciate the warning template that you gave me. It really gives broad discretionary sanctions against users in the I-P conflict.

You said in your decision: It has now reached the point where the disruption caused over that one sentence (and over other disputed points) outweighs the benefits from permitting open editing of the remainder of the article.

I would suggest that with a number of editors of that page having come under such scrutiny/sanctions that the rest might actually work together a bit more formally & civilly (perhaps even occasionally compromising?) appreciating more acutely the axe that is potentially falling over their necks. On giving this some thought, I have to disagree with the locking of the article. When you lock a particular favored opinion in, you lock DR or mediation out, since both sides will not want it. ("Mediation or another DR forum is in order, but you'll all have to want to resolve the dispute for that to work.") I would promise to completely stay out of the article for at least the full two months (except for mediation??) if you would unlock it for editing, and would like to see some outside guidance provided for mediation.

I do have one or two questions on the sanctions, but if you don't mind will get back to you later with them. Again, I appreciate your warning, both your own and that of the template, and ask you to reconsider the article lock. This is an important and timely article and I don't feel that everyone should be punished just because I am. Thank you. Stellarkid (talk) 05:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Henry Allingham International Contest

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

MILHIST October 2009

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm

I added Wiz and myself to ArbComOpenTasks but for some reason Wiz isn't showing up. Can you look at it? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, just a tiny error there: Wizardman's code is WZ (although Wiz does seem to me the more obvious choice). Anyway, fixed. AGK 23:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

ROFL. Also, make the target date 3 weeks out for now. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Target date set as 1 December 2009. AGK 23:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Oopsie

Wrong case, that's Mattisse.[20] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops, so it is. Thanks for catching that. Now fixed. Best, AGK 23:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Signpost, 9 Nov 2009

• Fundraiser: Controversial "Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser to start 10 November

• New pages experiment: Wikipedians test the water at new page patrol

• German controversy: German Wikipedia under fire from inclusionists

• Multimedia usability: Multimedia usability meeting concludes in Paris

• Election report: Arbitration Committee candidate nominations open 10 November

• Book review: Review of Connected Minds, Emerging Cultures: Cybercultures in Online Learning

• News and notes: Ant images, public outreach, and more

• In the news: Beefeater vandalism, interview, and more

• Sister projects: Meta-wiki interview

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this cricket?

On the assumption that you're clerking - Fowler&Fowler has asked that the Ottava Rima case be postponed for a month - on the thinly veiled grounds that Ottava is going nuts. [21]. Is this really appropriate? OR hasn't asked for any such thing, and I doubt F&F is his attending physician. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Fowler has removed the evidence in question. For clarity, I will treat any such evidence to be not appropriate for a public page. AGK 12:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Tap, tap, tap

Hello, AGK. Did you forget to notify the parties that the Ottava Rima case has been openned? Jehochman ^Talk 13:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops, yes I did. I have now done so. AGK 13:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[Jehochman drones likes a school teacher] This will go down on your permanent record... Jehochman ^Talk 15:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

/me gives Jehochman (talk · contribs) 9⁄10 for self-awareness ;) Physchim62 (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

SecurePoll workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Topic Ban

I thought the thing was over and I just finished reading the discussion. The others were right of course, I was aware of the sanction and by participating in an Arb-Com thingy I demonstrated that I was. So since your original statement said that you thought I merited the specific topic ban that you recently meted, and were constrained only by the technicality, your original statement would naturally stand. I would have said that earlier if I had seen it.

Anyway, there is plenty to edit at the fringes, not specifically in the I-P area. I really don't think it a fair decision mostly for the reasons that I pointed out in my defense, but I of course accept it. I appreciate and thank you that you tried to argue for 1RR. But of course that would have been against your better judgment. I also noticed that you were under an incredible amount of pressure from Nableezy's "supporters". I did warn you that he was "well-liked" by both sides, and intelligent as well.

I believed, and still believe, that the "other side" played (and continues to play & 'will' continue to play) tag team, and that they come to each others' defense, not only on these arbitration matters, but on AfD boards, 3RR boards, ANI, and other boards as well as in specific articles as needed. All that is required is having one player more than the other side to make sure that one side's revert or POV "sticks." And they control the whole I-P area by sheer virtue of numbers and tenacity, all the while complaining that they have a disadvantage in numbers, due to the fact that the whole of the Israeli Mossad spends most of its time here at WP. In fact, there are many, many more editors editing in the IP area or enforcing WP rules in the area that are sympathetic to the anti-Israel "narrative" than those that are sympathetic to it. It is the dominant viewpoint taught in universities by professors who use their credentials to push their political beliefs in the classroom. WP doesn't really have an answer to this either. This means it will be especially hard to have any balanced articles in the area at all, and why the conflict can never be fairly resolved. I wish I could implement some ideas. WP needs some new ideas in this area. Best wishes, Stellarkid (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Feedback and quick question

I am disappointed since it looks like the squeaky wheel got the grease here. Since I would have disagreed with the ban from the beginning (it appears to be more punitive than preventative) and am not in your shoes, this is is meant only as feedback and not as some sort of appeal. You've had a lot to read over so while other admins looked to just be sick of it it is appreciated that you did put forth the effort.

I do agree that editors need to work towards consensus and think your lock wasn't a bad idea. No one has put the effort in on that talk page so I was considering taking your advice and opening up mediation on the "massacre" aspect. Assistance on a yes or no or compromise in any direction is obviously needed. I wasn't sure if "formal" or "informal" was the way to go so it would be great if you had any suggestions on the appropriate route to take.Cptnono (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Incredible

It's inconceivable to me that Stellarkid gets a two month topic ban while Mr Unsigned Anon's egregious conduct merits only a one week block. In addition to being a notorious edit warrior, he's an admitted socker and has hurled numerous insults and vulgarities at four editors. Can you please explain why Stellar is treated so harshly while Mr Unsigned Anon gets off with a slap on the wrist. I'll further note that not one editor came to Mr Unsigned Anon's defense. On the contrary, all those who voiced their opinion on MUA stated unequivocally that MUA was disruptive. Conversely, many editors came to Stellar's defense. Something is seriously wrong here. Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)