Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:10, 19 December 2011

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

YehudaTelAviv64

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

Request concerning YehudaTelAviv64

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: YehudaTelAviv64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA#General_1RR_restriction

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

Dec 7 adds redundant info about occupation – revert 1
Dec 7 adds redundant info about occupation – revert 2

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

Warned on 1 December 2011 by Biossketch, followed by EdJohnston, followed by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#YehudaTelAviv64 closed three days ago, followed by User talk:EdJohnston#YehudaTelAviv64, followed by Wgfinely (I may be missing a few)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In response to the comments below: My understanding of policy is that adding info is considered a revert because it changes the status quo. If this is incorrect, this can be speedily closed. However, I would like to point out the clear misuse WP:BRD policy at Talk:Golan Heights#revert explanation regarding this very complaint. He is claiming that BRD allows to him to re-add information that was reverted with an explanation on the talk page.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Wgfinley. The "harassment" referred to is this one thread at his talk page. Though admittedly the rhetoric should have been toned down, I still strongly suspect this editor is a return of a banned editor (as explained in the diff), though I am holding off for now on any official SPI because I do not have solid evidence tying it to any specific editor.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [1]

Discussion concerning YehudaTelAviv64

Statement by YehudaTelAviv64

This is Wikipedia:Harassment. The first diff is clearly not a revert. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brewcrewer earlier posted personal attacks on my talk page and I reported it here. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 02:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wgfinley

I think that you may need to consult Help:Reverting. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are using a made up definition for "revert". Clearly, the first diff is not a revert. See Wikipedia:Reverting. You are a rogue, corrupt administrator. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Brewcrewer

You said, "...clear misuse WP:BRD policy..." -- BRD isn't policy. From WP:BRD:

"BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow." and "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense."

YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 03:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: EdJohnston

I would like an explanation for how the first link can possibly be considered a revert. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Definition of Revert

On Wikipedia, reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of other editors. -- Help:Reverting

YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have some new definition for 'revert' for the purpose of this AE that has no basis in Wikipedia policies. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In this edit, Brewcrewer removed a reply I posted in his section. He simply erased it and did not move it to another section. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning YehudaTelAviv64

What does the first dif revert? It looks like the second dif is the only revert here - not a violation. Jd2718 (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of ongoing harassment by Brewcrewer -- [2]. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 02:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The Wikipedia Definition of Revert is: "On Wikipedia, reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of other editors." YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statment by Shrike

Though user was warned not use editing summaries to attack other users he clearly does so.

Calling other editor troll and failing to assume good faith by called the admin "biased".[3]
Calling editor "deranged" [4]

The editor removes admin warning [5] clearly shows battleground behavior.--Shrike (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Malik Shabazz

Referring to another editor as deranged should be grounds for a temporary, if not permanent, vacation from the project. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "deranged" as in "disorderly" -- the edits were made by a confused editor. WGFinley commented on those edits here on EdJohnston's talk page. On a side note, those two admins (WGFinley and EdJohnston) have been heavily involved and should not be commenting in the uninvolved administrators section. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Observation by Biosketch

"Deranged" isn't the worst of it. In the context of everything else that's been going on here, User:YehudaTelAviv64 had no compunctions about referring to the attitude of the same Admin who pardoned him the last time he was brought to AE as "small-minded" and "pig-headed." An extended vacation sounds like the right idea.—Biosketch (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct of EdJohnston

In response to your abuse of the term 'revert', I fear I have no choice but to request a Wikipedia:Administrators#Arbitration Committee review using the Arbitration Committee mailing list. You very clearly invented a new definition for "revert" and that is not acceptable for a Wikipedia administrator. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See EdJohnston's response here where he claims that this edit was a "revert". Wikipedia's definition of "revert" is:

Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.

EdJohnston is inventing new Wikipedia policies and threatening to block users who do not fall in line with his power trip. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update EdJohnston has still not explained how the first diff can be considered a 'revert'. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 06:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by The Devil's Advocate

I think we all need to take a step back for a moment. Looking over Yehuda's edit history I see no reason to conclude this editor has had any prior involvement on Wikipedia. If he has it does not appear to have been significant since it does not appear that he demonstrates any particular familiarity with policy, process, or editing. My opinion on that question was already expressed with regards to a previous AE request on Yehuda.

On the question of harassment, I do not think it is a frivolous accusation on Yehuda's part. Two separate requests have been filed against Yehuda referring to this allegation of sockpuppetry without any actual evidence presented (neither of the editors in question have initiated an investigation on SPI either), and the accusation was hardly presented in a respectful or civil manner. Yehuda's user page indicates that his name is in fact Yehuda and that he is from Tel Aviv. The name "YehudaTelAviv" being referred to as "too Jewish" to be that of a legitimate contributor to the IP articles would be about as insulting as citing the name "Newyorkbrad" as "too English" to be that of a legitimate contributor to an article on the Troubles. That brewcrewer made that comment in connection with his sockpuppet allegations that have been repeated in two separate AE requests does raise serious concern about harassment. Given that, Yehuda's increasing hostility should be understood as a reaction to that kind of treatment rather than reflective of the editor's overall behavior. My opinion is that WP:BITE applies in this case.

Now, as to the question of a 1RR violation, I do not think it would be appropriate to say Yehuda has violated this provision. Removing material, in and of itself, should not be considered a revert unless said removal substantially alters the article in a way consistent with a previous version. That, in my opinion, does not appear to have been the case as the claim of redundancy would seemingly have merit, though I believe it is more an issue of wording in the infobox that could have been rectified with a rewrite rather than a removal. Yehuda adding information should definitely not be considered a revert for any reason since in that case it appears this was more or less a question of placement regarding material that was already in the article and when brew said the added info was redundant Yehuda removed the redundancy. That this removal of redundant wording was done immediately after the revert would mean they should be considered as one edit and it was an edit that seemed to be an effort to accommodate the concerns brew raised. While the article on BRD suggests you not claim to be engaging in a bold, revert, discuss cycle when the discussion is in the edit summary, in this case the issue was sufficiently minor and limited to one revert of a revert that it should be regarded as fulfilling the spirit of WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning YehudaTelAviv64

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

Re: YehudaTelAviv64 I do consider the first diff a revert, there has been several days of wrangling over this language [6][7][8][9][10] These diffs pretty much outlined the current edit war. I have already protected the article due to the warring, I believe an article ban of 7 days would be in order for Yehuda. I will take a look at the harassment allegation. --WGFinley (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:brew crewer I agree these sock accusations are a bit strong [11][12] but not unprecedented in this topic area. I don't see anything actionable though but a warning may be in order. --WGFinley (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two edits cited in the above reports appear to technically be two reverts in 24 hours. Oftentimes we will cut some slack for new editors or look at the context. In YTA64 we have a new editor (probably not a sock, but with the same aggressiveness and resistance to feedback that we associate with socks) who wants to go right up to the edge of what is allowed. For people who work on the edge, we often cite WP:GAME as a reason to distrust them. Also, he misuses the term 'vandalism' and cites people for harassment when they are only giving a routine notice of a report to AE. I suggest that our patience might be running out and ask for suggestions. He's received plenty of advice and but is taking none of it, so I doubt that a further warning will be of any use. So far he get a zero for collaboration. The traditional next step for editors who push POV on I/P articles and can't be reasoned with is to consider a three-month topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technical (checkuser) evidence would suggest that YTA64 actually has been active on Wikipedia before, on a different account, but I am still following up on that, he has not abusively used his previous account, and he did not formerly edit within this topic area so the other account may be unrelated. AGK [•] 10:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interim update: Issue still pending. AGK [•] 20:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest waiting to see what AGK recommends before closing this. On the evidence given above (before AGK made his comment) we should be considering either a short topic ban or no action. If YTA64 wants to write to Arbcom to get them to define a revert, he is welcome to do so. EdJohnston (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. --WGFinley (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still pending - Arbcom-l's response rate is frankly abysmal. AGK [•] 18:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished my investigation, and YTA64 is Confirmed as being the same user as Dimension31 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), another frequent editor of Golan Heights. I have blocked both accounts indefinitely, and indefinitely prohibited (per the discretionary sanctions ruling in ARBPIA) the user from editing any page relating to I/P. AGK [•] 00:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by The Devil's Advocate

The block being appealed has since expired, which would seem to make this appeal moot. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Block logged at

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Log of blocks.2C bans.2C and restrictions

Administrator imposing the sanction: Wgfinley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: User is blocked and can't send notice, I acknowledge the appeal. --WGFinley (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

The policy on topic bans indicates there are exemptions to topic bans where the editor is addressing a legitimate concern about the ban. I believed the concerns I was raising fell under such an exemption. Other than the concerns obvious from my comment, like the editor who pushed for the topic ban apparently using it to game consensus to revert uncontroversial changes on the disputed article, I provided several more concerns on my talk page. My understanding is that one reason a topic ban provides for exemptions in the case of notifying admins about violations of interaction bans is because a violation on the part of one individual inherently invites a violation by the other individual. In other words, one editor should not be baiting another individual into violating a ban and an editor under a topic ban should raise concerns about such baiting to an admin. Here I went to the admin who had specifically imposed the topic ban, indicating I had no intention of violating the topic ban. Given all of this, I believe this was not worthy of a block. Even if one argues that it was a violation, the circumstances were sufficiently ambiguous under the policy that the imposition of any block seems inappropriate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While my block has expired I still have every intention of pushing this appeal. As it pertains to Zero's argument I am not suggesting that I was not commenting on an editor's actions in the topic area, but that the specific concerns I had about those actions fell under an exemption. As I say below, the actions of the editor who filed the request leading to the topic ban had numerous issues with it that were relevant to the topic ban. See the last sentence or two of the comment on WG's talk page to get what I was concerned about. I believe this question needs some clarification as an editor concerned about WP:GAME relating to the editor who files an AE report should be able to notify an informed admin about this without fearing a block.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I would ask that EdJohnston not present himself as an uninvolved admin in this case since his involvement in the dispute about the block on my talk page clearly falls under one of the criteria listed in the procedural notes at the top of this appeal. I have e-mailed him twice about his being an involved admin, but the first time he insisted he wasn't and he has yet to respond to the second e-mail I sent yesterday morning where I specifically quoted the criteria above.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to WG on block appeal

While I understand the concern about a comment about a user's conduct becoming a discussion, this would be true for any exemption. Mentioning an editor's actions in violation of an interaction ban, for instance, may cause the other editor to respond in a way that leads to further violations, but the point is where the comment is made. An admin can hardly argue that he would not be able to control what is occurring on his own talk page. That is why I made the comment there. Perhaps it would have been better to send an e-mail, something I considered, but when using e-mail there is a concern about it being perceived as an inappropriate effort to lobby in secret.

I further feel I had to mention why the action was of concern and that required some specificity. To be clear, it was not a general concern about an editor continuing to make contributions to the article, but the attempt to undo uncontroversial contributions of mine that had been standing for weeks and the way that attempt was being portrayed. The editor who filed the request leading to my topic ban was using the topic ban resulting from that request to revert changes of mine and give them the illusion of real consensus by implying that it was a compromise being put up for discussion, even though the editor knew the person who was being reverted was not going to be able to provide input on the "compromise" over those edits. Since the topic ban ten days ago this proposal has been the editor's only action on the article.

That, from my perspective, is quite a serious concern about the ban. Editors using AE to game the system is certainly a problem and goes straight to the question of whether the request was made in good faith in the first place. One impression I got from the proposal was that the editor was being vindictive and attempting to hound me by undoing as many of my contributions as possible until I stopped contributing to the article altogether. It should be added that this specifically concerned an issue I raised with WG about the topic ban being extended to talk pages as it seems unlikely the editor making this proposal would have done so knowing I could quickly chime in to point out all the deceptive language being used.

Finally, despite what WG says, I have no real animosity towards any of the editors contributing to the article. On several occasions I have sought the opinions of these editors on changes to the article and have specifically sought to accommodate their concerns. Sometimes I have found them cooperative, and other times I have found them to be the opposite. After the edit-warring block issued by EdJohnston it appears the latter response has become more common.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WGFinley

TDA states he was just inquiring about his ban, I think that's clearly not the case as shown in what he wrote on my talk page.[13]

TDA was given a 30 day TBAN for 9/11 articles (log) resulting from a previous AE Request. My notification to him is very clear to him about the terms including, "...any discussion of that topic on other pages. While he may have been speaking about the ban to complain about it he went on about the conduct of another user, how they were making changes to the article and this was wrong because he was banned.

This is a common reaction of TBAN users but as we had previously discussed his TBAN in excruciating great detail there was no ambiguity he was under a TBAN. If the other user he was referring to responded it would just make the article talk page out of my talk page and clearly that's what TBAN's are intended to prevent - further disturbance on the article. I've tried very hard to encourage TDA to work collaboratively but he can't seem to put aside the animosity he has against other users, and one user in particular, in order to edit harmoniously.--WGFinley (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe WG's wikilink on "excruciatingly great detail" of discussion on the ban is referring to this discussion. That discussion did not concern what qualifies as an exemption, however.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jordgette

Am I expected to defend myself for posting in my userspace a draft of suggested changes to an article,[14] and asking for community input,[15] without making a single actual revert or edit to the article in question since November 21? No thank you; I will use that time to improve an article instead. But if it would make you feel better, I'll ask someone else to move over those changes once discussion is closed. (Or maybe that's still "gaming consensus"...I'll take my chances.) -Jordgette [talk] 01:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by The Devil's Advocate

Result of the appeal by The Devil's Advocate

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

The Devil's Advocate is *not* appealing his recent one-month topic ban from 9/11 articles, he is appealing the one week block that was issued by WGFinley for making this edit at WG's talk. The language of WP:TBAN permits restricting the banned editor from raising the issues anywhere on Wikipedia, including on user talk pages. Finley used this specific wording to impose the ban:

This is to inform you that, as the result of this Arbitration Enforcement request you are hereby banned from editing all articles which relate to the September 11 attacks, broadly interpreted, as well as their talk pages, and from any discussion of that topic on other pages. The ban is through 30 December 2011.

TDA violated the restriction by using Finley's talk to complain about actions of the other party in the edit war, User:Jordgette. WGF's action appears routine to me, since this is how topic bans are supposed to work. On his user talk TDA is contesting at length the accepted theory of topic bans. He argues that the admins are wrong in trying to prevent him from from discussing the other party's editing of the 9/11 articles since his own topic ban was imposed. I recommend declining this appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a topic ban violation to me. If he just argued about his block that would be one thing, but he mostly argued about the editing of others. Decline appeal. Zero^talk 07:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TDA's action (the comment to WGFinley [16]) is clearly a breach of the ban. The block is a obvious, as the ban clearly states "any discussion of that topic [ September 11 attacks ] on other pages." On the basis that this appeal is about said block I'm declining it.
Additionally TDA's comments about Ed are not appropriate - Ed has not violated WP:INVOLVED because, "warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'."--Cailil ^talk 20:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono

Cptnono (talk · contribs) advised to avoid articles where Nableezy is active; Nableezy (talk · contribs) advised to moderate his tone; all parties to the edit war at Irgun admonished. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 Cptnono

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy 01:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Cptnono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

11 December 2011‎ Revert of this edit

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

Notified of interaction ban by AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The notice of the interaction ban specified that the user may not Undo any edit by Nableezy to any page except your own user or user talk pages (by any means, including the rollback function). This is the first time Cptnono has ever edited the article Irgun. The user has also followed me to Palestinian Arabic having never edited that page before either. The same is true for the article Palestinian people. The user had also never edited that article in the past. I have avoided Cptnono with complete diligence, ensuring my compliance with the interaction ban, a ban that was placed due to the Ctpnonos tendentious hounding and repeated hurling of vexatious and unsupported accusations against me. I find it unbelievable that the last three articles edited by Cptnono were all edited for the very first time by the user, shortly after I edited them, and that Cptnono has some other way of explaining how he arrived at those articles besides by hounding my contributions. The diff listed is a straight forward violation of the ban, and the edits to Palestinian people and Palestinian Arabic are arguably also violations as they show that Cptnono continues with his tendentious hounding of my edits. I request the interaction ban be enforced and the user blocked.

Excuse me, but what the hell are you talking about? Cptnono has followed me around from article to article, with all of his latest edits being on pages that I have recently been editing, and with none of them on pages the user has ever edited in the past. That I brought up your incompetence in the thread on Jiujitsuguy after you repeatedly either ignored the evidence or deliberately misrepresented it has not one bit to do with this issue. Cptnono has an interaction ban with me. One of the restrictions is not making any reverts of edits made by me. The edit listed above is a revert of an edit made by me. Even you should be able to add those things together and arrive at Cptnono violated the interaction ban. nableezy - 03:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And WGF, if you want to play all hard about reverts, how about noticing the editors who have not said one word on the talk page while reverting, such as Cptnono, AndresHerutJaim, and *cough, sock, cough* JungerMan Chips Ahoy!. I havent even made a revert that counts as a revert on that page, and you want to topic ban me? nableezy - 04:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkativerata: Im not looking for a battle, I expressly wish to not have to deal with somebody such as Cptnono at all. But he actively seeks me out. The last time this happened he repeatedly directed absurd accusations at me without ever providing even a whiff of any evidence, while hounding me from article to article drunkenly daring others to revert him. So I requested, and received, an interaction ban. Ive ignored several violations of it, but here we have as a set of edits the recurrence of the old pattern of following me around, seemingly just to annoy me. Cptnono, until the last days, had never edited Irgun, Palestinian people, or Palestinian Arabic. I have been editing each within the last week. It isnt really surprising that the user has revived this old sport of trying to keep tabs on me, but is annoying, and at least one of the recent edits is a straightforward violation of the interaction ban. nableezy - 04:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, could you please explain to me what an interaction ban is? Is Cptnono's edit a revert of my edit? If not, why not? Because others were also reverting the edit? What of the following of my contributions to multiple article that he has never edited in the past? Is that not a user actively seeking out an interaction where interaction is banned? nableezy - 07:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@WGF, and I am still dismayed that an admin who has repeatedly distorted evidence and refused to answer questions about factually incorrect claims made still considers himself qualified to comment at AE. If forced to choose which behavior is more objectionable, my "tone" or your repeated willful distortion of evidence, I would have to say that yours is. nableezy - 20:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You arent entitled to demand that people accept your poorly formed judgment, based on repeated willful distortions of evidence, in complete silence, and you are not entitled to both demand that I only discuss the case at AE and then complain that I then discussed the case at AE. My question to Ed was not incivil or condescending, I am sincerely asking Ed what his view on the limits of the interaction ban is. I said please because I was attempting to be respectful, not condescending. When I write you have no idea what you are talking about it is because you repeatedly demonstrate that you have no idea what you are talking about. You have repeatedly made outright fabrications on the content of diffs, and repeatedly refused to answer questions about why you made such obviously untrue comments. This raises serious questions of competence. You approach AE as though you can determine who is being "disruptive" by whose name you see most often. You seemingly forget that we are here to write an encyclopedia, and when you repeatedly ignore such blatantly dishonest actions as lying about sources and equate a users tone with that, you show that you do in fact have no idea what you are talking about. Your claim that my past bans have had no impact on my editing is demonstrably false. All of my topic bans, all of them, have been due to issues with reverting. I have had no such issues in quite a long time, with the exceptions of my reverting socks of banned editors, a detail that while you may think unimportant most admins actually notice. This was a prima facie violation of an interaction ban. If competent uninvolved admins feel that it is not actually a violation then so be it, but you are attempting to place a topic ban without being able to show a single instance of my disrupting the P-I article space. You are attempting to ban me purely out of spite, because I have asked you to address several issues that raise serious questions about your competence to be acting as an administrator at AE. You have so far refused to address any of those issues, and now, in a charming bit of irony, attempting to use AE vexatiously to silence [an] opponent. I am not obligated to accept your decisions as though were edicts from upon high, and I did not demand any further action, nor is it disruptive for me to raise such issues. You repeatedly ignored evidence of a user lying about sources. I dont think I am being disruptive when I raise that at the lone place you said it may be raised. nableezy - 03:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enigmaman, you say I continue[d] to press the issue in a diff that predates the one where I supposedly refus[e] to respect the process here. WGF asked that I only discuss the issue at AE, and now is complaining that I discussed the issue at AE. I accepted the process, I simply wanted to make a comment that the process involved several admins ignoring, for whatever reason, be it nefarious or not, that an editor repeatedly lied about sources. What I wrote was I dont care anymore, it isnt worth wasting my time with an obvious sock. I just want to have it written down here that several admins have ignored repeated willful distortion of sources to push a fringe POV into an article. I think that is a pretty clear acceptance of the process, though one in which I voice my frustration with the fact that it was allowed to be manipulated by an admins bizarre and unsupported comments regarding the evidence. nableezy - 04:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And further, I challenge the assertion that there have been spurious AE filings by myself. All of them, including this one, bring prima facie violations of either a specific ban or the discretionary sanctions. nableezy - 04:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am purposely ignoring the comments of the usual people with the usual views as they arent at all relevant. I will address one however. Michael, if one were to compare your comments to me and my comments to you they would quickly see that there is indeed one party who routinely makes obscene, absurd, often derisive comments to the other. It isnt me though. Despite my lowly Arab background, I have been quite restrained when dealing with your particular brand of policy twisting to disruptively push a settler-centric POV across a range of pages. How that is at all relevant is however left to the imagination of the reader. This thread was about a violation of an interaction ban. It has unsurprisingly been distorted into something else by the very same admin who ignored and enabled a user lying about sourced, and in turn a collection of users unsurprising in its makeup are are here cheerleading. WGF does not like the fact that I have raised serious questions about his competence, so he concocts this attempt to silence me, rather than actually address the issue of his repeatedly making things up out of thin air and ignoring, if not outright lying about, evidence of a user lying about sources. That you dislike that I prevent you from repeatedly pushing a settler POV into articles or that I prevent you from claiming occupied territory as Israel's is not cause for a ban. And while it is not surprising that you are again involving yourself in this attempt to see me banned, it is also unimportant. The issue here remains what it was when I brought this here. If competent uninvolved admins say there was no violation then so be it. Currently there are two such admins who say there is no ban (Ed and Wordsmith) and I am fine with that judgment. I would like them to clarify why there was no violation, and under what circumstances a revert of an edit made by one editor in an interaction ban against the other may be performed. But this attempt to turn this into a case for my banning fails on several levels. The first is that there is 0 evidence, none at all, of my disrupting anything anywhere. I have raised questions of WGF's actions, if he wishes to be an admin he is obligated to answer those questions. He refused to do so on his talk page, and he complains that I asked those questions here when he directed me to discuss the issues here. That is transparent attempt at silencing dissent, and one that raises even more questions of competence. nableezy - 15:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Calil, there has been no evidence brought that I am attempting to "game the system". You raise past topic bans as evidence of a failure to adjust actions, but that is simply untrue. All of my past topic bans were the result of issues with reverting, and I have had no such issues in quite some time. The "case for boomerang" is simply an admin upset that I call him on his actions and he refuses to both address the issues and further refuses to even be questioned. nableezy - 15:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To put the comments about the past AE case into context, I invite everybody to look at the timeline here. Also, if this is to be the people of Wikipedia vs Nableezy I would appreciate a new request where I do not have the burden of defending myself in this clusterfuck of a section as well as having the enviable task of defending myself against an "uninvolved admin" playing the role of both prosecutor and judge. I am more than happy to address every single point that WGF or anybody else would like to raise, a courtesy that unfortunately was not extended to me by WGF. nableezy - 01:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Ed, I recognize that AE is not as you a say a precision machine and further I agree that my presentation of the issues was not optimal. And I will say that I think the few admins that deal with arbitration enforcement do, for the most part, a fine job. There are a few admins that I think are either overly harsh or overly lenient, but all in all most do a fine job doing a very difficult task, and all of you should be thanked for taking on such a task. I admittedly have a sharp tongue, but I dont think I have ever questioned an admins competence to be standing here in judgment prior to this event. It isnt simply the failure to respond, it is the failure to admit a wrong, to refuse to acknowledge a mistake, that is what causes my outrage. WGF wrote something that was flat out untrue, and despite repeated, and initially respectful and civil, attempts to raise the issue, he refused to acknowledge even reading the diff in question. I repeatedly attempted to get him to explain his comment, he still has not, first refusing to do so at his talk page and saying he will only discuss the issue on AE, and now citing my attempt to discuss the issue on AE as disrupting AE. How else do you expect me to react? An admin who refuses to justify his comments, who has made demonstrably false claims on AE, who has refused to explain why he made such claims, is now actively campaigning for sanctions against me. And doing so on the basis of my bringing what was a prima facie violation of an interaction ban. The same admin who equated the repeated deliberate distortion of sources to insert factual errors into an encyclopedia article to Nableezy's tone. Please, and I ask this sincerely, how should I react to that? nableezy - 03:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, I wasnt questioning the judgment on the interaction ban being violated or not, if that is the case consider me informed of the standard, what I wrote about WGF's behavior was in regard to the JJG issue and how that relates to this most recent call for a long-term ban. nableezy - 03:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Cptnono

Statement by Cptnono

I only looked at the edit summary between Supreme Deliciousness and Jujitsuguy. I did not realize that so many people were involved, including Nableezy. So my bad for continuing an edit war. And I went to Palestinian People after seeing the comment by Newt Gingirch on CNN. Cptnono (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've had more coffee this morning I want to expand on my statement. I was under the impression that the interaction ban was put in place partially to limit disruption at AE. This is a whole lot of needless drama. Nableezy and Gatoclass assume I was intentionally reverting an edit made by Nableezy. I did not know at the time that he was involved at the article since I was checking a diff I saw between two editors I have had many interactions with. Although Nableezy might think it is all about him, I am actually interested in the Palestinian people and the fringe (some would certainly call it racist) debate over if the Palestinians are their actually a unique subset within the Arab population (for the record I do not see how they cannot be). The Newt Gingrich comment of an "invented people" reminded me of the issue. The line I tagged with the clarify template was because I was confused by the line. I was also under the impression that Tiamut was the primary author of the Palestinian People article and considered making the edit I made a year ago but decided against it to not ruffle her feathers. It is not always about Nableezy. The interaction ban is already being ignored right now but I am not going to make it worse by commenting on what I think the admins should do.Cptnono (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty obvious what is going to happen here. I am fairly confident that most uninvolved editors (along with the admins here) would not consider my revert of Supreme Deliciousness as an intentional revert of Nableezy. There could be the question of me hounding him but I think my explanation is sufficient (it is easy for me to assume it is sufficient since I know I was not). I could argue that Nableezy is hounding me with this AE (there is an interaction ban) but I don't care to get involved with that discussion. If this is at AN now then you guys can handle that. It should not have gotten to this point but I doubt anyone is surprised. I don't have any topic bans in the area (some civility blocks are there, though) so close this out and continue the constant and disruptive back and forth at AN. In regards to this case: I should have thought to look at any edit made in the topic area since there is a chance Nableezy is involved. I should not have made a revert without looking at the history. If I would have it would have been clear that there was previous drama and the talk page would have been better. Nableezy won't be getting a boomerrang. We all know it even if some of us think he deserves it. So I am happy to end this with me saying "my bad", you guys can hash it out at AN.Cptnono (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind amending it to "more cautious" instead or "warned" (Common vernacular not aligning with use on Wikipedia)? I can still edit the articles as long as I don't touch his, right?Cptnono (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Cptnono

Comment by Zero0000

I don't see "unless someone else has reverted the same edit in the meanwhile" in Cptnono's interaction ban. Indeed, under such an interpretation it is hard to see how an interaction ban could have any effect since there is always someone else around to throw the first punch. Cptnono's edit is a prima facie interaction ban violation. If it is judged to not be a violation, then the interaction ban should be clarified and all parties made aware of the change. Punishing Nableezy for making a report on a perfectly reasonable interpretation would be quite outrageous. More generally, while it is reasonable to be frustrated and annoyed at the level of dispute in this area, taking it out on those who bring disputes to the proper authorities (which this board is supposed to be) is not an appropriate way of dealing with it. All that does is make the serial violators more bold. Zero^talk 03:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mkativerata

(I'm an admin who has declared himself involved in respect of ARBPIA) I think Nableezy might have ~~picked the wrong battle~~ construing the interaction ban a bit widely here. But the suggestion to "solve" the issue by handing out multiple topic bans would be a gross misjudgement. I think this should be closed as "no action". When multiple editors have contributed to an edit-war but none of them have done anything egregious on their own, locking the article is the sensible solution (and I see that's been done), not punitive action. These kind of edit wars really aren't that bad. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: I've struck "picked the wrong battle"; I mean it in a colloquial rather than a perjorative ("battleground") sense. I think this episode is yet another demonstration of the futility of interaction bans, more than anything. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@WGFinley: with respect, the fact that much of the "evidence" in support in of your proposed topic ban is perceived "incivility" towards you, and the subsequent gross overreaction of proposing a 12 month topic ban, suggests that you are not in a good position to be acting here. You either need to have a thicker skin or walk away. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Malik Shabazz

First, I'm laughing to myself that you think a self-revert is a 1RR violation. But moreso, I'm laughing that Cptnono, who added Category:Resistance movements, didn't notice that it was already there (having been restored by AndresHerutJaim). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, then, Wgfinley. I'm still laughing at Cptnono (and all of us—including myself—who reverted afterward) for missing the fact that the category was already on the page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Broccolo

Per WGFinley, Cptnono has never reverted Nableezy, and as Nableezy said he and Cptnono are under interaction ban. With this frivolous AE Nableezy violated his interaction ban with Cptnono. Could you please enforce the ban by sanctioning the filer? Broccolo (talk) 04:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MichaelNetzer

During my short time in the I/P area, I'd likely be considered someone who'd be happy to see a sanction against Nableezy in this case. We've had heated exchanges where I've tried to get across the folly of aggressive editing. I've repeatedly stressed that reporting to AE is not a method I choose for solving disputes. Over the last few days, and through a mutual effort to resolve an extended disagreement, I was gratified to see a better collaborative spirit developing between us. Like Mkativerata, I believe this request for action against Cptono is misplaced and unnecessary. But I also agree with him that a TBAN, especially multiple ones, could be an overkill. I'd certainly prefer to see a less trigger happy finger when it comes to filing such requests. However, I'm of a mind that a more creative approach is necessary to help ease tensions. I'm not sure how to convey this need other than by setting an example. If I could, I'd place a reverse interaction ban on both editors so they can only edit together, on one specific article, within a topic other than I/P - and would only lift the ban when they become sufficiently cooperative. I know that's a bit of a stretch and only suggest it rhetorically, to help stress the need for a change in attitude here. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: We may foreseeably have a proper venue for those issues between us, but I don't believe this is the one, so I won't answer your misrepresentations here. For the purposes of this report, I believe you need to tone down the aggressive approach in situations you don't agree with. It only makes things difficult for yourself and everyone else around you. It will also inevitably all boomerang anyway, with even more force than before. Please take that to heart. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gatoclass

Whether or not it counts as a revert if you revert the same content as the other party in your interaction ban that someone restored in an intermediate edit is a question that may need clarification. However, when you are under an interaction ban with someone, you are obviously asking for trouble when you start editing the same pages the other party has recently edited, and especially when you start reverting the same content. So whether or not one thinks Cptnono has technically violated his ban, I think it pretty clear he has violated the ban in spirit. Whether that is grounds for sanction an uninvolved admin can decide, but I would certainly think a warning at the very least to avoid such behaviour in future would be appropriate. Gatoclass (talk) 07:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wordsmith's comment is about the most sensible I've seen in this case yet. I suggest that Cptnono be advised to take more care not to edit in a way that could be interpreted as wikihounding and to leave it at that. Someone may also want to start a discussion about the revert-with-intermediate-edits issue in the meantime. Other than that, I think we should all take The Wordsmith's advice and find something a bit more wholesome to do at this time of year. Gatoclass (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani

Reluctantly again, since I think only admins and the parties directly concerned should comment here. 'I am still dismayed at Nableezy's conduct on AE.' What does conduct mean here? Contextually it suggests unacceptable behaviour. All I see is a report requesting deliberation, and possibly action. If Nableezy's conduct is thought disconcerting, it should be explained exactly in what this consists. Does it mean there is a quota for filing reports? Nishidani (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'How many admins who have the temerity to work AE do we need to lose before this nonsense stops'.(WGFinley)

Um. If admins complain of their workload, I think a little familiarity with articles, and the extraordinary lengths editors must go to write articles in the I/P area, will suggest that the labourers are obliged to exercise an infinitely greater degree of patience to edit there. It is far far harder to work as peons than as overseers, and if the foreman complain of fatigue, they should do so with an eye to what the workers in the field have to cope with. I read the above as a request not to play the unionist, but shut up, because people up top in administration shouldn't have too much paperwork on their tables, and dislike the disruption of their time when the hoi polloi wish the rules to be clarified on site disputes. The list you draw up shows Nableezy, just one person, making requests for rule observance. It can only make sense if you list the large number of editors on the other side who have draw him into arbitration. Aside from the chronic assaults on his page, he does get stick from an extensive number of editors who share the same POV, whereas the same is not true of them. I say this with no prejudice against the latter, who have as much right to appeal as Nableezy.Nishidani (talk) 09:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'The only way to deal with an account that's been topic banned 6 times and tries to game the system in order to "defeat" the "other side" would be an indefinite topic ban.'

These casual remarks suggests vague impressionism rather than informed deliberation. There are several editors more reliable than myself who have the same impression in recent times, that administrative judgement in here shows signs of frustration at the frequent recourse to requests for oversight, or evinces even personal dislike of the kind that leads some to disregard clear evidence in cases in order to close a case with 'no action taken', rather than manifesting patient coolheadedness. A significant number of editors have long worked overtime to rid wikipedia of Nableezy, who is very particular about process, and the strict adherence to policy in an area where it is customarily under constant challenge. Those who have complained are not paragon's of neutrality, but partisans of a (legitimate) POV. That his every move is watched, his page defaced, his work undone by I/P editors and dozens of socks, is known. That is no reason to make exceptions in his case, but I don't see much evidence here that he is the problematical character a loose scan of diffs leads some admins to think. For one thing, he has no record for larding articles with misleading, false or provocatively onesided material, which can't be said for many of those who find his presence disagreeable. To attribute to him a battlefield mentality intent on simply wasting time to 'defeat the other side' is patent nonsense. He is a policy wonk, and in the I/P area policy is under constant challenge.Nishidani (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops by asad

Concerning this, I hit rollback on my mobile phone browser on accident. Sorry folks. -asad (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Spoiler

I think we're setting a very dangerous precedent by closing this without even a figurative slap on the wrist for Nableezy's quite ugly conduct. In the future, other editors will now have a strong basis for uncivil conduct and personal attacks against admins on AE, without sanction (lest we be playing favorites). This is without even getting into the fact that Nableezy and his gang are now openly trying to intimidate this admin into complete silence on the Administrators' noticeboard. Very ugly precedents indeed... Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that excusing Nableezy's behavior exclusively, because he's an "effective spokesman" for one side of the I/P space is a dangerous precedent that displays a particular prejudice and effectively nullifies most WP behavioral guidelines. It is an astonishing excuse to give for such blatant violations of the most basic tenets of WP policy. An editor from the other side who behaves this way and pours so much poison into the editing environment would have been out of here long ago. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous ? His gang ? Intimidate ? Your comment is unhelpful and misguided. What is happening at AN is about potential non-compliance with WP:ADMINACCT, a mandatory policy, amongst other important things. There is a perceived problem. There are differences of opinion. It's adversely affecting the functioning of AE. We have already lost one admin who did a fine job in my view. It's important to resolve the issues to everyone's satisfaction including WGFinley. Ugly and uncivil conduct ? This is ugly and uncivil conduct. You could try to help to make things better here. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or this. nableezy - 16:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"This" was a relatively kind way of showing how my comments were prejudicely distorted in that discussion. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't concede that Nableezy's conduct wasn't shockingly out of line with all decorum and accepted behavior here... then it just brings all the more clarity to your role here. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shockingly out of line with all decorum and accepted behavior here? For calling an admin out for repeatedly making false statements and refusing to justify his actions? I think we must edit different websites. nableezy - 16:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are again confusing issues of content and civility in order to justify aggressive and offensive behavior, Nableezy. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, not even a little bit. nableezy - 16:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

eh ? I'm not the one complaining about ugly and uncivil conduct. I don't care if people say fuck off or whatever to eachother. I don't even care if Cptnono gets drunk and acts like an asshat, bless him. At least he's completely honest about it. I'm complaining about your transparently obvious double standards and your apparent lack of self-awareness. Double standards are why it's almost impossible to get anything done in this topic area. My role here, if you want to call it that, is to try to help clear up the mess, baby step by baby step, created by people who are so blind that they can't even see themselves in the mirror let alone what is in the sources and policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you're constantly up to bat for one of the worst battleground editors bar none, it clearly shows that you're more a part of the problem and not the solution -- no matter how many times you claim that you're just here to help. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demonizing hyperbole and spy plots are out of place here. But one expects them. To rise to the bait however is to underestimate the intelligence and perceptiveness of the chaps who have to handle this crap. Let's try in future not to interrupt interactions between plaintiff, accused and admins. We're all grown up, and everyone is fully capable of defending himself. Lengthy external threads only blur matters. I think the only excuse for commenting here is when one sees something significantly unfair in the provisory comments by admins, late in the piece. Only then such 'community input' exercise its proper function. Nishidani (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct of WGFinley

Take it to WGFinley's talk page, open an RFC, ask ArbCom, or do any number of other things. Don't clutter up this page. NW (Talk) 15:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

That you are using the section for uninvolved administrators to further whatever your agenda is against Nableezy for the second time on a request not concerning Nableezy is frankly disgusting and insulting. Nableezy is not the only user who has an issue with your conduct or your attitude. In fact going by your talk page and the several hundreds of words by other editors, the issue is not even limited to your conduct on AE or P-I issues. That should tell you all you need to know. If I were Nableezy and faced with your refusal to admit when you are wrong or your obvious bias in the JJG (and this) case, then I too would be more than a little pissed off and my tone would be, understandably, no different to his. ~~I'm sure you'll have plenty of admin friends ready to endorse your view without all the facts, just as it is no surprise that meatpuppets like Broccolo turn up to stick the knife in Nableezy.~~ You talk of loosing admins "who have the temerity to work AE", do you not see how your own filibustering in the JJG case, keeping it open so long when there was consensus for action was connected to Tim resigning? And that's on top of the hounding by the subject of this very request[17]. You need to recuse yourself and strike your ridiculous proposals from this request and take a good hard look at your attitude. If you have issues with Nableezy and want to work them out then take them to his/your talk page rather than using this AE to win. — ₪₪ ch1902 ₪₪ 12:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"meatpuppets" like me contributed almost 140,000 edits to he.wiki, abour 850 articles, and 20 or so FA's. When you try to insult someone, please try to check the facts and not being like Haaretz. I could have been insulted by your rude comment, but this requires me to take you seriously. As you yourself does exactly what you complain on, I do not. I consider you nothing more than GMG. Broccolo (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it's interesting that until you edited here you had 6 edits in the last 2 years. How is it that a non-active user know who I am and knows exactly how to get to this discussion? Broccolo (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And this is exactly why I rarely speak up and get involved in battles; accusations abound and nothing but bad faith. I am more than aware of P-I conflict from when it spills over to Commons (where I do most of my work) as it did recently with JJG, SD, Biosketch, Nableezy, Chesdovi, etc. I assume we're all familiar with those names. I am no article writer, I admit, instead I give my volunteer time to where I have skills I can offer and that is in vectorizing images used in articles. I used to contribute to the Graphic Lab here until I realised most image action is by way of Commons so I moved there. Maybe in your opinion that is worthless, it doesn't really bother me. I know you from Commons, and I know of you from en.wiki ~~and my statement of meatpuppetry is based on your contributions here, not he.wiki. I won't go on because it will only make me the subject of more attacks, and I can't be dealing with that.~~ There's a saying "the spectator sees more of the game", well I've seen plenty of the game you all play and it doesn't interest me. I thought I could post something to make people see sense, but I should have known that I would get burnt for it, so with that I'm back off my to less than stellar contributions elsewhere. — ₪₪ ch1902 ₪₪ 14:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved in this discussion, but there is another AE related to me and WGFinley is posting in the uninvolved administrators section even though he is heavily involved in the edits under scrutiny. Also, he has accused me of making a "revert" even though it is clearly not a revert. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly an issue with admins here being accused of being in the pocket of the other side. I raised this issue as part of my attemped ARBPIA3 case. It took Cptnono less than 24 hours to start hounding T Canens again after the closing of my request. The fact that his attack on T Canens after Epeefleche's block for POV-motivated harrassment of CCI was widely opposed did not deter Cptnono. Even if Arbcom were too spineless to do something about this, there really needs to be some measure taken against this sort of behaviour.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The behavior isn't limited to WGFinley. I've been involved in multiple AEs and EdJohnston has commented on each of them, even though he is not an uninvolved administrator. For example, my current AE. He also invented a new definition for "revert" that has nothing to do with Wikipedia's definition. This administrator has no regard for Wikipedia policies and thinks that he can do whatever he wants. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WGFinley's comments on the aggressive and disrespectful tone that Nableezy uses with editors and admins he disagrees with, visible in his responses here, are justified, as is his effort to confront and address it in this, and previous AE requests. Nableezy's lack of patience and hostility around the I/P space is way above what should be tolerated by all standards of WP Civility. Though everyone involved is entitled to their POV angles, it needs to be stressed to Nableezy that his conduct of intimidation, derision and threats against people who are offended with his consistent uncivil one-sided assaults, is not conducive to a healthy editing environment. Most editors and admins prefer not to respond to him with the same type of aggression, though it's often the only way to get his attention in order to convey to him the severity of his behavior. Addressing the issue of tone and attitude needed for a healthy collaborative environment is paramount for achieving a more efficient and harmonious editing space. WGFinley's motion here has been long needed so that Nableezy might understand that its his own behavior that is the root cause which turns nearly every disagreement with him into a battleground. More often than not, these instances make it to AE on a technicality and fail to address the primary behavioral cause. It's time to try to address the disruptive and nearly poisonous atmosphere that Nableezy's conduct causes and encourages in this space. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, you may be right about Nableezy, but that does not give WGFinley free rein to ignore Wikipedia policies. It would be bad enough for a regular editor to chose to ignore Wikipedia policies, but WGFinley is an administrator, and is held to a higher standard:

Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen anywhere that WGFinley's behavior was disrespectful to anyone, YTA64. From what I've seen in his responses to Nab's confrontational and arguably uncivil assertions to him does not seem to violate Wikipedia policies and performing his duties to the best of his abilities. The problem here is very severe and the root cause rarely brought to surface. Technical issues are asserted aggressively and disrespectfully to mask frustration over disagreements. It's a very difficult thing for an admin to address and most prefer to stay away from it. It seems to me that WGF is following policy above and beyond the norm in order to do what an administrator is meant to in such a case. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have continued this conversation at WGFinley's talk page. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Devil's Advocate

I think you made a mistake there. It appears the "clarify" tag was added to the article on Palestinian Arabic before Gingrich's comments. He made the comments on Friday and your edit appears to have been made right after 12:00 A.M. Friday, which I think would be well before the interview aired.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above was responding to an apparent error with Cptnono's explanation for his edits. I had made the response directly to Cptnono, but he moved my comments with the following edit summary:

yes, I must have made a mistake by reading the incendiary comments made by Gingirch three days before the interview with the Israeli press. Do me a favor and keep your comments in your own section and read the news before it "broke"

I can find nothing to suggest Gingrich had made these comments before the interview with the Jewish Channel, which is an American channel. Since Cptnono is presenting this to explain how he was not purposefully editing articles Nableezy has recently edited I think it is a point in need of clarification.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Summary by AgadaUrbanit

Seventeen WP:AE cases were initiated in 2011 by User:Nableezy. The success rate is not very impressive, especially lately, but there is still an active discussion on that at WP:AN. My calculus teacher believed that if you need to peek an arbitrary number 17 is the way to go. Not too small not to large and deliciously prime. However User:Nableezy is expecting to squeeze #18 till AE administrators log out for Christmas break, see diff.

"That user has made some truly outrageous attacks, so if he or she does not retract them I will go to AE anyway, consequences be damned..."
— Nableezy, 20:05, 13 December 2011

Probably that would be an intensification of existing conflict evident from this collision in this WP:BLPN discussion. Maybe some Triumvirate of uninvolved administrators could close the RfC at WP:V - the discussion is over there. This discussion here is a Groundhog Day anyways, see AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Cptnono

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

This is a pretty contrived and vexatious request from Nableezy and given his conduct on a recent AE filing we he refused to accept the decision and continue the discussion after it was closed I think it's time for a ban from WP:AE again as well as another TBAN.

There's no "I got here first, now you can't edit" in an interaction ban and Nableezy knows it. There's a 4 day lapse between Nableezy's edit and Cptnono's and this revert by Brewcrewer which was reverted by DePiep which was reverted by JJG which was reverted by SD which was reverted by Malik which was reverted again by Malik in violation of 1RR (though of himself and I expect there's an explanation) which was reverted by AndresHerutJaim which was finally reverted by Cptnono as Nableezy outlined. Of course then DePiep needed to revert that which was then reverted by JungerMan who in turn was reverted by Malik again until I brought an end to this nonsense by protecting the page.. So, in making this report Nableezy ignored the 7 previous reversions prior to Cptnono.

@Malik - It was meant to be humorous slightly, I just have to cover all bases with this crew lest someone point out a 1RR violation was missed and not noted. You know how it goes here. --WGFinley (talk) 06:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stated writing a remedy but I believe long term TBANs of multiple parties are in order here and will wait for others to weigh in. Some of these folks are fresh off of TBANs and are revert warring the placement of a category in an article. --WGFinley (talk) 03:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@WGF: I agree that there is no violation of Cptnono's interaction ban with Nableezy here. Malik self-reverted one of his edits, so if we exclude him, nobody edited more than once at Irgun. It is unclear why anyone's editing of Irgun would be the occasion for topic bans. The reverts by several people at Irgun suggest a lack of good judgment even though 1RR was not broken. It would be hard to formalize a new restriction like 'use common sense before reverting anything on a hot-button article when several people have already reverted it'. EdJohnston (talk) 05:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about the number of owners of previous TBANs here thought it was okay to get in a revert war, they all know they shouldn't be and this is the exact kind of nonsense that continues to cause disruption, AE filings, etc, etc. --WGFinley (talk) 06:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could see the logic of issuing bans for those previously under a TBAN, based on poor judgment exhibited on a hot-button article. But you'd need to state the criterion for your action clearly. Also be aware that, if the rule is generalized, you might start getting more AE submissions since there is more than one hot-button article. EdJohnston (talk) 06:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to put some up but after further consideration I think there is a case to be made (per Gatoclass) about this needing to be clarified on AE. So while I would be inclined to not take any action except warn all those concerned this is unacceptable I am still dismayed at Nableezy's conduct on AE. --WGFinley (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest a remedy of trouts all around. Seriously, everyone needs to go outside and enjoy some sunshine (unless it is raining, in which case I would strongly suggest bringing along an umbrella). The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one who thinks that Nableezy could have been acting in good faith? I've been taking an extended break from AE until recently so perhaps I've been out of this place for too long, but I can see why one would be suspicious of Cptnono turning up to continue an edit war that was started by Nableezy (with whom he has an interaction ban). I don't know if there is enough evidence to suggest that Cptnono was there to aggravate Nableezy, but I don't see this AE complaint as inherently disruptive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was missing something that everyone seemed to get. I agree with HJ's post, and am more concerned about the number of editors who chose to revert while discussion was going on at Talk:Irgun. NW (Talk) 15:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As below, agree this is not a conclusive breach of an interaction ban but it isn't a vexatious report either - I can see how Nableezy interpreted this as a breach of that ban (but disagree with him). I think NW's point about more general "slow" editwarring is important - this could be dealt with via page based probation (as Ed notes this shows a "lack of good judgement") but I don't see the need for high level personalized action against Cptnono, or Nableezy or anyone else in this instance--Cailil ^talk 16:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree that it is a problem that might can be addressed by page protection. The fact that three editors joined the edit war after the sock issue was resolved[18][19][20] and that there was an edit war after a few days of discussion involving several different editors[21][22][23] (some diffs excluded) is indicative of a very battleground approach to the matter, which I think we need to look at more closely than we are. NW (Talk) 21:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I conceded above I see some merit to there being need for clarification (I still think this is the last venue for that and not the first) but you have hit on what I was getting to about this article. All these folks know not to do this but yet they persisted just the same with continuous reverts. --WGFinley (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct of Nableezy

Not sure there was any doubt on this but, here we go. At the risk of a firestorm (although the previous 3 week AE request seems to constitute one already) this appears to be a clear boomerang.

Despite a recent AE report being closed Nableezy chose to continue commenting and thus disrupted AE by refusing to accept the decision and demanding further action.[24] He doesn't respect the process here and will continue commenting as long as he likes.
This led to a disruption of AE by another user commenting[25] with Nableezy replying[26] followed by some back and forth with Nableezy having the last word [27][28].
Nableezy displayed similar conduct on my talk page where I asked him on multiple occasions to use AE for the venue of discussion.
By my count Nableezy has been banned entirely from the topic 6 times [29][30] [31][32][33][34] not including an article ban [35] and three ban modifications[36][37][38]. They appear to have had no impact.
He's been subject to multiple sanctions as a result of AE reports [39][40][41][42][43][44][45] or AN3 reports. [46][47] Nableezy knows the process on AE.
Excuse me, but what the hell are you talking about? - clearly uncivil
Ed, could you please explain to me what an interaction ban is? - clearly condescendingly uncivil.
You simply do not know what you are talking about. an an insinuation of off-wiki canvassing with absolutely no evidence.
Finally, his practice of "file AE first, ask questions later". He could have asked an admin for an opinion on this, including the admin who put the interaction ban in place. Instead it's run off to AE and try to use it vexatiously to silence another opponent.

How many admins who have the temerity to work AE do we need to lose before this nonsense stops? Every comment he makes to someone who dares disagree with him is dripping with venom. Many admins simply just give up and determine it's not worth the headache and quit participating here (don't' think i need to name names).

Given the totality of this conduct, and a ton of other conduct (interaction bans, blocks for violating bans, etc) I haven't even cited, it is clear Nableezy believes Wikipedia is a battleground for despite all these actions and sanctions Nableezy continues to disrupt AE and the P-I article space. I submit a ban from submitting or commenting cases not concerning him on AE is in order along with a topic ban from P-I for 1 year which is the source of this conduct. --WGFinley (talk) 02:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, something needs to be done about the repeated filings of spurious AEs against those who disagree with him. [48] indicates a refusal to respect the process here. Then we have this, where he continues to press the issue. Enigma^msg 04:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to deal with an account that's been topic banned 6 times and tries to game the system in order to "defeat" the "other side" would be an indefinite topic ban. Such behaviour would demonstrate a failure to get the point about changing their attitude to others and to wikipedia's policies with sanctions of a definite duration. This measure prevents disruption and can be lifted when the account shows that they have adjusted their behaviour appropriately.
At least on a prima facie basis it is not unreasonable to consider WP:BOOMERANG here wrt Nableezy. However, as I haven't had an in-depth look at their edits yet (but will later) I wont declare support or oppose at this point, but I'm considering the point--Cailil ^talk 15:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having examined this I do think it would be harsh, and maybe even rash, to impose either a 12 month or indefinite sanction on Nableezy. Thus I would oppose such action at this time, as I'm inclined to agree with HJ and NW above.
Nableezy needs to tone it down - the general last wordiness of their approach here has not been helpful. Broadly speaking, their rhetoric has been borderline and while I empathize WGF, I don't agree that this is grounds for the use of an ArbCom remedy of such magnitude. I do think this is inappropriate, but not within the remit of ARBPIA and is perhaps better for AN etc--Cailil ^talk 16:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the question of venue but I think this is precisely the venue to address the issue at hand, save ARBPIA3 which I was initially opposed to but now thinking is inevitable. This page clearly states if one comes here with unclean hands or disrupts AE they are making themselves subject to sanction themselves. --WGFinley (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this evidence as justifying a ban of Nableezy. Nableezy first got upset with WGFinley due to the Jiujitsuguy case, so far as I can tell. That case was not optimally argued from Nableezy's side though close study of his diffs revealed there was some merit to his assertions. There are some ways that the JJG case might have been handled better. It would be best if Nableezy would recognize that AE is not a precision machine, can't understand everyone's points perfectly, and should be expected to approach truth only in a long-term fashion. If someone is truly a bad actor, their case will be reviewed more than once since they will make return appearances at AE. Nableezy is one of the more effective spokesmen for the Palestinian side of certain disputes and he has also done a lot of content work. Nableezy's recent outrage about some admins failing to respond to him certainly seems over the top. In the AE system, failure to take action is not appealable and people should be willing to live with that.
Anyone who wants to review Nableezy's record in more detail is welcome to view the large dump of data collected by his opponents in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive102#Nableezy, which enumerates all the AE cases he filed in the last two years. Some of the reasoning by editors in that case could also be applied here. The case was closed on 25 November with no action against Nableezy, though I notice that WGF did argue for sanctions even at that time. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: Not every detail of every complaint may be fully analyzed or responded to. Your complaint of an interaction ban violation was not terribly convincing since your revert was so far back in the history. People may respond to edits that they see on their watchlists, and some editors have very large watchlists. Deliberate WP:HOUNDING is usually conspicuous. Interaction bans are inherently more vague than stuff like 1RR violations which are easy to check. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving For Closure

If I'm reading the consensus correctly:

Cptnono did not violate his interaction ban, but should be warned about editing on articles where Nableezy has edited.
This is not a WP:BOOMERANG but Nableezy should be warned to "tone it down" (suggestions on better wording appreciated).
All editors who got into the edit war are admonished for doing so and disrupting the article.

Do I have it correct? I will agree to all these points. --WGFinley (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds OK to me. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Enigma^msg 00:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boothello

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

Request concerning Boothello

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Hipocrite (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Case_amendments

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

01:13, 13 December 2011 Dishonest edit summary - not actually worried about it appearing twice, rather, just acting as an article gatekeeper to prevent improvement
21:03, 13 November 2011 Varnish
03:49, 27 October 2011 Varnish
21:06, 30 October 2011 Varnish

Pretty much all of this editors mainspace contributions are varnish on the reputation of scientific racists.

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

Warned on 02:12, 6 May 2011‎ by Aprock (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This single purpose account is continuing the behavior that other accounts were banned for in August 2010 - consistent violations of NPOV. Further, while it's obvious that this is not the users first account (second edit shows facility with templates beyond what any new user has - [49], and fourth edit already knows what "OR" is - without having edited a talk page, ever.), the user is evasive about their prior history [50], even though their IP is in the public domain and has only one edit - [51], though it is in exactly the same metropolitan area as now topic banned David.Kane (who, shockingly enough, stopped editing with any regularity just 3 weeks after this SPA showed up!)

We don't need POV pushing SPA's in the space. Solve this.

In regards to Boothello's response - It's fabricated - in 2010, he states he was engaged in a "college wikipedia project." Then, all of a sudden, we're one year further and Boothello, out of the blue, only edits in this topic space because that's where all his "post-secondary education lies." But if he does have a "post-secondary education," he only started it 3 months ago, and he did it in exactly the same location as where he went to college - and - catch this - he never changed apartments. Yeah, that's likley. Hipocrite (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to Boothello's attempt to walk back his slip up - no, my friend, it cannot, and further, there is no college in Boston that allows you to study only one subject. Hipocrite (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[52]

Discussion concerning Boothello

Statement by Boothello

Sigh. The sock puppet question was addressed previously discussed here. The IP I used to edit under was 24.60.23.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and after joining I've still occasionally used that IP when I forgot to log in. Including edits from that IP, I've been active on Wikipedia since July 2009. Obviously a lot of what I did from that IP is stuff I shouldn't have done, but it's wrong that I first showed up after David.Kane was topic banned. I stopped vandalizing and started trying to contribute productively as part of a college wikipedia project in fall 2010. The only reason I'm "evasive" about this is because I'm embarrassed about the vandalism I used to do, and I think most other editors in my shoes would also be embarrassed about that. I have already invited both Hipocrite and Mathsci to file and SPI if they really think I'm a sockpuppet of a David.Kane, but neither of them has. The only evidence that he and I are the same person seems to be that we both live in Boston.

If you look at the diffs that Hipocrite posted, it's obvious this is a content dispute. Two of the four edits were the outcome of extensive talk page discussion, and also a followup to changes made by other editors. this was the outcome of discussion here between me and Maunus, and I made it to be consistent with a similar edit from him. this edit was the outcome of discussion here between me and Vsevolodkrolikov, where we agreed to reword this article's description of the Pioneer Fund and move it to another part of the article. He had already added the new wording to the lead and I was removing the old wording because the discussion was about moving the description, not duplicating it. this edit was removing content from an article about a book that had nothing to do with the book, it was about criticism of some of the author's unrelated work. If the article had been about book on any other topic, removing criticism of the author's unrelated work wouldn't have even been controversial.

I am a single purpose account, I'll admit. I edit solely in this topic because it's where my post-secondary education lies, and it's no mystery that IQ/race articles on wikipedia need more work than articles on most of my other interests. But for someone uninvolved looking at my edits, I don't think there's any evidence that I'm editing the articles in a way that isn't consistent with policy and consensus. This is clearly a thankless job. My decision to go from vandalism to productive editing has caused my edits to be criticized more rather than less. I've tried removing content from the articles that's excessively favorable to the hereditarian position about race and intelligence, such as [53] and [54] but nobody seems to notice that. Hipocrite is offended that I also remove excesses about the perspective that everyone who researches R&I is a racist. It's true that I make that kind of edit more often, but not because I think it's more important. When someone adds content that's excessive in the hereditarian direction it's usually dealt with right away by people like Aprock and Maunus. But currently people don't seem to care as much about avoiding excesses in the opposite direction. NPOV requires that we avoid both.

I'll also note that the "warning" from Aprock linked to above isn't an official warning in the discretionary-sanctions sense. Official warnings under discretionary sanctions can only be made by an uninvolved admin, and Aprock is not one.Boothello (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Hipocrite

Since Hipocrite is who posted this thread, I should point out the string edits he's made to the article today. He's removed a lot of well-sourced information with the misleading edit summary "not a reliable source". [55] [56] [57] The sources that he removed with this edit summary include papers published in the journals Psychology, Public Policy and Law and The Open Psychology Journal, and also books published by Praeger, Methuen Publishing, Pergamon Press and W. W. Norton & Company. When Victor Chmara reverted the removal of these sources, Hipocrite threatened him with a ban. [58] [59]

There's no doubt many of these books and papers are controversial, but being controversial does not mean a source fails WP:RS. The claim that these aren't reliable sources seems like a flimsy justification to remove content that he disagrees with. I think this makes it even more obvious that Hipocrite is going to AE over a content dispute, and one where RS policy isn't on his side.Boothello (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipocrite: by "post-secondary education" I just mean I'm in college. Post-secondary education can mean anything after high school. Higher education lists college as one of the things this term can mean, and that's how I'm using it. I never said psychology is the only thing I'm studying, but as I said, these are the articles where I feel able to help the most. If semantic nitpicking is the best evidence you can find that I'm a sockpuppet, I'm not interested in discussing it beyond this.Boothello (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: I thought that to count as an official warning, a notification of the discretionary sanctions had to be logged on the arbitration case page. Only admins can do that. I also thought the point of this requirement is so that if a person's conduct is a problem, they can have a chance to change it before they're sanctioned. An uninvolved admin can be impartial enough to determine that. But it doesn't seem like it should mean the same thing if an involved editor "warns" their opponent during a dispute. Is a warning of the discretionary sanctions something that any editor can give to anyone else in any situation? If I've misunderstood this policy, I apologize.Boothello (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathsci: you brought up that edit last time you accused me of being a sock, and I explained it then. That's a shared IP address between me and my roommate, and that edit was from him. After he made it, I asked him to stop with the vandalism and I think he did. I know vandalism is a problem from shared IPs, but I don't see how that's evidence of sockpuppetry.Boothello (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Aprock: I honestly don't see anything in those comments that goes against policy. I think maybe you and I just have naturally different editing styles, rather than it being a simple matter of right and wrong. I've never been blocked for anything I did on R&I articles and no uninvolved admin has ever warned me about it either. But if an uninvolved admin looks at these diffs and decides I'm doing something wrong and issues me a warning, I'll listen and modify my behavior accordingly.

For now I just want to point out the number of edits I've made that were obviously helpful. I've added a lot content from secondary sources and rewrote several sections to make them less undue, such as [60] [61] [62] Taking edits like this into account, I think my involvement in R&I articles has made the articles better than they would have been otherwise.Boothello (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing?

I know I qualify as a single purpose account, and I know that SPAs need to edit neutrally instead of following an agenda. But I am very concerned that the admins commenting here are just taking it at Hipocrite and Aprock's word that my edits are not neutral. Can you please look at the diffs and decide for yourselves if they are? When I've removed criticism from any of these articles it's had an obvious policy justification, like removing criticism from the article about Rushton's book cited to sources that don't mention the book. And I've provided numerous examples of making edits in favor of the opposite perspective. Just being accused of POV pushing shouldn't be enough for a topic ban, I think admins need to look for themselves at the diffs to see if it's really the case.

The four editors who have been most consistently involved in this topic are Maunus, VsevelodKrolokov, Victor Chmara, and Aprock. Of these four, three do not have any problem with my editing. Maunus is the most significant because as Mathsci points out below, Maunus was initially suspicious of me, and I eventually won his trust. More recently he's commented that he thinks my editing shows me to be a reasonable person. [63] Maunus's perspective about R&I is the opposite of the POV I've been accused of pushing, and he does not by any means always agree with me about content, so I think it counts for a lot that he still thinks my editing is alright. This thread was posted at a time when he, VsevelodKrolokov, and Victor Chmara seem to be all inactive, so the selection of people commenting in this AE report is not a good sampling of how the regulars on these articles feel about my editing. Administrators NEED to decide whether I'm POV pushing by looking at the diffs, and not just reacting to the editors who've posted here.Boothello (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Boothello

Comment by Mathsci

The problems here have been around for a while, since the WP:ARBR&I case was closed. I was contemplating filing an SPI report, related to the account of David.Kane (talk · contribs), renamed Ephery (talk · contribs). This account has been inactive since April. Since a request has just been made here, it makes more sense to post the report here. Like all SPI reports, there is no certainty that I am correct.

Boothello is a single-purpose account editing solely in the area covered by WP:ARBR&I. His editing started not long after the case was closed. It is editing in one area but he usually makes only a few low-level edits a week. He intially edited logged off from a Brookline IP 24.60.23.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which had been used by another user with a completely different editing profile, This has never been adequately explained by Boothello. His MO on wikipedia is indistinguishable from that of David.Kane/Ephery, indefinitely topic-banned from the same set of articles. He recently edited logged off by mistake from an IP address 71.232.157.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which locates to within a radius of 1 or 2 km of the registered private address of the now defunct website User:Ephery/EphBlog. In this recent diff [64], Boothello inadvertently displayed an intimate knowledge of the mode of editing of Race and intelligence during the period in Spring 2010, a long while before his current account was registered. That is inconsistent with his previous statements on this noticeboard and more recently on his talk page[65] that, while editing as an IP, he was an "immature vandal"[66] but then reformed overnight to adopt an online persona indistinguishable from that of David.Kane.

I could be wrong of course, but his knowledge of WP:ARBR&I, of wikipedia editors only active during his "immature vandal" phase, his knowledge of editing of articles covered by the ban, his lobbying tactics, his edit warring on race and intelligence. his wikilawyering on Talk:Race and intelligence and elsewhere, in addition to the actual location of his IP, provide a strong case that this could be sockpuppetry by David.Kane. Mathsci (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boothello gives an explanation of his own editing patterns which is not credible in any way. When he apparently had turned over a new leaf, infantile edits still appeared out of the blue [67]. Clearly these edits were made by somebody in quite a different age group (a generation or so below Boothello). That is supported by the fact that his named account has never suffered from such bizarre lapses into childish editing at any stage whatsoever. I would imagine that any long-term puppetmaster, active for a sufficiently long period (in this case just over one year), will inevitably make mistakes; that appears to be what has happened here. Boothello's claim that his editing is somehow related to a supposed university course in the Boston area also lacks any credibility whatsoever. Yes, his account has a single-minded agenda with "troubling overtones" (to use Newyorkbrad's euphemism), but that was already the problem with David.Kane's editing. He has been reminded on several occasions about the special editing conditions that apply to articles covered byWP:ARBR&I on his talk page. Here for example is a notification in May 2011 from Aprock.[68] Mathsci (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boothello has now written a message to David.Kane.[69] Mathsci (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Although he has taken time off from wikipedia, a while back, when being lobbied by Boothello about Volunteer Marek,[70] Maunus did make some fairly frank comments directly to Boothello.[71] Mathsci (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

There's most certainly a lot of WP:DUCK going on here, as well as the apparent match between the IP address and User:Ephery's blog location.

In addition to the fact that

Boothello edits exclusively articles edited previously by Ephery,
and the fact that he began editing shortly after Ephery was indef topic banned in the R&I case
and the fact that the POV, as well as the approach and tone of the two users is pretty similar (though somewhat bland)

there is also the fact that there is no overlap between the two user's edits. Boothello began editing on November 8, 2010 and has made about 400 edits since then. Between November 8, 2010 and April 24, 2011 (the date of the last edit made by Ephery), there had been only two days on which both users made edits:

February 6, 2011, Ephery made an edit at 12:36 and Boothello made an edit at 22:07 - a difference of almost twelve hours.
April 24, 2011 (Ephery's last edit) - Ephery made an edit at 1:40 and Boothello made an edit at 4:15 - a difference more than two hours (it's possible that one account is being edited from home while the other from work or school).

For the rest of the time period the two accounts never edited on the same day.

So add that to the number of "coincidences" shared between two accounts both of which are located within a 2km radius (roughly, about 15 city blocks, or a 20 minute walk at a leisure pace).

Volunteer Marek 22:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Professor marginalia

I saw this request on my watchlist but haven't followed the latest disputes in the involved pages. A major reason (but not the only one) that the Race articles are such a headache still is because of all the proxy editing. Even when these proxies are behaving reasonably, they tends to cause disruption because it takes a toll on other editors when they're aware they are being gamed here, leaving them few options but to look the other way or put up with it, play nice, and "collaborate" with those circumventing bans, blocks etc.

The disruption here is a case in point. Boothello's explanation is improbable. To go from nothing but juvenile horseplay like this, this and this to edit summaries about WP:SYN, WP:BLP and WP:V, a user now versed in even the minutia of the subject like this and this - in just a matter of months in some college class? It's more probable that the real something which explains this has been willfully left out of the story.

Boothello is a SPA. I don't know that Boothello is Ephery although there are coincidences. Following his topic ban, Ephery returned to the dispute on two occasions. The first was to defend Ferahgo in an AE request filed to topic ban her under WP:SHARE, editing on 28 Sep 2010. This request had languished for a few weeks without a decision until WeijiBaikeBianji's comment resumed discussions on 27 Sep 2010. Boothello opened his account on 27 Sep 2010 but this account was not used for comment on this AE. His first edit came abt 2 months after he opened the account. Ephery's next (and last) involvement in the R/I dispute was against WeijiBaikeBianji which was initiated by one and supported by a couple more proxy accounts. Boothello did not participate in the RFC either. But on the issue of enabling the proxies, his first edit to Talk:Race (classification of humans) was a defense of a proxy editor whose rant I (and others) reverted. Boothello took issue with me (and others) for removing this. The page had been plagued by socks and loons causing chaos with their soapboxing, rants and conspiracy mongering. This was one of many steps taken to get the discussion back on track, including page protections, archiving the soapboxing, etc and numerous warnings were left on the page that inappropriate stuff would be closed or removed if they continued. (This user was later ID'd as a banned sock and blocked.) What is strange is that Boothello left his objection there, but then immediately traveled over to Race and intelligence to complain about this again. He'd never before made an edit to that page either or its main space. Another month goes by there before we see any substantive content related edits or discussion. He was referee'ing for this sock in two pages, but why? He wasn't even active in either of those pages at the time, and his total contribution for either by that date was just a handful of edits posted nearly two months before.

It's stuff like that raise suspicions. And like I said, suspicions are enough in these sock-prone articles that tempers and good will are in short supply and consensus building is nearly impossible. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by aprock

Boothello is a single purpose account engaged in actively editing articles under R/I. The biggest problem faced with Boothello parallels the problems faced with some of the editors who have been topic banned. In pursuing his preferred POV, Boothello regularly misreads and misinterprets both sources and editors. The effect of this is to create an atmosphere of tendentious editing, where Boothello must be point by point convinced of even the smallest detail presented in the sources. This level of nit-picking would be useful and productive if (i) it was directed at actively editing and improving articles, and (ii) it was generally correct. Unfortunately, it is often neither. Much of this questioning of edits and sources has the effect of stalling any progress until Boothello is satisfied. This level of gatekeeping, whether well intentioned or intentional, is quite disruptive. aprock (talk) 03:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Causation and Correlation: In his final comment of his first WP discussion Boothello refers to the Alfred Binet article stating: "[IQ tests] were invented to predict scholastic performance". Reviewing the article makes it clear that instead the original IQ tests were invented to diagnose learning disabilities.

Processing time: This talk page discussion has Boothello proposing to rewrite (and expand) coverage of some marginal content, which really doesn't merit significant coverage, saying: "Race and reaction time isn't discussed anywhere else on Wikipedia, so we have an obligation to make this part of the article informative to readers."

While discussing the problematic issues with presenting extensive data instead of clear conclusions Boothello says: "lay people who are looking at the data will often see what they want to see, but that's just part of human psychology and I don't think we should try to avoid it."

Talk:Race and intelligence: Ten days into an extensive discussion of a POV tag where several POV problems with the article are discussed, Boothello joins the discussion declaring: "I'm removing the tag." He then states "It is a misuse of the tag to add it just because you might find POV issues when you review the article next week." despite the fact that multiple editors have pointed out multiple problems with the article as written.

Talk:IQ and the Wealth of Nations: I honestly don't have really the heart to dig through all of the giant wall of text. It's a perfect example of the kind of tendentious editing that can occur with civil POV pushers. The meat of the issue is that Boothello wanted a biased source to be used without specific mention of the kind of bias the source was encumbered with. Volunteer Marek might have more insight since he was primarily involved here.

Talk:Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence: Another giant wall of text. This one I participated in. The discussion resolves around two secondary sources (a textbook and a professional report) which make similar statements about genetics, groups, and intelligence. One specifically singles out Ashkenazi Jews, while the other discusses the conclusions in terms of white and blacks. Much back and forth ensues about how to uses the sources, and whether or not they can be used, with Boothello objecting to the textbook because it was too old, and the report because while it discusses Ashkenazi Jews elsewhere, it does not do so explicitly when making the statement.

There is more as well, but time constraints impinge. aprock (talk) 06:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston on the request concerning Boothello

If User:David.Kane (now User:Ephery) were to have started a second account as Boothello, it would be a concern because Ephery is under an indefinite ban from the topic of race and intelligence. Boothello is not currently under any restriction, though he's been notified. It does not seem to be an open-and-shut case that this is the same editor. Those who want to look for comments with a similar point of view might begin with the wikistalk results comparing Ephery and Boothello. The topic of R&I is quite technical and it would be helpful if other editors who have worked on that topic could become aware of this AE. Does anyone object if one of the participants wants to notify others? They could (for example) notify everyone who participated in one of the arb cases, clarifications, or past AEs. It would also be helpful if someone could report whether Boothello's editing has been discussed on any admin boards, and provide links if they have been. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Boothello: The case at WP:ARBR&I provides for standard discretionary sanctions. Under the current wording of the latter page, any editor (not just an admin) may issue a warning:

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

Hence Boothello should consider himself warned under WP:ARBR&I per Aprock's notice. It would be especially ironic if someone who had filed an AE request last May asking for action against Volunteer Marek under the discretionary sanctions should need a specially-engraved notice of the existence of the discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Boothello

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

The links between Boothello and other named accounts are suspicious but not, in my mind, definitive. Boothello's mode of interaction is certainly highly reminiscent of that of previously banned agenda accounts in this topic area (e.g. Captain Occam (talk · contribs), David.Kane (talk · contribs)). In fact, Captain Occam is at present making nearly identical arguments about "warnings" vs. "notifications" of discretionary sanctions (e.g. [72], [73]). But in the end, I think the matter of potential alternate account use is academic.
The last thing this topic area needs is another single-purpose account dedicated to promoting a minoritarian viewpoint. This is both a personal administrative viewpoint (see #17) and my reading of the gist of the ArbCom case. This topic area has been awash in such single-purpose agenda accounts. The fact that this particular account is suspicious as a sockpuppet is perhaps an aggravating factor, but I think the underlying issue addressed in the ArbCom case was that these sorts of agenda accounts are problematic and thus liable to discretionary sanctions.
As such, I would favor a topic ban, but I'm not going to close this thread or act unilaterally. I will await input and a decision from EdJohnston and/or other admins. MastCell ^Talk 18:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Section 5.2 of WP:ARBR&I#Case amendments provides that editors contributing to the area of conflict must: "..adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to: maintaining a neutral point of view; avoiding undue weight; carefully citing disputed statements to reliable sources; and avoiding edit-warring and incivility." Single-purpose agenda accounts will not be able to meet the neutrality requirement, so I am sympathetic to a topic ban. This area has been troubled by agenda accounts in the past, so we would not be responding to an imagined problem. EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Single use account + patterns similar to banned editors = quack to me, we don't have the resources to prove each and every one. I support a topic ban, open to discussion on term. --WGFinley (talk) 05:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy

Nableezy is restricted from adding the word 'Palestinian' to any articles until 15 January 2012. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Nableezy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

19:12, 14 December 2011 - WP:EW at Nazareth

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

Warned on 20:16, 14 December 2011 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

You missed your chance to put yourself on safe ground, and now you may be considered to be a revert-warrior like all the others. There is no 'right to revert to a long-standing version', especially during an RfC on that exact matter.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am uninvolved in RfC taking place at Nazareth talk page, though I've noticed its existence. I do not have any opinion on the matter. I have reverted an IP, since I was not sure that the anonymous editor was aware of the discussion and warned other editors not to get into WP:EW. However User:Nableezy, who is active contributor to talk page discussion, reverted anyway. The Nazareth page immediately got protected due to Edit warring / Content dispute: Nationalist revert war by EdJohnston. Ed suggested:

Patience could be a virtue, even if it takes longer to get to a conclusion. You edited while an RfC was running so as to revert the very term being discussed in the RfC. I'm requesting that you take a voluntary one-month break from adding the word 'Palestinian' to any articles.

However Nab believes:

Ed, I dont think this is justified...

I personally do not know what should be done here, but maybe AE administrator could figure it out.

Re nableezy - 21:54, 14 December 2011: I'm not sure why you have waited for revert of IP in order to start edit waring. You are still appear trigger happy with reverts, despite your numerous clarifications that you are indeed cured Why have not you edited earlier, if you believe your actions were justified? If you have agreed to Ed's limitation, which I have not noticed earlier, then maybe this incident is moot. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notification

Discussion concerning Nableezy

Statement by Nableezy

Umm, what? nableezy - 21:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given Agada's repeated vexatious comments about me in numerous AE requests (a sample, [74], [75], [76], [77]), would it be possible to instate an interaction ban? I generally avoid Agada as I feel dealing with him is a waste of time, but that one-sided self-imposed ban doesnt do much. I would appreciate a restriction being placed so I dont have to deal with this user's incessant squabbling. nableezy - 21:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, just for clarity, despite Agada's dishonest portrayal of my comments above, I had already agreed to Ed's proposed restriction, and we were discussing the issue on my talk page. The reason Agada brought this here is obvious, so much so that I think I can leave it unsaid. nableezy - 21:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how this is closed, I would still like an interaction ban with Agada. His constant squabbling is more than a minor annoyance, and if at all possible I would like to avoid dealing with this particular "editor". His whinging is becoming more and more tiring. nableezy - 23:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, your comments have several distortions, and given your familiarity with English I have no doubt they are intentional. I dont plan on responding here to an editor who repeatedly distorts things, and, as you have proven yourself to be such an editor, I dont plan on replying to your latest fabrication. nableezy - 13:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsurprisingly, a collection of like-minded users have arrived, blessing us with what they think is their oh-so-clever evidence. Can this finally be dealt with? Or is there a reason that every time I am either brought here or bring somebody else here, a chorus of users, the submitter of this report included, bring a collection of distortions, fabrications, and outright untruths in a poor attempt to create confusion about the actual issue. Can this please be dealt with now? I again suggest that this board do away with comments by involved users. Everybody already knows that Shuki, MichaelNetzer, Hearfourmewesique and several others think I am a BadMan™. I dont see why it is necessary or productive to give them another venue to distort evidence. Article space should be plenty for them. nableezy - 13:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezy

Comment by Shuki

Frankly, I think the vast majority of heavily-involved I-P editors on both sides of the POV have had nice extended topic bans and have cooled down substantially. Except Nableezy who, if even sentenced, gets short ones, and then raises appeals successfully to get back on the battleground. Some have even said Nableezy is needed because they add 'balance'. I've come back from a one year hiatus from I-P and I am truly amazed that Nableezy has managed to keep the aggressive attitude intact. But what's the point of bothering to bring Nableezy to AE? The invincible smart one who seems to wait until the 24hrs are up to revert (in the past 3RR, and now 1RR) and if caught on a mistake, merely apologizes for the technicality and everyone is happy. The person with nine lives, who always gets a second chance, who gets endless warnings from AE admins, just when the guideline is about to be thrown and some admin comes by on AE to be the voice of mercy. --Shuki (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In our pretty little world of WP, we want to assume that everyone is really civil and here to build the encyclopedia. Where someone can screw up but apologize, even if that same someone screws up dozens of times, attacks others for same infractions, but a simple 'who me? I'm sorry' is enough for this one too. I've never seen one editor get so much attention from AE admins, so many personal warnings on the user's talk page, so many breaks. What is being accomplished here? I suggest WP:BOOMERANG here but EdJohnston, sorry to call your bluff, but the admins are all talk. --Shuki (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by RolandR

This seems a totally unfounded complaint. Several editors were involved in reverting and re-reverting, but AU has seen fit to complain about just one of them. As evidence of Nableezy's alleged malpractice, he cites a comment by an admin made an hour after his edit. How can Nableezy have been guilty of ignoring a polite suggestion, if it had not yet been offered. The "Get Nab" crowd just don't give up, do they? RolandR (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Ed'd proposal below about blocking all editors involved in an extended edit war, this proposal could only be of benefit to Wikipedia if it had a clear exemption for editors reverting obvious vandals, sock puppets, New SPAs created in order to entrap editors, and other offenders who plague I/P articles. In the absence of such an exemption, their vexatious POV edits would be required to remain, and those attempting to enforce Wikipedia policies would be penalised. RolandR (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by The Devil's Advocate

Just think it should be noted that the first revert Nableezy made was of editor Odiwkatc who appears to have made the edit within a minute of registering, and it so far being that editor's only contribution. Maybe there should be a checkuser inquiry made into that editor. Also, I think when there is an RfC going on any attempt to change the wording away from the old consensus should be frowned upon unless it actually seeks to balance the concerns of both sides. Making a new change that only favors one side seems more like an attempt by that side in the dispute to force their version into place thus undercutting the RfC.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MichaelNetzer

@EdJohnston: While it's understandable to be duly forgiving of Nableezy's behavior because he's an effective representative for a cause, concerns voiced around the I/P space recently are not at all frivolous or unfounded. This case may not be representative of the core issues needing to be addressed here, but still, a voluntary ban on adding a word to an article has little to do with a problem of conduct that persists after every slap of the wrist Nableezy gets. Editors under fire from him have to endure insults, bad faith insinuations, distortions of intent, intimidation and generally the type of aggression that's not tolerated in anyone else's behavior. It's worrisome that Nableezy seems to become more empowered in time knowing he can dish out the most toxic diatribe with impunity because administrators afford him special protection. If such a door is to be opened on Wikipedia, then we can eventually expect the collapse of the conduct guidelines altogether.

Nableezy does not show an obligation to change his tone in the editing space, regardless of repeated advice and warnings about it. He's said himself that 1RR bans caused him to curb those violations. The next time he blows up at someone and contaminates a relatively collaborative atmosphere, a ban for uncivil conduct needs to be considered more seriously because even he admits that a stringent measure compels him to modify his behavior. The kid gloves treatment not afforded to others will continue to boomerang and cause arbitrators to spend more time putting out his fires than most anything else they do. A certain measure of tolerance can be appreciated, but only until it becomes a detriment to the community as a whole. I say this with utmost respect for your efforts to keep things peaceful here. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: What I see in that discussion is the beginning of a disagreement that quickly escalates into a fight, mainly because you project an uncompromising one sided attitude that seeks to pulverize anyone standing in your way. You show no capacity to collaborate with others as they attempt to cooperate with you. Then you fly off the handle when shown that your source attempts to whitewash, for obvious political reasons, a speaker who is on record for having called for mass genocide. You show no capacity of understanding how that speaker can be offensive to people his remarks are directed against, yet you are of the quickest editors to take offense at the slightest criticism directed at you. It is not at all a pretty game that you play. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of compromise would you have found appropriate? Using a book by a source who has previously directly been denied RS status in this context? Or a non-refereed journal article by a person who seems to have no relevant credentials? In this case compromise would have been detrimental to the integrity of the project - please show some understanding of how offensive that might be to some of us. Please also take some time to think hard about the game that you are playing. u n☯mi 07:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say anything about compromising on an RS, though this particular case there exists no consensus for the RS being unreliable in the broad way Nableezy characterized it in his first response "Wow. A book published by WND Books by an author of WorldNetDaily fame". This characterization does not reflect the consensus discussion and wrongly excludes the source on a broad basis that was never agreed to. The article in question cited reliable sources itself, which at least should made it legitimate to ask the question and should have been taken into consideration instead of such an aggressive mocking dismissal by an experienced editor, who's expected by all WP standards to show more courtesy to younger and less experienced editors. Naturally, most of us are familiar with this incivility used by Nableezy, especially to overpower, intimidate and drag editors into arguments he can use to file another in a long series of complaints against (which he's already threatened this editor with). Instead of rising above the battle-POV-aggressive tone he uses to disqualify information that doesn't suit his prejudice, something all WP guidelines frown upon, he could have been more courteous in explaining his reservation. If you are so offended at a perfectly legitimate question about using an RS but are not offended at the near malicious behavior Nableezy displayed in waging such uncivil battle for his "cause" (with declarative AE admin support), then perhaps it's better for you reflect on that double standard with yourself alone. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I've been following that exchange at Talk:Israeli–Palestinian_conflict#New_sources_proposal. It's not okay to repeatedly bring poor quality sources to discussions. It's especially not okay to make ethically indefensible and morally repugnant accusations based on total distortions of what another editor has said and done and the nature of a source. That's wrong, as in right and wrong. If someone does that they can't expect things to go well and they certainly shouldn't be defended by others. Perhaps Hearfourmewesique has simply misinterpreted the situation. I really hope so, because the alternative explanation, that it is willful, is quite astonishing. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of poor quality is amusing. You call Klein's book a poor source, but have no problems with other books written in the spirit of refusal to recognize Israel, thus insisting on calling all what is Israeli "Palestinian". Your neutrality mask is melting, and no one actually says anywhere that Aaron Klein is unreliable, nor that Middle East Quarterly is unreliable, especially when its article cites 43 of its own reliable and verified sources. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tiamut

Well its more of a question really. Is Nableezy's ban on reinstating the word "Palestinian" to apply to any text with that word in it? What I mean is even when its not the source of a dispute but the word happens to be in a paragraph where other material is being contested? And if so, doesn't that pretty much amount to a topic ban? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 18:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Hearfourmewesique

Ever since the beginning of my (relatively) short time in the I-P area, I was reverted dozens of times and reported to ArbCom without being given the time to properly respond to warnings, mostly by Nableezy, which resulted in being blocked twice. Now he is trying, for the second time, to threaten to report me for alleged lies and attacks on him and/or his sources, when in reality all I do is call him out on the use (and defense) of controversial sources, which constitute the coverage of work that is anti-Semitic in nature. Moreover, he is falsely accusing me of WP:HOUNDing him because I chimed in in a couple of discussions,in which he is involved, and reverted a couple of his contributions; he also threatened to start hounding me unless I ceased being involved in the same topic areas as he is. He calls sources I provide "excremental" and "crap", claiming "it's not gonna fly here". It is clear that Nableezy is very experienced in what he does, and I see it as WP:Civil POV pushing, which, of course, is the worst kind because it is the hardest to prosecute or even detect without being called incivil or having bad faith. Incidentally, it seems as if he filed more reports on this board than anyone else, all against editors who do not edit in a strong pro-Palestinian fashion. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This offers some context for the above charges. u n☯mi 06:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. It offers a dispute about a book that opinions over it seem to be divided 50/50, while the poisonous incivility and intimidation in the discussion were more like 100% from one side. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 06:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious?!? That editor claimed that I attempted to use a source by somebody calling for the destruction of all Jews when what I was citing was a report by the Office of the Mayor of London. And all the incivility came from one side. Yes, I was uncivil when an editor maliciously lied that I was citing somebody who called for genocide. How terrible of me. nableezy - 06:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rofl. No, it shows one editor with severe competency issues and another who is calmly but with increasing frustration trying to set him straight. If you really believe the characterization you have put forwards then I feel very sorry for you. u n☯mi 07:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your link is for a subsection, so I scrolled up to see how everything started and commented on that first. I've made another comment to Nab about the subsection itself. And I do appreciate the affection, you're not the first to feel sorry for me. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not by somebody, about somebody, and the quote speaks for itself – should I provide the links again? Also, to make things worse, Nableezy is now suggesting to ban all users, who are not in his favor, from this noticeboard. When exactly does too much become too much??? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, not surprising – now Nableezy is seeking an extended ban against me... gee, I wonder why? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Nableezy

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

Since Nableezy has already agreed to the voluntary restriction, I think this report could be closed. Another option would be to sanction all the editors who reverted on 'Palestinian' in the Nazareth article after the RfC was opened at 09:25 on 12 December. That set of people would include the filer of this report. The revert war at Nazareth caught my attention because (a) that article is on my watch list, (b) the war is reminiscent of one at Irgun (discussed here recently) where several people reverted the same thing back and forth but nobody broke 1RR. The term 'poor judgment' was used in the Irgun case, and that also seems to apply to Nazareth. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closing: Per his somewhat reluctant agreement here, Nableezy is restricted from adding the word 'Palestinian' to any articles until 15 January. The wording of the restriction was proposed here. EdJohnston (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One final comment. It is worth considering whether the practices should be changed so that all participants in an 'extended revert war', like the one here (at Nazareth) or the one in a recently-closed AE at Irgun, could be blocked for a period of time. This would allow admin action even when the 1RR was not broken. Proper definition of 'extended revert war' would be needed. Perhaps: making the same revert of a controversial term as a previous editor made, within 24 hours. A similar issue came up in a case regarding Eastern Europe some time back. EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@RolandR: I'd agree to modify the proposal to exempt any editor who (a) reverted something as vandalism, then reported the person to AIV and the request is plausible or (b) filed an SPI on an apparent sock where the SPI checks out as a good-faith complaint. I'd agree that Odiwkatc who participated in the Nazareth war qualifies as an apparent sock. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

173.238.69.86

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

Request concerning 173.238.69.86

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: nableezy - 14:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC) 14:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: 173.238.69.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

15 December 2011 Distortion of cited sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_people&diff=prev&oldid=465998268 15 December 2011 Revert, continued distortion of sources
15 December 2011 2nd revert, continued distortion of sources

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

Though not required, I informed the IP of the 1RR here

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user claims to be editing according to the sources, yet, in just one example (here), he takes a source that says Palestinians are the descendants of all the indigenous peoples who lived in Palestine over the centuries; since the seventh century, they have been predominantly Muslim in religion and almost completely Arab in language and culture. and changes the article from saying are an Arab people with origins in Palestine. to are an Arab people with origins in the Levant and Arabia. The rest of the diff is filled with similar distortions. The following are both reverts, with the second violating the 1RR. Looking at past edits by the IP, such as this, or this, doesnt leave me with an impression that anything other than a long block is called for.

The IP has been blocked for 31 hours, but given the severity of the actions (serious distortion of the cited sources) I suggest something a bit longer. nableezy - 14:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning 173.238.69.86

Statement by Nishidani

An egregrious example of a commonplace editwarrior technique, What happens in these cases is that an editor who disagrees with the source employed, does not check it (p.221), but simply rewrites the passage in order to make the source accord with his private opinion, or that of an ideology he subscribes to. The effect is to retain the source (thus evading charges of RS removal), while controverting its conclusion with a piece of WP:OR His edit sdummary runs:'(Not all Palestinain Arabs have origins in the Levant; most have ARAB heritage which is foreign to the region, unlike the Jews who are indigenous)'. The result is chaos.

There are numerous IP editors and sockpuppets who play this game. I don't think their aim is to distort the text, as much as to provoke editors, like Nableezy, either into using up their revert quota on that page, or to start an edit war which will lead to AE, and make the plaintiff look bad by the frequency of his requests that this kind of chronic abuse be dealt with.

The only way to get rid of this gaming, which is a tactic to provoke serious editors into making frequent complaints here, is to adopt some policy modification to handle it. Specifically, where an editor changes the text to alter what the source says, it is ipso facto vandalistic, and must be reverted automatically as vandalism, and the vandalic act registered on the editor's page. If it is repeated, the vandal gets a life ban. Ban this chap, and another dozen will pop in to take over the job. One by one sanctions are futile in handling a Matrix like proliferation of identities who essentially employ the same set of tactics. This is not so much a behavioural problem, so much as consequence of defects in wiki policy which invite hackers to game the efficiency of the project's collaborators.Nishidani (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 173.238.69.86

Comments by others about the request concerning 173.238.69.86

Result concerning 173.238.69.86

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

The IP has been blocked by Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and I would advise a trip to RfPP (by all means citing this diff) if problems like this keep cropping up. However, I would advise that you warn vandals and report them to AIV, rather than relying solely on the 1RR restriction when you have made more than one revert (though obviously reverts of inherently disruptive edits do not count towards the 1RR limit). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, PP is the best response to this type of behavior. I would request this report not be closed just yet as I am having some technical evidence checked. --WGFinley (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the account, by WGF's request. This anonymous user is Confirmed as User:Epf, who I have just blocked indefinitely. I will leave the issue of levying discretionary sanctions to you guys. AGK [•] 00:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hearfourmewesique

Indefinitely banned from all articles, discussions and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed against all namespaces. EdJohnston (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Hearfourmewesique

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy 19:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

17:55, 13 December 2011 Malicious lie about my actions with an implicit accusation of antisemitism, further explanation below
18:41, 13 December 2011 Hounding, dishonestly claiming the material is not supported by the cited sources
16:55, 13 December 2011 Hounding

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

Notified of the case on 13 October 2011

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In the diff above, and in several comments that followed at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Hearfourmewesique accused me of using a source by someone who called for the destruction of every Jew. I replied Are you serious? What religious nutjob am I citing at MEMRI? Le Monde diplomatique? Unless you can provide diffs of my defending a source from somebody who called for the destruction of every Jew you should remove that blatantly dishonest personal attack The user then claimed that because I used this report by the office of the Mayor of London that I was using a source by a religious nutjob (referencing a living person) who advocated genocide. Needless to say, I was livid about the obscene attack on me and responded harshly, but the nature of this bald-faced lie was such that I could, and can, not muster any restraint when dealing with somebody who so brazenly makes such defamatory accusations, accusations that are so obviously false that no competent person can call them anything other than a lie made with malicious intent.

I repeatedly, though harshly, requested that the user either show me citing a source calling for genocide or retract the claim. The user has refused and continues to repeat it, though now it has morphed into my using a source that supports a person who made a statement that MEMRI translated a certain way. No matter what one thinks of me, I should not have to put up with such blatantly dishonest and disgusting attacks on my character. This lie remains at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the user continues to make further absurd charges, with no justification.

I admit I lost my temper, though I feel that in the face of such inflammatory attacks that my response was justified. However, I recognize that I should have simply come straight here. Given the past few weeks, and the repeated appearance of uninformed comments from a collection of users such as MichaleNetzer and AgadaUrbanit, seeking to use any report as an excuse to ban me, I neglected to do so, hoping that I might convince the user to retract such a malevolent lie. Obviously I failed to do so, and in doing so I admit I exceeded the standards of behavior expected of us. But, again, I cant say that I feel my response was unjustified.

In the 2nd and 3rd diffs, following disputes at Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Palestinian people, the user hounded my contributions to make two reverts of my edits on articles he had not edited in the past. He claimed he was not hounding me, but he admits he was unaware the issue at Nazateth was under discussion, and further that he made the reverts because he thought it was that camp vs. the other camp. If he had no idea that the issue was under discussion then he clearly did not have the article in his watchlist. The obvious conclusion, made more obvious by the revert at MEMRI, is that he hounded my contribution history to aggressively seek out confrontation.

The reply by the user is just further evidence of his willingness to maliciously lie about my actions. The source in question is a report by the Office of the Mayor of London. Anybody can look at it (here). To claim that I used or endorsed a source that advocates for the destruction of every Jew based on my restoring that source to the article is a malicious lie, a lie repeated here. Such accusation should be treated seriously, and I request that the user be given an extended ban for repeatedly and willfully lying about other users actions in a brazen attempt to paint them as antisemites. nableezy - 19:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Against my better judgment, while I have to object to one sentence from NMMNG, (a support network that springs into action? Really? The one off-wiki contact I have ever had with NW was not particularly pleasant. sheer numbers? Really? Have you actually noticed who is showing up at these requests? And honestly, Id rather the involved editors that support me stay out of it as well. concentrated attacks and threats? I think I know what you referencing, but I call bs.) I agree that an indef ban is overkill. I think there should be some sanction, in fact I think the BLP/N thread linked to by the user is further support of a sanction. In that, a similar logic was employed, in which an author of an article from Forced Migration Review is said to have directly sponsored sheer anti-Semitic propaganda on the basis of being a member of an organization that sponsored a cartoon in which second place was awarded to a cartoon the user finds particularly distasteful. This is used to discredit the author and the source. That is a bit like saying that because I donate to the ACLU I support the murderer whose rights they are defending in some court case. That type of tendentious argumentation should not be allowed, but I dont think it necessitates an indef ban for a never before banned editor. Some months sure, but not open-ended.

HJ Mitchell, I realize this. I realize that just the volume of complaints, both by and against, involving me will understandably lead to that impression. I dont know what you would have me do though. Im open to suggestions. nableezy - 03:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary WGF, my statement was meant to indicate that instead of losing my temper I should have taken the issue straight here. That rather than lash out at the editor who made the outrageous attack, I should have calmed down and simply reported the issue. Quite the opposite of things don't immediately need to go to AE. nableezy - 15:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Hearfourmewesique

Statement by Hearfourmewesique

Really? Even after being brought up on this noticeboard for reporting every editor, who does not agree with his persistently pushed POV, this is still going on... Anyway:

Nableezy endorsed a source that endorses someone who advocated for the destruction of all Jews while refusing to verify the incriminating quote.

If any further clarification is needed, I will be more than happy to reply. As for the hounding accusations, getting involved in a couple of new articles he is incidentally involved in, is not hounding; however, directly threatening me to "take greater interest in me and my edits" unless I ceased to cross his path – that's pretty damn serious. Please keep in mind that I may be absent for a while because I am not in a place with steady internet connection and am busy for most of my days. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So... now the counter-attack as a thread to Nab's original post. Gotta hand it to him for the "last word" tactic. I urge anyone overseeing this to check all the links I provided before concluding. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I wouldn't even be in these exhausting threads if not for Nableezy thwarting my edits and sources. He already tried calling me a liar after bringing a source, one of the authors of which is a member of BADIL, an organization that awarded a monetary prize to an openly anti-Semitic cartoon. I am not here for wars, I am here to be an honest editor, but hey... Nableezy is doing everything he can to silence editors that do not adhere to his POV, so I'm probably too late to defend myself anyway. Justice, anyone? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Know what? I am withdrawing the remark that says that Nab's source itself called for genocide. His source merely discussed Qaradawi, who was quoted by MEMRI to have called for genocide. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have already retracted my remark, and the discussion is not exactly one sided. Therefore, one admin determining a topic ban is way too hasty and I am requesting a second opinion on this. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand my wrongdoings and promise to exercise greater caution, can I please get a chance here? Maybe in the form of a one and only warning instead of an indefinite topic ban? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A short remark to HJ Mitchell: yes, I see now that my behavior got way out of hand, I should not have taken the WP:BAIT. However, you seem to have overlooked a couple of details: I rephrased myself upon realizing the horrible wording of my original claim, and reduced it to "Nableezy endorsed a source (Mayor's office) that supports a person (al Qaradawi) who was quoted to have incited a crowd with calls to kill Jews". So, although the whole situation got very ugly and I did my share of (unintentional) wrongdoings, I never intended to accuse the Mayor's office of anti-Semitism, let alone accuse Nableezy of being anti-Semitic. I already apologized for the misunderstanding and I still hope for someone to review the topic ban. Finally, I was not hounding/wikistalking anyone, I was trying to legitimately weigh in on some articles, which incidentally had Nableezy in the discussion as well; Nableezy actually threatened to hound me if I didn't quit editing the same articles he does... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I just noticed that Nableezy specified that I was notified of the policy that is specific to this case back in October. That notification was specific to an unrelated 1RR case way before this whole story began, hope that can be noted. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nishidani

Nableezy. Seeking perfect justice in the world, let alone wikipedia, is a sure track to martyrdom, and I think several editors see this as your Achilles heel, and are tempted to work on it. The worst effect on you is that emotion makes you lard your reports with too many adjectives. Hearfourmewesique. From certain edits, I gather you are not quite at home in English, let alone logic. No one goes around accusing Ken Livingstone of antisemitism, or hinting he would back another holocaust of Jews, because of that document on Yusuf al-Qaradawi he underwrote. You can't get away with it here either. It's called smearing people with guilt by association. Those of us who read I/P material come across motherlodes of violent abusive statements by Israeli figures, but to my knowledge we don't go round flourishing this in the faces of colleagues here, or jamming every tidbit into articles. Palestinians have been called by Israeli public figures in high office,(reliable sources are available for each remark and who said it) cockroaches, scorpions, sandniggers, aliens from outer space, cancerd, a nation of monkeys, wasps, crocodiles, mosquitoes, grasshoppers to be crushed underfoot, moles, lice, vermin, ants, snakes, beasts and asses, leeches, subhumans, below minerals on the evolutionary chain, local bacteria (strictly speaking, that was used of Gazans), pigs and scum, to be neutered like eunuchs if they protest the occupation, or suspended in formaldehyde. All of the eminent people who have gone on record for these views are received by eminent foreigners on their trips abroad, and accorded the red carpet treatment in the White House. Just as Yusuf al-Qaradawi was received by Livingstone. So could you just withdraw your remark? It is a smear by association. Websites dedicated to this and trash disinformatsiya abound, and we should not touch that stuff with a tenfoot pool, nor endeavour to drag the bullshit of spindoctors and public mindbenders into our work or relations here, as you patently did.Nishidani (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, can you please cite just one source where someone who's gone on record for these views is accorded the red carpet treatment in the White house? You may be right but I don't recall such a thing offhand. Please show just one source for such a claim meant to absolve a similar behavior from the other side. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On condition this doesn't become a thread, okay? If you wish to reply, discuss it on your talk page. I'm reluctant to have this material in the public purview like the net.

Baylis Thomas How Israel was won: a concise history of the Arab-Israeli conflict Lexington Books 1999 p.241 n.123

Shamir, Begin, Dayan, Barak and others got the redcarpet, though they said such things, even though I was using that metaphorically. Let's leave it at that.Nishidani (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you dont mind if I respond here. You are right, and this was why I did not bring it here immediately. But this attack is outrageous, more than the usual bullshit that I am willing to deal with. An editor repeatedly lied and claimed that I supported using a source that calls for genocide. You dont need a justice system that comes anywhere near perfect for such malevolent lies to result in action. nableezy - 20:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to blog here, Nab. But I owe it to a suggestion of yours that I read Yehuda Elkana, whose scientific work you admire. He went through the lot, racist victimization, enslavement, Auschwitz, etc., and came out with that equilibrium of toughminded objectivity, inured to slurs, or the cheapshot hacks in the grubstret commentariat who get upset with his remarks on these sorts of issues. We could do worse than follow his example. Nishidani (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if everyone replies here then I will too. I already explained that Nableezy supported a source that is an appraisal piece for someone who was quoted to say the following: "Oh Allah, Take This Oppressive, Jewish, Zionist Band Of People; Oh Allah, Do Not Spare A Single One Of Them; Oh Allah, Count Their Numbers, And Kill Them, Down To The Very Last One." OK, so the direct source did not say it but its main subject did. I will then retract the statement accusing the source of calling for the destruction of all Jews, however, it should be made clear that its primary subject of discussion, Dr. Al-Qaradawi, was quoted to have said the above atrocious statement, and that was my original intent. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hearfour . You are not listening to anyone. My instincts were to call for an outright ban because I don't think we should tolerate either antisemites, or antisemite-screamers here. I've been trying to get you to step back, and no result. All you need do is apologize. or withdraw the remark

Your second example however only proves the point. You are smearing by very strained logic of guilt by association even at several removes. (a)Nableezy cites a source. (a)One of the author turns out to belong to a Palestinian organization, BADIL (c) this organization once gave a monetary prize to a cartoonist for an antisemitic poster. Ergo, the source is defective, (and perhaps Nableezy is antisemitic?) Use that chain of guilt through several links and no source is reliable and everyone using them is criminal. Since you repeat the error after your mistake was pointed out, I don't think you should be editing an area as difficult at the I/P one. If you are very young, there may be some excuse for lenience however.Nishidani (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, I will quote you on saying "All you need do is apologize. or withdraw the remark". Please look in my section above. I sincerely hope this can put the whole chapter behind us. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're almost there. . . and the halfway gesture is appreciated, at least by me. I've apologized directly to quite a few people (some of whom I dislike) here because I made mistakes. It's a matter of personal honour to do so, and costs nothing. Nableezy has a right, over which I have trampled here, and indeed has policy on his side. How about just saying something along the lines of 'my remarks were inappropriate, and if the insinuation you see there is there, then I'm sorry.' I hope this doesn't sound like waterboarding, but, cripes, there's no loss of honour in just, now and then, saying the simplest word in the language (sorry). I'm sorry I ever got into this thread. Nab may never forgive me for depriving him of a natural right to vindicate his own honour. Nishidani (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by u n☯mi

It seems that Hearfourmewesique is not quite aware of what he has himself written - and apparently is unable to read it even when given the opportunity. I can find no other explanation for his initial comment in this request.

While I think that the request itself has merit, I also think that it should be considered whether he can be considered competent overall to contribute in this particular area of wikipedia in a manner that achieves good use of our limited editor resources. u n☯mi 20:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, he totally gets it. The level of sincerity is unmistakable. u n☯mi 01:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the good faith, I'm truly touched. Would you apologize just to get a "f@^k you" back? Wouldn't you try to at least foresee some good coming back at you, considering that I've been lynched, decapitated and disemboweled on this board, all within less than one day? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably my final thought here. You actually had to get to page 11 out of 21 (halfway through the entire document) to find something not directly pertaining to Qaradawi, in a document called "Qaradawi Dossier" that is summarized in its own headline paragraph as "A reply to the dossier against the Mayor’s meeting with Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi", just to make a WP:POINT that I misrepresented the source. While I did apologize and do regret the harsh wording towards Nableezy and the inadvertent inaccuracy in my apparently false accusation, that fact still remains. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is this i don't even.. but I am glad that you apologized for your apparently false accusation. u n☯mi 14:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the following comment you made: "The source was used[...]to support examples of people criticizing [MEMRI] in general, it was not used in the specific context of al-Qaradawi, and contains a number of examples that are not related to him at all ( See page 11 )." Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MichaelNetzer

The dispute about the sources rests on whether al-Qaradawi's words were translated correctly by MEMRI. Two sources that Nableezy wanted restored take a position that his words were distorted. This position has not been widely ratified in other sources. Going by the sources in his biography, Yusuf al-Qaradawi certainly raises serious apprehension, as not someone who should be defended or whitewashed in sources used about the conflict.

It's easy to imagine how Nableezy might react if an editor tried to bring a source, and they can certainly be found, for a notable figure trying to whitewash Meir Kahane's extremism, even though Kahane never even hinted at supporting mass genocide of Palestinians, as al-Qarawdawi is purported to have with Israelis.

Hearfourmewesique's unease with these sources that try to absolve al-Qarawdawi is understandable though his wording may not have been concise as to the chain of sources he pointed to. Just looking at his biography, it's clear that an Israeli doesn't even need this particular MEMRI report to be offended by an effort to saint-ify al-Qarawdawi, in the same way that Nableezy doesn't need any special source to reject the same about a personality like Kahane. That's how NPOV would necessitate approaching these sources.

Yet Nableezy takes peculiar over the top offense at Hearfourmewesique's understandable rejection of sources that try to whitewash a way too controversial extreme figure as being moderate and somehow becoming the sainted subject of reliable sources. Hearfourmewesique's suggestion that Nableezy supports a source that supports what al-Qarawdawi represents, is not so far off the mark.

This complaint seems like another one of Nableezy's "Go after your opponents and pulverize them" battleground behavior in Wikipedia.

When will enough finally become enough and how much time do so many people need to spend on putting out the fires of Nableezy's rage? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this is my point exactly. NuclearWarfare has gone ahead and imposed an indefinite topic ban on me as a single admin without any other admin comments in that section, is that acceptable? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look right and another admin's input seems needed. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reality distortion field is strong in this one.

1. The source was used like this to support examples of people criticizing [MEMRI] in general, it was not used in the specific context of al-Qaradawi, and contains a number of examples that are not related to him at all ( See page 11 ).

2. Nableezy's understandably took offence at the claim ( now amended ) that he defends "sources" by a religious nutjob who calls for boycotting companies that sell to/buy from Israel, as well as the destruction of every Jew. That (arguably) personal attack and fine bit of well-poisoning is the rationale for opening this enforcement request.

I can't help but wonder if your specious framing stems from a legitimate impairment or just the hope to find such in others. u n☯mi 01:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the context but the effect of the sources is the same nonetheless. The Mayor of London's press release is subtitled on the cover "A reply to the dossier against the Mayor’s meeting with Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi". And really now, the dispute remains as I stated about MEMRI while these two sources engage in saint-ifying al-Qaradawi by way of discrediting MEMRI's critcism of him. The rest of my framing, be it specious or otherwise, reflects what this complaint is about and I'm not the first to say such a thing about its filer. You should also know that as a comic book writer and artist, I specialize in distorted reality fields. But the only way to become proficient in them is to first be able to identify reality succinctly.

A self-analysis of my own character wouldn't likely be acceptable to you anyway, so I'll ask you instead if you're in the habit of dishing out impairment notices around here, or are you just happy to see me? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually happy to see you, I think you have the hallmarks of a fine contributor. Please consider my 'direct' remarks to you an indication that I believe that you have the capacity to be a real asset to the project, you just need to understand that the means is the end in process, and hopefully realize that no one can defend the indefensible, .

The dispute on MEMRI had no actual relevance to the dispute on the talk page of the article that precipitated the casting of aspersions that Hearfourmewesique engaged in. From the discussion it seems clear that he was simply trying to distract from the low quality of the sources he was trying to introduce. u n☯mi 02:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern and do not deny the problems you refer to in this case. It only seems that due to the severity of both sides' behavior, and seeing the ax falling hard on only one, a little pull towards the other side was also needed. It's good to see EdJohnston's and HJ Mitchell's reprimands striving for just that. I appreciate both the 'direct' candor and kind words. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I have written on my talk page, I am willing to issue a sincere apology as I understand that my comments were insinuating something I did not wish to, and it indeed is crossing the line. Can other admins please comment so that I can at least have a discussion, instead of one admin deciding to shut me off? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy

I was going to stay out of this (as I have in the I don't know, 20? 40? it's hard to keep track, previous cases where Nableezy either reported someone or was himself reported), but things here have moved from the realm of absurd deep into the territory of farce.

Hearfourmewesique was reported for violating NPA and HOUND. We have already established here on multiple occasions that civility is not enforced unless you say something like "you can suck my balls" to another editor. In this very report, we have an editor telling another editor that "I gather you are not quite at home in English, let alone logic", and another one saying "I can't help but wonder if your specious framing stems from a legitimate impairment or just the hope to find such in others" and not a peep from anyone. And this is AE, so you can imagine what goes on on regular talk pages.
Hearfourmewesique retracted his personal attack, which is usually enough for an editor who doesn't have a very long history of NPA related sanctions. Hounding was not established. Now he's getting an indefinite topic ban? Seriously? Seriously??

I get that some editors here have a support network that leaps into action whenever they get in trouble or when they report someone else and can influence the more neutral admins either by their sheer numbers and if that doesn't work by concentrated attacks and threats. Hearfourmewesique doesn't have that. Fine. At least try to pretend you have some kind of normal practice you apply to all editors equally because this is rapidly reaching the point of going too far. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for chipping in under here. There's no support group, and of its putative members, none ever gets near the amount of tracking, IP/sock attention, and pure tendentious challenges that Nableezy does. I've said elsewhere we should all stay out of AE (and if possible A/I) and leave it for the parties in causa and admins. I've made an exception twice recently, because of my reading of N's exasperation. Nableezy should be held to the same rules as everyone else, but no one else gets anywhere near the flack he cops. I think his desire for minute legal redress exaggerated. But there's no policy that will stop those stalking him with edit challenges that are patently provocative or vicious. Basta.Nishidani (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nishi, I've noticed at Talk:Jerusalem#Renaming_Palestine_by_Hadrian you were warned on WP:1RR violation. You acknowledged the error like a real samurai and the discussion continued, without unneeded WP:DRAMA. Marvelous. どうもありがとう AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by BorisG

I agree with most people here that this was a pretty outrageous personal attack. However I disagree with admins about the sanction. In fact I do not recall ever seing an indef topic ban for a single NPA violation. Is this about prevention? Is an indef topic ban the only way to prevent attacks by this user? Sanctions are not meant to measure the outrage. A stern warning would probably go a long way in preventing similar abuse. Unless there is a persistent pattern of behaviour I may have missed. Please give this guy a chance. He has clearly admitted his wrong and promised not to repeat it. - BorisG (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by ElComandanteChe

I second BorisG and NMMNG. In my opinion, indef topic ban is over the top a bit in the case where WP:TROUT looks more appropriate. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by AgadaUrbanit

We need more civility in the topic, from all sides, and nobody is a saint here, some toxic remarks do flood the system. Agree with opinions above, indef topic ban is over-reaction, even considering editor's previous AE history. We should also consider that the editor did expressed a regret and promised to fix his ways. If we see additional stumblings, especially in civility area, let's indef him. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Hearfourmewesique

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

I checked the links. My impression is that Hearfourmewesique is certainly not acting in good faith and is here more to push a POV than edit according to our policies. I would recommend an indefinite topic ban. Other thoughts? NW (Talk) 20:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm just going to go ahead and log the topic ban. This can be closed by any administrator who doesn't think there are any "unclean hands" issues to deal with. NW (Talk) 01:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This report, combined with the previous one at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive99#Hearfourmewesique, gives me no reason to question the topic ban on Hearfourmewesique that has already been enacted by NuclearWarfare. Don't see the need to sanction anyone else, but If Nableezy expects to write about similar problems in the future, a less angry tone would be welcome. Admins also had concerns about his tone in a previous complaint about Cptnono. If you have a strong case, you should be able to present it calmly. ~~Closing this request about Hearfourmewesique.~~ EdJohnston (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec, apologies for reopening, Ed, but I think what I have to say needs to be said). I agree with with NW. The only thing I would say is that we might be willing to review the topic ban after a few months, and that I probably would have imposed a medium-term topic ban of definite duration, but indefinite does not seem unreasonable to me. Hearfourmewesique, your conduct in this instance has been abhorrent, lacking in good faith or any assumption thereof, and so far detached from Wikipedia's ideal of collaborative editing to improve an encyclopaedia that you have shocked two experienced AE admins to the point where you have earned yourself an indefinite topic ban (something not given out lightly). That you would accuse Nableezy (whom I will address in a moment) of endorsing a source simply because he went and found a working link to replace a dead one is, in itself, one of the worst assumptions of bad faith I have seen recently. However, I was shocked, upon investigation, to discover that the source you accuse of "endors[ing] someone who advocated for the destruction of all Jews" was in fact a report by an official working for the Mayor of London explaining why Ken Livingstone would be engaging with representatives of all significant faith communities, regardless of how distasteful their views may be. Hardly a ringing endorsement (not to mention wildly off-topic). To claim that the source itself endorses killing Jews takes novel synthesis to a whole new level, but to then claim that Nableezy endorses that view really is pushing it. Add to that that you referred to the author of the report (a presumably living person) as a "religious nutjob", and your apparent wikistalking of Nableezy by turning up at articles where he is active, seemingly with the intent of provoking a confrontation, and quite frankly, you're lucky that indefinite topic ban wasn't an indefinite block.
Nableezy, I hope you will allow me to impart some advice as a completely neutral admin. Your appearances at this noticeboard—almost always as the complainant or the defendant—are becoming tiring. That you have more edits to this noticeboard than administrators who have been active here (dealing with every reported violation of arbitration rulings, not just ARBPIA) should be a cause for grave concern to you, and I would strongly urge you to make your appearances here less frequent. There is an extent to which one can argue that you are trying to use the system legitimately to deal with misconduct by other editors, but when those reports come as with the volume and frequency of yours, one begins to wonder if your presence in the topic area isn't part of the problem. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty clear WP:POINT violation here from Hearfourmewesique, I agree with the indefinite as the user can request a review. I agree completely with HJ Mitchell's comments directed at Nableezy though I would point out Nableezy acknowledged harsh replies and loss of temper. That's a start, realizing things don't immediately need to go to AE would be the next step. --WGFinley (talk) 05:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@BorisG, NMMNG and ElComandanteChe: The action against Hearfour is about more than a single personal attack. You will probably get a more clear picture of Hearfourmewesique's approach to I/P editing if you review the previous request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive99#Hearfourmewesique. After reading that I would be asking myself if this editor can possible be a constructive contributor to the topic. The present request should be closed soon unless an obvious error can be pointed out. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by The Devil's Advocate

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban from the subject September 11 attacks, imposed at; Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request concerning The Devil's Advocate, logged at; Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Log of blocks.2C bans.2C and restrictions

Administrator imposing the sanction: Wgfinley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: [78]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

Requests for enforcement are to be made and ruled on to prevent someone acting in breach of policy in a topic area from continuing to act in breach of policy. Any request should not be punitive i.e. seeking to tack on additional sanctions after an admin has already issued sanctions for the action. In other words, an editor should not be brought up repeatedly and sanctioned repeatedly for the exact same edits. On November 30th I was topic-banned from the 9-11 topic area. Before that I was blocked by User:EdJohnston due to a judgment that I was edit-warring. Each time the same series of edits were presented as the bulk of the case. In fact, User:Jordgette appears to have simply copy-pasted part of the edit-warring notice to the AE request. User:Wgfinley, the admin who issued the topic ban, gave an initial argument pertaining solely to those edits for which I had already been blocked. His argument also contained numerous factual errors that I pointed out to him on his talk page. After that he changed his arguments in the discussions on his talk page, though never admitting to the error or providing a new reason on AE. Even then WG's arguments all seemed to focus on those edits for which I had already been blocked.

In addition to the punitive nature of the topic ban, WG's argument to have "acted per the AE report" presents another issue with the sanction. The AE report itself is full of distortions, omissions, and uncivil remarks that plainly misrepresented the nature of the dispute. Some simple issues are:

The edits for which I had already been blocked were presented as being nothing more than the removal of information, with one edit being cited twice as though it were a separate offense, even though the editor filing the report knew I had moved all the information to another article already, expressing my opinion it was where the material more rightly belonged.
One of the few edits I made after the block that was presented as evidence of the need for enforcement was me shortening a caption by removing wording that appeared to be nothing more than the fair-use rationale from the image's page. Jordgette argued on AE that the change was pushing the controlled demolition POV, an argument I still find bizarre.
Jordgette made numerous uncivil comments in the AE report about me "feigning" impartiality and "hiding behind" WP:AGF adding the comment "enjoy yourselves on this one" after citing my insistence that the previous edit-warring block was wrong.

A more complicated distortion concerned one of the arguments presented several times and one that WG gave as part of the reason for the topic ban and that was this idea that I was not discussing my changes first despite being asked to do so. Jordgette provided a long list of comments to prove the contention, but neglected that one was only accusing me of acting against consensus. Four of the comments cited were responses to a section I started on the talk page asking an editor to explain why he had reverted changes I had made since he did not provide an explanation. After the last comment the editor made on that section I started another section on the talk page and then an RFC to get consensus for two of my changes. To present those comments to suggest I have not sought consensus on changes or worked collaboratively with other editors is a blatant and obvious distortion as they are evidence that I was doing the exact opposite. Another comment involved discussion over a change I noted several times was to address a grammatical error, something they ultimately acknowledged needed to be fixed. That edit being disputed was actually the one that led to the AE request and again demonstrated the opposite of what Jordgette was claiming about my desire to get consensus. Adding insult to injury Jordgette took a comment I made out of its proper context to state "yet he refuses because he doesn't 'need the approval of your group'" when my comment was actually in the context of me saying I would consider it more acceptable to need approval for any change were it not for several unhelpful comments they had made in response to my efforts at getting them to explain their reasons for disagreeing with my changes. In context, the comment was my objection to a revert that undid an uncontroversial contribution I made to the article with an edit summary seemingly implying I needed to get consensus for any rewriting or restructuring of the article. The context was obviously not beyond Jordgette when adding it to the report.

That the AE report contained so many blatant distortions and was rife with incivility should have gotten it declined right off the bat, even if it had not been mostly a proposal for punitive action over edits for which I had already been blocked. Absent those pre-block edits that report would likely have been dismissed as frivolous and without merit. I am requesting that this topic ban be lifted as a wrongful sanction.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that in WG's statement below he has essentially recited the distortions from the AE report that I mention above verbatim, even after I explicitly pointed out how these were distortions. Despite what he might believe, WP:NOTTHEM does not mean the only legitimate appeal is a plea for clemency, but instead that appeals challenging the legitimacy of the ban should only address how the sanction violated policy. That WG indicated his decision was informed by the AE report means distortions in the AE report that go to the very core of the arguments for the ban are very much a legitimate point to bring up in an appeal. Citing NOTTHEM to suggest otherwise is a clear-cut case of wikilawyering. Notably WG has not addressed the very first issue I raised above about his argument and the AE report focusing on edits for which I had already been blocked.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Jordgette I am raising legitimate issues about the AE report that WG said served as the basis for the topic ban. Simply saying there were distortions would be unhelpful without explaining the extent and severity of the distortion. That you completely altered the meaning of my comment in the request for a topic ban and WG repeated that distorted wording here to defend the topic ban means it is certainly of significant relevance to the overall legitimacy of the topic ban. My argument for the legitimacy of the action interpreted as a violation of the topic ban was favoring the spirit over the letter, but what I am saying here is explicitly covered by both.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since WG claims I continued my supposedly "tendentious editing habits" after the block I figure I should just provide a complete listing of all the edits I made to the article after the block. Here they are: [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84]. On the last diff I gave the following explanations on the article talk page: [85] [86]. I doubt any objective individual could look at those edits together and conclude they represent tendentious behavior.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WGFinley

My TBAN was based on the Prior AE report. The report contained examples of TDA's tendentious editing leading up to an AN3 Report and subsequent block. After the block he continued his tendentious editing habits, to quote the report, ignoring calls to build consensus before making substantive changes [87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95], yet he refuses because he doesn't "need the approval of your group" [96] and continued to make extensive changes to the article.

I posted a suggestion for a TBAN after evaluating the report, I let that stand for 12 days for comment, seeing none I closed per my suggestion on 30 Nov.

An extensive exchange on my talk page ensued where I even offered to reconsider the TBAN at a later time, instead he chose to continue pursuing his approach of appeal by completely ignoring WP:NOTTHEM and violating his TBAN[97] which was upheld here on AE until it expired. I think it is premature to reduce the TBAN at this time, the complaint itself seems to do nothing to acknowledge any culpability for these actions but blames others for "distortions and incivility". It would appear TDA would go back and start disrupting the space again as he has provided no assurance he will seek to work collaboratively to achieve consensus. --WGFinley (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Jordgette: He's appealing his TBAN so he is free to bring up the issues that led to his TBAN without violating it. --WGFinley (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jordgette

As I understand it, topic bans are meant not to be punitive, but to prevent disruption. To that end, I have no comment at this time. I may soon find myself returning my attention to a single editor unilaterally and continuously altering a Featured Article on a controversial topic as he sees fit, while filling the discussion page with walls of text in protest, and the endless wikilawyering and filiblustering. But for now I prefer to improve articles. -Jordgette [talk] 05:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused WG...Is TDA's statement above not yet another violation of his topic ban? Most of it regards perceived injustices he suffered on the 7 World Trade Center talk page ("my comment was actually in the context of me saying I would consider it more acceptable to need approval for any change were it not for several unhelpful comments they had made in response to my efforts at getting them to explain their reasons for disagreeing with my changes...." etc.). I'm unclear on this boundary. -Jordgette [talk] 07:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tom Harrison

I'm reluctant to comment on this because a benefit of the topic ban is not having to deal with TDA's tedious logorrhea, but Wgfinley did the right thing. The constant nuisance of dealing with TDA wears people down; it would be far easier to leave the topic area and let him do what he wants, but it doesn't do to reward that kind of thing. The topic ban has at least been some respite, which I appreciate. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by The Devil's Advocate

Result of the appeal by The Devil's Advocate

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

If there is no one supporting this request, I'm inclined to close it shortly as declined. NW (Talk) 04:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gritzko

Gritzko not previously warned of sanctions per DIGWUREN log, user warned and logged. --WGFinley (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 Gritzko

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 22:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned and Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Standard_discretionary_sanctions

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

15/9 Accuses another editor of lying
2/11 Incivil edit summary
16/11 Incivil edit summary
17/11 Incivil edit summary
17/11 Incivil comments directed at Greyhood
19/11 Incivil comments; calls Greyood lame
22/11 Incivil edit summary
24/11 Incivil comments; admits that he is not assuming good faith of other editors, specifically Greyhood
25/11 Incivil comments; not discussing content but attacking editors (Greyhood)
27/11 Does not assume good faith of other editors
27/11 Incivil comments
27/11 Incivil comments/personal attack on Greyhood
27/11 not assuming good faith on the part of other editors
7/12 not assuming good faith on the part of Greyhood
10/12 reverting edits of sockpuppets back into article with non-descriptive edit summary
11/12 Personal attack on Greyhood - Greyhood, now you look like a plain @#$%^, sorry
11/12 After being asked to refrain from engaging in personal attacks, Gritzko states outright to Greyhood "I am attacking you as a person."
11/12 Calls Greyhood a "fanboy"
11/12 Calls discussing problems with content "ridiculous arguments"
14/12 Personal attack on Greyhood

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

EE topics are already difficult enough to edit, without having editors who are here to engage in advocacy attacking long-standing editors. Greyhood needs to be commended for keeping cool under attacks like the above, but he should not have to put up with them at all.

That Gritzko has chosen to use this request to again engage in personal attacks against Greyhood is telling as to the behaviour of the editor, and how difficult it is to be able to edit in these areas. To call another editor a "crazy guy" right here at AE, is telling, and I would suggest that a full topic ban be placed on Gritzko; perhaps a Russian politics topic ban, if not an outright Russia topic ban. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 09:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[98]

Discussion concerning Gritzko

Statement by Gritzko

Well, I'll sign under everything I said. If the guy argues at length that BLP applies to political parties [99] and then goes on a loooong crusade against a really trivial and factual sentence "However, recent events and polls show that popularity of Putin is on the decline." at Vladimir Putin (that one was removed and restored maybe ten times), removes a quote by Gorbachev saying that the guy is an "opposition politician" and "most hated politician" in Russia (rubbish), and so on and so forth -- then what kind of discussion is possible? I saw him removing maybe a dozen of high-quality citations of top periodicals because -- you know why? Because they "tend to give excessive attention to actions of the marginal Russian political opposition with dismal ratings". So, basically, we have a crazy guy with an agenda and lots of energy. Gritzko (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Gritzko

Comment by BorisG

From a brief look at the diffs provided by Russavia, Gritzko is incivil, but Greyhood shows a pretty persistent pattern of tendentious editing, which is a far more serious matter and needs to be looked into. - BorisG (talk) 12:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by AgadaUrbanit

I think that User:Mkativerata's point is important, any editor should be warned first, and only subsequently sanctions could be enforced. I'm not sure that WP:DIGWUREN topic area covers also Russian domestic politics, but that is an irrelevant question. This request could be closed with User:Gritzko officially warned by an AE administrator as a bottom line result. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Gritzko

It doesn't appear that Gritzko has ever received a DIGWUREN warning. So unless anyone can show me that DIGWUREN sanctions have ever been brought to Gritzko's attention, I'm thinking this can be dealt with by formal notification of DIGWUREN only. This kind of incivility would go unsanctioned in many parts of the project so I'm disinclined to impose any sanctions here especially without warning. I'm also assuming by the way (as everyone else here seems to implicitly) that editing disputes about Russian domestic politics are within the DIGWUREN topic area. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was not warned that I can see, warning and closing. --WGFinley (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 120: / Line 120: @@
 * ''Still'' pending - Arbcom-l's response rate is frankly abysmal. [[User:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|<nowiki>[</nowikI>•<nowiki>]</nowiki>]] 18:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
+* I have finished my investigation, and YTA64 is {{confirmed}} as being the same user as {{checkuser|Dimension31}}, another frequent editor of [[Golan Heights]]. I have blocked both accounts indefinitely, and indefinitely prohibited (per the discretionary sanctions ruling in ARBPIA) the user from editing any page relating to I/P. [[User:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|<nowiki>[</nowikI>•<nowiki>]</nowiki>]] 00:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 == Arbitration enforcement action appeal by The Devil's Advocate ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia'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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Revision as of 00:10, 19 December 2011

YehudaTelAviv64

Request concerning YehudaTelAviv64

Discussion concerning YehudaTelAviv64

Statement by YehudaTelAviv64

Comments by others about the request concerning YehudaTelAviv64

Statment by Shrike

Comment by Malik Shabazz

Observation by Biosketch

Conduct of EdJohnston

Comment by The Devil's Advocate

Result concerning YehudaTelAviv64

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by The Devil's Advocate

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

Response to WG on block appeal

Statement by WGFinley

Statement by Jordgette

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by The Devil's Advocate

Result of the appeal by The Devil's Advocate

Cptnono

Request concerning Cptnono

Discussion concerning Cptnono

Statement by Cptnono

Comments by others about the request concerning Cptnono

Comment by Zero0000

Comment by Mkativerata

Comment by Malik Shabazz

Statement by Broccolo

Comment by MichaelNetzer

Comment by Gatoclass

Nishidani

Oops by asad

Plot Spoiler

Conduct of WGFinley

Comment by Devil's Advocate

Closing Summary by AgadaUrbanit

Result concerning Cptnono

Conduct of Nableezy

Moving For Closure

Boothello

Request concerning Boothello

Discussion concerning Boothello

Statement by Boothello

Comment on Hipocrite

POV pushing?

Comments by others about the request concerning Boothello

Comment by Mathsci

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Comment by Professor marginalia

Comment by aprock

Statement by EdJohnston on the request concerning Boothello

Result concerning Boothello

Nableezy

Request concerning Nableezy

Discussion concerning Nableezy

Statement by Nableezy

Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezy

Comment by Shuki

Comment by RolandR

Comment by The Devil's Advocate

Comment by MichaelNetzer

Comment by Tiamut

Comment by Hearfourmewesique

Result concerning Nableezy

173.238.69.86

Request concerning 173.238.69.86

Discussion concerning 173.238.69.86

Statement by Nishidani

Statement by 173.238.69.86

Comments by others about the request concerning 173.238.69.86

Result concerning 173.238.69.86

Hearfourmewesique

Request concerning Hearfourmewesique

Discussion concerning Hearfourmewesique

Statement by Hearfourmewesique

Comments by Nishidani

Comment by un☯mi

Comments by MichaelNetzer

Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy

Comment by u n☯mi