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
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
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;
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.
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
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;
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.
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Nableezy has been involved in a systematic and longstanding attempt to insert POV material into the lead of a controversial I-P article in a non-collaborative way and without consensus, and gaming the system.
Numerous archives speak specifically to the conflict and lack of consensus for this edit,
and other archives to the issue of POV, as does the current Talk:Gaza War page,
particularly here and more than that to the lead itself.
These earlier archives show that no consensus has been achieved for this edit. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
The following reverts are to his preferred version and were made in the last four weeks. The article was edit-protected [11],
and the last four reverts made after edit protection was removed. (with partial edit summaries)
[12] "you need to show consensus has changed, no consensus for removal of long standing text" 9/26
[18] adds dubious source claiming "this should end this" 10/4
[19] rvtd compromise solution with "nonsense, the text is directly supported by the citations" 10/6
[20]"move up, bold and capitalize per source" (reverted to the most contentious edit despite continuing argument WP policy re lede, re consensus, re Reliability) 10/15
[21] "removal of reliably cited and there is no consensus to completely remove gaza massacre" 10/15
[[26] Hamas has a 'legal right to resist occupation
[27] The idea that Israel wants peace is proved incorrect
[28] "Because somebody is worried that international press will become pro-gazan upon seeing civilians rotting in the street is reason to endorse censorship?"
[29] After reverting to his preferred version, says "This was simple vandalism, and thus reverted. You changed well sourced information and added things to change the balance so that the Israeli side is represented in a disproportional manner."
Disparaging comments (violating WP:NPA) to other users' arguments in relation to this edit.
[30] Other editors refuse to acknowledge simple facts, editors who challenge are "disruptive."
[35] Controversy is "Bullshit argument" & attempt to WP:CENSOR despite most of the editors' agreement that the material does belong in the article, just not in the lead
Diffs from (some) other (established) editors demonstrating that there was "no consensus" for this insertion. They run from January -September.
[37] "Appalled" by massacre terminolgiy -- nothing short of racism
[38] "But I'm not sure any more that it is fair to say this is the usual name for these events in Arabic" based on a search that showed that "the term "massacre exsists in just eight percent of the articles."
[39] concerned about the effect on the naïve reader, encountering "'The Gaza Massacre”' in boldface in the opening line" will "potentially [create] an undue bias, before even reading the facts" [40][41] not an official name
[42]" emotive and judgemental, irrelevant of its use throughout the world, the article should note this useage but not term itself the "Gaza Massacre"
[43] "highly emotive" "inflammatory language" and "These highly emotive terms have sources, but so do many other things that wouldn't be appropriate."
[44] notes that it would be grammatically correct as a description but not as a proper name. He supports disembolding and would allow "The conflict has been described as a "massacre" in parts of the Arab world."
[45] "there is no reason to capitalize "massacre" since the English sources don't." He also notes that reliable sources in the Arab world do not refer to it that way.
[46] If "massacre is indeed the most widely used term, provide proof and it will go without qualification" "the sources provided so far do not back the assertion, though they back the statement that in parts of the ARab world the event is described as a massacre, at least by some and occasionally." "following WP:common sense and the assumption that (most) Arabs are not flamers yelling martyrdom and massacre." [47]
[48] "no reason for the massacre title anymore" since 'evidence that common name in Al Jazeera, Syria, & for Palestinians is "Gaza War"'.
more recently:
[49]concerned about RS that made the claim of "massacre"
[50] "massacre" not used frequently. [51] RS show that Al Jazeera and Hamas chief use "Gaza War" and suggests moving "Gaza Massacre" to another place in the article. [52] Clearly propose to leave lead with Operation and War and move Massacre to Propaganda [53] Clearly propose to leave lead with Operation and War and move Massacre to Propaganda
[54] thinks "use of the word "massacre" here is inappropriate, non-neutral, and used only as a political tactic." based on his Google search. "The lead paragraph is too important to include something so contentious and unclear as the "Gaza Massacre."
[55] there is a "lack of consensus" and that it is in violation of WP:NPOV. Also warned on reverting " I'd like to note that using Twinkle in content disputes is frowned upon as are blind reverts and ignoring the perspectives and notes (as well as reliable sources) of fellow editors." [56] " Otherwise, we're giving an undue level of prestige of sorts to a fragment of one side's propaganda since it's clearly not "just a name""
[57] "The archives indicates that there's no consensus or "rough consensus" for its inclusion. Nor has the article been stable. See User:AgadaUrbanit's talk page, which is replete with your warnings that he nor remove the term again. I'm advocating for a clear consensus before controversial and defamatory material is placed in the lede of an article." [58] "Including 'massacre' in the lede is encyclopedic, NPOV-violative, and WP:N-violative. [59]' Mainstream sources do not say in their own words that "Hamas calls this war the Gaza Massacre"' [60] No RS available thus "use of the term apparently violates wp:or/wp:synth, if not wp:n" [61] offers a compromise to achieve consensus.
[62] "guess seeing the word "massacre" in boldface in the first line is what concerns me just a bit. It's a highly charged term, and do we really need that so prominently in the article?"
Links suggesting that Nableezy is gaming the system by bringing others up for charges,
[69] asking me to self -revert so that he will not violate 3RR]
[70] clearly demonstrating he understands the system and warning against adding material against consensus
[71]"discussed does not mean agreed. You need to stop warring in material over the objections of others." This is a direct warning to another user for the very same thing he is doing here.
[72] An editor has put forth an ArbCon request on behalf of Nableezy for sanctions on User:Cptnono one of the editors directly involved in this dispute- one who has not edit-warred the article. 10/10
[73] Though filed by another editor, Nableezy is also the principal in this ArbCon request re editwarring as well, for a different article. ([74]) 10/11
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
[75] I warned (or at least explained my concerns) response here [76]
I am asking for a topic ban for some period of time. Considering that he has been warned a number of times in the past and has not seemed to be
able to honor these warnings with the appropriate editing behaving, and considering that this behavior is tending to move further afield as is
perhaps illustrated here: [83], to ignore it would give it permission to continue and thrive. Perhaps what troubles me most is the lack of respect I see for colleagues that take a different view from him. Some time off might allow Nableezy review his objectives here at WP. He is an intelligent and thoughtful editor in my view, and well liked on both sides of the aisle. I think he would be a great editor in areas that are not so personal for him.
I believe it necessary to send a clear message that this kind of behavior is unacceptable that it may discourage it in others as well, hopefully cutting down on reportage of incidents, and generally helping to foster a better WP editing environment in the sensitive area of I-P.
Comments by Nableezy
Stellarkid has been on a month-long mission to expunge from the article a common Arabic name for the conflict, a name that has been in the article for over ten months (and for which there was consensus for including), something that both has countless sources of actual use as well as two sources that flat out say that the name for the conflict in the Arab world is the "gaza massacre". He has made opposing arguments for including names that he likes (such as "war on hamas") as he has to remove this name (and he does so in the very same section as he makes the opposing argument). When this is pointed out to him his response is what I have to say is one of the all-time classic lines of a POV pusher when confronted with the fact that he is engaging in intellectual dishonesty; otherstuffexists. That said, I'm not touching that page again, there is no point in even trying to work with such people. People who say that even if it were true that the whole world except Israel called it "The Gaza Massacre" it would still represent the opinion or "point of view" of just one side and would not belong in the lead as the name used by one of the parties. I completely wash my hands of that article (I took it off my watchlist a couple days ago) as I think that trying to reason with Stellarkid is a mission in futility and I would much rather do something more useful with my time, like take a shit.
As for Stellarkid's half-baked proof I am "gaming" the system, reporting editors for 5+ reverts is not gaming. And picking quotes (and going back 10 months) completely out of context is what Stellarkid does best (please actually read the complete diffs and what they were in response to). Earlier he presented "sources" for "war on hamas". Not a single one of the sourcse he originally cited used anything approaching that as the name of the conflict, he simply googled "war on hamas" and added a bunch of links. Also, please look at Stellarkids removals, you will see he has also been edit-warring consistently. I am the only one to try any dispute resolution on this issue, I opened an RfC, went to the RS noticeboard and the NPOV noticeboard. Stellarkid's actions have consisted of nothing but making specious arguments and edit-warring something out that is a verifiable statement supported by a reliable source with another 10 sources presented on the talk page. nableezy - 06:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I put diffs illustrating lack of consensus into the body of my request just now. Of course memory lane would include a trip to the archives, which is what I did. Stellarkid (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first one that you again quote out of context also includes the user saying "Yet, I can't see how we can ignore the fact that most of the Arab world does call it that way." JGGardiner has since changed his opinion on the issue, the third one also includes the user saying the would include it in the lead but without boldface, something that you agreed to and then decided you did not agree any longer. But I dont feel like dealing with you any longer, you have no idea what WP:NPOV means. It does not mean that we do not include what a significant POV because what they say is "inflammatory". We are obligated under WP:NPOV to include all significant POVs. You have repeatedly made dishonest arguments that shift depending on the POV. That is why I refuse to carry on talking with you, I have no respect for those who cannot be consistent with their arguments. That is the only thing I expect from an editor, that they apply arguments consistently. You do not do that. You consistently argue for a POV, and when that requires an inconsistent argument you take no hesitation to make such arguments. In the very same section you were arguing that the sources for "Gaza Massacre" were not enough you argue that the exact same type of sources are sufficient for a name you want to include. You have edit-warred over this term as much as anybody else. Here is a list of every non-minor edit you have made to the article:
[84] completely removes "gaza massacre" with source
[86] exactly the same as below, though you dishonestly call it "another" attempt at a compromise instead of a simple revert to the same edit you had made earlier
[87] changes to "known as a 'massacre'" when every source calls it "the gaza massacre"
[93] other names you insert using the exact opposite reasoning as you used to remove gaza massacre
You have added nothing of substance to the article and have only added fallacious arguments to the talk page. You continually cite policies when it is clear you have not read them as they often say the exact opposite thing as you say they do. But again, I do not wish to continue arguing with you, there is no point. You have demonstrated a tendency to lie about the sources, to lie about policies, and to repeatedly lie by omission in your presentation of diffs. I have no use for such time-wasting tactics by somebody here to do one and only one thing. To removed what one "side" says while pushing what the other "side" says. I will engage with those who I have even the slightest bit of respect for, but for you and a few others at that page I am done pretending that you are acting in good faith. And as WP:AGF is a policy I will instead of saying that repeatedly simply stop engaging with you. You are not worth my time. nableezy - 18:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through the cited diffs was a nice trip down memory lane, I had completely forgot about some of those gems. I have indeed soapboxed early on in my entrance in this area, but stopped, for the most part at least, some time ago. But they are for the most part taken completely out of context. Par for the course though, nableezy - 07:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cptnono, the diff you cited of me using 3rr as a tool was by User:LoverOfTheRussianQueen, a sockpuppet of the indefinitely banned User:NoCal100 (in which NoCal100 as LOTRQ cited a 3RR report against NoCal100 as proof of my using it as a weapon, good times). On Brewcrewer's report I had made 2 reverts, the exact same number as Shuki. About it having to be "my way", BS. I made several "compromise" edits, including changing it to "described by Hamas as" unbolded. That still was not good enough for yall so I found 2 sources that explicitly say it is the name used in the Arab world. Still not enough. Why you keep saying these things even though they are plainly bogus and that they are bogus has been pointed out to you a number of times. You presented a source using "War on Hamas". And you say that is enough. But many, many sources using "Gaza M/massacre" was not enough. Regarding the email from another editor, if that editor does not wish to actually say that to me then the only thing I can say would be incredibly vulgar. And "refusal to seek resolution in the Massacre title dispute"? Who opened the RfC? Who went to RS/N? Who went to NPOV/N? And for you to continue to say that I am POV pushing for wanting to include what sources show is a common Arabic name for the conflict, the irony speaks for itself. But I dont want to argue with you or Stellarkid anymore, its useless. No matter how many sources I provide (it was 10 using the phrase just by Hamas officials at last count and 2 explicitly saying it is the common Arabic name) it wont be enough. I have no energy for such foolish arguments, it is completely pointless. Nearly every article in this area is crap, one more wont hurt. Have fun making it happen. nableezy - 07:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My diff list does not include any banned or sockpuppet editors. Regarding the name "Israel's war on Hamas" Google news hits showed it being commonly used, much more so than "Gaza massacre," (with small letters). In fact, aside from unverifiable Arab sources (which violated WP:NONENG and thus did not belong in the lede -) your only source for "known in the Arab world as 'the Gaza Massacre' was one source by a reporter in a (reliable source) South African newspaper who writes and was writing about a current and local event. Even if this source was finally accepted as a RS for your insertion, WP does not require us to use any and every source, and asks for further sources if the edit is controversial, as it clearly was. All this was brought up innumerable times on the talk pages, but you continued to edit-war in your preferred version. Stellarkid (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, you cite NoCal100, the same banned editor. And Arabic sources are verifiable and they do not "violate" WP:NONENG, they are explicitly allowed by WP:NONENG. And only a few of the 10 sources provided were even in Arabic, but, again, an honest argument is not expected from you. Just one more example of lying about what a policy says. The other "Gaza massacre" ref from the SA Sunday Times (which a consensus of uninvolved editors at RS/N said was a reliable source) was in a report on an interview with Goldstone. But again, I have stopped expecting you to actually provide a truthful and accurate argument. The fact that you think your edit-warring out something that is supported by reliable, verifiable sources is acceptable but think I should be punished for edit-warring it back in is laughable. The fact that you present a collection of sources from google without even reading any of the sources which in fact do not support what you said they did is likewise laughable. But an honest argument is not expected from you, so a laughable one will just have to suffice. nableezy - 18:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Hicks, if you wish to interject here it would be wise of you to understand what it is you are writing. Turkish nationalists changing the Saladin article to say that he was a Turk and not a Kurd goes against countless reliable sources (in fact, every single scholarly work on the topic) that Saladin was a Kurd. Changing that, and on occasion vandalizing the references by changing the quotes within them, is vandalism, not a content dispute. Also, in your history list there are not 3 reverts in some of those. And looking through your contributions it is clear that nearly all of your edits are in fact reverts of other peoples. I have certainly edit-warred in the past, I dont deny that. But you and Stellarkid both only raise one "side" of reverts when it is clear on the settlement pages that Shuki continually reverted across a range of articles making us have the same discussion in a number of places, each time concluding with the undeniable fact that these places are called "Israeli settlements" before any other description, and often to the exclusion of any other description, in the vast majority of English sources. But then again, edit-warring is only bad when the "other side" is doing it, right? That said, I wont edit war anymore. It is difficult though to not click undo when a group of editors demand on imposing a fringe-sized minority POV (for instance that "Area C", a subdivision of the West Bank created under the Oslo Accords, is in Israel) before what nearly all reliable sources say. nableezy - 20:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion concerning Nableezy
Comments by Sean.hoyland
Or simply provide mentoring for Stellarkid until such time that he is a) able to understand what NPOV means and b) formally agrees to abide by the discretionary sanctions specifically the parts that say
"What Wikipedia can do is aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict".
"Editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counseled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area".
That way Nableezy and other editors who understand that we are trying to build a neutral encyclopedia wouldn't have to waste quite so much time dealing with partisan nonsense which ever direction it is coming from. Sean.hoyland - talk07:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Cptnono
My primary concern is the continuous getting away with it. Here are some recent examples of edit warring that jumped out at me:
He also uses the system. Sometimes it is for the betterment of the article. Other times it has been questioned. Along with the Brewcrewer one on October 6 mentioned above:
An editor accused him of using 3rr against opponents in this edit
I actually received an email from another editor after a case was brought against me here for saying that he edits for the Palestine and not Wikipedia. Those were some harsh comments but I tried to give him constructive criticism. The email included the line "Incredibly said. Too bad it will probably get lost in the banter. I made a similar comment to him(?) a few weeks ago, about him not contributing anything but rather just around to police articles...". There is nothing wrong with policing articles. There is something wrong with the constant struggle when other options are available (being nice is something I need to learn, too!). There is also an acknowledgment that things do continue to get lost in a flurry of new subsections and incident reports and an editor sending an email like this smacks of an environment that is not collaborative and is full of battling.
We all screw up (I have for sure) but it looks like this behavior is being enabled since there have been zero consequences. I originally thought that a reminder from an administrator would be a good start but he has been warned more than once and their is so much concern that he has not addressed.
I provided a source some time ago discussing how "war on Hamas" was used by the media. Unfortunately, Nableezy has been a habit of asserting his arguments until challenges dry up. With "massacre", compromises were eventually offered which should have made almost everyone happy. It had to be Nableezy's way, though. Both Stellar and I have already expressed the reasoning behind our criticism of pushing a POV yet editors ignore it and claim that we have not. Stellar's comments during my AE case is one example. Another was when my allegations that he edits only contentious Arab based articles along with my concerns that he refused to seek resolution in the Massacre title dispute. Stellar has also attempted to do it right at the the talk page and has tried to improve the article. Was his view of consensus incorrect? Maybe, but his view that there was not consensus either way definitely was correct. I'm surprised and disappointed that Nableezy's response was an attempt to discredit Stellar.Cptnono (talk) 07:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Loosely related but doesn't address primary edit warring concerns
Follow-up, Tiamut unarchived two discussions and inserted them below. The reasoning given in the edit summary is that they were not officially closed. I thought that was what the "results"section was but am open to further scrutiny. I have moved them up so the chronology of events is kept. I wanted to mention that this could be viewed as an attempt to influence the system in covert in a manner that is disruptive and sly. It obviously was done in a brash manner when a simple wikilink would have sufficed. I also hope that this wasn't an attempt to justify for edit warring.Cptnono (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
more hidden content
Response to Cptnono's
In the hidden note above, Cptnono accuses me of trying to, "influence the system in covert in a manner that is disruptive and sly." Why? Because I restored two threads that were archived by Mizsabot: one that asked for help in dealing with Cptnono's tendency to comment on contributors rather than content, and one that asked for help in dealing with Shuki's tendency to edit war across multiple pages (a thread that has already been re-archived by the bot again - does someone want to re-check those settings?).
Cptnono's insistence on making bad faith assumptions about the actions of his fellow editors is disheartening and disturbing. I hope someone will finally issue him a warning about this, as originally requested in the thread on him restored.
Regarding the request made here that Nableezy be topic-banned (?!?) for his edits at Gaza War, I would note that Nableezy has been passionate about defending NPOV in the face of single-minded opposition to the NPOV on the part of Cptnono and Stellarkid, among others. Stellarkid - whose only edits to Gaza War have been to remove sourced material he does not like, while it is being discussed - has succeeded in chasing away one of the foremost content contributors to that page. As Nableezy has admitted to edit-warring and has stated he has taken Gaza War off his watchlist, I see no reason for him to be topic-banned. Someone may want to look further into what exactly Stellarkid's purposes are here though. Tiamuttalk14:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Mr. Hicks The III
It seems quite undisputable that Nableezy has engaged, and continues to engage, in edit warring. Some of those edit wars have resulted in his being blocked, others in his being warned, and still others have had other undesriable effects (pages protected, drama on various boards). Let's start with the uncontested facts:
Nableezy has been blocked twice this year for edit warring:[95].
He has been warned by administrators to stop edit warring, as recently as two weeks ago: [96].
A quick glance through his contribution history to article space shows it consists almost exclusively of reverts of other people's edits - sometimes justifiably, but often as part of a content dispute, and sometimes misleadingly labeling other people's edits that he's reverting as "vandalism", when in reality it is a content dispute:[97]. There are many, many cases of his reverting exactly 3 times, as if 3R was an entitlement:
There are countless such examples, the above are from the last 30 days alone, and are not an exhaustive list.
I believe it is time for some sanction, as previous blocks and warnings have not had the desired effect. Perhaps a topic ban from I-P articles, as those seem to be an area where he can't seem to restrqain himslef, or a mandatory 1RR restriction. Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Mr Unsigned Anon
Nableezy did argue about the 'Gaza Massacre' out from policy and was more pedagogical than needed. See [102] and the split in subsections according to different policys. He also raised the question on RS on WP:RSN[103]. There is a majority leaning on policys supporting Nableezy on this.
WP:NPOV is not someting taken lightly and Stellarkid should himself closly study it before editing "in the sensitive area of I-P." [104]. Editwarring and at the same time complaining on admins talkside does not make the user requesting enforcement case stronger [105][106][107]Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Dailycare
It's true that there was an edit war concerning the "massacre" term in the Gaza War article, however a key point is that Nableezy was the editor in favour of including the properly sourced term, and the other involved editor was responsible for removing the properly sourced material, and s/he could be a better candidate for enforcement action than Nableezy. --Dailycare (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Jgui
I am an uninvolved editor, having never edited the Gaza war page and having never edited for or against the involved editors Nableezy and Stellarkid. It is clear from the evidence that Nableezy was the one who was trying to improve NPOV of the article by including not only the IDF name for the Gaza conflict, but also the Palestinian name for the conflict. As others have noted above, it was Nableezy who was attempting to maintain properly sourced NPOV RS material, and it was Stellarkid who was removing it. Stellarkid is not a new editor and he should know better, and he should be discouraged from filing spurious charges here against other editors and wasting the time of the Administrators. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2009 (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.
Considered on a long-term basis, Nableezy's presence on the Gaza War article is not a helpful one. Any editor who re-adds the same sentence twelve times over a period of weeks, even having been notified that an uninvolved administrator is free to (per remedy 1.1) sanction disruptive contributors, is not one who has a helpful influence on the article-building process. I am banning Nableezy for a period of 4 months from all pages (including both article and article talk pages) within those topic areas which relate to the Palestine-Israel articles case. If he violates this topic ban, his account will be blocked for disruption (for any duration less than the time remaining of the topic ban). AGK21:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Re: Nableezy
I have asked AGK to review his decision as I believe it is needlessly harsh. Even assuming that one accepts that Nableezy's behaviour at Gaza War has been disruptive (which many do not) the fact Nableezy pledged not to edit that article again should have been sufficient to allay any fears regarding future disruptions. There is no need for a topic ban, nor was any evidence presented that would suggest one would be necessary.
I would ask that AGK as well as other admins please review this decision. Nableezy's contributions to articles related to the I-P arena have been valuable to the project and this decision seems needlessly punitive. We have suffered the loss of many good contributors over the last couple of years because of overzealous rulings done without sufficient investigation into the background of the disputes in question. Other eyes would be much appreciated. Tiamuttalk09:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this ruling is way out of bounds, apparently made in haste, and I second the request that it be reviewed. Jgui (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The difficulty I see here is that the 1RR restriction is intended to force communication; but a number of editors seem to have decided that Irvine22 is a "disruptive editor" or "troll" and to decline to substantively engage (see edit summaries and talk page on the page in question, Pat Finucane (solicitor)). This is not how the restriction is supposed to work. If Irvine22 is indeed displaying a pattern of disruptive behaviour (there does seem to be a certain history of edit warring and excessive boldness on this sensitive topic, besides a now-settled sock-puppet issue), then that broader context needs addressing, perhaps via WP:RFC/U, rather than picking out a single infraction for Arbitration Enforcement. Rd232talk12:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do seem to be the target of tag-team editing, with the reporting editor a member of the tag team. However, I wouldn't make too much of that - I always prefer not to complain. In this case, I will say two things: first, there is in fact only one revert here. The first action within the past 24 hours was a manual deletion of an advertising link. This followed a discussion on the talk page that seemed settled. This was reverted by RepublicanJacobite, and I reverted the revert. That's one revert, surely? Second: my understanding was that the various revert rules did not apply to removing obvious advertising links, such as the one I removed, which was a link to the business webpage of a firm of solicitors.Irvine22 (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion regarding Pat Finucane was hardly concluded, and there most certainly was not consensus for the removal of the link. The last comment in the discussion was you saying that the website is amateurish, which is utterly irrelevant. Most of the discussion prior to that involved your use of a term that was wholly inappropriate and a violation of WP:BLP. There had been next to no discussion as to the merits of the link, in part because you seem to find it difficult to engage in serious, helpful discussion. In an article about a living person, an article which concentrates on his career as a solicitor, a link to the webpage of his legal firm is not at all inappropriate. Just as there is a link to the General Motors website in the external links of the article about said corporation, and so on in dozens of other articles about corporations. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'16:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should have made these points on the article's talk page. If you had done so, I would have pointed out that GM is a notable corporation. Madden & Finucane is a non-notable firm of solicitors. Irvine22 (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RJ, this is all they want another plathform! Irvine22 when on "Irish Unionist Alliance", where he's twice added a link to a non-notable organisation by the same name that was deleted per AFD, it shows his stance on "advertising" is dependent on who is being advertised. This is a 1RR report, and all we have had is excuses. --Domer48'fenian'16:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Domer makes a good point, and here are the diffs for Irvine's repeated inclusion of that nonnotable and irrelevant link:
Well, I suppose there is one connection between the non-notable political organization in question and the non-notable firm of solicitors: both have had Wikipedia articles about them deleted. But there is also a rather obvious difference between them - only the website of the non-notable firm of solicitors advertises fee-based professional services. That is what I find inappropriate to link to, and I thought that was the settled view of Wikipedians. Anyway, as Rd232 points out, this could all have been aired on the article's talk page if you had engaged in good faith, instead of playing the tag-team silliness.Irvine22 (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Last things first, I am sick of your unfounded and bad faith accusations of "tag-team" editing. If you have proof that I and other editors colluded to revert your edits without cause, please present in this public forum. Otherwise, I suggest you drop it.
But, to the substantive matter here, you are incorrect in your facts. The Finucane Solicitors AfD concluded that the article should be redirected, not deleted:
This is neither the forum for discussing issues like accusations of "tag-team" editing and other matters of general behaviour (RFC/U, or possibly other dispute resolution) nor of the content issues (article talk page). Rd232talk17:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So Rd as long as we use the talk page we can breach 1RR (1RR restriction is intended to force communication), didn't know that, thanks for the heads up. BigDunc18:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that at all. I'm merely pointing out that 1RR is (like 3RR) not merely intended to slow edit warring down to a slower speed - it's supposed to stop it by forcing communication. The rest of my comment I don't feel like repeating, I've said before that RFC/U should be used where there are longer-term concerns. Rd232talk08:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dunc, notice also how RD feels they must below, make a pathetic and pointed comment at me, despite the fact that the discussion was closed having to ignore the notice "Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section" in order to make it. They also ignore the notices on the top of this page which says "The Committee does not look favourably upon comments that are intended to provoke reactions in others, and being incivil or provocative is counter-productive," in addition to "The golden rule of contributing to the project is to make an edit only where it actively benefits the project." So why would their ignoring and excusing of the 1RR here surprise us? Lets see how long RD's brand new rule lasts, we use the talk page we can breach 1RR! --Domer48'fenian'19:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I felt the need to comment on your unhelpful remark, because it's a behaviour I've seen from you too often. I guess I shouldn't have, but it irked me. I didn't think about the "closed discussion" aspect enough because I was in a hurry to leave my computer. Whoa, two revelations in one comment: admins are volunteers with other demands on their time, and are human. Who knew? (And see reply to BigDunc re 1RR.) Rd232talk08:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk note I've removed the text added after the discussion was closed. Sanctions will be applied if you decide that you can breach 1RR on talk pages. Dougweller (talk) 06:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result regarding this request
This is a credible AE request, as there was a clear 1RR violation. There is no weight to the claim that the "first" removal wasn't a revert, as Irvine had removed the link another time a few days before.[115] The matter was under discussion on the talk page, and sure it had gone quiet ... but it was obvious opposition remained when the reversion from RepublicanJacobite came. Irvine reverted again. Sorry Irvine, you knew the rules and chose to assume the risks of violating them. I'm giving you a week. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request concerning Jdorney
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue
3 reverts in less than 24 hours, which is a violation of 1RR. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.
Jdorney is well aware of the 1RR, having been given a final warning on their talk page here, which resulted from this report here.
Discussion regarding this request
Left open for discussion.
The only edits between those cited two edits by Jdorney are a number by Rockpocket (amounting to minor changes apart from the key term), and Jdorney's second edit didn't (as far as I can see) undo any of those, including Rockpocket's change in the lead term. It's not obvious who the relatively minor second edit is supposed to be reverting. In any case it probably makes more sense to count the two edits as one for the purposes of RR counting, in the same way as if there were no intervening edits. Rd232talk15:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Stellarkid
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
[116] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text without consensus 27 Sep 06:51
[117] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text without consensus 27 Sep 17:02
[118] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text without consensus during RfC 2 Oct 03:27
[119] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text without consensus during RFC 6 oct 06:18
[120] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text without consensus during RFC 6 oct 06:18
[121] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text during 2:nd editwar 15 Oct 16:30
[122] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text during 2:nd editwar 15 Oct 20:20
[123] Complaining over his own editwar at admin, showing intent to continue 15 oct 20:23
[124] Open AE against Nableezy 27 oct, ended 29 oct 21:00
[125] Tryig to round up Cptnono "== G Massacre == Just curious as to why you won't engage on the page with Nableezy out? Your opinion matters" 31 Oct 22:47
[126] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text 1 Nov 04:32
[127] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text 1 Nov 05:41
All edit above is about the lead dispute in article [Gaza War] and about the single words 'Gaza Massacre'.
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Your statement bather me as you sounds uninformed about me, and my case at AE. Have you read it at all? Have you read Jiujitsuguys ignorant ramblings and done some reserch about them? And about the 'helpfull' user Tyw7 who starting up the first AE case after I asked him for help against Jiujitsuguys ramblings?. If you going to adress any of Jiujitsugus accusations against me you better find out if there is any substanse behind them or just a morons ramblings, yes ban me now damnit. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 08:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:[reply] [130]
Discussion concerning Stellarkid
Statement by Stellarkid
This has been a hard one for me to address and I will add a bit more tomorrow on specifics, but here is my more general statement.
I have been engaging in discussion in regard to this edit since Archive 58 & Archive 59 (long enough for my words to have been archived!) and on the current talk page. In fact, this particular edit has been argued almost since the first week of the article, as one can see by reading the archive. For the record, the archive is now going on 60 pages and the discussion regarding the Gaza "massacre" has been significant. There is not now, nor do I believe there has been, consensus to put this in the lede of the article.
That is why I spent considerable time discussing the policy issues involved, but was met consistently with the argument that "there is no consensus to remove the edit". There were even a couple of "no consensus" removals made by Mr Unsigned Anon himself [131][132] . One editor said the sheer number of words on the talk pages would have made us rich if we were paid by the word, lol -- and I am confident he was referring to me.
If it is true as WP:EW says: "An edit war occurs when individual contributors or groups of contributors repeatedly override each others' contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion," then I am innocent of the charge.
I did do a handful of reversions over the last month, but by no means did I try to override anyone's contributions "without attempting to resolve issues by discussion."
The problem is, just as there was no consensus to remove the material, as charged; neither was there a consensus to add it. This becomes a circular argument and inherently feeds an edit war. WP:CONSENSUS points out that Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality and verifiability in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on. Those were exactly the concerns that were brought out in argument on the archives and talk pages.
I tried to stay with policy based reasons, as did all the editors who objected to its inclusion, starting with WP:CCC which says that "no consensus" is not an appropriate reason for reverting. Some editors, as I did, complained that the sources did not support the contention WP:V, that the edit was WP:OR, some offered WP:NPOV, that the edit was not neutral. Some claimed it was neutral because it was an "alternative name", the other said it was not a name but a non-neutral description. One side said it was WP:CENSOR, the other said it was OK in the body, but not in the lede thus not censorship. Some wanted to use Arab sources and other editor/translators on Wiki and others quoted WP:NONENG. Another policy-based argument that was made was WP:LEADCITE which says: "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none."
WP:BURDEN says that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. If there is no consensus for an edit, the edit is controversial, seen as POV and offensive by some editors, unsupported by others, I believe it should be removed until there is consensus to include it, rather than included until there is consensus to remove it.
I'm not trying to be a policy wonk here but I think WP has these guidelines and policies for just such a reason, and believe in this case they support me rather than the complainant. Stellarkid (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other editors
Comments by Tedder
I'm in favor of the topic ban on Gaza War, Talk:Gaza War, and any other pages related to the subject. I've only become involved in mediating Gaza War since it came up on RFPP; I endorse a topic ban for this user to restore some civility to the article and talk page. Perhaps a time limit of a year should be put on the user, so they have an opportunity to be productive after then? tedder (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Cptnono
Of course he was trying to "round me up". I completely agree that Gaza massacre as it is used is incorrect. I'm trying to chill out from this page since it has gotten so out of hand, I need to cool down, and I thought Stellar's concise reasoning could handle the job just fine without me screwing it up. He didn't understand that WP:3RR included reversal of "actions of other editors, in whole or in part." It looks like he thought his reasoning was sufficient so the change was OK. It doesn't work that way. He juts got a warning from two admins about the same 3 reverts and I hope he takes it to heart. Being newer isn't an excuse but it should be taken into consideration. I also think a reminder of the motherly "2 wrongs don't make a right" is something would be nice. I think this AE is premature and Stellar will show that he is more than capable of following the rules and needs to go reread them. Punishing him to restore stability (which has never existed on the article unfortunately) is completely out of line. Asking him to not edit war over "massacre" should work but if you need justice (which isn't the point of this is it?) impose a 1rr. Cptnono (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: The length of how long this has been going on should have no bearing on Stellar. He deserves a fair assessment without being lumped in with others. This recent wave (that is how it looks to me at least) involves editors who have not been involved with AE before or are newer to the article as well. Cptnono (talk) 07:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Gatoclass
Although I felt the decision concerning Nableezy above was uncomfortably one-sided, given that he was handed a stiff topic ban while Stellarkid, who had edit warred with equal enthusiasm since arriving at the page in question, got no sanction whatever, I had reluctantly decided to make no comment about it as I felt it best not to second guess the judgement of an uninvolved admin. At this point however, I feel something must be said.
I thought Stellarkid was extremely fortunate not to have also been topic banned in the previous case, given his sheer hypocrisy in bringing the case against Nableezy when he had been almost equally guilty of edit warring on the same article, but the fact that he has immediately resumed his edit war over the edit in question after just seeing another editor given a stiff penalty for doing so, demonstrates either an extraordinary lack of restraint or else a palpable contempt for this process. Either way, I think at this point Stellarkid must receive a sanction at least on par with that given to Nableezy (although as I understand it the length of Nableezy's ban is currently under review). This kind of behaviour is simply not acceptable. Gatoclass (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Jiujitsuguy
I oppose any sanction against Stellarkid. He is an excellent editor who has contributed greatly to the integrity of the article in question and has remained civil throughout. This is a common tactic that Mr Unsigned Anon employs. He attempts to silence and censor those he disagrees with by filing complaints and having them blocked or topic banned. If anyone deserves to be sanctioned it's Mr Unsigned Anon for the following reasons:
He has reverted me twice here [133] and here [134] within a span of less than 24 hrs. The second revert is particularly distressing becuase I was engaged in a debate with another editor who asked me to self revert here [135] and I was considering his request as evidenced by [136] Then Mr Unsigned Anon comes along and reverts me before the other editor even has a chance to respond to my proposal. Mr Unsigned Anon is very savvy and sophisticated when it comes to Wiki rules and procedure. He will push the envelope just far enough without bursting it. While technically, he's not in violation of 3R in letter, he's certainly in violation of spirit.
Moreover, he has engaged in a disruptive and infantile course of conduct
I've compiled a list of Diffs for your review concerning Mr Unsigned Anon. A review of these Diffs is important and sheds light on the nature of Mr Unsigned Anon.
Here [[137]] he is warned to stop engaging in disruptive reverts.
Here [[139]] he accuses me of working for the Israeli government and also makes derogatory accusations based on alleged demographics.
Here [[140]] he asks me about the weather in Brooklyn based on his belief that I live there.
Here
[[141]] he makes reference to my bank account on the Gaza discussion page.
Here [[142]] he taunts me to engage him in an edit war.
None of these comments are relevant, all of them are infantile and some of them are downright offensive. A sanction should therefore be imposed on Mr Unsigned Anon in the form of a lengthy topic ban.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Unsigned Anon has just reverted yet again here [143] That would make three reverts in just over 24 hours. This is how he operates. Pushing the envelope just far enough. It is etremely frustrating to watch him take advantage of the rules to sanction another editor while he himself is an experienced edit warrior who will stop at nothing to censor those he disagrees with.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Enigmaman
This has been going on for months, with basically no progress. One reports another, it's generally ignored, rinse and repeat. Mr Unsigned Anon, for example, has been taken to AN/I several times, but no administrators really want to get involved in this mess. Topic bans should be meted out, starting with Mr Unsigned Anon. Remove one, see if anything changes, and then progress from there. The trouble, as with all I/P disputes, is that the only people who care to edit the pages are people with a very distinct POV, on one side or another. Enigmamsg07:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result concerning Stellarkid
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
