Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:46, 2 December 2010

WP:AE

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

Captain Occam

Captain Occam and Ferahgo are indefinitely banned from the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Wikipedia, including user talk pages. Several editors advised.

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

See result at #Sanction, below. EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Captain Occam

User requesting enforcement: Mathsci (talk) 07:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Captain Occam topic-banned

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

This user is discussing matters concerned with

his views of the content and quality of articles covered by his topic ban
how other users should manage imposing restrictions on others editing the articles covered by his topic ban
the close of WP:ARBR&I and his battleground attempts to have sanctions applied to other users

Whether or not his editing history prior to his topic ban is being discussed, he should not intervene or attempt to exercise influence in any way whatsoever. This is a violation of his topic ban.

Recent harassment-only accounts

There is also a concern that two recently created accounts are acting as proxies for Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin, during their topic bans. The evidence of meatpuppetry so far is purely circumstantial. Like Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin, both users are targeting WeijiBaikeBianji (talk · contribs). Both are following his edits and and lobbying for editing restrictions. For recently arrived wikipedians, this does not seem quite normal. [4]

SightWatcher (talk · contribs) has misquoted and misrepresented the findings of the arbitration case on multiple occasions, in the same way as Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin. He has added identical material [5] to Race and health that was previously proposed unsuccessfully [6] by Ferahgo the Assassin for Race (classification of humans). He has lobbied on her behalf.[7] Here in his user space is a draft RfC/U, as suggested by Captain Occam. [8] The statements in this draft RfC/U continue to voice the same misunderstandings of the outcome of WP:ARBR&I. For a user to start discussing sanctions against another user within a week of arriving on wikipedia [9][10] after less than thirty edits is concerning. Like Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin, he has been given advice by administrators (Maunus and RegentsPark) which he chosen to ignore. He has, with Captain Occam's advice [11], started an RfC/U on WeikiBaikeBianji.[12] One of the main topics contained in the RfC/U concerns the removal of spam links on an article High IQ society (an article not connected with WP:ARBR&I). On that article Dirk Beetstra, the WP expert on spam and blacklisting, has been removing link spam in exactly the same way as WeijiBaikeBianji.

Woodsrock (talk · contribs) has made a series of personal attacks on WeijiBaikeBianji in postings and edit summaries (here is one example [13]). Apart from the template he created very soon after the creation of his account and its use, his other edits to articles consist entirely of splitting paragraphs or moving images: no content is being added or modified. In a number of cases, probably without realizing it, he has made these arbitrary changes to the ledes of articles which have already been selected as GA and FA (examples include RNA, DNA and evolution). In this cosmetic change to DNA sequencing [14], the change indicates that Woodsrock does not read the text he is editing (which refers to an image on the left, which he moved to the right without altering the text). Today he made yet another unprompted personal attack on WeikiBaikeBianji, coordinated with the RfC/U. [15]

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): Not applicable
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Block of account for one week or more for Captain Occam; official warnings for SightWatcher and Woodsrock for harassment-only accounts; possible block of Woodsrock for personal attacks.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: There are other issues of off-wiki harassment, possibly connected with these incidents, which ArbCom has been informed of. A checkuser has confirmed that the two accounts above are not sockpuppet accounts. I have discussed some of these matters with a member of ArbCom.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [16] [17] [18]

Reply to EdJohnston: My topic ban on articles and their talk pages connected with race and intelligence, broadly construed, was by mutual consent (initially voluntary) and lasts until the end of time, unlike the topic bans of Mikemikev, Captain Occam and David.Kane. It does not involve process pages, but, as far as I am concerned, does involve not discussing the subject matter of the dispute or other people's views on it in any way whatsoever. The timing of other users' edits is beyond my control: that includes Ferahgo the Assassin's recent violation of her topic ban; Mikemikev's continued sockpuppetry (including an edit by him that had to be deleted in this request); and also the issues of meatpuppetry and wikihounding mentioned above. In the latter case an arbitrator requested, after I made this request,that information from me be passed on to other members of the committee. Any modification in my topic ban would presumably have to be through an amendment of WP:ARBR&I and be approved by ArbCom. I cannot see any relation with EEML. But just to be safe I will make a public declaration: I have received a phone call from Roger Davies and we did have a long and enjoyable chat about matters totally unconnected with wikipedia. On the other hand that might be a cue for somebody to start WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/French connection. Mathsci (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further clarification: I have no connection at all with WeijiBaikeBianji. Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin have continued to cast aspersions that we are somehow collaborating. However, similarly unreasonable assertions to these have been summarily dismissed by arbitrators. Their repeated attempts to have sanctions imposed on WeijiBaikeBianji on previous ArbCom pages were seen as a failure to come to terms with the closure of the ArbCom case. Unlike Captain Occam and his girlfirend, I have no interest in the subject whatsoever. I have made critical but constructive remarks about WeijiBaikeBianji's general method of adding sources to "further reading" to wikipedia articles in his RfC/U following the report below on Ferhago the Assassin.[19] At no stage have I commented on the content of WeijBaikeBianji's editing. Obviously I very strongly defend his right to edit without being wikihounded or harassed. I have been wikihounded myself in unconnected topics: that wikihounding ceased after mediation off-wiki by an arbitrator. I am on a wikibreak at the moment—that means a break from editing articles—since in RL I'm completing a long article on mathematics and was rather burnt out after 1000+ edits on Clavier-Übung III. Mathsci (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional statement concerning request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: WP:ARBR&I/scope of topic ban of Mathsci

I have requested a personal clarification from ArbCom about the nature of my topic ban, which I believe is different from that of other users mentioned, for those administrators unfamilar with the outcome of WP:ARBR&I. In my case there have been no violations of my topic ban and I believe that administrators are ignoring the voluntary nature of my topic ban. Arbitrators themselves have encouraged me to contribute to noticeboards and to correspond with them. In my request for clarification about my topic ban, I have also requested some guidance for administrators. Mathsci (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close: Since Newyorkbrad and Shell Kinney have now commented at the above request for clarification, it is is probably a good idea for administrators to close the discussion here and continue it in the more appropriate place linked above. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<moving commment> VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please move this comment to your own section and take a look at what arbitrators have said.You might also like to review what are called "personal sanctions". Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active sanctions#Personal sanctions Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 04:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Captain Occam seems quite occupied with my editing at present.[20][21][22][23][24][25] I am personally quite happy with the advice offered by EdJohnston and Timotheus Canens below. It is good advice which I would follow even if the topic ban is lifted. I have explained privately to them why matters do not seem to be quite normal at the moment. As far as Captain Occam's latest demands go [26], as a matter of courtesy, I would feel obliged to send the same short wiki-email message to any uninvolved administrator commenting here, assuming they had activated an email account (not all admins do so).

Discussion concerning Captain Occam

Statement by Captain Occam

This report seems completely frivolous. Mathsci and I were both topic banned from these articles by the same arbitration case, and he and I have both been engaging in the exact same type of discussions about other users’ conduct on these articles. Recent examples of this from Mathsci are [27], [28] and [29]. More importantly, there was recently a request for clarification about this case in which the arbitrators specifically stated that topic bans from this case do not apply to dispute resolution about user conduct issues. In that thread, Mathsci actually defended the right of topic banned editors to engage in these discussions! Quoting what Mathsci said there: “I have twice communicated in private when irregularities have occurred connected with WP:ARBR&I. On both occasions the irregularities were not of my making, but I had what I perceived to be useful input to offer in discussions. Wikipedia processes are not covered by my voluntary but binding topic ban.”

Now, do the diffs that Mathsci provided of me purportedly violating my topic ban show anything other than what Mathsci has done himself, has defended his right to do, and what the arbitrators have given both of us permission for? The first is me pointing out to Maunus that he had misquoted me; in response Maunus apologized and struck out the part of his comment which was a misquote. The second and third were a follow-up to a discussion between myself and Coren, in which Coren suggested starting an RFC about WeijiBaikeBianji, and also that I bring this suggestion up with the other editors who have been involved in disputes with him. These diffs are from the discussions that I initiated with these editors at an arbitrator’s suggestion. This certainly does not have any resemblance to the behavior for which I was topic banned, which according to my finding of fact was edit warring and false claims of consensus. Mathsci, on the other hand, has been described by ArbCom as engaging in behavior that is “unduly aggressive and combative”, and seems to be displaying the same attitude here and in the earlier diffs of his behavior provided above.

There are three important questions that need to be asked here:

In his effort to demonstrate that I am violating my topic ban, why has Mathsci not linked to the discussion between me and Coren in which Coren was suggesting this RFC, and also that I contact other editors about this suggestion? Is it because it does not help his case to show that the second and third diff are from discussions that I was asked to initiate by one of the arbitrators?
Why has Mathsci defended his own ability to participate in discussions related to these articles, including posting this arbitration enforcement request, but claims that it is a topic ban violation when other topic banned editors act similarly?
How did Mathsci get a checkuser to be run on Sightwatcher and Woodsrock without starting an SPI? Is it acceptable that he apparently has privately contacted an administrator with checkuser permission, and persuaded them off-wiki to run a checkuser on these accounts?

Echoing VsevolodKrolikov’s comments below, when one considers the number of editors who have taken issue with WeijiBaikeBianji’s recent behavior, it should not be such a surprise that this includes a pair of relatively new users. From the links and diffs provided in the RFC/U which was recently started about WeijiBaikeBianji, I can identify at least four other users who feel similarly about WeijiBaikeBianji’s editing. In addition to VsevolodKrolikov himself, there is also Andy Dingley, Victor Chmara and TrevelyanL85A2. All four of these users have been registered for over three years.

I’m reminded again of this principle from the recent Climate Change arbitration case: “An editor who brings forward the same or similar view as a blocked or banned user should not automatically be assumed to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet in the absence of other evidence.” On these articles, Mathsci and a few other users who share his viewpoint seem to consistently ignore this principle. When a pair of new users are among six users disagreeing with someone whom I’ve also disagreed with in the past, should sockpuppetry or meatuppetry be considered so likely that admins are privately canvassed to run checkuser, and after checkuser fails to find evidence of sockpuppetry, the accusation is brought to AE? --Captain Occam (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Captain Occam

Comment by VsevolodKrolikov

I have been part of these discussions through being caught up in WeijiBaikeBianji's editing campaign against template:human intelligence. I agree that there is something slightly suspicious about the sudden appearance of the two new users and their familiarity with wikipedia. That said, WeijiBaikeBianji is being rather disruptive and it's not only these two who have problems with WBB's continual reverts and slow edit warring, so I don't know how much can be read into their behaviour there. (But certainly Woodsrock has been uncivil.) VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment Oppose move to close cited above by Mathsci. EdJohnston and other admins are still going to clarify the issue of participation in RfCs. Btw, can someone explain what it means for MathSci to have a "binding" topic ban? Isn't that the same in practice as the bans applied to Captain Occam and Ferahgo, only that his consent would reflect better upon him in general? I looked at the discussion and it's not clear to me that there is a material difference. For the record, I'm not happy about any of the topic-banned editors participating in the RfC on WBB. It's too close to having an impact on content and thus it's topic-related. It's dispute resolution (about a user, but clearly relating to the topic) not arbitration enforcement. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by WeijiBaikeBianji

Certainly something very odd is going on here. I have no trouble discussing issues calmly with VsevolodKrolikov, and I expect that discussion to result in further improvements in several articles we both are watching. As Mathsci, the moving editor, notes, some of the edits by the two presumptive meat-puppets don't do anything at all to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. I invite multiple editors to take a look at this, especially editors who are experienced with what are at bottom conduct disputes, and I am happy to learn from any conscientious editor how best to respond to this situation. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell has correctly noted in his comment as an uninvolved administrator that the issue here is editor conduct, and each account's contributions should be looked at for its overall pattern of building the encyclopedia and adherence to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the latest several posts by EdJohnston I am losing track of the procedural issues here and how they relate to the substantive issues. (And that is worrisome, as I am a lawyer by training, and usually the first thing I do in analyzing any case is make sure of the procedural posture. But I'm not devoting as much time to this case as some disputants are, and as the unfortunate administrators must.) I think there is considerable gaming of the system going on here and distraction from the issue of editor conduct and building an encyclopedia. The newly registered accounts mentioned here are rightly regarded as "harassment accounts." They have very overtly been harassing me and wasting the time of other conscientious editors (e.g. VsevolodKrolikov). Only one of the two accounts has been warned. I call on all the administrators looking on to reexamine the discretionary sanctions already decided by ArbCom and ask yourselves whether the conduct of either presumptive meat puppet is consistent with the editor conduct expected under that decision. Is how they behave how editors are expected to behave on Wikipedia? Are they contributing quality content to the encyclopedia? I must get back to looking up actual reliable sources for further article edits. I regret that conscientious editors and administrators have had so much of their time wasted by the editor misconduct that Mathsci has helpfully reported. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tijfo098

This request appears to be a sort of SPI investigation. What is alleged here is essentially that two accounts who recently opened a RfC/U on WeijiBaikeBianji are meat-puppets of a topic banned user. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course this belongs at SPI rather than here. But since Mathsci has apparently already gotten someone to run a checkuser on Sightwatcher and Woodsrock, and determined that they’re unrelated both to me and to everyone else who’s topic banned from these articles, I think he already knows that an SPI would be unlikely to produce the result he wants. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Maunus

I don't see how this can be enough evidence to sanction Occam. I am also suspicious about those two editors, but I could not possibly support any sanctions on Occam untill there is actual positive evidence that he has any part in their sudden arrival. It is not a crime to arrive at wikipedia with prior knowledge of its workings and it is also not a crime to agree with topic banned editors. Nothing we can really do here except keep the argument based on sources and policies going.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by SightWatcher

I originally joined Wikipedia wanting to edit film related stuff. I had been browsing race and intelligence-related articles out of curiosity and an interest in learning more, and first got involved when trying to remove something that looked like obvious original research to me. This first R&I edit of mine was reverted by WeijiBaikeBianji, restoring the original research (someone else later removed it). I never would have guessed that making a single edit would suck me in like this, but I thought the articles could benefit if I stuck around. It only took me a few days to notice that a few other editors also had a problem with WeijiBaikeBianji's behavior. Due to how prolific WeijiBaikeBianji's editing was, it was hard for them to deal with everything he was doing. If anyone else has experienced something similar here, they might understand how easy it is to get pulled into disputes like this.

As part of trying to rapidly familiarize myself with this topic, I've read through much of the arbitration process and findings. I find it pretty weird that one of the topic banned editors has made this thread. Mathsci, who WeijiBaikeBianji defended as "a thorough and conscientious editor" [30] despite this user's apparent penchant for edit warring and personal attacks pointed out by arbcom in his finding of fact. [31] Mathsci posted this thread less than three hours after I started the RFC/U about WeijiBaikeBianji. After this thread was posted, WeijiBaikeBianji immediately linked to it from the RFC/U, claiming that it "shows that this request for comment very likely is a continuation of an edit war by a topic-banned editor that began before I became a wikipedian." [32] Mathsci's intimate familiarity with my editing history in an area he's banned from is also disconcerting to me.

I don't think I need to respond in detail to all of Mathsci's accusations- seems there's no point. All you have to do is click on the diffs that have been presented in this thread to see that reality doesn't support his claims. For example, read the thread in Coren's talk to see that the suggestion to start the RFC/U originally came from Coren, not from Occam. Mathsci certainly knows this, because he participated in the discussion where Coren suggested it. Interestingly, this deliberate misrepresentation seems similar to some stuff I've read about through arbitration that Mathsci was doing- Ludwigs2 provided a good example here [33] of how he tends to do this (check out the "Fake Mathsci-style criticism of itsmeJudith for example purposes only). This thread smacks of being a very similar sort of thing...

But anyway, whether other editors or myself have done anything wrong here does not really seem to be the point of this thread. The point is that as long as this thread exists, it can be used to undermine the legitimacy of my RFC/U about WeijiBaikeBianji. In his comment on the RRFC/U that I quoted, WeijiBaikeBianji is milking this thread for all it's worth. So what I see is a very suspicious link between this, the timing of this thread in response to my RFC/U, WeijiBaikeBianji’s eagerness to defend Mathsci, and Mathsci's intimate familiarity with my disputes with WeijiBaikeBianji on these articles. What this looks like to me is WeijiBaikeBianji collaborating with a topic-banned editor to try to prevent his questionable editing behavior from being examined. I hope that admins can recognize this and close this pointless thread as soon as possible.-SightWatcher (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you’re describing about how you got “pulled into” this dispute sounds pretty similar to what caused Mikemikev and Ludwigs2 to become involved in the race and intelligence article in December 2009. What was happening at that point is that User:T34CH tried to get rid of the race and intelligence article entirely, by turning it into a disambiguation page and dividing up all of its content between other articles. Mikemikev and Ludwigs2 had not been involved in the article before this, and Mikemikev had barely been active at Wikipedia before this at all. But what T34CH was doing attracted their attention, and once their attention was attracted both of them remained involved in the article for several months after that.

The general principle here is that when someone tries to make highly visible and contentious changes to several articles at once, it’s always going to attract editors who disagree with those changes, who might not otherwise have gotten involved in the dispute. Acting in a way that causes this outcome is bit of a wild card, because there’s no way to predict ahead of time what the editors whose attention it attracts are going to be like. Most people seem to agree that Mikemikev’s eventual incivility on these articles was disruptive. Ludwigs2 was also pretty strongly opinionated, but I don’t think anyone (except possibly Mathsci) regards him as having been an overall detriment to the articles, and he wasn’t sanctioned in the arbitration case. I would hope that Woodsrock and Sightwatcher are going to turn out to be more similar to Ludwigs2 than to Mikemikev, but the possibility of attracting editors similar to Mikemikev is a risk that WeijiBaikeBianji is taking by acting similarly to how T34CH did.

Either way, the most important point is that even if Mikemikev ended up being disruptive, he and Ludwigs2 clearly weren’t sockpuppet or meatpuppets of another user or users. So now that history is repeating itself, and a situation similar to what attracted them to these articles has now attracted Woodsrock and Sightwatcher, their having shown up in this situation is not a good reason to assume sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry about them either. --Captain Occam (talk) 11:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom made the checkuser enquiry itself because some members suspected sockpuppetry. The identity of suspected meatpuppets can be passed directly to members of ArbCom if there is any evidence.
Captain Occam has invited Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to join this discussion.[34] He wrote the following:

Don’t worry, nobody’s accusing you of having done anything wrong. This thread is mostly just more accusations of wrongdoing from Mathsci against the editors that he disagrees with, this time being directed at me as well as two fairly new editors. But one of the new people has apparently read several of the arbitration pages, and is taking some of the advice that you offered about Mathsci there to heart.

There is something slightly wrong here. Mathsci (talk) 13:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate? I figure that if we’re going to be talking about Ludwigs2 in this thread, he ought to know about it.

I hope you’re not going to claim that contacting Ludwig was “canvassing”. It’s never canvassing to contact a single user to tell them they’re being discussed somewhere. Canvassing is also contacting a selected group of users to try and influence the outcome of a discussion, but since Ludwig isn’t an admin, he can’t influence the outcome of this thread anyway. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by uninvolved Ludwigs2

I only have two comments with respect to this issue:

I don't really see what it is that Mathsci is complaining about. I suspect this is just more of the same pugnacious behavior that he exhibited during the R&I dispute and arbitration.
If Mathsci is returning to the behavior that he displayed before, then he himself is clearly in violation of the spirit of the arbitration, if not the letter of it. I would suggest that that be addressed here as well, assuming anything needs to be addressed at all.

I am on a short work-related break, and probably will not participate in this further unless my name is mentioned in some way that I feel calls for a response. --Ludwigs2 17:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem of meatpuppetry is a real one and I believe in this case has been and is being taken seriously by ArbCom. Meatpuppetry is harder to investigate or prove than sockpuppetry. It has necessarily to take place off-wiki and that is the case here.

(clears throat, about to say something important) I regret Ludwigs2's absence from wikipedia in the last 8 days. His unique and forthright style, often irritating, was actually extremely helpful on Communist terrorism and he was a vital part of the chemistry there. If he could look at the Collect case above, I think he could do a lot of good by commenting there and watching over what happens to the article if and when it is unlocked. Peace, Ludwigs2. Mathsci (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci: are you suggesting that all 15000+ of my edits are meatpuppetry, or that I (somehow) suddenly lose all free will and independent thought with respect to Occam? He must be one damned charismatic guy...

I tend to see Occam's message as a proper notification that I was mentioned on an administrative page (something which both SightWatcher here and Collect above neglected to do). I can see how you might see it as a mild form of canvassing (all things considered), but even you have to admit that's a stretch, and I would have hoped that you would AGF on it. Instead, you leapt all the way past common sense to veiled accusations of meatpuppetry, and that is in appallingly bad taste.

So fine, whatever: you indulged in hyperbole, I asked you not to, and I will AGF that the matter is closed. I have nothing more to say in response to this, so if you'd like a last comment, feel free. I'll take a look at the above 'collect' issue (which I just learned about this moment) later this evening. --Ludwigs2 20:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

?? The meatpuppetry case concerns those mentioned in the request (see the section above). Please take a look, if you haven't already done so. There's no reference to you there, unless it's hidden in some kind of subliminal bible code. But getting back to serious matters, it would be extremely helpful if you showed up at communist terrorism. You would be a voice of reason. Mathsci (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to EdJohnston

I should remind everyone that there has already been a request for clarification about the R&I case, in which arbitrators expressed the view that topic bans from this case do not apply to dispute resolution about editor conduct. However, I think it’s still reasonable for there to be some concern about how closely Mathsci is following all of the disputes over these articles, his and WeijiBaikeBianji’s seeming cooperation to defend one another, and whether he has been engaging in the same battleground attitude which was one of the things he was sanctioned for in the case. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

I think that admins now have enough information to make an effective response to the string of new issues that have arisen here concerning Race and Intelligence. From reading enforcement requests of the last two months I single out these comments as being especially informative. Both are from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive71#WeijiBaikeBianji:

Quoted comment by Maunus

I don't think that this petition should be considered, especially not since the editor making it is not directly affected by WeijiBaikeBianji's behaviour as she currently is not allowed to edit in the area. If editors that actually are interacting with WeijiBaikeBianji agree with Ferahgo's judgement then they can and should start an RfC or arbitrartion enforcement case. Ferahgo doesn't need to act as protector of other editors' interests in the area that she is no longer editing - I am sure everyone there is capable of taking steps to resolve their own disputes with out help from previous participants.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Quoted comment by Shell Kinney

I'm afraid you've grossly misunderstood the Arbitration ruling; it was a matter of conduct, not content... If you'll re-read my comment where I indicated that, as far as I know, editors aren't prohibited from making reports while topic banned, I also strongly suggested that you stop monitoring the topic area and work productively elsewhere. It's disappointing that you only heeded part of my comment. About Mathsci, I find it hard to believe that you think the advice you were given by myself and NuclearWarfare somehow only applies to you. He made some very good points about your participation here - if you find that incivil and a "battleground attitude", I'd have to suggest again that you need to spend some time understanding how really Wikipedia works rather than continuing with the rather skewed interpretation you've learned from Captain Occam. Shell babelfish 23:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

In the section below, 'Result concerning Captain Occam', I've proposed how this case should be closed by admins. EdJohnston (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on proposed sanction

Before this thread is closed, I think administrators should look at these two comments from Mathsci earlier today. [35] [36] These comments were in the discussion about the ArbCom election, but since an admin who disagreed with him in the RFC was commenting there, Mathsci still used this discussion as a platform to snipe at him about it.

As a way to avoid further conflict in this area, I would consider it reasonable for topic bans from this case to be extended to all discussions related to race and intelligence articles. But if this extension is going to be made, I think it should be applied to all topic bans, including mine, Ferahgo’s, and Mathsci’s. Making an exception in Mathsci’s case is basically an endorsement of more of the same behavior demonstrated in the two diffs linked above. Is this something that admins want to encourage?

I also think it would be helpful if some admins could comment here who Mathsci isn’t privately in contact with via e-mail. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Captain Occam

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

I've formally warned Woodsrock (talk · contribs) of the race & intelligence discretionary sanctions, as even a cursory glance through his contributions reveals numerous causes for concern. No comment at this point on the other aspects of this request. MastCell ^Talk 18:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This report was archived by the bot prior to receiving a formal close here. I have brought it back for one more look by the admins. The issue to be addressed seems to be: does conduct by Captain Occam and Mathsci infringe their topic bans from the area of race and intelligence? There have recently been some cases closed here at AE where editors from WP:EEML were told not to engage in any dispute resolution involving the topic from which they were banned unless they were personally named and needed to defend themselves. We also see a recent case (Climate Change) where Arbcom intended the topic bans to be observed very strictly, so that the named editors could not even hint to others as to what changes they would support in articles covered by the topic ban. The admins at AE have some discretion as to how bans should be interpreted, and it may be that the exact ban language needs to be studied. In my opinion the case may be closed without blocks if (a) the definition of these bans is made clear, (b) there is some confidence that the affected editors will follow them. EdJohnston (talk) 05:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the admins at AE should take action to deal with the string of new issues and new AE filings concerning Race and Intelligence. I've added a new section, #Statement by EdJohnston, to present quotes from an earlier AE from a month ago, including a comment by an Arbitrator. I recommend that we instruct the recipients of topic bans under WP:ARBR&I that they should not comment on any matters concerning Race and Intelligence on any page of Wikipedia, including talk pages. This includes participating in any RFC/U, including the one at WP:Requests for comment/WeijiBaikeBianji. They should not engage in any dispute resolution that is primarily intended to influence content regarding Race and Intelligence, and is not 'legitimate and necessary dispute resolution' concerning their own actions. The misbehavior of other editors in the area of R&I should not be their concern until their topic bans are lifted. The authority that admins have to do this comes from two sources:

The traditional power of AE to interpret the scope of topic bans
Discretionary sanctions, which are authorized by WP:ARBR&I

If any of the named editors (those already topic-banned by Arbcom, plus Ferahgo who was topic banned here at AE) argues against AE's ability to make this additional request, then the admins at this board may consider imposing new and more specific topic bans under the discretionary sanctions. Editors with existing topic bans that are affected by this new interpretation are: David.Kane (talk · contribs), Captain Occam (talk · contribs), Mikemikev (talk · contribs), Mathsci (talk · contribs) and Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs). EdJohnston (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note WP:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: WP:ARBR&I/scope of topic ban of Mathsci. Editors have been adding statements there that may shed light on what ought to be done here. I recommend delaying the close of this AE a couple more days. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Mathsci and Vsevolod

See [37]. The behaviors that I think have caused the most concern recently are those of Captain Occam and Ferahgo. If AE chooses to make the topic bans include dispute resolution as I've suggested, I think we should modify all the topic bans which are still technically in effect. If Arbcom chooses to lift Mathsci's topic ban, then our added restriction would go away as well. EdJohnston (talk) 05:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we have the authority to expand the topic ban under the ARBR&I discretionary sanctions provision, and I think we probably should do so, from what I've seen here. Note that nothing would prevent them from participating in necessary and appropriate dispute resolution processes involving themselves (such as an RFC/U against themselves), but there's no compelling reason for them to involve themselves in other discussions related to this topic. The latest clarification request may have carved out AE requests as a special case, but I see no justification to expand that exception further. T. Canens (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction

Under the discretionary sanctions that are authorized for Race and Intelligence

Captain Occam and Ferahgo are indefinitely banned from the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Wikipedia, including user talk pages. This includes RFC/Us about other editors where the behavior of that user on R&I is one of the major topics. These two editors should not participate in noticeboard discussions where the main topic is an article that is under R&I or the behavior of an editor who is closely associated with R&I. They are free to respond at noticeboards whenever their own editing is mentioned.

The following is advice, and it is not compulsory

Captain Occam and Ferahgo are advised not to make enforcement requests at AE that concern R&I where no question about their own editing is on the table.

Mathsci is advised to limit his new filings about R&I at AE in the future, especially when no question about his own editing is on the table. (This advice will no longer apply if Arbcom decides to lift his topic ban from R&I).

Mathsci is welcome to continue making reports at SPI, even when he is reporting socks that may be active on R&I.

No action taken regarding David.Kane et al

David.Kane hasn't been much involved with R&I since the case closed. There seems no need to change his topic ban.
Mikemikev is out of the picture since he is under an indefinite block for pretty bad stuff, including nasty sockpuppetry.

EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks reasonable to me. T. Canens (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2010 (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.

Shuki

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

See the closing statement by T. Canens at the bottom of this report. Participants are reminded of the consensus wording found by LHvU. Shuki is topic banned from I-P for six months. Nableezy and a set of three others are interaction-banned. EdJohnston (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Shuki

User requesting enforcement: Nableezy 17:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

[38] See below for explanation
[39] Same

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

[40] Notified of case

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Indefinite ban from editing material on Israeli settlements and international law
or
Topic ban on all articles about Israeli settlements

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

A very long discussion took place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues about whether and how to incorporate the well-sourced fact that Israeli settlements are considered illegal under international law. Shuki was a part of this discussion and so is obviously aware of it. An uninvolved admin, LessHeard vanU, closed the discussion saying that a specific wording has consensus to be included and further has consensus to be included in the lead of developed articles on settlements. LHvU later clarified the point (here) emphasizing that in articles where the illegality of these settlements is expanded on in the body there is consensus for it to be included in the lead of the articles. I added the line to 3 articles a few days ago ([41], [42], [43]). The line was, unsurprisingly, removed by 3 editors who argued against its inclusion in the very discussion closed by the uninvolved admin with a note that there is consensus for its inclusion ([44], [45], [46]). There was some confusion about the close, so a request was made to the admin to clarify (that clarification is linked above). After LHvU clarified that in these articles the wording under discussion has consensus to be included in the lead of the articles, I re-added the line to 2 articles ([47], [48]) with a note on the talk page saying why and referencing the centralized discussion ([49], [50]). Shuki then removes the edits ([51], [52]) claiming, in his single comment to the talk page explaining his reverts, that there is "no consensus" ([53]). This despite the clarification from the uninvolved admin that there is specific consensus for including that line in the lead of such articles.

The close from the admin included the following:

It is my impression that there is a body of editors of the opinion that the legality of these Israeli settlements should not be noted; it is a valid opinion to be held by an individual so inclined, but it is not conducive to building an encyclopedia. Attempts to stop, stymie or divert efforts to build the project in incorporating that commentary must be resisted like any other form of disruptive conduct.

Shuki is very clearly one of those editors who holds "the opinion that the legality of these Israeli settlements should not be noted" and further he "attempts to stop, stymie or divert efforts to build the project in incorporating that commentary". This request is meant to see if this "disruptive conduct" will be allowed to continue unabated.

I have no doubt that as with most AE threads I am involved in we will see a large number of those who support Shuki or simply dislike me making rambling comments that are of little relevance to the issue. I hope they will be given the consideration they deserve and be ignored.

Shuki claims, in their response, that the admin did not "close" the discussion and that there was no finding for consensus for placement. In the clarification linked above LHvU wrote the following (emphasis in original):

I found that there was consensus for the wording per proposal 2, and for it to be included in the opening paragraph(s) of multi section articles, where it may be expanded per WP:LEDE in the article body, and to be used without further expansion in stub or very short articles

I do not see how an editor can in good faith claim that there was no finding for consensus for placement in the lead or for specific wording when the plain English quoted here shows that there is for both. nableezy - 18:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I am sure was the intent, a number of users have made a simple request into something that I doubt many sane admins would like to deal with. I beg an admin to please disregard the noise by Jaakobou and Jiujitsuguy and actually look at what happened here. An uninvolved admin says there is consensus for this material to be in the lead of these articles. If a few users want to argue over the semantic differences between "Like other Israeli settlements in the (West Bank/East Jerusalem/Golan Heights), X is regarded as illegal under international law, though the Israeli government disputes this" and "Like all Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, X is considered illegal under international law, though Israeli disputes this" thats fine, but it is inane argument to make for removing the wording. If Shuki or Jaakobou would rather use the former sentence they could have replaced it and there would be no issue here. Instead Shuki removed the lines, claiming there is "no consensus" period. The question here is whether or not a block of users can ignore what consensus is and filibuster any attempt to add material that has consensus. No amount of pedantry can escape that Shuki did not simply modify the phrasing but instead completely removed it. My question is whether or not this will "be resisted like any other form of disruptive conduct." Can these users simply say NO NO NO and remove any material they do not like, or is there some penalty for such behavior? nableezy - 07:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the proposed interaction bans, I think they are unnecessary. Cla68 is right, I cant dispute that, but there is a cause and effect here. The more nonsense that I deal with, the more of an asshole I become. I admit I havent really thought about how new people would react to seeing some of the discussions that the regulars have, but that is partially due to the fact that most of the "new" names we see are just old faces with new names. But Cla68 is right, and I will make an honest effort to be more collegial. I dont know how an interaction ban would work, we all edit the same articles. Would it be a race to see who gets to an article first and any editor who arrives later would be violating the ban? The workings of such a ban are impractical, and I think the issue can be satisfactorily dealt with by blocks and bans for future issues with personal attacks or incivility. Though I do think that restricting editors from making comments in AE requests that do not concern them is a marvelous idea. nableezy - 21:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curious to know where Cla68 came from out of nowhere, but even more your sudden attempt at tobah. Gatoclass thinks I have battleground mentality but ignores that it takes two to tango, including your 24hour+20minute revert on Maale Adumim. Your provocative use of AE is anti-'collegial', so drop that misleading attitude, people see through it easily. --Shuki (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He inappropriately reverted to Nableezy's version at Ariel. I can only assume he came here because he was miffed that I changed it and notified him of the error. I could be wrong about that and he does bring up a point. Some of the back and forth between editors is heated and that is a problem. I don't think my comment was nearly as bad as he makes it out to be but overall I agree that we need to follow the decorum bit of the arbitration decision closer.Cptnono (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know what "tobah" is supposed to mean. My use of AE is meant to stop editors from engaging in disruptive editing. Yes, I reverted at Ma'ale Adumim. However, unlike you, I have consensus for my revert. My last comment was sincere, I will make a greater effort to be collegial. That will be much easier if editors who disruptively edit against consensus and without regard for the policies of this website are not allowed to continue doing so. nableezy - 21:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [54]

Discussion concerning Shuki

Statement by Shuki

The principle of this AE is that Nableezy is making false accusations and misrepresenting my opinion that he assumes even though I have never claimed what he is accusing me. I certainly do not deny that there was an effort to build consensus and did take part, but I do question that there was in fact consensus and the admin did not in fact close that but opening it up for more discussion. There was also no consensus on placement and that was also supposed to be done by consensus at that central location. Nableezy is not just being bold here but unwilling to continue this consensus building for fear that it might unravel as others are exposed to it (if they can manage to follow it) instead ramming it through. He himself admits that he was reverted by three editors, who in fact, did not really take part in that confusing and hard to follow discussion. Nableezy also chose to make these changes on Shabbat when he knows that there will be virtually no opposition. This is a frivolous and false AE.

It is incredible nerve and anti-AGF that he ends this AE attack by preempting the opposition and discrediting of anyone who might come here in support of me (it will take time, Shabbat will only be over on the West Coast in several hours and we cannot assume everyone runs to their PCs to get updated on WP). He even demands that they be ignored, very considerate and showing his intentions to shut up others. --Shuki (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shuki, are you saying there's a rough consensus for the legality wording to be in the main body of the article, but whether it should be in the lede should be decided on a case-by-case basis? Or are you saying there's no consensus whatsoever? PhilKnight (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The legality wording that had some support is not the WP:SOAP violation text Nableezy was pushing into the lead. There is no consensus for that "like all Israeli settlements" version and Nableezy disingenuously presents his version as the one that was discussed when that is not the case. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a bad argument but it's not what Shuki is saying. Shuki's contesting the legitimacy of Proposal 2's consensus and seems to accept Nableezy's wording as some derivative of it (there's little material difference although employing the verbatim line makes a hell of a lot more sense, but whatever). If that were the argument then it would have been simple enough to say "This is not the proper wording of Prop 2" in the edit summary/copy paste it in. Sol (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought up Nableezy's repeated insertion of the incorrect wording at the centralized discussion.[55] although I suppose editors might want to discuss it here as well. Cptnono (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The entire tendentious edit that Nableezy proposes, in the context of content, scope, wording and placement are still points of contention and hotly contested. It is clear that he is using (abusing is the more appropriate term) this AE as a means to intimidate, to instill fear and to force his POV, by hook or by crook, on to the reluctant majority.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An uninvolved admin has said there was consensus for the inclusion of this material in the lead of the articles. No amount of lawyering can escape that and efforts to do so betray, well Ill leave the rest of that sentence untyped. nableezy - 07:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. You are fabricating words which were not specifically said. No uninvolved admin said there was a consensus or even a "basis" for consensus for pushing the soapbox "Like all Israeli settlements" into the lead. The editors who quickly disagreed here are a reality and it is disruptive to see you ignore this fact. Fabricating a "consensus" to propose a sanction against another editor is a clear example of WP:GAME. Also, repeating that same bullshit argument even though it was rebuffed as a false statement is a form of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, so stop making bullshit arguments. The version the LHvU said there was consensus for is The international community considers Israeli settlements in [WB/EJ/GH] illegal under international law, though the Israeli government disputes this. If you want to argue that the addition of "Like all Israeli settlements" makes this a "fabrication" you can do that, but it is a manifestly absurd thing to say that verges on being purposefully deceitful. nableezy - 15:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are fabricating new interpretations to what LHvU actually said. (1) There was no agreement for your soapbox text. (2) The version noted by LHvU as a basis for a future consensus is quite different than yours. (3) Six editors disagree with your insertion of soapbox into leads. (4) You are repeating the same bogus argument over and over again to justify bad conduct and gaming. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you write is not true and the fact that you continue to write untruths can only mean that you are doing so intentionally. LHvU wrote the following:

I found that there was consensus for the wording per proposal 2, and for it to be included in the opening paragraph(s) of multi section articles, where it may be expanded per WP:LEDE in the article body, and to be used without further expansion in stub or very short articles.

That is, he found there to be consensus for including the line The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this. to the lead of the articles. You are making a pedantic dispute that Shuki did not even raise as the basis for this massive amount of wikilawyering that you have been engaged in. Stop making such purposefully dishonest arguments. nableezy - 17:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are fabricating new interpretations to what LHvU actually said. (1) There was no agreement for your soapbox text. i.e. It just happens to not be the statement that was selected in the discussions -- Sean.hoyland, 17:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC) (2) The version noted by LHvU as a "basis" (why are you ignoring that word in your diff?) for a future consensus is quite different than yours. (3) Six editors disagree with your insertion of soapbox into leads. (4) You are repeating the same bogus argument over and over again to justify bad conduct and gaming. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are again misrepresenting clear words. I will quote again:

I found that there was consensus for the wording per proposal 2, and for it to be included in the opening paragraph(s) of multi section articles, where it may be expanded per WP:LEDE in the article body, and to be used without further expansion in stub or very short articles

Why are ignoring that LHvU repeatedly said that there is consensus for "proposal 2" in the lead of the article? Can you really have missed the now 4 times this line has been quoted, or are you just playing dumb? Consensus is not determined by numbers, it is determined by strength of argument and consistency with the policies of this website. Or, again quoting this same admin

[C]onsensus is determined by weight of argument, based in policy and discussion, and not the number or the passion of support or opposition.

Your purposefully misleading statement not withstanding, this is a simple problem. A set of editors, yourself included, have long attempted to remove any mention of the illegality of these colonies. When an uninvolved admin says there is consensus to include this fact in the lead of the articles, editors from this set have ignored that and disruptively removed it. No amount of wikilawyering changes these indisputable facts. nableezy - 17:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, NO, there is certainly no final consensus on wording or placement either and Nableezy and SupremeDeliciousness are being ultrabold in inserting it before the final wording has been accepted by consensus . Nableezy is also being uncollegiate in continually discrediting anyone who opposes his POV. Nableezy continues to misrepresent the voices of any editors not in his POV by accusing them of long removing any mention of illegality when in fact the struggle has always been to prevent him from simply applying boilerplate generalization without specific WP:V. I suppose that you and Nableezy actually read what LessHeard wrote and also the conclusion that is certainly not final or decisive and quite open ended. Look at the first comment from Cptnono who mentions this and Cptnono was very much part of wanting to build consensus and also not totally 'on my side'. I suggest you read WP:CONS and especially various lines like Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised. You might notice that virtually any opposing voice in this 'consensus building' was merely minimized or ridiculed. The line that is assumed to consensus is exactly the original line that SD and Nableezy were ramming into articles and also does not remain neutral and minimizes Israel opposition to mere wimpy 'but Israel disputes this'. You will notice that the 'consensus' building does not include a wide variety of editors due to heavy layering, and very hard to follow chit chat from editors who were online a lot virtually preventing anyone 'uninvolved' from being able to understand what was going on. You might remember an RfC that Nableezy posted about the term settlement and that was very easy to follow. Phil, I also remind you of your recent 1RR implementation that was done after an orderly and clear survey. This one was a mess and did not build consensus. --Shuki (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to be good. The unequal severity of this proposed topic ban, based on two reverts and a 'comment'(?!) above shows me to be the main danger on WP in this area. You can only measure this claim by seeing the Israel-Arab area calm down drastically after I am gone, or not. Ho hum... --Shuki (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Shuki

Comment by Cptnono

The whole reason the centralized discussion was proposed was due to editors (including Nableezy) edit warring and then opening up separate discussions. Seeing the exact same thing happening is disheartening. Yes, the admin did say there was consensus. He did not close it out which I could see leading to some confusion. I do not understand how the admin could see consensus for placement and I am not the only one. Supreme Deliciousness has been just as adamant as Nableezy in getting this line in and he opened up a discussion on placement after the admin's conclusion. I think Supreme Deliciousness should be applauded (didn't expect to hear that did you?) for his restraint over the last couple of days and think Nableezy should have acted similarly. I told you guys we needed to discuss implementation : ( Cptnono (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I have said my piece and am going to excuse myself from the remainder of the conversation since it looks like it is going to get out of hand. My closing thoughts on it are that this AE should not be a ruling on if there was consensus or not since that is better left at the centralized discussion (not separate pages, BTW). However, Shuki being confused about the consensus is perfectly valid since multiple editors are.Cptnono (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ T. Canens: They are substantially different. I know it looks like little but we went through all of that discussion for a reason. One version states that hands down that it is illegal. The other clarifies and does not take sides. I'm not saying give anyone a pass on this but it needs to be made clear that Nableezy should not have inserted material that did not have consensus.Cptnono (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@LVHU: Proposal 2 specifically said "1)... Many of these articles can be found at Category:Israeli settlements. This proposal does not detail use in articles that merely discuss settlements." so simply being related is not sufficient per consensus. However, such discussion might be better at the centralized discussion.Cptnono (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An interaction bad is completely unnecessary. I made the comment "stop going out of your way to cause trouble" and that is sufficient? I did not pile on the accusations here like some editors. I tried to be civil. I started the discussion that is what got us here in the first place. I just got nailed for being rude to editors and have been attempting to make it better. A topic ban won;t be helping that situation especially since I have not had anytime to prove myself. Have there been any comments since the recent AE that I have made in this topic area (I have actually stopped swearing across the project) besides the one mentioned that seemed out of line? The one mentioned isn't even that bad, IMO. He was starting a conflict and that shouldn't even be in dispute. So besides "going out of your way" (which seems a little mean) is there anything else? I even made it clear that Shuki made mistakes here. Should we have an interaction ban? Cptnono (talk) 07:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded on this at PKs talk page but he does not appear to be swayed. I would appreciate it if my request was looked into before another admin closes this. I have not commented on what I feel is appropriate action for Shuki or Nableezy but me getting lumped into the interaction bans is a big deal to me.Cptnono (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@T. Canens, have you reviewed my comments in question and believe I crossed the line? I was practically begging Nableezy and the other editors involveded to use the centralized discussion. The single comment that might come across mean should not be sufficient. Add I think it is well balanced by perfectly reasonable comments even while others may be being less then polite: [56]one in question [57][58][59][60]Cptnono (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mkativerata

I consider myself involved in respect of settlement disputes because I participated in an RfC about them once. I think Shuki's actions here have been disruptive. LHvU's close of that discussion - especially after the clarification - was quite clear. Nableezy's insertion of material was consistent with the close. If any further clarification needed to be sought, that could have been done without reverting. But I'm concerned that editors disappointed with the consensus are trying to obfuscate it by claiming it is not clear. That can't be allowed to happen. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't just Shuki who reverted. I also reverted the edit as did user:Brewcrewer. Nableezy is the one here who is acting unilaterally without consensus.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All that means is I was feeling generous and did not request that you and brew likewise be topic banned for disruptively editing against consensus. nableezy - 23:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The very fact that it was your edits that were being reverted by three different editors means that it was in fact you who was acting in a disruptive manner without consensus. You've been around long enough to know how to play in the sandbox and you are now, quite frankly, operating disruptively by acting without consensus against the majority and by filing repeated AE actions that require lengthy responses to defend against frivolous claims.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh no. An uninvolved admin specifically says that there is consensus to include that specific line in the lead of those articles. Consensus does not mean unanimous consent, it does not mean that a set of users can filibuster and demand that their position be accepted. nableezy - 23:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. You are fabricating words which were not specifically said. No uninvolved admin said there was a consensus or even a "basis" for consensus for pushing the soapbox "Like all Israeli settlements" into the lead. The editors who quickly disagreed here are, on the other hand, a reality. Fabricating a "consensus" to propose a sanction against another editor is a clear example of WP:GAME. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Shuki had a problem with that part of the sentence, he or she could have raised it for discussion or, at the most, amended the sentence. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Nab had a problem with the status quo, rather than inserting a hotly contested edit that was reverted by three editors (in the lede no less), he could have used the Talk page or discussed the issue further in a centralized location.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Nableezy had consensus, as determined by the admin who closed the discussion, on his side. Ignoring consensus on the basis that it is "not clear" is tendentious editing. Like it or not, the closing admin's decision needs to be accepted as final. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So one editor ignoring three others is under a consensus? You think that is logical? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More obfuscation. The consensus was determined by LHvU on the relevant discussion page. It is not determined by however many editors reverted Nableezy. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone does not make your argument stronger. (a) off course it matters what the community thinks and matters how many editors find Nableezy's version wrong. (b) there was never a consensus for the soapbox version Nableezy keeps introducing and LHvU doesn't even mention it. I know its fun to say "x determined y" when we're talking about z... but it's a bullshit argument. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that was the case Shuki should have amended z to match y, not revert it entirely. Without discussion, it was disruptive and tendentious. In any case, you are inventing your own reasons for Shuki's actions, that are very different for the reasons Shuki has given. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing a non-consensus soapbox version into the lead was the problem, not the act of reverting it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are repeating false statements despite having been shown that your statement is false. When will an admin finally step up and ban you from this place? nableezy - 17:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@sanctions - aside from the matter about the length of the ban, might it also be worthwhile considering whether the ban should be limited to settlement articles instead of the PIA conflict generally? Settlement articles seem to be a discrete area of WP conflict and this issue doesn't go outside that area. Just a thought. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by RolandR

It seems to me that LHvU's finding was clear and unequivocal: "I am of the opinion that the wording per Proposal 2; "The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this." has consensus, and secondly that there is consensus for it to be included in all relevant articles". LHvU further noted that "consensus is determined by weight of argument, based in policy and discussion, and not the number or the passion of support or opposition". It is clear that some editors dispute this finding; but they cannot claim that this was not the outcome of the discussion.

LHvU also noted that "It is my impression that there is a body of editors of the opinion that the legality of these Israeli settlements should not be noted; it is a valid opinion to be held by an individual so inclined, but it is not conducive to building an encyclopedia. Attempts to stop, stymie or divert efforts to build the project in incorporating that commentary must be resisted like any other form of disruptive conduct". We are now seeing the truth of this comment; it is surely time for this recommendation to be acted on. RolandR (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are also misrepresnting my actions and LessHeard. If you read the line you posted, it is actually about those who do not want to note the legality of the settlements. He is commenting on those who want to strike this from the articles, like Nableezy has on the Ariel article. --Shuki (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sean.hoyland

I would like to appeal to any admins examining this case to review the evidence carefully, particulary the statements by uninvolved admin LessHeard vanU in the centralised discussion. We've reached a critical stage in the process and it's taken years of edit wars, blocks and lengthy discussions to reach this point. It's critical because what happens next in terms of implementation will probably decide whether we can resolve the issue once and for all and move on or whether we will face more slow burn edit wars, blocks, and fragmented, uncoordinated arguments in a large number of articles. It happens to be Shuki in this AE report. It could have been someone else being reported for either adding or removing the content so whatever is decided here there needs to be clarity so that editors know whether their actions are legitimate and consistent with the centralized discussion or not. Sean.hoyland - talk 22:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For context and a sanity check, I have added a compiliation of sources discussing the legality issue to the IPCOLL page. Some sources are from the discussions that LessHeard vanU reviewed that resulted in the consensus he identified, some are already in use in various articles and some are new sources that I've found. The sources are intended as a resource for people (including admins here at AE) who want to compare LessHeard vanU's findings with the sources and assess the legitimacy of editor's statements and actions. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jiujitsuguy

This is a case of content dispute plain and simple and Nableezy is attempting to force the issue here, at AE, rather than dispute resolution. He does not have consensus for the contentious language he wishes to shove down our throats and he certainly does not have consensus for inserting this type of tendentious editing in the lede. Indeed, in both articles he cites to, he was the lone editor who was reverted by three different editors, indicating that 1) he is in the minority and 2) that this is still an issue that is the subject of discourse. There is simply nothing actionable here. Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There very clearly is something actionable here. That you, brewcrewer and Shuki dislike what there is consensus for does not change that there is consensus. At the very least, the clarification by LHvU on what he saw consensus for, and consensus not meaning how many people shout NO as loud as they can, is for including the language you dislike in the pleace you dislike (the lead). It is incredibly disheartening that even after going through this process we still have to deal with crap like a few users not liking the outcome of the discussion and attempting to enforce their view in spite of it. The following things are indisputably true. A centralized discussion took place, with you, Shuki and brewcrewer all being involved. That discussion was closed by an uninvolved admin. That admin said there is consensus for including the line and for placing it in the lead of articles. Are any of those things under dispute? That users disagree with that close does not entitle them to ignore it, much like how if an AfD closes with a delete consensus (regardless of the headcount), a user who disputes that consensus cannot simply recreate the article. nableezy - 22:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being disingenuous about it won't magically create a consensus when there is non. I'd do the same edits as Shuki did in a heartbeat. That you are still provocatively pushing the words "Like all Israeli settlements", "illegal", and "colony" to the first paragraph of articles relating Israel is a sad reflection on this project's ability to handle disruptive conduct. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC) +c 00:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An uninvolved admin specifically says there is consensus to include that line in the lead of those articles. I actually wish you had been the one to make these reverts as I think Wikipedia would be much better off if you were banned as opposed to Shuki. nableezy - 23:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just in this short conversation, 6 editors: Cptnono, Mbz1, Brewcrewer, Jiujitsuguy, Shuki, Jaakobou disagree with your disingenuous representation of a so-called consensus. Don't let any facts confuse you. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An uninvolved admin closed the discussion saying there is consensus for inclusion of that line in the lead, including the line I will briefly note that consensus is determined by weight of argument, based in policy and discussion, and not the number or the passion of support or opposition. Dont let any actual facts confuse you. nableezy - 00:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. You are fabricating words which were not specifically said. No uninvolved admin said there was a consensus or even a "basis" for consensus for pushing the soapbox "Like all Israeli settlements" into the lead. The editors who quickly disagreed here are, on the other hand, a reality. Fabricating a "consensus" to propose a sanction against another editor is a clear example of WP:GAME. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are purposely distorting what has happened here. You want to argue that my exact sentence was not what the admin said there was consensus for? Fine, Ill add the exact sentence the admin says there was consensus for, lets see what happens then. nableezy - 07:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now it is 7 editors who disagree with Nableezy on this discussion. This, according to Nableezy, shows that I am "purposely distorting what has happened". 1 Nableezy : 0 World. Will Nableezy ever let facts confuse him or will he still insist someone determined there was a consensus for his WP:SOAP violating version in the lead when no such thing has happened? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No amount of wikilawyering can escape the fact that an uninvolved admin specifically says there is consensus for that material. Consensus is not a vote, and no matter how many me toos, nearly all of whom voiced already voiced their complaints at the discussion that an uninvolved admin says there was consensus, you get the fact remains that an uninvolved admin says there is consensus for this material. nableezy - 15:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No uninvolved admin approved your soapbox "like all other" text and you are repeating the same WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT argument. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is on its face inane. That you repeat it does not do you any favors. There very clearly is an uninvolved admin who says the material belongs in the lead. If you wish to argue that 3 of the 20 words did not have consensus fine, but it does not excuse the complete removal of material for which there is consensus to include. That you persist in calling something that can be sourced to 100+ sources "SOAP" only serves to illustrate the illogical nature of your argument. nableezy - 17:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jiujitsuguy are false, its not a content dispute, the issue was discussed, consensus is based on arguments, not votes. An uninvolved admin looked at it, and since those who want to have the worldview of the illegality of Israeli settlements kept out of Wikipedia articles did not bring any good arguments, and those who want to have the worldview of the illegality of Israeli settlements in Wikipedia articles brought good arguments, the consensus was to have the information, but Jiujitsuguy, shuki do not accept the consensus, so now they just say "no" and edit war against the consensus.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mbz1

I read a closure by LessHeard vanU and found it extremely confusing. The request is not actionable. The editors should continue trying reaching the consensus, but not on AE, on the articles talk pages.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Six or even 3 months topic ban for two edits even assuming they were wrong is way, way too much. I hear about battleground behavior, but Nableezy and others are displaying the same kind of behavior. It takes at least two users to create a battleground. How many times Nableezy filed AE that were closed with no actions taken. The proposed sanctions are absolutely disproportional. I believe an interaction ban between Nableezy and Shuki will do the job.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jaakobou

Nableezy has been topic banned a total of 7.5 months and blocked on numerous occasions for continuous incivility, edit-warring and this "illegal" issue: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

4 months - lowered to 2: [61]
2 months more: [62]
1.5 months more: [63]

Personally, I support the presented edits performed by Shuki 100% and point out that Nableezy is violating both Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Principles of misuse of the project for advocacy and furtherance of outside conflicts as well as continuous effort on gaming the system. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)+clarify/punctuate+diff 23:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. there is a worrying modus operandi where Nableezy tag-teams his efforts to have fellow editors sanctioned when there is disagreement on content. The number of editors who quickly respond here goes to show exactly who wants to make a controversial political advocacy type of addition against consensus (e.g. Nableezy, Supreme Deliciousness, to be seen). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But wait... there's more. 2 of Nableezy's 10 or so sanctions/2 of Shuki's 4 sanctions were related to this dispute: [64]and [65] This one[66] was even Nableezy bringing SHuki here. Both of you guys need to stop reverting. I totally feel Shuki's frustration of courseCptnono (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IRONY =) Sol (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sol

So is the consensus confirmation valid or not? That seems to be the real question. I'm amazed the proposal has managed to survive despite the Atlas-crushing mountain of pettifoggery in the discussion, so nice work, those who labored on. Sol (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shuki made reverts on two different pages. Who say he can't? Queen Nableezy? Adding "like all Israeli settlements" to articles without a source that specifically uses this terminology AND specifically cites the name of the place in question, is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. SPA accounts like Nableezy's are a disgrace to Wikipedia. No wonder the academic world regards this site as a bunch of crap.--Yespleazy (talk) 06:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its nice to know I have gone to being 50 different wimpy guys to being a Queen. Ill leave your fantasy intact and not disrupt your imagination with what actually happened. nableezy - 07:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy

I suggest everyone read the close by LessHeard vanU Nableezy linked to above [67]. I find it to be very well thought out, clearly worded, and I wish every admin would articulate their thoughts like this.
I don't see how anyone can claim that his close supports the wording Shuki removed from the article. Where exactly does he say "like all Israeli settlements X is illegal" is apropriate? On the contrary, he says he is of the opinion that "(subject) is a settlement of disputed legality..." etc. (or variations thereof)" is what should be included in the lede. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly concur. Here you can see the two versions the closing admin suggested, side-by-side, implemented at the Psagot article. I ended up switching back to the version that included the sentence in the lead, because the admin later clarified their statement that the "disputed legality" phrasing should be used "only in those instances where there appeared to be an introductory paragraph and a main section (or two)." In this case, the article in question (Psagot) has four sections, but the first diff I linked could be viewed as a model of the two options. ← George^talk 13:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um sorry, the version which LHvU says has consensus is "The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this." most certainly not No More's "of disputed ilegality". All Nab has added is "like all". Which simply clears up a potential point of confusion. Entirely blanking the statement for which their is consensus on the grounds that the phrasing is slightly more explicit on one point not covered in LHvU's summary is most certainly disruptive.--Misarxist 14:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the part in quotation marks including the "of disputed legality" (including the italics) right from the diff I provided above. Did you read it all the way through? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And LHvU said that applied only to articles with a lead and a single section after that. He said for articles with developed bodies the entire line should go into the lead. Ive quoted the clarification where this is made clear. This is simply more lawyering in an attempt to obfuscate a clear close. nableezy - 15:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)That's correct, the wording No More argues for is in a "suggestion that may satisfy the agreed need to include the form of words that has consensus into articles where there has been a perceived issue" [emph. added] and that perceived issue is the one mentioned in: "Whilst there is agreement of the use of the wording in articles both of multi section length, and single section/stub standard, there is not yet any agreement on how to incorporate it in an article that has a lede paragraph, and then a body which is generally only one section." [emph. added] Hence there is consensus for the longer articles.--Misarxist 15:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt calling something that begins with "I anticipate that there needs to be further discussion on a couple of points I will raise, so I am not prepared to say that my review is definitive; but that it should be regarded as a basis for a consensus of the agreed text between the various parties to the editing of articles relating to certain settlements in Israeli occupied territories." a "clear close" that supports you adding OR to what LHvU said, is more than wishful thinking on your part. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OR???? Really? Ive given somthing like 20 sources that support the wording I used. And yes, the close was clear. Especially after the linked and quoted clarification, which you distort by saying the text LHvU said there was consensus for was "of disputed legality". nableezy - 15:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Hopefully, LHvU will stop by and clarify what he meant. I see no purpose in continuing to discuss this with you, so I'll bow out now. Feel free to get your last word in. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You disagree? You think the following is not crystal clear?

I found that there was consensus for the wording per proposal 2, and for it to be included in the opening paragraph(s) of multi section articles, where it may be expanded per WP:LEDE in the article body, and to be used without further expansion in stub or very short articles

In case that is too difficult to comprehend, "proposal 2" says The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this. LHvU clearly wrote that line has consensus to be in the lead of such articles. Asking for further clarification to something that even a child can understand is simply disruptive stalling. nableezy - 17:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If LHvU says "relating to certain settlements" then how is it possible to use the expression "Like 'all' settlements"? -- 172.190.32.76 (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC) (observer)[reply]

Comment by Gatoclass

I concur with Sean Hoyland's and RolandR's statements above. This dispute has dragged on for many months now, generating an endless number of cases, debates and discussions, and all because Shuki can't abide to have the highly notable information that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law in his precious Israeli settlement articles. After a recent discussion reached consensus that it was appropriate to include the information, Nableezy is now being reverted on the grounds that he didn't employ the precise wording recommended in that debate, even though the meaning of Nableezy's text is virtually identical. So what's next? Nableezy adopts the precise wording, only to have a new round of objections on the basis that he dared put it in the lede and not in the body of the article. Or that he put it in the lede of an article with only one section instead of an article with multiple sections. And so on.

I consider this to be a classic example of WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour on Shuki's part and I think it's time the community did something about it. The alternative is to have yet another interminable debate which will have to attempt to dot every "i" and "t" of precisely what wording is permitted to be used and where so that there are no possible loopholes left for Shuki to exploit. But we shouldn't need to do this. AE was created precisely in order to circumvent this kind of behaviour and I think Shuki has caused enough disruption already.

BTW, I recommend that adjudicators read Sean's compilation of sources to confirm just how well established and uncontroversial are the facts that Nableezy has long been prevented from adding to these articles. Gatoclass (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one prevented the legality issue from being added and it is disingenuous to present matters as if that were the case. The issue of contest was Nableezy's "Like all other" soapbox in the lead and/or first paragraph of every Israel related article he touches -- the main reason he was banned for 7.5 months in the past year. Solidarity with your ideological partner aside, Gatoclass, your argument does not relate to the diffs in question. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The recommended text was The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the territories) illegal under international law. How exactly does this differ in substance with Nableezy's edit? I submit to you that it does not. This is not a valid objection at all, it's just wikilawyering. Gatoclass (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, it is of no wonder that you are insensitive to subtleties about Israel ( per "it does not [differ]" ) but clearly, as 6 established editors quickly noted, Nableezy's version is not under consensus. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is one untruth followed by another. But we'll see, Ill add the exact wording to the lead and then we can see if the "Like all Israeli settlements" really was the issue. nableezy - 17:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jaak, it's not soap. It's a statement that complies with policy. As you can see from the compilation of sources here, saying "Like 'all' settlements" is supported by the sources. See the BBC sources at the top and others. It just happens to not be the statement that was selected in the discussions. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE:

It just happens to not be the statement that was selected in the discussions. - Sean.hoyland, 17:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Even Sean.hoyland -- someone with a similar world-view to Nableezy -- agrees that the version deemed as basis for future agreement is not the one Nableezy is pushing as the so-called "consensus". Sean.hoyland, no surprise, excuses this but there is clearly disagreement to Nableezy's insertion in the lead -- and no admin (except the highly involved Gatoclass) supported his WP:SOAP version either.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantry is not a virtue Jaakobou, there is no real difference between the versions. And Sean does not say the version was deemed a "basis", he says it was the one "selected". Next time you misrepresent a person's views you may want to try to do it somewhere other than directly below where they express their views. nableezy - 17:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The uninvolved admin whom you keep misrepresenting used the word "basis" and 6 editors note that your soapbox text is unacceptable in leads. Next time, apply basic thought before you attack me for something I have not said. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The uninvolved admin wrote the following (and this has been quoted no less than 3 times on this page):

I found that there was consensus for the wording per proposal 2, and for it to be included in the opening paragraph(s) of multi section articles, where it may be expanded per WP:LEDE in the article body, and to be used without further expansion in stub or very short articles

Try to argue around that as much as you like, there very clearly was a judgment made that there is consensus for the inclusion of The international community considers Israeli settlements in [WB/EJ/GH] illegal under international law, though the Israeli government disputes this. in the lead of the articles. That you persist in misrepresenting the clear words quoted is only one more reason why you should be banned. nableezy - 17:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OT and unhelpful discussion

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

(edit conflict) Thankyou for the opinion Jaakobou, but I must object to being referred to as "highly involved". Unlike yourself, my participation on I-P pages is minimal, and occupies a tiny proportion of my output, as a look at my user page will demonstrate. My participation in this particular dispute, or on Israeli settlement articles generally, has, apart from the occasional comment in cases brought to this page, been practically nonexistent. Gatoclass (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that your participation, while clearly partisan, is not of a high volume. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I've seen Gatoclass write here that could be viewed as partisan is that he disagrees with you. That's not a political issue. All of these aspersions, attempts at polarization, irrelevant arguments, ad hominem attacks, accusations and derailings have contributed little beyond confusing an otherwise straightforward issue, i.e., is the declared consensus legitimate. AE threads should be limited to uninvolved editors to prevent these bastardizations of process that read like a cross between an AE request and a mock trial transcript from a Wookie high school. Sol (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass , your edit's volume in I/P conflict area might be low, but you're extremely unfair and extremely involved, and extremely partisan. You even would not stop to misuse your administrative tools to have it your way.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly not what you told me after I worked hard at improving a couple of your own articles Mbz. But in any case, this is all thoroughly OT and a pretty good demonstration of why we have a guideline about commenting on contributions not contributors, because it only leads to more mudslinging, so I think it's time we dropped it. Gatoclass (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jaak...I don't have a 'world view' by the way but feel free to carry on thinking that I do. It makes no difference to the rule based decision procedures used to generate article content. I'm not excusing anything. These are all distractions. At some point the content policies of this project have to be enforced and this issue about the the legality statements has to be resolved once and for all. That's what matters, the content not the individuals. If editors want to sacrifice themselves for their cause by disrupting this process then admins should oblige them with a topic ban so that the process can continue in a orderly way in accordance with policy as far as I'm concerned. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if you feel there's a misrepresentation Sean. However, when you defend soapboxing and policy violations of a certain world-view and when I find myself explaining that there's nothing offensive in describing a prominent left-wing journalist as Israeli left-wing and the response is "he isn't an elephant or a table" it adds up to create a certain image. That said, I agree with you that it would do well for the project to resolve the settlements legality issue -- hopefully in a collegiate manner rather than through gaming. I would support removal of the more disruptive editors in the I-P area, regardless of their world-view. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are over thinking it.

If countless sources said "The international community does not consider Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law, and the Israeli government agrees." that would be the statement that I would be supporting (along with many other people no doubt). It's about what the sources say.
I don't know what soapboxing or policy violations you are referring to specifically but saying that all of the Israeli settlements outside of Israel are regarded as illegal under international law isn't soapboxing and in a normal topic area no one would bat an eyelid if someone added an entirely uncontroversial statement like that supported by countless sources to an article. They would be glad that someone else was helping them build the article. That's why I edit in this topic area, because it's broken. I support editors who try to get articles to say what the sources say. It's that simple.
If you make a statement like "where does Levy say that he's not in the Israeli left? (hint: he doesn't)." you are employing an absence of evidence to generate a unverified conclusion hence my retort "Maybe in the same place that he says that he isn't an elephant or a table". This was intended to highlight the invalidity of your conclusion by suggesting that you may also be able to conclude that he is an elephant or a table by using the same absence of evidence contradicting those conclusions. I'm a geoscientist not a propagandist. When people use logic like that in my world, bad things happen. Here it's just a verification failed policy violation but it's still wrong. Again, it's about what the sources say. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could some one please point the readers to the specific international law that all of these settlements are "considered" in violation of? I would appreciate that clarification. 172.190.32.76 (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I oppose interaction bans on principle as I think they are impractical. I don't see how Shuki and Nableezy could work on the same articles without communicating with one another, and while they are obviously frustrated with one another I haven't seen any evidence of gross incivility. Perhaps as a compromise a time-limited interaction ban, to allow tensions to decrease? Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my humble opinion, there's a problem with every I-P report on this board resulting in a hostile debate. I'm not a 100% sure what is the best way to resolve this. I think interactions bans are worth trying. Otherwise, we could ban some editors from commenting on reports that aren't about them. But anyway, I agree with Cla68 comments, and don't think we can allow the situation to continue. PhilKnight (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you suggest for this specifically? I made an effort to not bombard this AE but when another editor throws in an accusation when they did something 10x worse it is tough to ignore. Cptnono (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Heads-Up About Nableezy's Use of This Issue

I just wanted to let people know that Nableezy is taking it as a forgone conclusion that Shuki will be topic-banned for 6 months and is using that as a threat to get people to self-revert edits that he disagrees with. I don't have the experience with Wikipedia that many of you do, but I suspect that is inappropriate behavior for this site. Please take a look at my talk page. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by LessHeard vanU

I would note that the only wording I found consensus for was that specifically provided under proposal 2. Any variation of that, by addition or subtraction, needs to find consensus, either generally or in the specific situation. This would include content immediately prior to or preceeding those words, where they effect the meaning of the agreed text.
I also found consensus for those words (but only those words) to be included in all relevant articles (that is, those articles relating to Israeli settlements in the occupied lands). I also further found agreement for the inclusion of the text in the lede of multi section articles, and for it in stub or very short articles where it was the only such mention. Only in some articles, those which had a brief introduction and then a body of one or two sections, was there disagreement on how it was to be incorporated - but not if. I devised a suggestion which allowed the inclusion of the consensus text, by placing it in the body, and satisfied WP:LEDE by using a more concise variant in the opening paragraph.
I trust this clarifies my thinking. I regret that my style of commentary gave the impression that consensus had not been achieved in the substantive issues; in my view it had. I stand by my comments that my view is not definitive - but only in so far that the wiki editing method allows consensus to change upon presentation of better or different interpretation of policy that deprecates that existing - and might usefully continue to be reviewed and discussed; this does not mean that it may be disregarded, however. If parties would like specific comments upon specific points, or interpretation of what I said and meant (not always easy, not even for me!) then please present them in list form. I shall place this page on my watchlist. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you still continue to not be decisive? Your first paragraph is fine, but then you backtrack in the second. I stand by my comments that my view is not definitive. I stand my by recent comments as well, given AGF, I hope that you are not insinuating that I have disregarded your comments. --Shuki (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am decisive - I refuse to let my determination stultify further efforts between editors. I recognise my decisions can be overturned by a new consensus, is all. As for whether you have disregarded my comments, I have no opinion since I have no interest; that matter is for others to discuss. My view on what has consensus is, I trust, clear. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly were decisive. I have already expressed that I do not agree completely with your conclusion but it was a step in the right direction. You showed some fortitude (I would use another term if editors had not been so against my previous language) making a decision. You obviously realize how touchy the topic area is from your closing statement. That is for discussions off this AE, though. Your view on consensus is already being implemented (George did one, Supreme Deliciousness did one, and I reluctantly did one). That has spurred some further discussion and I still hope there will be some changes. We are on the right track but discussion on what (if anything else at all) is to take place with the wording should be at the centralized discussion.Cptnono (talk) 10:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cla68

If the responding admins would look at this talk page thread, you'll see a series of personal attacks by Nableezy and Cptnono on each other and other editors. I notice that Brewcrewer was also involved in that discussion. A few months ago, when I warned another editor involved in the I/P articles, IronDuke, about personal attacks, Brewcrewer appeared to imply that I was involved in white supremecy forums off-wiki (at least, that's how I interpreted his remark). If I were a new editor, I would find the hostile discourse that these editors employ with each other in discussing this topic extremely off-putting and distasteful. Actually, I find it off-putting and distasteful even though I'm not a new editor. Cla68 (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no personal attack. I was practically begging Nableezy to see the centralized discussion. You on the other hand readded the line that did not have consensus.[68] (which I replaced with the version the admin saw consensus in regardless of my feelings on it, by the way) So maybe a ban for you is appropriate or should we chalk it up to being new in the topic area?Cptnono (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Stop going out of your way to start trouble." Do you guys talk to each other like this so much that you no longer even recognize it as personal attack? Cla68 (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was causing trouble. There was confusion on the consensus (and we would later be reminded that he was also adding a line that did not have consensus) and instead of seeking resolution at the centralized discussion he was opening up three individual discussions. That is starting trouble pure and simple. I understand that saying "going out of your way" might have sounded slightly mean but it was far from a personal attack. But do you want to clarify why you added the line that did not have consensus? An admin made it clear below that that was not acceptable and you did it within 20 minutes of that. Cptnono (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. Cla68 (talk) 07:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the same way. Did you notice when I made sure to inform Shuki on the consensus?[69] I am shocked that you would attempt to say that I did anything wrong here. This is compounded by the fact that I was the one who started the centralized discussion that led to consensus (whether I think it was the best conclusion or not). I'm not the trouble maker here. And you have still failed to explain why you mae a revert to a line that did not have consensus.Cptnono (talk) 07:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are reinforcing my point that you and the other main editors of this topic have gotten locked into an adversarial method of communicating with each other. When questioned on it, the editors involved immediately start attacking the accuser and anyone else involved while minimizing their own contributing actions. Is this the norm for that topic area? Cla68 (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have I called you a jerk or anything like that? No. You made an accusation that specifically named me and I denied it. You still have not explained why you made a revert to a line that did not have consensus. Anyone of us "regulars" would have been at AE for it. Did I bring you here? No. I fixed the edit and informed you on the talk page. Of course I am going to be a little ticked off when you do that then name me as being in error. So do you have an explanation or not?Cptnono (talk) 07:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cla, your engagement with said debate is welcome, but with respect, in a protracted debate such as this people are inevitably going to get a little testy. What you interpret as "a series of personal attacks" I see as a group of editors trying hard to remain civil in very trying circumstances. Please let's not escalate this dispute any further than is necessary. Gatoclass (talk) 07:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion, but I disagree with you. There is no reason for editors to be communicating with each other that way on an article talk page. If they are getting that visibly and disturbingly testy with each other, then they need to take break from the topic and/or each other. Cla68 (talk) 07:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it cooled down after that. SO can you now explain why you made that revert? Seriously, that was much more egregious and you have still failed to answer. I didn't open an AE because I thought it would be counterproductive but now I am wondering why you would not fess up to your mistake there.Cptnono (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cla, when you mention that you "warned" me for personal attacks, you left a few key details out. The most important of these, of course, is that you were (and apparently still are) meatpuppeting for banned editors User:Gnetwerker and User:Herschelkrustofsky. I had hoped you'd been admonished about this already, or perhaps you decided to ignore it. I think I've been pretty patient about your behavior; I haven't sought any kind of block or ban for what is unambiguously a gross violation of Wikipedia policy, but my patience won't last forever. I have the right to remove any and all comments you make about me or edits against me on behalf of banned editors, though I would rather not do so. I'd rather you acknowledged what you're doing is wrong, or at least promise to cease the disruption.

Oh, and in case that's not already wrong enough, the article in question, Leo Frank, is not in the IP area, and the editor you were championing, User: Machn is an indef-blocked sockpuppeteer who made racist and antisemitic statements ("Mr. Ebonics" and "Jew pervert," to take two charming examples). I wouldn't go so far as to say that your going to bat for this editor makes you a white supremacist, rather, I'd say you were pursuing agendas unhelpful to Wikipedia, and should stop immediately. IronDuke 17:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Shuki

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

I am in substantial agreement with Mkativerata's comment above. Once an uninvolved administrator has determined the consensus of a discussion, it needs to be followed if our consensus-based editing model is worth anything. If there are disagreement with the closure, the closing administrator may be requested to reconsider, or review may be requested at an appropriate venue such as the administrators' noticeboard. But until that closure is actually modified, it is binding.
According to LHvU's clarification: "I found that there was consensus for the wording per proposal 2, and for it to be included in the opening paragraph(s) of multi section articles, where it may be expanded per WP:LEDE in the article body, and to be used without further expansion in stub or very short articles."
There are claims that Nableezy's version (e.g., "Like all Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, Ma'ale Adumim is considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.") differs from the wording LHvU refers to ("The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this."), but so far I am able to perceive zero substantive difference between the two.
In short, this is going into WP:IDHT territory. The consensus has been determined by an uninvolved administrator, yet the user claims that "nothing is settled" and that the closure is "confusing" when it is abundantly clear. I think that this request is actionable, and given the history, including four separate sanctions, I propose a six-month topic ban. T. Canens (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cptnono: Fair enough. It's a subtle difference, but now that you pointed it out I can certainly see it. As the objection has been made clear, I expect Nableezy to either conform their future edits to the consensus wording as determined by LHvU, or obtain consensus for their new version. If they do neither, an AE request will likely be looked upon favorably.
  This, however, does not affect the proper disposition of the request at hand. The claim that "nothing [is] settled" is absurd in light of LHvU's closure of that discussion. T. Canens (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With the subject of the request at hand having been addressed, I think we might wish to look a bit closely at the comments above. I think it is apparent that the topic-wide 1RR restriction recently implemented did not sufficiently contain the battleground behavior. The discussion between Nableezy and Jaakobou under #Statement by Shuki, for example, is filled with personal attacks ("fabricating consensus", "purposefully deceitful"). Jaakobou's list of Nableezy's history of sanctions is entirely unhelpful; presumably most admins here are aware of it already (and the history of the filer, of course, has very little, if any, to do with the proper sanctions imposed by AE); the use of <big> tags to surround the "7.5 months" figure is worse. Gilabrand (talk · contribs)'s comment here is also highly problematic ("Queen", "disgrace"). I propose that we also impose interaction bans between Jaakobou and Nableezy, and between Gilabrand and Nableezy, so that we may hopefully curb this battleground behavior. T. Canens (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mkativerata: I did consider a limited topic ban, but given the battleground behavior prevalent in this topic area recently, I think it preferable to force a complete disengagement followed by gradual return on appeal if good work in other topic areas can be demonstrated, rather than risk the conflict spilling over into other parts of this topic area. T. Canens (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the two edits by Shuki that are cited by the submitter of this AE represent WP:IDHT regarding LHvU's summing up of the discussion. I support T. Canens' recommendation of a 6-month topic ban of Shuki from I-P articles. EdJohnston (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I'd like to thank LessHeard vanU for closing the original discussion, and for commenting here. I substantially agree with above comments by T. Canens and EdJohnston, and I also agree with Sean.hoyland's comment - it has taken a lot of time and effort to get this far in establishing a consensus, and while that consensus may change in the future, we shouldn't simply ignore it. The only area of disagreement I have is that I consider 6 months to be a little on the long side. I would have thought a 3-month topic ban would be sufficient given that Shuki merely removed the wording from the lede, and left the text in the main body of the article. PhilKnight (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I agree with the interaction bans, and would add if they don't work, stronger measure will obviously be required. PhilKnight (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the above comments by Cla68, I agree completely, and there should also be an interaction ban between Cptnono and Nableezy. PhilKnight (talk) 07:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, I would not interpret Shuki's action as leaving "the text in the main body", as I think it's more plausible that they simply reverted Nableezy. The history here - 4 separate sanctions in a single year (or really, since April, so it's more like 7 months) - also supports a stronger sanction. As always, if there is evidence of good work in other areas, we can lift the ban early on appeal.

The recent deterioration in behavior, however, really needs to be restrained, with seemingly draconian sanctions if necessary, before it becomes uncontrollable and requires yet another arbcom case, which I think no one here wants to see.

In the same spirit, I agree with the additional interaction ban PhilKnight proposed, and I add that if the interaction bans don't work out well, then pretty much the only choice open to us is lengthy topic bans from the whole area.

Finally, I draw people's attention to AGK's comment in this old AE thread, which I find to be particularly on point:

Interjecting criticism of the conduct of other editors into consensus-building discussions is a wholly unhelpful practice....Talk page discussions are exclusively for discussion of the content of an article and for building an editorial consensus on disputed content matters. Any editors who do not abide by this ethos in their contributions to article talk pages are, in the first case, damaging genuine attempts to build consensus, and in the second, liable to be blocked or sanctioned.

T. Canens (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi T. Canens, based on this comment by Shuki, I agree with your assessment, and support a 6 month topic ban. PhilKnight (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think it's time to close this. Based on the discussion above, and under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions:

In general:
- All participants here are reminded that they should conform their future edits in this respect to the consensus wording as determined by LHvU, until and unless consensus for a different wording is established. Failure to do so may lead to sanctions, including but not limited to blocks and topic bans.
- All participants here are further reminded that it is unacceptable to interject criticisms of other editors into talk page discussions. Concerns about editorial conduct should be brought to dispute resolution processes, or WP:ANI, or WP:AE, as appropriate. Failure to do so may result in sanctions.
Topic ban:
- Shuki (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the area of conflict, as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict, for 6 months.
Interaction bans
- Jaakobou (talk · contribs), Gilabrand (talk · contribs) and Cptnono (talk · contribs) are admonished for personal attacks and ad hominem comments; they are prohibited from commenting on or interacting with Nableezy (talk · contribs) anywhere on Wikipedia.
- Nableezy (talk · contribs) is admonished for personal attacks; they are prohibited from commenting on or interacting with Jaakobou (talk · contribs), Gilabrand (talk · contribs) and Cptnono (talk · contribs) anywhere on Wikipedia.
- The scope of the interaction bans above is defined in WP:IBAN.
- If either party to an interaction ban imposed above believes that the other has violated the interaction ban, they may not react to this except by the means of a single report at WP:AE. They are permitted to edit the other party's talk page for the sole purpose of informing them of the existence of the report. The other party will be permitted to respond to the report on WP:AE, but neither party may add anything further to the report after the reported party responds.

T. Canens (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2010 (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.

Accipio Mitis Frux

No action necessary after self-revert.

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Accipio has undone his own edit, and has restored the consensus language about the legality of the settlement. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Accipio Mitis Frux

User requesting enforcement: Nableezy 20:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

[70] See below
[71]
[72]
[73]

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

[74] Notified of case
[75]

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: This is similar to the request about Shuki above. A user has removed the exact wording that has consensus for the lead, claiming that there is no consensus and that the clear close of the centralized discussion is not clear and resulted in no consensus. I informed the editor in question of the potential consequences of refusing to abide by consensus and the editor declined to self-revert the edit, instead saying that they refuse to be bullied by me ([76]). I hope this thread will not turn in to the circus we have seen above.

I have just added 2 more reverts to the list of diffs. The editor has now reverted 3 separate users who have added the line, violating both the clear close of the centralized discussion as well as the 1RR that applies to the ARBPIA topic area. nableezy - 21:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, all the things that you say should have been linked to in my initial comment on the user's talk page have already been linked to at the talk page of the article. I did not threaten the user with a lengthy topic ban, I informed the user that another user was about to receive a lengthy topic ban for the same behavior and that I would seek a topic ban if the user refused to abide by consensus. nableezy - 00:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [77]

Discussion concerning Accipio Mitis Frux

Statement by Accipio Mitis Frux

My position is very basic. I am not an individual who has been overly invested in pages regarding the Israeli-Arab conflict, and use Wikipedia as a source to receive information on this topic, not bestow it. However, I make edits when I think it is appropriate and I saw a need here.

I hate to get personal, but I've had some interaction with Nableezy on a prior page some months ago and it was by far the worst experience in my nearly five years on Wikipedia. There was no room for a real conversation, just insults to my intelligence straight from the get-go followed up by an immediate attempt to restrict my access. Once again, we have the same pattern of behavior.

I have a problem with this approach. After the edit that he saw as problematic, had he posted to my page that he would be changing it back in 24 hours with a respectful explanation, it would not have been an issue. Instead, I got a message to "self-revert or else." I am not going to be strong-armed I can't believe that this is appropriate behavior for Wikipedia. In any case, I disagree with the insistance that there is consensus for this change. However, I do not have vast quantities of time to devote to this topic and am just going to let the chips fall where they may. Meaning, I am voluntarily taking a break from editing the page in question and am bowing out of the debate.

However, with what little time I do have I'd like to return the favor and lodge a complaint against Nableezy for hostile behavior. I would appreciate instructions on the best way to do this as I do not have any experience in this area. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 08:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fine, I self-reverted. Cancel what I said about bowing out of the debate. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 10:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Accipio Mitis Frux

And s/he has just reverted the edit for the third time today.[78] RolandR (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And note that the editor made a further two reversions after Nableezy's warning mentioned above. RolandR (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has explicitly refused to self-revert, [79], so their 1RR-breaching reversion remains in the article. RolandR (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not specifically refuse to self-revert. I'm making the presumption that people will actually read what I wrote and not speed ahead with agressive action against me. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 08:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you reverted the edit which breaches the one-revert restriction? Will you do so? RolandR (talk) 08:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I self-reverted, as stated above. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 10:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm that the editor has indeed self-reverted. I have explained to them how and where to continue the discussion of this text. I think they now understand the process, and have learned a lesson in Wikipedia, and that this request can be closed. If they make similar breaches in the future, there will be no wriggle-room to claim that they "did not know". RolandR (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Accipio Mitis Frux

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

MastCell has explained to the user what is going on. As the user has not edited since before MastCell's edit, I say we wait a bit longer for them to self-revert. If they refuse, then a block would be in order, both for 1RR violation and disruptive edit warring against consensus.

Also, I'll add that I do not find Nableezy's initial comment on their talk page to be helpful. Linking to a voluminous discussion does not really help anything, nor does threatening lengthy topic bans for a first violation. It is much preferable to link to LHvU's closure of that discussion, the admin comments at the AE request, and to include a better explanation why the revert was inappropriate. T. Canens (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accipio Mitis Frux self-reverted the contested passage about legality of the settlement, at 10:13 UTC on 30 November, subsequent to the discussion here. Since this appears to take care of the problem, I'm closing this request. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2010 (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.

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Cptnono

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: Cptnono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Cptnono (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Interaction ban with Nableezy. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Shuki, logged at [[80]]>

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

Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Cptnono

The interaction ban is based on the comment "Then you need to explain why you disregarded the admins suggestion on how to implement this. Stop going out of your way to start trouble." That was an attack in the very broadest definition. I do understand that "going out of your way" could be considered mean. I was pleading with editors to use the centralized discussion and the other comments made show this: [81][82][83][84][85] The centralized discussion was unraveling and it was a huge concern since we were so close to getting it figured out. In hindsight, I should have taken a step back since I was only feeding the fire in my attempt.

Nableezy and I do not have a good history and there is no question that I disagree with his behavior. That leads me to what I feel is a very important part of my appeal. I was so frustrated with different editor's (especially Nableezy's which is one reason I understand where the admins are coming from) behavior that I made the mistake of being grossly uncivil in the topic area. It was inappropriate and I received a short block and it was made clear that those comments were not appropriate. Just before and shortly after I received multiple comments from others expressing that this was a path they did not like seeing me go down. The block and those comments was a reminder to me of how to act. PhilKnight expressed on his talk page that he felt this interaction ban would be appropriate based on my history with Nableezy. I have already made the decision to show a renewed effort in any interaction. I understand that my single comment was off but it is not a serious violation according to the precedent set. I of course would be willing to go even farther with efforts to be civil if this appeal is successful based on the comments by the deciding admins. I feel that I learned from my past mistakes and that this interaction ban is an overreaction to that comment based on the poor history. If anyone else would have made that comment I do not think it would have raised eyebrows. However I do understand that we cannot forget my editing history.

@ LessHeard vanU: My intent if this is not successful would be to present evidence of better interaction in the topic area after sometime (3/6/12mos depending on how it goes). Kind of like WP:OFFER. However, I do not believe that is necessary. Although the vindicating myself is both needed and interesting, I would prefer not to do it with this over my head. Cptnono (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Timotheus Canens: I know it is annoying for you as well but I am the one receiving limitations on my interactions which I feel will cause more of a burden than a solution. Didn't mean to make my appeal too long.Cptnono (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see now. I'm actually surprised you aren't annoyed!Cptnono (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Sean: That hypothetical doesn't have any bearing on this and the comments made in the above discussion and the admin's talk pages show that it is not relevant. I would rather such conjecture on such possible scenarios not impact any decision. Even if it were to apply, my concern is not for any other editors in the topic area but my own. I'm not appealing this based on any worry of games being played or false feelings of me needing to police the topic area. My concern is that I am inhibited for reasoning that was already taken care of (assuming my one comment was not enough to warrant such action). I should be able to respond to comments at the centralized discussion. I shouldn't have to worry if an edit I am amending is that of someone I am banned from interacting with (or if going to talk as I would often prefer to do s a problem). Those are just two examples of what ifs and we know there will be more. Being better than I was is on me and no one else.Cptnono (talk) 06:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@George: Thanks, dude. You really should be commenting on the FAN and not here. George summarized my thoughts. And since this is my appeal I do want to point out that if more editors were like him (including myself) this would be a better topic area. I also should mention that although we sometimes come down on different sides argument wise in this topic area, we have worked over at the Sounders project so there is definitely some good history. I hope this does not discredit his words but wanted to make sure that everything was extra open.Cptnono (talk) 06:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Philknight: The last AE was incivility but none of the quotes were on Nableezy's page or directed towards him. It was inappropriate (that is why I was sanctioned) but should not have any impact on this unless my comment is considered completely out of line. Cptnono (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the quotes, that had nothing to do with this AE. Cptnono (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done groveling over this. Close it out. Nableezy already expressed reservations with this interaction ban before it was put in place. Tiamut also has. Other editors expressed concerns with it. I'll let editors see the various talk pages on their own. In my opinion, I am being restricted based on previous transgressions. The two admins rejecting this appeal were involved in the AE and have been dealing with the topic area so I assume they are fed up with it. You can correct me if I am wrong but it seems obvious. There is reasoning to be skeptical and I admit that but I am sick of this. I doubt it will matter much anyways. See you in three months for the request to lifted since my interactions will realistically be improved. It isn't my job to police the topic area since admins fail to and if I have to be extra careful in my interactions then so be it. That centralized discussion that I am harping about? I started it. It rubbed editors on the Israeli side the wrong way and got an edit very similar to what was being reverted over into the mainspace. You're welcome.Cptnono (talk) 06:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Timotheus Canens: Interesting thought but I am fine without any changes. My comment was not bad enough for an interaction ban and I really am not happy with any action even if it is less. Also, my comments were pretty light in the last AE until Cla68 brought me up. If editors are going to be part of the community they need to be scrutinized by the community. So an interaction ban is fine by me. It isn't like I could comment on Nableezy's talk page since he made it clear he would disregard it. I couldn't bring it here since it was bad but not bad enough to start the drama. So what is the difference now? I can't talk to him for awhile? Fine. I'll have to be extra careful which gets under my skin but I would prefer to just drop it before it turns into more drama.Cptnono (talk) 02:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Cla68:You didn't say anything until I changed your edit and notified you of your mistake so I have a hard time believing you were that offended. If you were there is no judgement from me about it. It would just be a coincidence that was hard to ignore. I get your point about scaring of people new to the topic, though. It isn't the first time I have heard people mention it. Yes, a more civil tone is needed. But this might be a better discussion for my talk page or the collaboration page.Cptnono (talk) 05:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Timotheus Canens

I think it is ~~pointless~~ unnecessary for me to add to the voluminous discussion right above on this page. My rationale for the sanctions is explained in the above discussion and on Cptnono's talk page, and I incorporate it by reference here.

@LHvU: The intent is to make it indefinite for now, with review in a few months (three months sounds good), or sooner if the situation deteriorates, when it would likely be either lifted or changed into a topic ban. T. Canens (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Modified, T. Canens (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Gatoclass: It's not victimless. A hostile editing environment drives away new users, even if the old-timers got used to it. T. Canens (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought a bit more about this. The problem here is that discussions become unnecessarily personalized, in large part because people are throwing in conduct complaints in content discussions. This, in turn, creates a hostile editing environment and fosters further battleground behavior. I'm open to replacing this particular set of interaction bans with something similar to the restriction AGK imposed here, but I want to get some more comments first. T. Canens (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Cptnono

Statement by LessHeard vanU

At the very least could there be some clarification on the length of the topic ban, it apparently being indefinite presently? The strictures on being able to edit certain topic area's may be sufficient to promote among the parties a desire to interact more appropriately, and I would urge that some further consideration may be given to permitting an appeal to lift these sanctions after a defined period (6 months?) if Cptnono's appeal here is unsuccessful and the tariff is determined to be either indefinite or 1 year or more. (I realise this is not discussing the appeal directly, but I am too involved to be acting as an admin on this page but wanted to address some issues and make suggestions.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by George

I think that this was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction. Cptnono was blocked for three hours for incivility only five days ago, largely due to interactions with Nableezy. I've seen them express frustration in interacting with Nableezy since then, but haven't seen much in the way of incivility, and I'm not in favor of someone being punished twice for the same offense. The comment Cptnono made to Nableezy in this discussion was borderline uncivil at best, and comparable to the tone of interactions between Wehwalt and SandyGeorgia in this discussion (I'm not commenting on either of those editors, nor suggesting an interaction ban between them, just noting the similarity in the tone in a conversation involving an administrator.) Given Cptnono's expressed understanding of the issue with the tone of their recent commentary, including the comment that led to this ban, and their professed willingness to try to improve on it, this sanction strikes me as more punitive then preventative. Having worked with both editors, I believe they have the ability to contribute and discuss constructively, even with each other, and this interaction ban will create annoying hurdles for both editors that I don't view as necessary at this point. I would suggest either removing it entirely, or reducing it to something like one week, with a warning that future, problematic interactions between them will result in a longer interaction ban. ← George^talk 00:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Sean.hoyland

What happens if one editor accepts (=takes no action to appeal) an interaction ban and the other one doesn't by the way ? I have no idea whether that applies in this case but I'm just asking. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the discussion on the admins page. Nevermind then. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sean, having just one half of an interaction ban in force would be a recipe for disaster so, I guess that either both sanctions are in force or neither. PhilKnight (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Staement by BorisG

I think this sanction interprets NPA and civility policy way too broadly. I believe it is profoundly wrong because if we continue on this path we will have no way to have an argument between editors. Sharp debates are a useful and necessary part of collaboration. - BorisG (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PhilKnight

Obviously, I still support this restriction. From my perspective there's little difference between making it 3 months in duration, or reviewing after 3 months. In terms of why it's necessary, in addition to the comments by Cla68 in the original discussion, which relate to the thread linked by Cptnono, there have been 2 reports at WP:ANI in the last few weeks concerning Nableezy placing less than favorable quotes by Cptnono on his user page. In these circumstances, I think an interaction ban is worth trying. PhilKnight (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gatoclass

I opposed the interaction bans when they were first proposed. Since then I have found WP:IBAN and it appears to me that such bans are not quite as onerous as I assumed, since the editors concerned can still edit the same pages but are prohibited from reverting each other's edits or commenting directly to or about one another. Also, PhilKnight has proposed a review after three months, a ban subject to periodic review would certainly be a lot less objectionable to me. However, before commenting further I would like to hear what Nableezy thinks. With an appeal of this nature, I think we should hear from both involved parties before making a decision. Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if Nableezy intends to comment here or not, but I think he made a good point on his talk page, which is, if two editors are not unduly offended by each other's comments, and are prepared to continue working together, why should admins step in to slap an interaction ban on them? It does seem like a victimless crime. So I think if Nableezy is prepared to continue working with Cptnono and vice versa, there's a good case for upholding this appeal. Gatoclass (talk) 14:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm sorry Cla, but I just don't buy the argument about hypothetical noobs being "intimidated" by a few sharp exchanges between others. In fact the opposite is typically the case - it's the noobs who need to learn to tone down their responses in accordance with policy. But if a user is so thin-skinned that they are going to allow themselves to be "intimidated" by a little friction between other editors, they are unlikely to last five minutes on Wikipedia in any case - let alone in a contentious topic area. Gatoclass (talk) 05:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to T. Canen's suggestion per AGK of instant blocks for comments on contributor rather than content, I am opposed to such blanket methods. While comments on contributor are usually unhelpful and should be avoided, sometimes it is necessary to call someone out for their behaviour, and sometimes that helps get discussion moving again. Personal attacks are more problematic, but not everyone agrees on what constitutes such an attack.

In any case, I don't think blocking is an effective counter for such conduct, and worse, it leaves a permanent blot on someone's record that can then be used as an excuse for an indef ban. The bottom line is that if one cracks down too hard on civility, one leaves the field to the civil POV pusher who is usually the one doing the most damage to content. Gatoclass (talk) 06:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand how this particular variety of sanction works. The point of the blanket approach is that, whilst we should always call somebody on inappropriate content, we should never call them on the article talk page. AGK 12:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I don't follow at all. Would you mind elaborating? Gatoclass (talk) 13:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is to separate discussions on content from discussions on conduct. Discussions on content, which we are primarily concerned with when we worry about the attractiveness of a topic area to new editors, belong on the article talk page. Discussions on conduct is good and all, but they belong at other venues - e.g., ANI, AE, RFC/U, whatever. You can comment on the contributor all you want - within reason, of course - but you can't do it on an article talk page. T. Canens (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cla68

Gatoclass, it doesn't matter if Nableezy and Cptnono aren't offended by each others' comments. That article talk page is publicly viewable. The over-the-top hostile tone of their interaction with each other could very well intimidate other editors, especially new editors, from wanting to get involved in the content discussion. That kind of discourse on an article talk page is unacceptable, and both of them should know better. Cla68 (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Cptnono

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

Athenean

No action taken against the respondent or the filer. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Athenean

User requesting enforcement: — ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 00:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Decorum

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

I'm not including October in the report but only November, so you can review the frequency of reverts of my edits on Albanian-Greek topics:

[86]

[87][88][89][90][91](partial)[92] [93] [94][95][96][97] [98] [99][100] These are the vast majority of my edits that are related to Albanian-Greek issues in November(not including vandal reverts etc.). In Krokodeilos Kladas he hadn't made even one edit, until I made an edit, which he reverted.

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

Warning by Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA): [101]

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Interaction ban with ZjarriRrethues (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Since the beginning of my interaction ban Athenean has been following and reverting a large number of edits I have made in Albanian-Greek topics. Aware that I can't even reply to any of his reverts sometimes he doesn't even explain the reverts:

John Shea? You absolutely must be joking removing not only the part, whose source he didn't like, but also the above irrelevant sentences that I had added any without explanation

regarding their source, which isn't John Shea

They are by now assimilated, and identify as Greeks, and Vickers' figures are extreme anyway
per talkpage explanation the explanation was Is this some kind of joke?...Nonsense regarding the CIA Factbook saying that Greece doesn't collect data on ethnicity. The rest of his comment is off-topic.
The Ukrainian Quarerly? An index? Nope he reverted every edit, even a cn tag I added on an unreferenced sentence and like in the other reverts he didn't say why the two sources weren't reliable.
I was allowed to make this report by TCanens who initially sanctioned me with an interaction ban[102]. The only time Athenean self-reverted himself after reverting me was some hours after TCanens allowed me to make this report[103]. I didn't report him them and unfortunately he continued reverting many of my edits on Albanian-Greek topics.
how exactly is this notable enough to go in the lede? On Methana I added on the lead that this town of Greece is Albanian-speaking. Athenean removed it considering it non-notable enough. However, a couple of months ago when I had removed from the lead that village in Albania is partly Greek speaking he considered that sufficiently interesting to go in the lede and reverted me. The fact that a town in Greece is Albanian-speaking isn't notable, but the opposite is sufficiently interesting. Knowing that I can't even point out to the double standars used he makes reverts like this one and now in his explanation he knowingly tries to show a dialect spoken in a whole region according the Himariote Greek dialect sources as a dialect spoken in just two villages.
[104] Athenean's saying that he's apparently Turkish because I added the name in the Ottoman Turkish form as the author. The author includes him in the list of Albanian mulkiyelis, so I don't understand how someone can't notice that, unless he reverts without verifying the sources.
I updated the number of reverts(which now are about 15 without counting the fact that some are reverts of 2-3 edits in a row like in Berat/Kladas or that I'm editing less frequently) and they are a significant percentage of my edits in Greek-Albanian topics in November(Athenean shouldn't try to increase my number of edits in Albanian-Greek topics by saying that articles like Thimi Mitko are related to both Albania and Greece and that vandalism reverts about Bulgarians in Kastoria are also related to these two countries). He also says that users not from the Balkans made similar edits to his, without of couse mentioning that that user eventually removed parts I considered tendetious himself [105]. I also don't understand why he asks for me to be sanctioned for using reliable online sources that can be found and verified by anyone on google books and not offline ones. Using sources that a user doesn't consider correct or doesn't even try to verify isn't a reason for sanctions and WP:AE is for formal sanctions. I also find his replies incosistent because he said If it to be imposed as a restriction, I would ask that some sort of editing restriction against using shoddy sourcing by ZjarriRrethues be put into effect as well and after I said that he can't ask for users to be sanctioned because of his opinions about the sources they use, he said when it looks like it is about to be dismissed, he digs deeper and deeper, playing the victim and making yet more false statements.. I am not calling for him to be sanctioned for his articlespace edits.

Discussion concerning Athenean

Statement by Athenean

Comments by others about the request concerning Athenean

Statement by Athenean

I find this report frivolous and filed in bad faith, for the reasons below:

All of the above mentioned articles, with the exception of Krokodeilos Kladas, are on my watchlist, and have been so for a long time, well before the edits by Zjarri which I reverted (most if not all were watchlisted by me before Zjarri ever edited wikipedia). This can be easily verified by looking at the edit history of those articles - I have edited them before Zjarri did. Though I do check zjarri's contribs every once in a while, most of the time Zjarri's changes simply show up on my watchlist, there is absolutely no stalking as he seems to imply.

Importantly, the claim that the above diffs are reverts of "the vast majority of my edits that are related to Albanian-Greek issues in November" is patently false. A quick look at Zjarri's contribs log for the month of November shows: 4 edits to Konitsa, 2 to Filiates, 3 to Paramythia, 3 to Margariti, 1 to Ali Pasha, 2 to Albanian Nationalism, 13 to Stratioti, 2 to Epirus (region), 2 to Korce, 5 to Moscopole, 1 to Metoq, 2 to Kostas Botsaris, 1 to Vergina, 1 to Pella, 1 to Athens (about Albanians [106]), 4 to Greater Albania, 2 to Arta, Greece, 4 to Ioannina, 1 to Pashalik of Yanina, 3 to Berat, 4 to Greek nationalism, 4 to Aromanians, 3 to Thimi Mitko, 2 to Ancient Macedonians, 1 to Thomas Flanginis, 1 to Balanos Vasilopoulos, 1 to Kastoria Prefecture, 2 to Krokodeilos Kladas, all of which can easily be considered "Greek-Albanian topics". Add to that several edits to Albanians [107] [108] and Skanderbeg [109] pertaining to Greece or Greeks, and that's well over 80. Thus, the edits that I reverted are not the the vast majority of his edits to Albanian-Greek issues in November, but rather a small fraction. There were numerous occasions in the last month where I would have been well within my rights to revert Zjarii, but chose not to, for a number of reasons. This latest attempt by Zjarri to deceive the community regarding my edits is all the more odious considering that making false statements in AE requests was one of the reasons Zjarri was sanctioned with the interaction ban in the first place [110]. This shows Zjarri has learned nothing from his interaction ban, nor understood the reasons for it.

In his haste to compile this report, Zjarri included the same diff twice (the first two diffs in his report are identical), and it is from October, though he claims I'm not including October in the report but only November.

In the above report, I'm thus counting 11 reverts by me, in the period of one month. That's approximately one every 3 days, hardly taking advantage of Zjarri's interaction ban on my part. If anything, I am reverting Zjarri less frequently these days than before he was sanctioned with the interaction ban: In July of 2010, I reverted ZR a total of 15 times (diffs omitted for brevity, though I can produce them on request). Similarly for previous months prior to July. If we look at the period of August 29-September 29, immediately prior to Zjarri's interaction ban, for example, I reverted Zjarri 9 times: [111], [112] (partial rv of this [113]), [114] (rv of this [115]), [116], [117] (partial rv of this [118]), [119], [120] (rv of this [121], though it is also an rv of several intermediate edits of other editors), [122] (partial rv, removal of "of Albanian origin", which ZjarriRrethues had added previously [123]), [124]. In other words, about the same frequency consistently. I am not reverting Zjarri more frequently these days compared to prior to his interaction ban, and am being extra careful to do so only when I feel it's absolutely necessary. This is because I knew he was itching to game his interaction ban to file yet another AE report against me [125] for some time now (the diff from T. Canens follows a discussion between him and Zjarri in IRC).

Regarding the reverts themselves, I stand by them, as I feel they are solidly grounded in wiki policy which is explained by me either in the edit summaries or in the article talkpage. These were reverts of edits I considered tendentious, using shoddy sources, or else "creative misinterpretation" of non-shoddy sources on the part of Zjarri.
- [126]: I actually reverted because I found "isolated mountain village", which was added by User:Alexikoua [127] rather odd-sounding, particularly for the lede. I felt that the lede was stylistically better in its previous version, that is all.
- [128] W.W. Tarn is considered heavily outdated and thoroughly unreliable as a source, for obvious reasons, and to anyone with an even cursory familiarity with the subject.
- [129]: John Shea is yet another unreliable source, a Balkan polemicist with no academic credentials, again something well known to anyone familiar with the subject. Edits such as this and the above are thus either the result of either incompetence or tendentiousness. I admit I was quite annoyed when I reverted, and my removal of Mackenzie was probably a mistake. I have no problem whatsoever restoring Mackenzie, which seems reliable enough even though it is just a snippet. I will however not restore Shea under any circumstances and stand by that removal.
- [130]: Yet another instance of using a partisan source.
- [131]: Source falsification, the person is Turkish, as the name makes obvious.
- [132]: Completely off-topic addition. The number of Albanian migrants in Greece is never mentioned in irrelevant as far as Greater Albania is concerned, and is moreover far from unknown. There are plenty of estimates, some quite accurate, and Zjarri knows this full well, which is why I was annoyed in my talkpage posting.
- [133]: I felt Zjarri was clearly misinterpreting this source.
- [134]: Misuse of a source: Zjarri introduces a figure of 700,000 as if it's sourced to the source he provides, even though the figure comes from activist organizations, not the claimed source.
- [135]: Same here. He is either misunderstanding or misquoting the source.
- [136]: Shoddy sourcing: The Ukrainian Quarterly is not a reliable source for such a claim, nor is using a book's index as a source (the second source). That is not how we source things around here. As should by now be obvious, Zjarri has a history of backing his claims with shoddy sourcing, something with which I admit I have lost my patience after so many months of the same thing.
- [137]: Follows naturally from my previous rationale.
- [138]: Utterly inane, WP:LAME edit, as made clear by the discussion in the talkpage [139]. Kostas Botsaris fought in the Greek War of Independence and was a member of the Greek Parliament for crying out loud. How can anyone not revert something like that when they see it?
- [140]: The NPOV and OR tags placed by Zjarri on this article have been removed many times, by many users, some of them not from the Balkans [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147]. My revert is the last in a long line of tag removals by other editors, I felt I was enforcing community consensus. The article is solidly sourced, and no valid rationale has been presented on the talkpage for the tags, only WP:IDONTLIKEIT type arguments. Yet, the tags are continuously re-added by Zjarri, even though there is zero community consensus for them [148] [149] [150] [151] [152], a clear case of long term edit-warring. It is interesting to note that ZjarriRrethues has something of an obsession with this article, having been at it since March of 2010, within a week of his joining wikipedia [153].
- [154]: I find the edit by Zjarri tendentious, and against the spirirt of WP:LEDE. We typically include in the lede things that attest to the notability of the article's subject, and this is not one of them. Arvanitic communities are quite common throughout Greece. Mind you, I have absolutely no problem with the content itself, I just don't feel that placement in the lede is warranted. Regarding the Greek-speaking village in Albania mentioned here [155], the reason the Greek dialect is mentioned in the lede is due to the fact that it is a unique, archaic dialect (see Himariote Greek dialect) spoken only there and in one neighboring village. It is notable, and makes the village notable, if only for that reason. Such a rationale does not apply to the case of Methana.

To sum up, I only reverted Zjarri when I felt it was absolutely necessary and well-grounded in wiki policy. There is absolutely no gratuitous, spiteful reverting, or inappropariate taking advantage of his interaction ban on my part, nor is there going to be.

Zjarri is omitting the month of October in his report, the first month of his interaction ban: This is not out of lazyness: I reverted him even fewer times in October than November, thus further weakening his case.

A bit of background: Zjarri was sanctioned with a 3-month, single-sided interaction ban against me beginning September 30th, 2010. This was the result of a frivolous, non-actionable AE report filed by him against me, in which he made false claims and had crossed into WP:HOUND territory in his eagerness to get me sanctioned (at one point digging up diffs from 3+ years ago, my first in wikipedia). He has previously broken this interaction ban twice, getting sanctioned the first time [156] and warned the second. Barely 3 weeks into his ban, Zjarri was already itching to have another go at me at AE, as evidenced here [157]. This was quite soon after the imposition of his ban, during which period I barely had time to revert him at all. This shows this user never understood the reason behind his interaction ban, but merely saw it as another tool to try and get me sanctioned. He is now gaming the interaction ban to portray himself as a victim in the hope of getting me sanctioned. It's incredible, it's as if nothing's changed with this user. I can empathize with Zjarri that he is occasionally frustrated by his inability to revert me, but I feel this report is frivolous and hence a blockable violation of his interaction ban. Athenean (talk) 06:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Mkativerata

I can certainly live with having to discuss reverts on the talkpage more often, however, I prefer that it not be imposed as a "restriction" but rather on an honor system basis. As an indicator, I have generally abided by a voluntary 1R rule since September, even though the 1R restriction I was under expired two months ago. If it to be imposed as a restriction, I would ask that some sort of editing restriction against using shoddy sourcing by ZjarriRrethues be put into effect as well, as after all my admitted brusqueness was largely due to frustration at persistent tendentious editing by ZjarriRrethues, which has been going on for months now. By the way, by "frivolous" I meant non-actionable, as in the claims of this report do not add up, the (n+1)th such AE report by ZjarriRrethues. Athenean (talk) 08:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to T. Canens

I see three new diffs [158] [159] [160], which I have now addressed. I stand by my actions and believe I was acting in the best interest of the encyclopedia.

Further comments

Incidentally, this brings up my total to 14 reverts of Zjarri in November, still not a significant increase compared to before his interaction ban, and nowhere near the vast majority of his edits on Greek-Albanian topics in November. The pattern here is the same as his previous report: A largely non-actionable report is filed, and when it looks like it is about to be dismissed, he digs deeper and deeper, playing the victim even more and making yet more false statements [161] (I am not calling for him to be sanctioned for his articlespace edits), [162] (I didn't revert him 15 times in November, and it's still not a "significant percentage" of his edits to Greek-Albanian topics), [163] (Thimi Mitko lived in Greece), [164] (he is not editing less frequently), [165] (as the article makes clear the two towns next to Himarë, Dhërmi and Palasë, speak a semi-northern dialect, which is sourced). It is plainly obvious he really wants to see me sanctioned at any cost, and simply won't let go no matter what. This is exactly the kind of behavior that resulted in his interaction ban in the first place. Athenean (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Athenean

@Athenean: I have a question about one of your reverts. You explain this as saying Shea is an unreliable source. Why remove the material sourced to Mackenzie? There may be a good answer but it's a point specifically raised by the AE filer. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answered here. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things concern me here. Having had a detailed look, Athenean's reverts appear generally to be justifiable, at least those diffs the bases of which can be understood by an outside observer unfamiliar with the conflict. But brusque edit summaries and talk page contributions aren't helping matters. I'd like to see fuller contemporaneous justifications for the reverts and perhaps a sensible editing restriction could deliver that (eg a requirement to post a 50-word justification for each revert on the relevant talk page). The removal of the Mackenzie-sourced material indicates a lack of care that could have been avoided had proper justification been given. On the other hand, I don't see any basis to think that Athenean has been hounding Zjarri or gaming the interaction ban, even in light of the admonition at the earlier AE.. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about the direction of this AE: having expressed my view above that the reverts generally appeared justified, the filer has followed it up by including new complaints, and doing so without edit summaries. It does not support the view that this is a well-founded "good faith" request. At this point I'm leaning towards the view that this is an unhelpful and groundless request warranting sanction (WP:BOOMERANG). But Timotheus Canens will have something to say and I'll wait for him to say it. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think sanctions against Athenean on the basis of the diffs are warranted. On reflection, my vaguely suggested editing restriction above is not going to help matters at the moment. I expect that Athenean understands that better explanations for reverts would help take the heat out of the conflict. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll close this out following T. Canens comment below. No action taken against the respondent or the filer. No change to existing sanctions. Informal cautions have been given in respect of the filer's conduct of this request and the respondent's explanations for reverts. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting Athenean's response to the diffs added in these edits. T. Canens (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to [166], in the one-month period immediately preceding the interaction ban, ZR has made ~525 edits. In the following two-month period, they have made ~825 edits; considering, however, that the interaction ban necessarily prevented them from reverting Athenean or participating in discussions in which Athenean has participated, that does not sound to me like a substantial decrease in activity. Nor is the number of reverts per month a substantial increase from before the interaction ban. Whether or not they are otherwise sanctionable, the evidence presented so far appears to fall well short of substantiating the claim that Athenean is gaming the interaction ban in order to gain an unfair advantage in content disputes. Since that's the only question for which ZR is allowed to file a complaint, I think this request should be closed without action unless an uninvolved administrator wishes to impose sanctions sua sponte on Athenean based on the contents of those diffs. I voice no opinion on whether any sanction is appropriate. I'll get to the frivolity question later. T. Canens (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In order to be frivolous, a request needs to be more than not actionable. It needs to have no colorable basis in fact whatsoever. I think it is possible for a reasonable person in ZR's position to find Athenean's reverts troubling, especially when viewed in isolation; I would imagine that the effect of a revert that one is not permitted to undo is far more strongly felt than a revert that could be readily undone, resulting in greater subject weight being attached to those reverts even when, as the objective evidence indicate, there is no actual attempt to exploit the interaction ban. I therefore do not think it appropriate to consider the original request frivolous or in bad faith. T. Canens (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I agree with Mkativerata that the practice of silently expanding requests without noting in edit summary or on the page that the request has been expanded, when an uninvolved administrator has already commented on the original request, is highly inappropriate. T. Canens (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Four Deuces

The Four Deuces is warned, outside of Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions, for an inappropriate edit summary. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning The Four Deuces

User requesting enforcement: Martin (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned, Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions

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

[167] I am highly offended by User:The Four Deuces's edit comment "Reverse pro-fascist edits" when he made a blind revert of my good faith edits. By "pro-fascist" he must be referring to me as the sources Griffin is RS and Renton is actually a Marxist. Fascism is commonly associated with Nazism, and accusing me of being "pro-fascist" is tantamount to accusing me of harbouring Nazi sympathies. This is a egregious violation of WP:DIGWUREN

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

Formally placed on notice [168]
[169] Warning by 2over0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

If TFD had offered an apology as suggested by User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling then it might have been the end of the matter, but evidently he does not understand the offensiveness of his comment. Instead he offers an unapologetic "I do not refer to editors, only to edits." Edits do not happen in a vacuum, editors make edits, and he states himself "Some edits present a POV, which this one obviously does", in other words I hold a pro-fascist viewpoint. Not only does this remain deeply offensive but this is disruptive to any good faith attempt to edit an already difficult article in a neutral fashion, as I have attempted to do. As TFD appears to be unapologetic it is highly likey he will continue to characterise anyone he disagrees with as harbouring pro-fascist sympathies. This is unacceptable. --Martin (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TFD explanation is misleading (I note he still hasn't offered an apology). Let's examine the edits I actually made which TFD claims were "pro-fascist" in detail:

Removed a cite to the statement "Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right", nowhere in the source does Griffin call fascism "far right", he calls it "ultra-nationalist". Given that there are five other cites it was pointless having a sixth that failed verification in any case.
Expanded "Fascism is normally described as "extreme right"" with "however the left-right terminology fails to describe the "spectral-syncretic" aspect of the ideology", since the single cite used for this sentence is called A Spectral-Syncretic Approach to Fascism by Rodger Eatwell.
Expanded "There is a scholarly consensus that fascism was influenced by both the left and the right" with "conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational", since the cite used for this sentence The Palingenetic Core of Fascism by Rodger Griffin says "the ideology of a particular form of fascism has often been synthesized from a bewildering range of ideas, both left and right, conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational."
Added the paragraph "Fascism emerged first in France in the 1880s as an intellectual movement that absorbed and synthesised socialism and nationalism and created a new ideology of "a socialism without the proletariat"", because the current article reads like Fascism was invented in 1933. Even Britannica [170] indicates that the intellectual origins of Fascism were related to the 19th Century French intellectuals such as Joseph de Maistre, Charles Maurras, and Georges Sorel. Note that whatever criticism Renton has of Sternhell, nowhere in his book does he actually refute the 19th century origins of the ideology.

TFD claim "The rest of what I reversed represents "the fascist view of itself" which was inserted into the article as factual rather than as an opinion" is clearly at odds with the actual edits. All my edits were sourced to existing RS, unless he is claiming that Eatwell, Griffin and Sternhell hold a fascist view point, he is clearly referring to me as holding "the fascist view". Now TFD may believe I had misinterpreted the sources and he could have discussed this on talk in a collegiate manner, but to blindly revert everything and characterise my edits as "pro-fascist" is unacceptable. It was this kind of behaviour of characterising other editors as holding pro-fascist viewpoints and Nazi sympathies that lead to the original WP:DIGWUREN case. --Martin (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Will Beback: Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned makes no limitation with regard to applicable topic area and is adjunct to the EE wide discretionary sanction. --Martin (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkativerata: Given the significant involvement of fascists in Eastern Europe during WW2 and that this region, including the Soviet Union, generally describe the Nazis as "German–Fascist Aggressors" (thus making no distinction between Nazis and fascists), there is no less a link than there is between Communist terrorism and Eastern Europe. But I am not going to wiki-lawyer over AE's jurisdiction. Fascism is an ideology I find abhorrent. TFD's claim that my edits were pro-fascist is grossly uncivil and deeply offensive. TFD's previously characterised myself and others as "far right", which is also offensive. Someone needs to make TFD understand that his edit comments are unacceptable and that he should apologise, as the majority who have commented here have concurred. Whether it was posted here or at ANI, nothing precludes an admin from taking regular action as opposed to AE enforcement action. But if the admins think it is preferrable that I take this to ArbCom for what may potentially result in summary ban, then so be it. --Martin (talk) 05:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [171]

Discussion concerning The Four Deuces

Statement by The Four Deuces

I do not refer to editors, only to edits. Some edits present a POV, which this one obviously does. Martintg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has said I must be referring to him. I will post a note on the article talk page so that other editors familiar with the article may comment. TFD (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part of what I reversed began, "Fascism emerged first in France in the 1880s...." and is sourced to Renton.[172] But what Renton actually wrote was "[Zeev Sternhell] has argued that fascism emerged first in France in the 1880s and 1890s".[173] He then writes that Sternhell and others "are then free to emphasize what they perceive to be the essentially non-destructive nature of fascism. The historians suggest that it is time to rescue fascist Italy from stigma.... [T]hey fail to generate a non-fascist understanding of fascism. Their readers are led to the conclusion that the fascist view of itself is the most important factor in the definition of the ideology." The rest of what I reversed represents "the fascist view of itself" which was inserted into the article as factual rather than as an opinion. TFD (talk) 11:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question to Martintg and Sander Saeda: Do you not see any difference between, "Fascism emerged first in France in the 1880s" and ""[Zeev Sternhell] has argued that fascism emerged first in France in the 1880s"? TFD (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning The Four Deuces

TFD is a frequent thorn in my side, including filing procedural actions against me. Indeed, that's why I noticed this. However, I do try to be fair. Given that I have not read the policy involved that may require a block, would it be acceptable to allow an admin to remove the history comment and extract a promise that TFD will not do something like this again? Everyone's always trying to block others. TFD got me banned for a few days. Don't we have better things to do? In my opinion, one history comment like the present one does not look to me, not having read the policy, to be a reason to block someone. Would Martin accept an apology and the administrative removal of the history comment in exchange for dropping the block request? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martintg failed the mention that the article in question is Fascism. I agree with TFD that the edit reverted presented a positive point-of-view on the topic of the article. I do not know if that alone would have been reason enough to revert them. However, Martintg himself seems to be saying that Wikipedia should favor an anti-fascist POV, lest it be accused of "harbouring Nazi sympathies". -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary may not have used the best form of words, but in the context of the article it is no major issue. The editor raising this against a three year old Arbcom ruling seems a little over sensitive. I've seen far worse handled on the talk page without running to enforcement. Further given this block history its obvious that the filing editor is no stranger to controversy; The lady doth protest too much, methinks. --Snowded ^TALK 04:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Fascism is commonly associated with Nazism, and accusing me of being "pro-fascist" is tantamount to accusing me of harbouring Nazi sympathies.' Really? Can I suggest that anyone involving themselves in topics of this kind should really be aware of the distinctive features of Fascism and Naziism, and not automatically assume they are one and the same? Even though I often agree with TFD, I still find him a little awkward sometimes, but then I'm sure he feels the same about me. I'm sure his political opponents have stronger views, but we are discussing politics here, not Pokomon characters, so maybe a little less feigned 'sensitivity' might be in order? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think in cases like these, if someone takes offence (and it was certainly a careless use of words, regardless of the article topic), then an apology for having caused inadvertent offence is entirely in order, and no one loses face. I keep seeing cases on this page where apologising - even when it can be understood that nothing bad was intended - seems to be a phenomenal strain for people. The thing is, it can serve really well to improve the standing of the editor and the overall editing atmosphere.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, TFD has a habit of doing this sort of thing repeatedly. He regularly ascribes views to those that disagree with him that they do not possess. He more or less accuses them of having extremist or fringe or worse (as in this case) views, which is completely unsupported by, well, anything. Here is a recent example [174]. I asked him to redact it and explained that no, I do not have extremist political views (I resent the fact that I even have to say this) but he did not redact the edits. There are also other instances, some older, like this one [175] where he's making up some stuff about "far-right Russian bias" (he did redact that one after being told to do so). There's also other examples but honestly, I don't have time atm to go digging for more diffs. These should be enough to establish evidence of a pattern. It also shows that TFD's claim that I do not refer to editors, only to edits is generally false.

And seriously, calling edits based on the work of a Marxist historian, Dave Renton, "pro-fascist" just takes the cake.

Also, regardless of what the distinctions between Nazis or Fascism are, and what the subject of the article is, calling another editor's edits "pro-fascist" is simply insulting. No way to weasel out of that one. Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But socialist is not the same as Marxist, let alone fascist, except perhaps on Wikipedia. Let me see: Renton said that socialism and nationalism were merged to produce fascism, ergo he is pro-fascist? His book is published by Pluto Press. TFD says that the view needs to be attributed to Zeev Sternhell, who Renton cites. Sternhell doesn't seem like pro-fascist to me based on his Wikipedia biography, unless there's some hidden argument here that Zionists are pro-fascist. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On its face, the edit summary states that the edits were "pro-fascist." Using such strong language in an edit summary is extraordinarily ill-advised, to say the least. TFD was well aware of the likelihood that such an edit summary woul;d be brought here - he is a regular at making complaints about others on this and other noticeboards. Collect (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like point out that we do have to put up with a hell of a lot of crap just maintaining the articles on Fascism, Nazism and other related subjects. There is constant ill-informed editing and POV pushing, some of it egregious but some of it quite subtle. Occasionally this actually is by those seeking to rehabilitate Fascism or Nazism but more commonly by those with other objectives (e.g. seeking to taint other ideologies by asserted association). It is not surprising that those working hard to prevent these articles sliding into a complete mess of POV sometimes make mistakes, possibly out of sheer exhaustion, or let their annoyance show. I guess what I am saying is that TFD shouldn't have said what he said, but he is one of the good guys here and there is no way he deserves to be blocked over this. He should apologise and that should be an end to it. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree about TFD being one of the "good guys", but I understand what you mean. However, rules apply equally to everybody - and this is just the latest incident in a long thread of similar problems. What makes it worse is that TFD apparently doesn't even realize that his comments are often highly insulting to the others - and never apologizes, just justifies himself with weirder and weirder reasons. --Sander Säde 20:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted)...

Even under a broad interpretation, is Fascism related to Eastern Europe any more than to other parts of Europe? I don't think so. Will Beback talk 01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Marting: (8) refers to "the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee", not discretionary sanctions through arbitration enforcement. Discretionary sanctions, empowere by (12), are limited to the "area of conflict". I'm struggling to see AE's jurisdiction here. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I find the suggestion by TFD that an edit (not the editor, but the edit) can have a POV to be puzzling, I think that editors Legit, Vsev, and Will hit it on the head. An apology would to my mind be the best course, rather than a block, and closure so people can address more productive pursuits.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The continuation of the EE topic. Adequate people vs nationalists. I think action should be taken against Lvivske, not TFD. Artem Karimov (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- It does not matter if this is Martintg, Lvivske, TFD or anyone else. User X makes comments like this, he claims edits by user Y to be "extremist" or "pro-fascist", exactly as he did previously with regard to other people in the same article [176] (and who knows how many other articles), and he tells that he did everything correctly in his statement, hence he does not own an apology. Is that OK? If so, no action required.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning The Four Deuces

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

Time to bring this to an end. In my view this AE request falls outside the scope of discretionary sanctions in Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions (note: this is not a binding view. Other admins in other cases may disagree.). That of course does not stop general action being taken to prevent disruption of the project (as if this was an ANI report). In that respect, TFD is formally warned that such edit summaries are unacceptable.[177] Even if the "edit vs editor" distinction is made in good faith, it is a distinction that will be lost on many other editors who will understandably be offended by the edit summary. In light of the lack of evidence that this is a significant ongoing problem as opposed to one or two isolated edit summaries, a block would be inappropriate. But any further such edit summaries may attract sanctions, the nature of the sanctions depending on whether the action falls within the area of conflict. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discretionary sanctions authorization states that:

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

There is no explicit requirement that the failure to "adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process" needs to be related to the area of conflict; a literal reading suggests that the fact that this editor works in the area of conflict is sufficient for the discretionary sanctions to apply. I seem to remember at least one arb interpreting the provisions this way, though I couldn't provide a diff at the moment. I have no opinion so far on whether the literal reading is appropriate, either. T. Canens (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That literal interpretation seems ugly to me: eg just editing in an area of conflict can tar you across the project. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since people are not supposed to "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process" anywhere in this project... T. Canens (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course although applying, say ARBPIA discretionary sanctions for, say, engaging in an edit-war on Sesame Street can't be what ARBCOM had in mind. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True. A reading this broad is probably absurd. Hard cases make bad law, I suppose. T. Canens (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, perhaps one day this question will become ripe for a request for clarification from Arbcom. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I'm inclined to agree. I also think this request is out of scope, in that fascism is too far detached from Eastern Europe that editors there can't be expected to realise that that DIGWUREN sanctions apply. Finally, I don't think the edit summary is egregious enough to warrant anything more than a caution, unless the editor makes a habit of using such edit summaries and does so on a regualr basis. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lvivske

No action. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2010 (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 Lvivske

User requesting enforcement: MathFacts (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions, WP:Advocacy, WP:Battleground Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: Coordinated reverts with misleading, offensive or no edit summaries in Roman Shukhevych:

[178] Revert by Lvivske, changed alegnance of Shukhevych from "Ukrainian National Government" to "Ukraine"
[179] Revert by Lvivske, removed information of the annulment of the award of Hero title from the template (but not from the text), changed alegnance to "Ukraine", offense towards Donetsk court in edit summary.
[180] Revert by Galassi, false, misleading edit summary.

Coordinated reverts in Holodomor:

[181] by Galassi
[182] by Galassi
[183] by Lvivske

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

[184] Warning by Toddst1 (talk · contribs) (for personal attacks)
[185] Warning by Jayjg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (for edit warring in Jewish Bolshevism)
[186] Warning by The Four Deuces (talk · contribs) (for misleading edit summaries)
[187] Warning by EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
[188] Warning by MathFacts (talk · contribs)

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

Lvivske: Block or topic ban from articles related to Soviet Union
Galassi: Warning against edit-warring and coordinated reverts. Compulsory participation in discussions, enforced by an administrator may be sufficient.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: This request concerns two users, Lvivske and Galassi. I am not sure if this case fall under the previous arbitration restrictions concerning Eastern Europe, but I see no better place to report this issue. User Lvivske removes from article about Roman Shukhevych notice that the award of Hero of Ukraine to Roman Shukhevych has been annulled in the court [189], the edit is accompanied with offenses towards Donetsk court "donetsk court means jack"[sic]. He also changes the allegnance of this Nazi collaborator from "Ukrainian National Government", a pro-Nazi puppet state to "Ukraine". It is known that at the time the only internationally-recognized Ukrainian state was Ukrainian SSR and Roman Shukhevych fought against this entity. Labelling his allegnance as "Ukraine" thus creates confusion. That said the reverts in my impression violate Wikipedia's policies WP:Advocacy, WP:Battleground and WP:NPOV. I placed an edit-warring notice to his talk page [190] but after about 10 minutes I was reverted again by user Galassi [191] with an edit summary that the court decision was not binding (this is a false edit summary because all sources agree that the Hero of Ukraine award was annulled).; I asked why he reverted me on his talk page [192] but it seems he is not interested to respond.

The edit history of other articles show that users Lvivske and Galassi participate in coordinated edit wars (for example, in article Holodomor [193]). That's why I do not want participate in this edit war any longer and rely on the community to decide. MathFacts (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Lvivske noticed this report before I completed it. He then notified Galassi [194]

Discussion concerning Lvivske

Statement by Lvivske

There are so many problems with this...where to begin...first, edit summaries should suffice, you don't have to warn me of being block for "edit warring" after one revert. You could use the talk page, you know. Next, the award was not stripped, it was annulled by a Donetsk court which had no binding power, it was favor done for Yanukovych, it means nothing - it should be in the body of the bio but doesn't change any facts. Finally, "Ukraine" is a short form since the other form goes over. Considering he won the "Hero of Ukraine" award for his allegiance to this "Ukraine", and his allegiance was to a government/potential state called "Ukraine", the name "Ukraine" should suffice given that it links to the 1941 state, not Ukraine itself. I really don't see the beef here or why you are trying to pull Galassi into this for fixing a good faith edit on your part that was misinformed. PS: Claiming that Galassi and I take place in coordinated edit-wars is just silly and without base. Him and I have fought against eachother at times, there is no cronyism going on, we just watch the same articles (and with the Holodomor article, one of the guys we've been at dispute with is TFD, a few disputes above this one)--Львівське (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Lvivske

I've had my own disagreements with Lvivske, but the current charges are frivolous, if not retaliatory.--Galassi (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mathfacts' comments indicate that he is himself pushing a particular (Soviet) POV and that his coming here is part of a content dispute.Faustian (talk) 05:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a Soviet POV that the Hero of Ukraine award to Shukhevych ‎was annulled? The sources are already in article, so deleting this information from template is vandalism.--MathFacts (talk) 13:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment in your compliant, "He also changes the allegnance of this Nazi collaborator from "Ukrainian National Government", a pro-Nazi puppet state to "Ukraine". It is known that at the time the only internationally-recognized Ukrainian state was Ukrainian SSR and Roman Shukhevych fought against this entity." strongly suggests your own pro-Soviet POV in this matter.Faustian (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Lvivske

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

This all seems to pertain to a slow-burning edit war over a Ukranian Army officer. While it would seem to fit within the scope of DIGWUREN, I don't see any evidence of egregious or persistent disruption that would warrant action. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There's certainly no evidence for the basis of the report, being allegations of tag-team edit-warring. I'm closing this out as "no action". Consider pursuing the usual dispute resolution options for disputes on the inclusion of the material in the relevant articles. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifan12345

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Wikifan12345 is topic banned from the area of conflict, as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict, for eight months. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Wikifan12345

User requesting enforcement: Sol Goldstone (talk · contribs) 01:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, via BLP and tendentiousness

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

[[195]] The heart of the matter: Wikifan wants to insert a quote from Finkelstein. Except Finkelstein didn't say it.
[[196]] Wikifan quotes Finkelstein as declaring Hezbollahs "right" to kidnap individual soldiers. Except the source is talking about prisoners of war and doesn't mention rights in the source, nor kidnapping, nor individual soldiers. Despite recieveing no support on talk page, Wikifan ignores calls of BLP violations to reintroduce the edits. Here Wikifan admits Finkelstein never talks about the "right", and continues to argue for its inclusion.
[[197]] " [DePaul]University Board on Tenure and Promotions, the organization responsible for revoking tenure, ruled Finkelstein violated the 'professional ethical norms'. Except they never said that. The source is a letter from the President of DePaul and does not seem to contain the phrase 'professional ethical norms'.
[[198]] Here Finkelstein is said to express solidarity with the perpetrator of the 2009 Jerusalem Bulldozer attacks. Except the source says nothing about expressing solidarity with terrorists. Here is Wikifan's long defense.
[199] The month long RFC which occurred to prevent Wikifan's addition of a sentence expressing Finkelstein's unqualified support for terrorist organizations: "Finkelstein has expressed support for Hezbollah and Hamas.", despite objections that it was an over-simplification of the source and a BLP violation. Wikifan against the rest of the talk page.
[200] I invite every interested editor to thoroughly peruse this talk page and explore Wikifan's one-man campaign, starting in September, to include many serious BLP violations in spite of resistance from a whole host of editors and receiving virtual no support. A careful look at talk page and edit dates reveals that some of this material was reintroduced after consensus declared the material unfit.

Everyone makes mistakes, it's nothing to get excited about, but Wayne alerted me to another time in the same article where Wikifan had taken some words out of context to make a Frankenstein quote of sorts (here) and I got curious and uncovered numerous instances in this article where Wikifan had significantly deviated from the source, misrepresenting the speaker and the content, to slander Finkelstein. In these examples alone he has used Wikipedia to accuse Finkelstein of expressing solidarity with a terrorist, conviction for violating "professional ethics norms", and stating a belief in Hezbollah's right to kidnap Israelis, all while using two direct quotes that don't appear in the sources and grave misrepresentation of speakers. These are gross violations of BLP and where not uncovered at the time, leading to protracted talk page wars in which Wikifan defends, at length, his disingenuous additions. I had to file a BLP report before he would even acknowledge that the quote wasn't from Finkelstein.

This is only the latest in a long, long string of tendentiouess and combative editing from Wikifan. If you care for more examples they can be provided easily; these are just the ones from the Finkelstein article. It's not the first time he's had trouble editing the BLP's of Israel's critics (Judge Goldstone) nor is it the first time he's engaged in protracted IDIDTHERETHAT, consensus filibustering and general combativeness. As to the results, I ask for a topic ban from the I/P articles; there isn't much hope of reformation here. Mentorship was unsuccessful and we have already spent far too much time dealing with fabrications. Sol (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Closing

My thanks to all involved and my gratitude for the fair dealing with a long-running issue. Given the nature and repetition of the offenses and the failure of other measures to curb them I think the 8 month topic ban just. I don't relish bringing administrative action against other editors but there was simply nothing else to be done. Sol (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: There ya go.

Discussion concerning Wikifan12345

Statement by Wikifan12345

Update: Sole keeps updating his statements above and it makes it difficult to keep up with what is he accusing me. Are editors allowed to revise their accusations again and again post-discussion? For example, here is what he says:

Sole: Wikifan quotes Finkelstein as declaring Hezbollahs "right" to kidnap individual soldiers. Except the source is talking about prisoners of war and doesn't mention rights in the source, nor kidnapping, nor individual soldiers. Despite recieveing no support on talk page, Wikifan ignores calls of BLP violations to reintroduce the edits. Here Wikifan admits Finkelstein never talks about the "right", and continues to argue for its inclusion.

First off, the dispute was never a BLP issue. Finkelstein did endorse Hezbollah's kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers, more or less. That is not being disputed. The dispute was about an editor forcing content that was not supported by the source: Finkelstein has expressed support for the legal right of the Islamist movements Hezbollah and Hamas respond where Israel violates International Law..

See a problem with that edit? I did. Hamas and Hezbollah do not have a legal right to respond where "Israel violates international law." The fact that Finkelstein said this (not his exact words if I recall) does not mean we attribute it as a factual statement. Get it? The fact that I attempted to amend the edit should be applauded, not twisted as a violation. I'd imagine for an uninvolved admin it is pretty darn overwhelmingly to sift through the discussion, so it would be far more convenient for an editor involved in the dispute to supply the evidence for him/her. But Sole is being dishonest in this example. I've only made 8 edits to the article in the last month. Disputes over edits made 90+ days ago, disputes that have been either resolved or ended, should not be used as evidence here. I feel like I'm being stalked. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ask again what rules have I violated, explicitly. If this is a BLP issue well breezing through the discussion it is clear several editors were complicit in promoting original research and inserting or attributing statements to Finkelstein he never actually made, including editors making accusations against me here. Even if we assume a maximum number of three of my edits contained BLP vios, that is not grounds for a topic-ban. The fact that Sole filed this under the request of a topic ban should reveal his own partisan bias in the I/P arena. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already expressed my views here. I don't feel like repeating myself as I do endlessly but I will try if an admin sees merit in Sol's selective card stacking. I do hope Sol will take a moment to explain why he supports Wayne's removal of consensus-edit. That is was prompted the incident report. Sole and Wayne continue to dodge the issue and that is by far the largest dispute going on. IMO these attempts here and at BLP are designed to avoid facing the fact that Wayne has a long history of removing my contributions instead of dealing with the actual content. This was demonstrated quite clearly here. Perhaps editors are trying to cover-up, probably unintentionally, the reality that Wayne and his supporter Sole removed my edits not because they violated policy, but simply because I am the editor who added them.

Why else would Wayne remove a consensus edit? He didn't it mean to of course, he saw my name and as always reverted my edit with a dubious rationale. I do find Sole's request for a topic ban from I/P articles quite telling. Clearly this was the goal he had, not actually resolving BLP and content issues - or else he would have recognized Wayne's culpability. But I digress. It's unfortunate editors rely on the system to resolve legitimate disputes. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Numero Uno: I appreciate the lengthening of my name but I assure you I have no need for donated "e"'s.

Numero Dos: Please, for the love of toast, stop trying to bring in issues that have no bearing on this. I am, in fact, not in league with Wayne, nor have I removed any of your edits from the article, nor have I stacked the deck against you, or engaged in a cover-up. I honestly have no idea what edit Wayne has or has not removed nor do I recall voicing my support or disapproval for it. The talk page has become a muddle mess of editors objecting to your various misquotes. Casting aspersions is a good strategy but it's most effective when some of it makes sense. This was prompted solely by you trying to attribute a quote to Finkelstein he never said and the revelation that you engage in this with great frequency. Whatever disputes you would like to bring up, do so on talk. The basic fact is that you have been distorting sources and then arguing vehemently against anyone who challenges these slanderous edits. It's very tiring and gets in the way of editors who may have interests beyond accusing Finkelstein of supporting terrorism and professional misconduct. It needs to end. You were given a nearly unanimous topic ban last year and it doesn't seem like a stretch to return to it if nothing else works. Sol (talk) 03:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the E. Sol, please - the content dispute evolved into this weird BLP/AE noticeboard situation. I suggest you refrain from behaving as if you were forced to do this. You know what the content dispute is and yet selectively ignore facts that conflict with the "topic-ban Wikifan" approach. The content disputes you post above were already debated at length and mostly resulted in a dead-end or resolved. It is silly to hit an editor with BLP vios for dated content disputes that are no longer relevant. I gather the goal of this is to topic ban an editor you clearly disagree with. First, assuming the most extreme interpretation, it is highly unlikely an ordinary content dispute would end in a block, let alone a topic-ban. Second, you should know your submission of this AE is predicated on the following:

Anyone requesting enforcement who comes with unclean hands runs the risk of their request being summarily denied or being sanctioned themselves.

Sol, you are not a passive victim or uninvolved third party. You were part of the dispute and decided to file a BLP incident report on edits made more than two months ago. Edits that are not in the article. Interestingly, you decided to file this right when I showed Wayne gutted a consensus-edit without even reading it. An edit you supported.

Just answer the question - do you or do not still endorse Delia's proposal that was agreed to in the RFC? If I am topic-banned, which would be truly shocking, for the sake of the article I encourage you to honor and acknowledge your original agreement. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you get it. This is about you distorting and marring sources to libel biographies of people you don't like. You got caught. Instead of admitting a mistake, you ignored the falsity of the material and pushed to include it. It wasn't until you got reported that you finally admitted that the quote was false. You won't admit the truth until the authorities get called in and that is simply ridiculous. You've systematically created slanderous material targeting things you don't like and defended your actions with barrages of counter-accusations and non sequiters. This needs to end. Sorry, dude, I'd rather spend my time not fighting with people on the internet but enough is enough. I'm done, if anyone else actually shows up I'll clarify what I can. Sol (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got "caught?" What? Your diff show nothing. Changing words or questionable paraphrasing is not simply a BLP violation. I recognized the last edit I made was wrong, but you failed to AGF. The fact that we are forced to rely on primary sources make it hard to keep track of what Finkelstein is saying opposed to what people say about him. I mistook an email he received on his website as his own. Look at the way his site is set up, it's easy to make mistakes like that.

You hijacked the content dispute and turned it into a behavioral dispute. This all started after I explicitly asked you and Wayne if you still supported Delia's revised edit, which is what the RFC revolved around principally. Instead of answering, and admitting Wayne removed my edit without actually checking it, you go back in time and lawyer up a case to prove I'm not contributing honestly to the discussion. If anyone should be penalized, it is users who abuse the system and are incapable of resolving disputes when faced with tough questions. So whatever this leads to, I hope you find the stones to answer whether or not you still endorse Delia's proposal that you and everyone else originally agreed to. Unless you prefer me being topic-banned opposed to honoring the RFC you and Wayne rallied for. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it's not germane to your fast-and-loose approach to BLP I've asked you on your talk page to identify what removed RFC content you keep referring to. You have refused. As it seems impossible to communicate with you without admin oversight I've brought this here. If it is what you say it is, I'll restore the incorrectly removed content and then this discussion can continue. Sol (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To George

Sole, you see what you want to see. You know what went on in the discussion. You know what Wayne did and you know this isn't just about me. Taking the content dispute to the system was the last thing you should have done. I could have just easily spent hours collecting edits made by Wayne months ago to force an intervention by an administrator. It is very suspect you "had" to make this (your claim) only after it was revealed that Wayne is removing my edits simply because they are my edits and not because the edits themselves are flawed. What this AE and incident report essentially does is de-legitimize my legitimate arguments and contributions to the article which are vast and much of the content still remains. If we want to talk about behavioral issues it's pretty clear who was doing the edit-warring on a dedicated level and it was not me. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only count three true reverts. This was not a revert. If you reviewed the talk discussion you'd know the the first sentence is the revised intro all editors agreed to in the RFC.

This also isn't a revert. Adding a quote for clarity does not qualify as a revert. And anyways, I don't think it is fair if this AE is going to be a list of crimes Wikifan has committed in the last 48 hours supplied by uninvolved editors. Or editors who have been involved in content disputes with myself in other articles. For the sake of time I would like to see Sol, Wayne, and Roland honor the RFC they supported and restore the edit they all originally backed. I'd say this is acting as an unintentional distraction from legitimate content disputes. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Response to specific administrator actions) Can an admin please review my posts above? I did not intentionally "misrepresent" BLP has inferred by HJ Mitchell. Administrators should consider reading through the lengthy talk discussion as this is a shared content dispute. In any case, I have not been engaging in personal attacks, edit-warring (conclusively) suggested by Philknight and I have no history of misrepresenting sources or BLP vios. I don't have a lot of experience with BLPs anyways. I have positively contributed to numerous articles since my ban expired without issues. This AE is predicated on a selective portrait of what went on. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Comment moved from results section. PhilKnight (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Topic Ban - questions for administrators

What am I being topic-banned for? I'd like to see some evidence of consistent edit-warring. I've spent many hours discussing the content at length in talk. The issue here is about BLP disputes, not edit-warring.
The 1-revert ruling was not in effect during this conflict last I checked.
What precedent exists to support such an extreme penalty for an obvious content dispute? Can anyone challenge what I've written above?
We all know the I/P area is most hostile than others and POV-warriors are looking to remove editors they get into content disputes with. Veterans should be aware of this and users itching to ban a user for a dispute like this must consider all the facts.
It should be recognized this content dispute is a shared responsibility. I was the one who originally exposed a serious BLP violation by Wayne, and his edit-warring to protect it. I explained it once again here
Before this ends, I would like to see the RFC be honored. It is beyond me how the issue graduated all the way to incident boards claiming I am being disruptive when Sole and WAyne fail to honor the RFC they demanded. An admin should should restore my edit or at least recognize my edit was consistent with the consensus and Wayne unfairly reverted it.
If it possible, I would prefer an admin I have not been in content disputes weigh in.
Philknight immediately endorsed the complaints of User:Haberstr even though he was actively edit-warring not only my edits, but several other editors as well and removing entire paragraphs of cited information claiming anti-Hamas "POV". Most of his edits have been reverted and the content is restored, for now. I feel like my complaints are not being read I really would like a response. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Wikifan12345

Comments by George

This article is under the topic-wide 1RR restriction, but it seems to me that Wikifan12345 has reverted fives times in the last few days, violating the 1RR restriction four times (each revert was less than 24 hours from the previous):

08:41, November 28, 2010 - revert of text added November 6 by Matrixnaz
12:12, November 28, 2010 - straight up revert of text added 7 minutes earlier by Delia Peabody
07:24, November 29, 2010 - revert of text added 15 hours earlier by Delia Peabody (note the phrase "alleging that Israel had invaded Lebanon as signal of rejection" that Delia added, and Wikifan12345 removed).
08:36, November 29, 2010 - straight up revert of WLRoss from 32 minutes earlier.
07:16, November 30, 2010 - re-adds quote about "satanic state" that WLRoss had removed 3 hours earlier.

EdJohnston points out below that the 1RR notice was added after all this edit warring. However, I do believe that 5 reverts in less than 48 hours (4 of them are within 24 hours) constitutes edit warring and a violation of 3RR as well. I would add that the fourth of those reverts within 24 hours was made by Wikifan12345 while logged out, which raises concerns of possibly intentional sockpuppetry as an IP address to avoid 3RR. With the 1RR notice going up, I don't think fully protecting the page necessary, though it probably won't hurt. ← George^talk 06:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikifan12345 - sorry, I still view the edits you mentioned to be reverts. If you're simply re-adding information someone else removed, or even if there's consensus for your revert, you're still reverting. I haven't looked at the content of your edits at all, and some or all of them may have been quality improvements, but on contentious topics there's no need to edit war. If there is a consensus and the material can stand on its own, it will (eventually) get added. When editors on both sides believe that they're in the right, and engage in an edit war over content (each fully believing that they are improving the article), it leads to nothing but problems. ← George^talk 22:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edits you posted above are being taken out of context. I was simply honoring the RFC Wayne agreed to. If he decides to remove an edit he supported simply because I made it, that's on him. That's not a revert, that's being bold. I asked Wayne nearly a dozen times why he removed the edit that was agreed to in the RFC. I've admitted the latest edit was an obvious BLP vio but it was not intentional, but there really is no excuse to remove edits unanimously supported. Is that not a behavioral issue? Am I so bad for daring to follow the consensus? I don't want to see Wayne banned, or anyone punished. I rarely ever rely on the system to deal with editors I have content disputes with, but if I am removed from Finkelstein I would hope an admin or someone involved actually read through the discussion and revert Wayne's edit. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, who is Wayne? And of the five edits I listed above, which do you consider reverts and which do you consider to not be reverts (I've numbered them for simplicity)? I'm not asking which reverts were good or which were bad, and I'm not asking which were inline with consensus or which were against consensus, just which do you consider to not be reverts? ← George^talk 23:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the IP's history it is either Wikifan or a very helpful anonymous editor who stumbled across his personal works-in-progress page and shares a similar passion for charts. Sol (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George, I already explained the context of the edits. The burden of proof rests against those making baseless accusations. I was not engaging in systematic edit-warring. There were maybe two or three incidents of moving edits (with sources) into the article that were subsequently reverted by Wayne and myself over a period of maybe two months. Hardly a war. Perhaps you should consider reading the talk before involving yourself in the discussion? Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I just read through (too much of) that lengthy RfC. It appears that just about every editor involved disagrees with you:

"You edit is so far from what the source is saying I'm wondering what source you are reading. There is no consensus for your edit and the current version is exactly what NF is saying" - WLRoss, November 6
"This is exactly why your edits are so bad, you have little understanding of how sentence structure works in English. NF did not say or even remotely imply that the kidnapping and murder of several Israeli soldiers was a noble gesture." - WLRoss, November 8
"Your edit has been challenged by every editor who has comnented here and several have also stated that NF did make that analogy." - WLRoss, November 10
"I think that Wikifan's edit is a BLP violation" - Gatoclass, November 10
"You're actively pushing for us to exclude information that contextualizes a politically sensitive issue in a BLP and not addressing valid challenges to your proposal... this is getting tendentious." - Sol, November 11
"...excluding information that misconstrues Finkelstein's limited support of Hamas/Hezbollah is dishonest and violates WP:BLPSTYLE in this context." - Sol, November 12
"Wikifan, I can't help but notice your undisguised hostility toward Finkelstein, which makes me think that this may not be the most suitable article for you to be editing." - Delia Peabody, November 13
"I am troubled by your paraphrase of the long quote above, which I don't feel is justified by what is in the quote" - Delia Peabody, November 25
"I feel that your summaries often distort what is in the sources you are summarizing, and it appears that many other editors feel the same way" - Delia Peabody, November 27
"FYI. This discussion has now exceeded 10,000 words. One editor Vs everyone else. Let's wrap it up please." - WLRoss, November 27
"One could get the impression that you are really quite hostile toward Finkelstein, and it's not a good idea to edit biographical articles where you might be tempted to injure the reputation of the subject." - Delia Peabody, November 28
"That paragraph currently has the support of everyone who has commented (apart from you). If you have a problem with it that is what this RFC is for and you cant keep restoring the most negative spin you can find." - WLRoss, November 29
"Let's cut to the chase; I'm now looking at Wiki's past quotes inserted and comparing it to the source and there's a trend of distortion." - Sol, November 30

Initially I thought that this was just a problem of some minor edit warring, maybe a little POV-pushing, and had intended to suggest that admins consider a shorter topic ban, something along the lines of a month. However, after reading through literally pages of other editors not just disagreeing with you, but calling you out on multiple instances of distorting sources to smear the subject, I would suggest a permanent topic ban from this specific article. Though if administrators believe the editor's history warrants a broader sanction, I wouldn't be opposed. ← George^talk 04:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to George

George, I don't understand why you're this dedicated. Wait, I do. Cherry-picking statements to demonstrate a trend that does not exist. This simply an attack on my character right now. Regardless, the RFC was about several edits being debated. There was no edit-warring going on. Just because a series of like-minded editors disagreed with me does not prove a behaviorial issue that warrants a topic ban. I did not violate any policy (NPA for example) during the RFC. To prove your bias in this case, it seems you clipped Gato's statement. Perhaps providing the DIFF will provide a more honest context, but naturally that would defeat the goal:

It's hard to believe this issue has yet to be resolved. For the record, I think that Wikifan's edit is a BLP violation but that he is also correct that Wayne's edits have been OR-ish. There should be a happy medium somewhere; I think a good place to start would be to revisit DailyCare's suggestions above.

.

Wayne continued to force content that he invented himself, which was defended by Roland and others as well. The content is no longer in the article (for obvious reasons). My edits on the other hand have been challenged for misrepresenting the source material, which I've debated heavily. That is not a behavioral issue or a violation of policy. It's like I edit warred the content into the article. The vast majority of my contributions took place in talk. And lest I remind everyone here I was the one trying to honor the RFC and include the edit that we all agreed on. I feel like I'm being surrounded here and am beginning to lose track as to what this AE is all about.

Can an authority figure explain what I'm being accused of specifically, you know - like what rules and policies I have violated? Specifically please. I wasn't edit-warring, I did not engage in any personal attacks. I discussed virtually all my edits extensively cordially (for the most part). Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me to read the RfC. I wish I hadn't, but I did. After doing so, I came away with the conclusion that other editors strongly felt that you were violating WP:BLP, arguing your case, over and over, for a month. I don't think I've ever seen anyone try to counter accusations of violating BLP by quoting an editor who explicitly accused them of violating BLP, then dismissing it as a non-issue because you "debated heavily", but hey, that's your call. I'm not an authority figure by any means, but based on the complaints of others about your edits and behavior in the ensuing discussion, I would guess that you would be blocked for violating WP:BLP and tendentious editing. Others might see things differently. ← George^talk 06:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Did you read my post? The diff you provide paint a false picture. The RFC was about several edits that were discussed. Some contributions made by Wayne and his supporters were ruled out in the discussion because of my points. Notice how Wayne's analogy no longer sits in the article? Taking quotes from an editor that was caught promoting original research and editing into the article as evidence of behavioral issues is quite dubious. WP:TE is not a policy, and my presence in the actual article (or lack thereof) is hardly proof of such action. The fact that several editors disagreed with me is not grounds for a topic ban or even a block. The issue over BLP is about hypothetical or debated edits, nothing systematic.

If the issue is BLP, then a comprehensive topic ban is laughable at best. The vast majority of the conflict took place in talk. And as heated as it was, I did not violate any of the core policies. I did not attack any users. I did not edit war. Claims that I am "distorting" Finkelstein's words are troubling but not yet proven. Lots of my edits and contributions still remain in the article. I don't see any conclusive evidence supporting a topic ban. What I do see is a lot of editors I've gotten into content disputes with, including yourself George, that see an opportunity to remove an editor they dislike. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where did we get into a content dispute? My memory is foggy. And yes, WP:DE is a guideline, not a policy. But I note your avoidance, shifting the topic to other editors (Sol Goldstone, WLRoss and his OR, "his supporters", myself) while flatly ignoring the accusations of violating BLP as "not intentional" and "not yet proven". I do think a topic-wide ban would be a bit much (unless your block log warrants it, which I haven't checked), though I don't see any reason you shouldn't be topic banned from the article on Norman Finkelstein. There are plenty of articles out there not related to Finkelstein that you could help improve, and if there's something really critical missing about Finkelstein, someone will surely add it sooner or later. ← George^talk 07:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your memory is foggy? Really? Tell me, what inspired you to join this discussion? I can't find any contributions to Norman Finkelstein. Am I one your watchlist or something? Obviously we've had a content dispute somewhere. Or have a bias against me on a personal level, which could be argued considering the content on your userpage. I am not avoiding anything here. If you're going to cherry-pick data and use false captioning, you can't seriously accuse me of avoidance. The issue is editors twisting the context of the discussion, clipping diffs (as you did numerous times), or linking dated content disputes to this unrelated incident report. The reality is the evidence you have provided is predicated on commentary from involved users. Clearly you chose suspicious edits not because of their relevance but because they serve an ulterior purpose.

TE is not a policy (and I have not violated it), please explain to what part of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing I violated. All I see is a long, loud, boring talk discussion that has taken the span over several months involving legitimate content disputes (some of which have been revolved). Like I showed above with Sol, most of the debate has been me challenging the edits of others - not the other way around. Some editors are very possessive and have been shown to be very protective of Finkelstein, accusing editors have trying to "smear" him as inferred by RolandR and Wayne. I don't know why you had to "re fracture" your edit when you first came bolting in demanding a topic ban. I have not added a whole lot of content to Finkelstein lately and spent the majority of time on other articles without issue. Meanwhile, Wayne is butting heads again at Hamas claiming mainstream authors are "POV." He had already removed entire pages of cited information. Just look at my three month history. Someone please tell me I am a prime candidate for topic-ban. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, my memory is foggy, and I don't see a content dispute in the link you provided. It looks like I replied to you in two separate discussions, once each, and you didn't reply? Shrug. This noticeboard is on my watchlist. I came here to check on Cptnono's appeal above, which I commented on earlier. You're claiming I have a bias against you at a personal level because of what exactly..? For the record, I have absolutely nothing against Jews, Israelis, or homosexuals (I'm assuming from your user page that you're all three, and I mean absolutely no offense if I'm mistaken). I clipped quotes from editors because this discussion is already getting needlessly long, and many of the lengthy quotes weren't relevant to you or your behavior, but the ones that were were alarming. It certainly sounds to me like you're grasping at straws to avoid addressing the issue.

WP:TE is one type of WP:DE (and vice versa). I didn't "re-fracture" my statement, I refactored it (rewriting something to improve its readability without changing its meaning) because you have several times misinterpreted it as "demanding a topic ban" while I only suggested a topic ban on this specific article (while expressing that I don't oppose stiffer sanctions, if warranted). I believe the commentary from pretty much every editor you were in discussions with in that RfC stands on its own, and don't think there's much point in either of us further wasting each others time in this discussion. The administrators can decide for themselves what actions should be taken. ← George^talk 08:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you had anything against Jews. WP TE is an essay, and your "evidence" does not demonstrate TE editing in a way consistent with WPDE. Or in a way inconsistent with other users in the discussion. The commentary in the original discussion is widely available. So if an admin wants they can browse through and see for themselves. But you went to the effort to select suspicious quotations out of context. If I truly am a criminal here, editors shouldn't have to spend so much time and effort trying paint a picture that does not exist. So again, I'll repeat: I've only made 8 edits to the article in the last month.

No evidence of serious edit-warring (your five examples were less than persuasive), no evidence of personal attacks. The fact is numerous editors violated rules, original research being the most blatant, and yet those editors are portrayed as victims to my "disruptions" by you and Sole. Nevermind that those same editors have been caught red-handed forcing OR, deleting cited material, and attacking other editors and claiming they are promoting a "POV." I showed above one edit Sol failed to represent honestly. It wasn't too difficult, I just read the diff and my response - which he didn't link, but rather summarize with his own interpretation. So George, please tell me why you clipped Gato's edit? An administrator's statement no less. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because most of the quote wasn't about you. Regarding other editors, two wrongs don't make a right. ← George^talk 08:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George you are grasping. This isn't about right and wrong. We're talking about a multi-party content dispute, not some playground teasing. The quotes you listed were snipped, cut, edited, and taken out of context. You went to the effort in taking suspicious quotes without linking their location, and edited full sentences or removed them. I ask again why did you remove Gato's statement? Perhaps because it implicates editor Wayne, which you cite as evidence for disruptive behavior? The burden of proof rests against you here George. The level of analysis here is close to propagandic. Editors are begging for a topic ban and there is very little evidence to support it, considering my rather minute contributions to the article space. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'm so in love with WLRoss (a.k.a. Wayne). That's why I originally cited both you and WLRoss for violating 1RR in this very discussion, before someone noted that the article was lacking the 1RR notice during your edit warring, eh? Continue ignoring other editors, lawyer more, and maybe administrators will buy your story. Thankfully, I have more pressing matters to attend to. ← George^talk 09:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facts wrong again. The 1RR was not put in effect until after the edits were made. December 1st notice, pre-November 30th. The article was also not classified under the strict [Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles I/P general sanctions laws] during the edit-wars at least according to the talk template. So no, I did not violate 1RR. And I demonstrated above how the examples you gave above were hardly reverts in the disruptive sense. No evidence of systematic warring has been provided, and even assuming I violated the 1RR rule that would mean a block at best, not a comprehensive topic ban which is what you lobbied for from the get-go.

And you accusing me of ignoring you? Projection much? You still refuse to respond to my post, why you modified Gato's edit and passed it off as a full def and why you did not provide the locals for your selections. I know why you did, I stated my case above quite clearly. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a small taste of Wikifan's style of cooperation. Now imagine it continuing for 3 months and 20,000 words; that's the Finkelstein talk page, about 50 pages worth of text, single spaced, with one editor against everyone else, engaging in this same pattern of WP:HEAR and non sequitur arguments. Sol (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tijfo098

I think Wikifan12345 should be topic banned from Norman Finkelstein. His POV pushing and WP:OR in that RfC was just ridiculous, and we're talking about a BLP here. Top that with one month worth of WP:IDHT. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether due to ulterior motives or simply due to lack of competence, we should not allow editors who have repeatedly violated WP:BLP to continue unabated. I find it interesting that the cohort who praised SlimVirgin's preening of Horowitz's article of all the (presumably accurate but) silly quotes doesn't say anything here, when the violations here are of WP:V rather than just "merely" of WP:UNDUE. Alternatively, can we have a list of BLPs that are AE-approved mud targets? Tijfo098 (talk) 06:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commend by EdJohnston

Slim Virgin added the 1RR notice to the talk page at 01:15 on 1 December, which is *after* all the above edits by Wikifan and WLRoss. EdJohnston (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by RolandR

I fundamentally disagree with the proposal below by EdJohnston for full protection and a continuation of discussion on the article talk page. It is precisely because this process has failed that Sol has felt obliged to make this submission. The fact is that we have been conducting this discussion on the talk page for several weeks now -- some 20,000 words over the past three months. There is clear consensus between half-a-dozen or more editors -- all of the editors on the page except for one. But Wikifan is stonewalling and filibustering, in an attempt to prevent any outcome other than her/his preferred BLP-violating smears of Finkelstein. To adopt Ed's proposal would merely condemn us to several more weeks of this, with no possibility of a conclusion. The only way this can possibly be resolved is through a topic ban or other sanction against Wikifan, so that other editors can proceed with the article. This submission is not about a content dispute; it is about the disruptive behaviour of Wikifan. In addition to the instances noted above by Sol, Wikifan has repeatedly, and falsely, accused Wayne of "inventing an analogy", despite clear evidence to the contrary. S/he has edit-warred to include demonstrably false assertions about Finkelstein's views, and to remove reliably-sourced facts. S/he has refused to cite sources, stating that "Finkelstein supports Hamas does not need support. It is a true statement." The quantity of disruption, denial of good faith, "I didn't hear that" and outright obstruction from this one editor is unacceptable, That is the problem, not the content. RolandR (talk) 12:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RolandR, do you even know what the dispute is about? If you did you'd know I'm not filibustering anything. The content is still in the article, I haven't removed it. The fact that I disagree with an edit does not mean I should be topic banned. I have good reason to question the contributions of Wayne when he (recognized by an administrator) designed an analogy Finkelstein never made but attributed it to Finkelstein. It took pages of discussion for this to be fleshed out and to this very day you as an editor still defend the edit even though it has been ruled out of the article.

To me, it seems the purpose of this is not to recognize BLP vios but to end this content dispute by removing another editor. I've made a colossal number of 8 contributions to the article in the last month. I request an admin cite an edit that warrants a block, let alone a topic-ban. Disagreements in talk discussions does not mean users get banned. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by PhilKnight

Wikifan12345 has edited on many articles that have been tagged as indicating the entire topic is under 1RR, and in this context, I don't think we should ignore the edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of edit warring? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Mbz1

In his book Alan M. Dershowitz says: "...Nasrallah and his anti-Semitic organization Hezbollah that Norman Finkelstein praised and regretted not having supported more forcefully" There are many more quotes in this book and in other books and articles that show who norman finkelstein really is.Will this be BLP violation to add those quotes to the article? No, it would not be because it is the truth supported by reliable sources. I do not believe Wikifan should be banned at all. And, no, topic bans should not necessarily be escalated. Please seeUser talk:Nableezy topic bans as an example. And, if Wikifan was edit warring, it takes at least two user for this. Even, if he will be topic ban for I/P conflict for 3 or 4 months, it will be a punishment unheard of. --Mbz1 (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this were just about reliably sourced criticism of Finkelstein I wouldn't have brought it up. If you've got a good source and add material properly then all is right in the wiki-world. Sol (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again Wikifan could not possibly edit war with himself/herself, and a long topic ban in the situation is an absolutely unwarranted punitive sanction. Besides you contradict yourself, when you said: "If this were just about reliably sourced criticism of Finkelstein I wouldn't have brought it up". You have started that discussion on BLP notice board , and it where it should have stayed. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They told me to bring it here. So I did. I'm not sure how having a BLP notice means I'm contradicting myself but if you inspect the diffs you will find that this is not a problem arising from reliably sourced criticism but from false portrayals of sources and general tendentiousness. A long topic ban may strike you as punitive, but I think that's the point; it's not getting better. Sol (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)No, there is no contradiction here. If there was only a content dispute, this could be resolved on the article talk page. But it is clear, after three months and 20,000 words, that it cannot be resolved there. And the reason is that, although most editors (eight, I think, though there may be more) agree on how to proceed, just one (Wikifan) is filibustering and edit-warring to prevent this agreement from being put into effect. It is indeed possible for just one editor to be edit-warring, which is why most such blocks are for just the culpable editor, and not those they have been disrupting. RolandR (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roland, I am the one who was attempting to honor the RFC that you and everyone else endorsed. Here is you removing the RFC consensus edit: evidence. Sole and Wayne did the same thing. All three of you are complicit in violating the RFC and yet here I am being accused of preventing the agreement from being implemented. Do you disagree? This is the biggest issue going on and I hope an admin recognizes this. The topic has become too Wikifan-centric and the actions of others are being totally ignored if not outright victimized.

Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link it. Right now. Link where I remove an RFC edit. You can't. But you don't let the facts stop you. Hence why we are here. If you want to bring up an AE against other editors, go for it. I haven't accused you of impeding the RFC; throughout this entire process you have yet to present any substantive defense against the allegations. If you don't understand what's wrong here or even what you're accused of then a temp ban is just delaying the problems for a few months. Sol (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@roland Why are you so loud? Isn't this because you yourself are edit warring on the very same article? And it is really a strange approach, I mean yours "If there was only a content dispute, this could be resolved on the article talk page. But it is clear, after three months and 20,000 words, that it cannot be resolved there." So, in your opinion, if a content dispute cannot be resolved the best way to proceed is to punish an editor, who disagrees with you? It is the same approach that was used in communist ruled Soviet Union, the very same communists you are so fond of.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to accuse me of edit-warring, that was a very odd edit to choose. It was quite obviously removal of spam links, to a site selling a book I like and have myself cited. The edit had absolutely no political implications or effect. Is that really the worst edit of mine you can find? Talk of scraping the barrel...RolandR (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now I tried to add two different sourced informations to the article. It was removed 2 times by pro-Arab users, who will stand for their man no matter what: here by Nableezy and and here by NSH001, the very same NSH001, who did not hesitate comparing Israelis to nazis, which according to European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights expressed in its working definition for antisemitism "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis" is considered to be an antisemitism. And you are telling me that consensus could have been reached on that article with such an approach? No, and there's nothing to punish Wikifan for.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Working Definitions document says: Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include: ... Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy with that of the Nazis. The document says could include, not does include and therefore it is a misrepresentation to claim that it says: "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis" is considered to be an antisemitism. ← ZScarpia 17:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mbz, you aren't doing your case any good by accusing someone of "antisemitism" who is basically sympathetic to Jews, and very, very strongly opposed to actual, real antisemitism. That is an outrageous, malicious and dishonest lie about me, and I ask you to withdraw it. --NSH001 (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Her diff speaks louder than your denial. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. NSH, while it is certainly possible for you and others to make an analogy that is seen as antisemitic without actually being antisemitic yourself, you can hardly be surprised if people are not entirely charitable about your POV. This is a content dispute which means, like all IP content disputes, this board is the awesomest place to have the debate. IronDuke 01:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mbz, NSH, No More, and IronDuke, you seem to be displaying a great deal of animosity towards each other and it appears to be impeding effective collaboration and compromise between you all in the Finkelstein article. Would you agree that this is the case? Cla68 (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68, your question was not phrased properly. It should have been asked like this:"Mbz, No More, and IronDuke you seem to be displaying a great deal of animosity towards NSH while NSH seem to be displaying a great deal of animosity towards you..." Anyway to respond your question. I personally have no interest in touching that article at all, and I will not any more. I mean, when I am reading something like that: "Articulating the key Holocaust dogmas, much of the literature on Hitler's Final solution is worthless as scholarship. Indeed, the field of Holocaust studies is replete with nonsense, if not sheer fraud." "The Holocaust Industry" p. 55 or ‘If everyone who claims to be a survivor actually is one,’ my mother used to exclaim, ‘who did Hitler kill then?’”“The Holocaust Industry,” p. 81. it literally makes me sick to my stomach, and I literally feel a strong urge to take a good shower. You see, Cla68, I used to live 20 minutes bus ride from w:Babi Yar, I also visited w:Auschwitz concentration camp, and I have heard many stories about the Holocaust, the real stories of the real people. So there's nothing for me to compromise about on that article. As I said I will never touch it again.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68, I have never edited that article, so my answer would have to be no. That said, I hope I never have to edit an article with NSH as I find his views quite disgusting and symptomatic of a problem Jews editing wikipedia have to deal with. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't editors supposed to respond in there own category? this is becoming extremely difficult to navigate through and for an administrator to review. I prefer this dispute not be spill over into a general I/P war. The focus should be on Norman Finkelstein. I would of course agree that a topic ban for a content dispute would be a major precedent considering this is a shared issue. Wayne has a long history of edit-warring at Hamas and Norman Finkelstein while I've largely relied on talk to explain my edits. The real issue is when uninvolved editors, say like RolandR restore his edits every time. I'd say it is still edit-warring even though users take turns. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right, there was edit warring, wasn't there? Except Wikifan had nothing to do with that. user:NSH001 and user:Nableezy were edit warring.Are you going to ban them too?--Mbz1 (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Comment moved from result section. PhilKnight (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mbz, please stop lying about me. I wasn't edit-warring, since I have only made ONE edit to this article in many months (except possibly vandalism reverts). Good night. --NSH001 (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NSH001, I am proud to inform you that I never lie. As you probably have seen the article was protected, and why it was protected, NSH001? It was protected because of edit warring, NSH001. And who was edit warring on the article, NSH001? You were, NSH001. Now, I have never accused you in being an antisemitic. I only provided the links to your rant and to the working definition for antisemitism by European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. Please do be reasonable, will you? I have no authority to withdraw anything adopted by European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. On the other hand I'd like to remind you please about this thread from your talk page concerning the difference of yours I linked to above.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mbz, one single edit to remove a BLP violation is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "edit warring". (I see that, overnight, Nableezy has, on the Finkelstein talk page, saved me the trouble of explaining why it is a BLP vio - thanks, Nab.) And you have no need to remind me of that bizarre piss take (about the most charitable description I can find) on my talk page, since, in disgust, I took a few months off editing. No drama, no fuss, just a silent protest, in the Quaker fashion, against outrageous lying and intimidation. --NSH001 (talk) 12:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be more precise, you said you were busy and it would take you time to respond, and then disappeared, probably to avoid having to explain your deliberately hurtful comments. I doubt that's "the Quaker fashion". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NMMNG, well I was busy, and by the time I was able to formulate a proper, full, response, it was stale. There was nothing "deliberately hurtful" about my comments, since they were just an incomplete factual summary of the sufferings and humiliation of the Palestinian people, some of which are reminiscent of some of the sufferings Jews themselves have experienced throughout history. They were expressed in such a way as to make the point that Latuff can legitimately draw such cartoons without being antisemitic. I'm sorry if that offends you, but that remains my opinion. --NSH001 (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sufferings and humiliation of the Palestinians are reminiscent of some of the sufferings of many other peoples throughout history. To compare it to the Nazis who tried to kill partically every Jew they could get their hands on and largely succeeded in this endavor, is highly offensive, particualrly to Jews. I'm sure you know this. It's the reason you chose this comparison rather than comparing it to, say, the suffering of the Jews of Morrocco. You chose your words to be hurtful and you do so deliberatly.

You are of course entitled to your opinion. But don't act all surprised and offended when you chose to state your opinion on a talk page and people call you out on it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mbz1, I would like to simply echo what Sol said. There is a big difference between adding reliably-sourced criticism to a BLP, and manipulating quotes from the subject. The latter is irresponsible editing and a conflict with Wikipedia:ASF#ASF, by making the views of critics into an official Wikipedia POV. Delia Peabody (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Polargeo

T Canens idea of an 8 month ban seems to me to be reading the consensus wrongly. There is no general consensus amongst uninvolved users (even admins) for a ban of this length. Polargeo (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who were the uninvolved users ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the result section just below, Few uninvolved admins commented, and nobody,T Canens suggested 8 months topic ban!--Mbz1 (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am an uninvolved user. Uninvolved admins are in the section below as Mbz highlights. Presently there is insufficient support for T Canens preferred action. There is far more support for a three month topic ban with the possibility of extension if justified. Polargeo (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AE does not operate on consensus. "Any uninvolved administrator" can impose sanctions on "his or her own discretion" (emphasis mine), not "any consensus of uninvolved administrators". If there needs to be consensus for every action, there would be no need for discretionary sanctions at all, since community consensus can impose any sanction necessary. Besides, EdJohnston, PhilKnight, and myself supported 8 months, and Slp1 thinks 3 months is too short. MastCell and KillerChihuahua supported 3 months, and HJ Mitchell thinks there should be an indef ban on I/P BLPs and has no opinion on a broader ban. Looks like enough support for 8 months for me. T. Canens (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Not so. Look at the posts again, and note that EdJohnston, PhilKnight, T Canens and myself all thought it should be longer than 3 months, and the first 3 all agreed with the proposal for an 8 month topic ban from I/P article. And for what it is worth, so do I. --Slp1 (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Wikifan12345

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

I suggest that this be closed with full protection of the Norman Finkelstein article for a suitable period, like one month. The participants are doing a semi-decent job on the talk page of working out the issues, and they've opened a BLPN discussion which is still running. The problem I see is that they aren't listening to each other very well and so you see constant misunderstanding of the other parties' positions. Reverting-while-discussing doesn't work very well either. Full protection would still allow consensus changes to be made via {{editprotect}}, so this should enforce a better quality of discussion. The protection can be lifted as soon as the issues are sorted out. Editors are cautioned to supply diffs if they think someone else has made a statement they consider false, since personal accusations on the talk page could be viewed dimly here. EdJohnston (talk) 05:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A more detailed check of the recent edits at Norman Finkelstein does not increase my sympathy with Wikifan12345's behavior. It does appear to me that Wikifan12345 continues to restore his preferred versions to the article when it should be 100% clear to him that his changes don't have consensus. That goes well beyond WP:BRD. I invite other admins to comment on whether a 3-month topic ban if Wikifan from the Finkelstein article is the best course. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a 3 month topic ban sounds about right. PhilKnight (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I review Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs), I see someone who has racked up 4 previous blocks for edit-warring (along with several for personal attacks); who is edit-warring right now; who is wikilawyering over the definition of a "revert"; whose editing often seems agenda-driven and involves selective use of sources; who is currently editing a BLP in a slipshod manner; and whose behavioral patterns were troublesome enough to warrant a prior 4-month topic ban in this area. During the topic ban, it seemed that this editor had little or no interest in other areas of the project outside of this specific political controversy. This seems like the kind of editing that the discretionary sanctions were designed to deal with. So yes, a 3-month topic ban would be reasonable from my perspective. MastCell ^Talk 17:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Aren't topic bans supposed to escalate? If so, I don't think 3 months on Finkelstein only is long or broad enough, given the history. In 2009 Wikifan12345 was banned for approx 4.5 month topic area from the entire I/P area for similar problems.[201]. He has also received shorter topic bans from other articles. I take very seriously the misrepresentation of sources in a BLP article, and that his mentor has given up the job because of ongoing behavioural problems[202]. There does not appear to be a steep enough learning curve here.--Slp1 (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the four-month 2009 topic ban from I/P should be seriously considered as part of the background. Doubling that should be considered, since there is no evidence of reform. How about a eight-month topic ban from the I/P area for Wikifan. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I have no problem with a longer ban. Obviously, if after 3 months Wikifan12345 can show a track record of responsible editing, then we could review the situation. PhilKnight (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally prefer a year, but 8 months is fine. T. Canens (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would support an indefinite ban on editing BLPs in the I/P topic area. I've no strong opinion on non-biographical articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to continued warring, I've fully protected the Norman Finkelstein article for 3 days. Whoever closes this request might lift the protection. EdJohnston (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A three month ban is surely sufficient, at least for three months. If not, we can extend the ban or revisit the situation and consider other options. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is time to close this. It is my view that a long topic ban is needed to prevent further disruption to this already fragile editing environment. If good work in other areas can be demonstrated, we can always lift the ban early on appeal, but given the history here, the ban should stay until shown to be no longer needed. Accordingly, under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) is banned from all articles, discussions, and other content within the area of conflict, as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict, for eight months. This sanction may be appealed as provided in WP:ARBPIA#Appeal of discretionary sanctions. T. Canens (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2010 (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.

Nableezy

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

Request concerning Nableezy

User requesting enforcement: Jiujitsuguy

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

The 1948 Palestinian exodus is currently under a 1r restriction per recent enforcement action and warning of same is amply noted on the article[203]. Nableezy, an experienced editor whose rap sheet on Wikipedia evidences recidivist tendencies has now violated the 1r restriction by making two reverts in rapid succession, reverting myself as well as another editor.

Alternatively, he engaged in WP:GAMING by using his reverts in a tactical manner to circumvent the spirit of the 1rr.

I am amending this claim again to add a charge that Nableezy has engaged in additional Uncivil conduct by referring to my goodfaith edit (reasons for which I articulated at Talk) as a "Bullshit edit," in his comments below. It seems that he can not utter a retort without spewing vulgarities about edits effectuated by others.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now, adding insult to injury, he belittles my "newly found sensitivites"[204]

I needn't remind any admin reviewing this case that Nableezy has a history of engaging in uncivil conduct. Indeed, he had been recently blocked for this and is currently under an interaction ban with 3 editors due to incivility. It is ineresting that he couldn't even contain himself during this AE when he is under admin scrutiny

[205] @ 17:44 Dec 2

[206] @ 18:49 Dec 2

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

Additional comments by user bringing request

Though the reverts relate to two different edits they are both within the same article and are still deemed reverts per Philknight[207] and an experienced editor like Nableezy should know better. He will undoubtedly claim ignorance and engage in extensive wikilawyering as he always does but I’m sure that those entrusted with upholding and dispensing equal justice will see through his shenanigans once and for all. It appears that Nableezy has withstood many AE’s brought against him while others in the topic area who do not share his view have been subjected to overly harsh topic bans. I hope that in light of Nableezy’s prior record, a sanction, consistent with those recently issued against Shuki and Wikifan (whose records are far better) is issued.

It has been brought to my attention that Nableezy reverted User: Hmbr and after I made an edit, he undid his revert of Hmbr so that he could "save" his 1rr for me and accordingly, reverted me. If ever there was an example of gaming, it's this and it is contrary to the spirit of 1rr. Nableezy is a sophisticated user, well-versed in the intricacies of Wikipedia's rules and regulations and so his actions here should be viewed with some suspicion.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

[208]

Statement by Nableezy

I self-reverted one revert, so I have made exactly one revert on this article, part of which was rewording the line to appease those editors who had a problem with saying something has been widely called ethnic cleansing when the source says Abu Sitta is a leading expert on the nakbah and what is nowadays widely described as the "ethnic cleansing" it involved. I also added sources for the statement among which was a leading historian saying that what took place was ethnic cleansing. So in sum, I made exactly 1 revert, rewording the sentence to comply with the objections posted by others on the talk page, expanding on the material in the body to comply with other objections posted on the talk page, and Jiujitsuguy defines that as "gaming". Lets take a look at this charge, because it is an interesting one.

Jiujitsuguy has since Nov 29th made all of three edits to the article along with 2 edits to the article talk page. Those three edits, one on the 29th, one yesterday, and one today, were all removing this line. Those edits are all the edits he has ever made to this article. The two edits he has made to the talk page are as follows: yesterday he says he doesnt understand why the term "ethnic cleansing" is placed in quotes in the sources, and uses that absurd reason to remove the line. Today, he again asks this question and again removes the line from the article. Prior to him repeating the question, an answer was given and additional sources were provided for the statement. Yet Jiujitsuguy plays WP:IDHT and repeats the same silly question as though it absolves him of providing a real reason for removing the content.

There are users here that are simply playing a game, using whatever thread they can pull from a policy, guideline, or essay they think supports their immediate goal of removing content that makes a certain place look less than perfect. They do this while knowingly and purposely ignoring NPOV, and they do it spectacularly well. The arguments so far advanced for completely removing this sentence was that contained a "word to avoid" or that it was not expanded upon in the body. Instead of changing a single word or adding material to the body, multiple editors remove the sentence under the guise of following this style guideline or that essay.

Yes, I self-reverted a different edit so that I could use the revert here. That is not gaming, that is the opposite of gaming. I dont intend on waiting for 24 hours so that I am allowed to revert an <redacted> edit made without even a wave at Wikipedia policy, I dont intend to play that game. Ask Jiujitsuguy to explain how either of the two edits he made to the talk page justifies the 3 reverts he has made, 2 of them within 28 hours. As of this point, I have made a single revert on that page. I dont intend to make any more, and each of the editors here who oppose the edit has yet to see fit to respond to my replies on the talk page, which as of right now nobody has responded to in the past 3 hours. Yet they somehow are able to spend time here making several comments. I wonder why that is. nableezy - 21:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I say that above having already read Mkativerata's comments. I respectfully disagree. nableezy - 21:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To accommodate Jiujitsuguy's newly found sensitivities, I've redacted a single word in my initial response. nableezy - 22:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Nableezy

Comment by (involved) Mkativerata

Didn't nableezy very quickly self-revert one of the reverts? This self-revert reverted this revert --Mkativerata (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He undid the self-revert for reasons best known to him. Look at the revision history. There is a clear violation--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he reverted himself why are we here? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, and perhaps I'm making your case for you, is the suggestion that nableezy, after seeing your revert, self-reverted his earlier revert of a less controversial edit, so that he would able to revert your more controversial edit withing 1RR? In other words, there's no 1RR violation, but the case could be framed as an charge of gaming 1RR (which I have no views on yet as nableezy hasn't commented). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears so. He's using his reverts in a tactical manner. He first reverted Hmbr and when he saw my edit, he viewed that as the greater of two evils so he undid his last revert so he could revert me. It's quite devious behavior and in my opinion wholly contrary to the spirit of the 1RR--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make it clear because the request as filed focuses on a 1RR violation, which I don't think is the issue:

[209] 04:44 (my time): Nableezy reverts the removal of a category by User:Hmbr.
[210] 05:17: Jiujitsuguy reverts the addition of material he/she finds contentious.
[211] 05:43: Nableezy has a sudden change of heart about the category and self-reverts his/her earlier revert with no reason given in an edit summary.
[212] 05:49: Nableezy reverts Jiujitsuguy presumably believing his earlier self-revert allowed for it under 1RR.

The issue seems to be whether Nableezy was gaming 1RR. But of course there could be a good explanation - it seems to me that Jiujitsuguy's edit removed the basis for Nableezy's revert (removing the material in the article that supported the category). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@George: I take your point and it is difficult to read too much into it before Nableezy responds. But prima facie, I would think that self-reverting oneself to use a revert in a "more deserving" circumstance (a) would be gaming; and (b) treating 1RR as an entitlement to one revert, promoting a battleground mentality. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could equally plausibly be argued that Jujitsuguy waited to make his contentious edit (for the third time in four days) until after Nableezy had made a revert, in order to prevent him from reverting this. This unfounded allegation would have as much validity as Jjg'sown speculations about Nableezy's motives. RolandR (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@George and RolandR: I am very mindful of this. Hence my comment above that the two reverts actually seem related. Nableezy justified the category restoration on the basis of sourced material in the article. Jiujitsuguy then, it seems, removed that sourced material. There may have been a high degree of opportunism there. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy restored the material that justifies the category with his v2 revert, so that excuse doesn't seem to work. It's pretty obvious he undid one revert so he could do another. Now the only remaining question is whether that's legitimate or not. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that there could be an element of fault lying with the filer of this request, for deliberately pulling the rug out from under Nableezy's first revert while Nableezy was barred from responding because of 1RR. Obviously I have the requisite degree of cynicism to start actively editing in this area. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously that is mere speculation without any evidence supporting it. Nableezy's actions are supported by diffs. Like I said above, the only question is whether what he did is legitimate or not. Admins should keep in mind that their decision here will set a precedent that others will follow. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The filer's actions need to be scrutinised. As I see it J's revert was based on the view that there was "No consensus for contentious, problematic edit" (edit summary). It is disruptive for editors involved in active talk page discussions to, at the same time, be involved in reverting on the article due their self-proclaimed view of where the consensus lies. It's tendentious and to be quite frank I'm seeing prima facie cases for sanctions on both sides of this. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there has been a discussion going for a day or so, with 3 editors wanting to include something and 3 editors objecting, it is not legitimate to think that there is no consensus to include at that point? Consider me enlightened. The way I understood things work here is that if an edit is challenged with legitimate policy based concerns it stays out of the article pending reasonable discussion. This sort of thing happens all the time. I think it's called BRD. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BRD doesn't justify editors involved in the discussion pre-empting the discussion by reverting at the same time based on their self-proclamations of consensus. Especially not in a highly disputed area of conflict like PIA. When a discussion is open, editors should stick to the discussion. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the way I understand it is that the edit stays out of the article pending discussion. The onus is on the editors who want to include material. Someone "pre-empted the discussion" by restoring it after it was objected to and removed the first time. Anyway, I'll wait and see what other admins think. This might be another precedent. It's something that happens very very often. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, it's something that in my view needs to be stopped. In addition to my and Nableezy's concerns is reverting with "per talk" edit summaries, which is classic trench edit warfare.[213] If the reviewing admin would prefer that the issues raised in respect of Jiujitsuguy be handled in a separate AE I would be happy to open one. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mkativerata, Nableezy just took me to AE on a very similar revert issue so he should stop belittling others. He should know that my punishment was supposed to calm things down, but he is apparently still on the warpath. You trying to justify his very poor judgement is unbecoming of an admin like yourself. Why get yourself burnt? Nableezy is claiming that Jiujitsuguy is using whatever thread they can pull from a policy, guideline, or essay they think supports their immediate goal of removing content. I laugh. What did he do to me? On two reverts the book was thrown at me. Nableezy knows the rules better than most of his and should have merely relaxed. Shuki 6 month ban, Wikifan 8 month ban. Who's next? --Shuki (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by George

It appears that Nableezy self-reverted their first revert 6 minutes prior to making the second revert? ← George^talk 20:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He self-reverted and then undid the self-revert. Look at the revision history--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not seeing where he ever undid his self-revert. It looks like he reverted, self reverted, reverted a different edit, then made an unrelated edit. I don't think that counts as violating 1RR. ← George^talk 20:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty clear that Nableezy decided that Jiujitsuguy's edit was more deserving of his revert than was re-adding the Ethnic cleansing category, but I'm not sure if that counts as gaming. That seems like a bit of a stretch, but I'm curious to hear administrator's views on the matter. ← George^talk 20:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkativerata - My concern is that the reverse could become a gaming tactic as well. Wait until an editor reverts a (relatively minor) change by someone else, "spending" their 1RR coin, then follow up with a more controversial edit of your own, knowing that they would be unable to revert you. I'm not saying Jiujitsuguy did that here, but if WP:GAME is interpreted the way you're describing, I'm concerned that we might see more of that in the future. ← George^talk 20:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by ZScarpia

I came to the article through a pending change notification of an edit by NoMoreMrNiceGuy in my watchlist. As the change was clearly not vandalism I permitted it. I thought that the edit was an illegitimate removal of a sourced statement, however, so I re-added text similar to that removed, but slightly lower down in the Lead. My re-wording was an attempt to more closely reflect what the source had said. I think that the article history and the talk page contents will both show that NoMoreMrNiceGuy and Jiujitsuguy both removed a validly sourced statement for illegitimate reasons while baselessly claiming to have consensus. ← ZScarpia 20:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if an admin or two would read the talk page discussion (it's the last section) and let us know what they think of the behavior and adherence to policy of everyone involved. As long as we're here already, let's learn something. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Comment by RolandR

Jujitsuguy's summary of Nableezy's edits is seriously misleading by omitting the intervening self-revert[214] at 18.43. By submitting such a seriously distorted case and omitting evidence apparently fatal to his claim, Jjg is underhandedly gaming the system. This submission should be speedily rejected. RolandR (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended my claim to include a charge of WP:GAMING. I didn't see the intervening revert until it was brought to my attention and that is why I have amended the claim--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Nableezy

I observe that Nableezy cases have appeared here rather frequently, almost as if someone has an objective to create a case for every archive of this page:

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive49#Nableezy - topic banned for 4 months
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive52#nableezy - no action taken, declined to enforce
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive53#Nableezy - no action required
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive59#Nableezy - no action taken, not actionable
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive60#Nableezy - topic banned for 2 months
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive64#Nableezy - no action taken, not actionable
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive66#Nableezy - no action taken, not actionable
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive67#Result_concerning_No_More_Mr_Nice_Guy_and_Jiujitsuguy - not a case about Nableezy, but worth observing that Jujitsuguy indef blocked based on evidence provided by Nableezy. Perhaps there's a grudge here.
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive69#Nableezy - Nableezy warned, no further action
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive72#Nableezy - no action required

Perhaps I missed some. In any case, of all those Nableezy cases above, only a couple resulted in any significant action. The rest are not actionable or no action was required.

This observation leads me to believe that a group of editors have been trying to use this Enforcement page as a tool against Nableezy at any opportunity, where any good-faith action on Nableezy's part that can be interpreted as a violation is reported here as a violation. The impression given by the list above is as if there's some coordinated effort to use this enforcement page as a weapon.

Enough, I say.

At the most, given the statements made by involved editors above, Nableezy should be warned about using self-reverts to make a more desired revert. Whether or not Nableezy believes that is gaming the 1RR restriction, the fact remains that it appears as gaming by others.

I would also warn other editors to refrain from making frivolous accusations on this page. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2010 (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 1,144: / Line 1,144: @@
 ::::Again, the way I understand it is that the edit stays out of the article pending discussion. The onus is on the editors who want to include material. Someone "pre-empted the discussion" by restoring it after it was objected to and removed the first time. Anyway, I'll wait and see what other admins think. This might be another precedent. It's something that happens very very often. [[User:No More Mr Nice Guy|No More Mr Nice Guy]] ([[User talk:No More Mr Nice Guy|talk]]) 22:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 :::::Fair enough, it's something that in my view needs to be stopped. In addition to my and Nableezy's concerns is reverting with "per talk" edit summaries, which is classic trench edit warfare.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1948_Palestinian_exodus&diff=399862950&oldid=399805495] If the reviewing admin would prefer that the issues raised in respect of Jiujitsuguy be handled in a separate AE I would be happy to open one. --[[User:Mkativerata|Mkativerata]] ([[User talk:Mkativerata|talk]]) 22:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
+Mkativerata, Nableezy just took me to AE on a very similar revert issue so he should stop belittling others. He should know that my punishment was supposed to calm things down, but he is apparently still on the warpath. You trying to justify his very poor judgement is unbecoming of an admin like yourself. Why get yourself burnt? Nableezy is claiming that Jiujitsuguy is ''using whatever thread they can pull from a policy, guideline, or essay they think supports their immediate goal of removing content''. I laugh. What did he do to me? On two reverts the book was thrown at me. Nableezy knows the rules better than most of his and should have merely relaxed. Shuki 6 month ban, Wikifan 8 month ban. Who's next? --[[User:Shuki|Shuki]] ([[User talk:Shuki|talk]]) 22:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 ;Comment by George

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