Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:33, 22 May 2011

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Nableezy

Appeal unsuccessful. After more than one week of discussion, it is clear that there is no "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" sufficient to overturn the sanction at issue. T. Canens (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Appealing user: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – nableezy - 20:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC) 20:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: 2 month topic ban

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

Notification of that administrator: [1]

Statement by Nableezy

AGK uses as evidence of me "gaming" my asking for a third opinion at WP:3O about a dispute. He says that because no other users were involved the 3O is a valueless exercise, and at worst an attempt by Nableezy to gain some pretence of validation for his edit. Of course there were only two editors involved, why else would I ask for THIRD opinion. To use my using a proper DR procedure as cause for topic banning me is ludicrous. Next, AGK identified 4 reverts that took place over the course of a week. The first of those "reverts" was not a revert, it was in fact one of my first edits to the article in some time. I challenge AGK to say what edit this "revert" reverted. That leaves 3 reverts over a week. A two month topic ban for making 3 reverts in a week is not justified.

I did exactly what I was supposed to do at Quds Day, instead of continuing to revert, I went through DR. In fact, WP:DR contains the following advice: If you need neutral outside opinions in a dispute involving only two editors, turn to Wikipedia:Third opinion.

At Ramot, yes, perhaps I made more reverts than I should have. However, the other user, Agada Urbanit, was completely ignoring the sources and misrepresenting the one that he had. When it was shown that the source he was claiming supported his view (the Israeli NGO B'tselem) actually explicitly contradicted his view he simply reverted again under the guise of there being "no consensus". I admit, I have little patience for such bad faith filibustering tactics. But since that time, and before this sanction, I have opened an RFC on the issue. AGK has completely ignored the bad faith actions by the filer of the above request for enforcement and has sanctioned me on the basis of me properly following DR on Quds Day and making 3 reverts over a week on Ramot.

It is true, I have been sanctioned a number of times under ARBPIA. I have only appealed once, the one time that I felt that the decision was completely unwarranted. I feel that this decision is likewise completely without merit and request that it be lifted. nableezy - 21:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two serious arrays of reversions???? On Quds Day I made 2 reverts, requested a third opinion and waited. When that 3O came back supporting my position I made one more revert. That is it. The end. When that edit was re-reverted (by the same user who had reverted the other 2) I made no further reverts. In fact, the editor who gave the 3O made the revert. On Ramot I made 3 reverts over the course of a week. You call that a "serious array of reverts"? Come off it. Forgive my use of the word "gaming", but I dont know how else to take "at worst an attempt by Nableezy to gain some pretence of validation of his edit". Sorry if I have little faith in your "stated intention to evaluate the conduct of the other editors", given our history I dont have all that much confidence in your judgment. nableezy - 23:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, I would like you to clarify your statement. You say the original report shows enough reverts by me to show I was placing back my preferred position. Are you referencing Quds Day or Ramot, or both? On Ramot, 3 reverts over a week while multiple sources were provided backing my position and the other reverting editor providing none supporting his is enough to show that there was both "no consensus" and that I was simply putting back my preferred position? How are you defining "consensus"? nableezy - 20:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Ncmvocalist. Yes, opening an RFC is what I should have done from the start. The reason I did not is because this is a manufactured dispute that should not need an RFC, anybody who looks at the sources should be able to come to that same conclusion. When users refuse to provide sources backing their position, or when the sources they do provide are shown to not back their position, I dont consider their objections as having any merit. Everything that happened at Ramot was predicated on filibustering, or, as George put it, bureaucratic bullshit. I dont deal well with bullshit. My offer to AGK to abide by a 1RR/week was not meant to say that I am entitled to revert once a week, but rather to make it so I have to open RFC and other such processes to deal with such nonsense instead of reverting. Ill go through these processes if it is necessary, but yall should understand that what happened at Ramot was caused by inane arguments by those insisting on ignoring the sources with the sole purpose of impeding me at that article. The same user has done this at a number of other articles, always reverting because of "no consensus" where he takes "consensus" to mean that if says "no" there is "no consensus". nableezy - 13:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly going one way, so there is little need to continue. But I would like to make clear a few points. I am given a two month topic ban for 3 reverts in a week on one article. The reverts at Quds Day cannot be used as justification for this ban, I did exactly what WP:DR says to do. If I am to be sanctioned for that then there is no point to any of this; all that is left is 3 reverts over one week at Ramot. Im cool with two months off, but know I that I will use this as the baseline for future AE reports. An editor makes that many reverts in a week and they should be subject to similar sanctions. Yall make the rules, thats fine. But be prepared to enforce those rules for everybody. Starting with the users who were also reverting at Ramot and Quds Day. I say AGK, hows that review going anyway? Feel free to close this out, aint much of a point in keeping it going. nableezy - 19:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono has repeatedly made false and disparaging comments about me, and has repeatedly made accusations without diffs, and on an administrative board no less. I am fed up with reading that bullshit without responding, could an admin please inform this "editor" that such behavior is not acceptable? Unless of course you all would like to see how I respond to some fool saying I "breed cancer". nableezy - 13:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AGK

I did not say that Nableezy "gamed" the 3O; I said that that could be a motive for his continued reversion with that flimsy thinking. Nableezy says nothing of his two serious arrays of reversions, which is telling of the baseless nature of this appeal. Nableezy also cites the "the other party did as much wrong as me" argument, which first does not mitigate his own conduct, and second ignores my stated intention to evaluate the conduct of the other editors within the next few days. These sanctions are as warranted as the previous ones on Nableezy were. AGK [•] 22:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments from the editors in the below section. Who among you are involved in this topic area? Uninvolved editors usually do not object to an administrator's action so profusely, especially where the action has a clear and reasonable rationale. AGK [•] 08:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George: Thanks for your comment. I've only just read it, so I'll need a while to think about it, but I am still unconvinced that Nableezy was pursuing appropriate dispute-resolution, or otherwise attempting to actually gain consensus for the inclusion of the East Jerusalem thing. Even in light of his 3O and RFC, the five reversions are still extremely excessive—especially when balanced with the fact that his edits were continuing to be disputed. Behaviour of this nature is part of the reason why the I/P topic area is such a mess. AGK [•] 11:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by George

Not sure if I'm considered involved. I was part of some of the discussions on the Ramot article talk page with Nableezy and AgandaUrbanit, and also edited that article.

I haven't read the entire conversation above, and just noticed that Nableezy was topic banned for two months. I can't comment on the Quds Day article, as I haven't checked the diffs and wasn't involved in that discussion, but I have been witness to the Ramot article discussions and reverts.

The first point I'd like to address is AgandaUrbanit's contention that Nableezy made a bold edit, inserting "East Jerusalem" into the article on April 30, 2011, which was then reverted. This isn't completely true. Here is a version of the same article from two years to the day earlier, which states:

"Because of its location east of the Green Line it is considered to be an illegal settlement by the International Community, though Israel disputes this and the United States also traditionally refrains from characterizing Israeli localities in East Jerusalem as settlements."

Here's the version of the same article from three years to the day earlier:

"Because it was built on land annexed by the Jerusalem municipality from the West Bank after the Six-Day War it is often considered an Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem."

So the concept that this is some new, bold change Nableezy had reverted is somewhat flawed.

Now, let's consider who reverted Nableezy first. The editor in question is named Editorprop. They have made 142 total edits, 66.2% of which were to this very article.[2] They are the very definition of a single-purpose account in my book, and I largely question their neutrality.

Who subsequently reverted Nableezy? AgandaUrbanit. His reason? "No consensous for this edit, please discuss on talk page."[3] Nableezy's response? To try an alternative. The result? That too got reverted, and there was indeed lots of discussion on the talk page, which led to an ongoing RfC.

But let's take a step back for a moment. What's really going on here, and who's to blame? Nableezy makes an edit, and a relatively new editor, Editorprop, reverts it. Nableezy reverts them, and Aganda reverts Nableezy, citing no consensus. In my opinion, there are a few problems with this series of events:

Editorprop is a single-purpose account, whose initial revert was based on pretty poor reasoning. The article has said Ramot is in "East Jerusalem" for years.
AgandaUrbanit hasn't read or doesn't agree with Wikipedia:DRNC, and was filibustering Nableezy using bureaucratic process and "no consensus" reverts as an excuse. There was a certain amount of WP:TAGTEAMing here as well.
Nableezy took the bait, and got involved in a slow motion edit war.

If action was deemed necessary, I would have expected to see all three editors given similar punishments (and, to be clear, it would be a punishment - I don't view this sanction as preventative). And that punishment should have been far less severe than this sanction. But what action should have been taken here? None. There was a lot of good discussion going on with all three editors, and Nableezy opened an RfC on the issue (which is 5 to 1 in his favor at the moment). It would have eventually worked itself out, and while we might have been going in circles for a while, there wasn't any foul, and the conflict didn't appear to be escalating. Just my two cents, anyways. ← George^talk 06:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to AGK - A few thoughts regarding Nableezy, this situation, and the topic space in general, in reverse order (seems to make sense to me at 5am). First, this topic is highly controversial; we all know that. I've seen some really bad edit wars, and editors - on both sides - rightfully blocked or banned. By my bar, this was a relatively minor edit war, without much real impact. I mean, we're talking about two words, that are already in the same article a sentence later, in an article on a neighborhood in a city. Yes there was too much reverting going on, but I think there was also some progress being made in the background through discussion.

Regarding Nableezy's general behavior, there are a few things I've observed over the years. First, Nableezy makes a lot of enemies, and doesn't care. Some because he tends to get a bit hot under the collar; many are because he's particularly good at sniffing out banned users parading as sock puppets. Having that many enemies has made Nableezy a target for more AE & AN/I requests than probably any other editor on Wikipedia - some warranted, many not. Many are just his ideological enemies throwing a pile of shit at a wall to see what sticks. Once in a while something does, but they often get overturned upon review because of the motivation of the filers. Second, Nableezy sometimes does what he thinks is "right" rather than what he thinks is policy, and Nableezy understands policy well. I think if there were more eyes on these articles, Nableezy would have a much easier time editing in general, because his edits aren't pushing minority views, or out of line with the reliable sources he cites, they're simply contradictory to the ideologies of his enemies. Many of the walls put in front of him are bureaucratic nonsense, forcing him to justify every word of every line of every edit from every source, just to slow him down so that he can't add more information that contradicts the ideologies of his foes.

If you have an active editor who is prone to getting hot under the collar when frustrated, the way to "beat" them is to bury them under a pile of bureaucratic bullshit. Nableezy, who knows policy, knows it's bullshit, and sometimes skirts Wikipedia's policies to combat it, taking the bait. Nableezy's ideological enemies then go running off to the nearest board with their catch. I'm not saying that's what happened here necessarily, but one has to consider the context. Why did AgandaUrbanit revert Nableezy and not Editorprop if they're just going to cite "no consensus"? Why did AgandaUrbanit report Nableezy for edit warring instead of Editorprop? Would any other editor besides Nableezy have been reported at AE for making the exact same edits to that article? I doubt it, but most other editors just give up in the face of a filibuster; Nableezy doesn't. ← George^talk 12:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RolandR

Moved from uninvolved section; see Wikipedia:ARBPIA for involvement in the topic area.

I think this topic ban is scandalous. Nableezy has not acted in any way against either the letter or the spirit of Wikipedia in the edits cited as reason for this sanction. As can be seen in the discussion above, not a single editor proposed or supported a topic ban. Seven editors commented in support of Nableezy, one editor called for an article (not topic) ban for both Nableezy and the complaining editor, and three criticised Nableezy without calling for a topic ban. Even if a sanction was justified (and I don't believe that it is), this two-month topic ban is grossly over the top. It should be overturned without delay. RolandR (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Al Ameer son

Moved from uninvolved section; contributions from May 3 to May 10 (as a sample) indicate he is involved in the topic area.

I cannot agree to the imposition of this topic ban on Nableezy. It should be lifted or at least considerably reduced. For all I know AGK thought deeply about his decision and on the face of it seven reversions in two articles constitutes edit-warring. However, these reversions span eleven days. Also, while it may not have been too wise for Nab to have made the reversions, we should take a minute to look at the content being disputed. Namely, the usage of "East Jerusalem." The argument that Nab has ignored consensus which was brought forth as a reason for his ban is plainly false since the overwhelming international consensus stipulates that Ramot, an Israeli settlement is located in East Jerusalem which is supposed to be the capital of a Palestinian state. Facts on the ground (like Israel annexed the area years after its capture in war and that Israel administers and enforces its laws in the captured area) should be mentioned of course as they are of obvious relevance. However, the article, in line with consensus, must state firstly that Ramot is not merely an Israeli neighborhood in Jerusalem, but an Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem. Quds Day is a bit murkier. Nab's reversions support the notion that Quds Day calls for the "return" of East Jerusalem to the Palestinians. The other editor argues that the Iranian regime doesn't differentiate between east and west Jerusalem while Nab in turn insists that Quds Day isn't solely an Iranian government-sponsored holiday, but one celebrated by many Muslims. I haven't taken the time to go through all the talk page discussions and don't intend to go over them here since my thread is turning out to be a long one. All I'm trying to say is with all of this taken into account (eleven-day span of seven reversions for two articles and the justification of Nab's reversion at Ramot at least), the punishment doesn't fit the crime even with Nab's past history of being topic banned. Something that should also be noted is Nab's efforts at stamping out sock puppetry which he seems to do on a near-weekly basis. This of course doesn't warrant a pass for Nab to edit war which I don't believe he has done anyway. Nab may have committed violations at Quds Day and is guilty of being openly angry which some users could see as being in violation of WP:CIVIL. I hope my fellow admins could take some time to study the circumstances surrounding this A/E thread (I know it's frustrating and I'm the last person to talk since I'm not active in this area) and determine whether or not Nab deserves to be topic banned for two whole months. At the most, I could understand one week, but I suggest scrapping it altogether. Nab should try to cool down whenever he is provoked, be cautious before making any reversions, and if he believes he should revert, but does not want an edit war, he should RfC. As for the other editors who might receive disciplinary actions, I have not taken the time to study what they have or have not violated and will not comment on them at the moment. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero

Disclosure: I have been editing the Middle East section of Wikipedia since 2003 (must be a bit of masochist, eh?). Nableezy wanted to write that Ramot is in East Jerusalem. Where else is it? The fact is that the vast majority of sources agree with Nableezy and hardly any disagree. It isn't a matter of Israeli opinion versus the rest, either, since most Israelis would also agree that Ramot is in East Jerusalem. What is really going on is that some of the Israeli right wing persuasion want to suppress use of the common place names East Jerusalem and West Jerusalem because they might hint to the reader that "Jerusalem, unified forever" is not the whole story. It may well be that Nableezy could have handled this better than he did, but on the other hand he was trying to write an article conforming to the rules while his opponents were not. I suggest that the penalty be greatly reduced and that his editing opponents receive at least the same. Zero^talk 09:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

AGK, if your decision had a clear and reasonable rationale I don't think you would get an eminently reasonable and sober minded editor like George spending the time to add a detailed analysis which I sincerely hope you read. It accurately describes the state of affairs upon which a clear and reasonable decision could have been made. The validity of an argument or objection isn't a function of the degree to which an editor is involved or uninvolved. Editors aren't allowed to grade the validity and policy consistency of content arguments on talk pages based on the degree of involvement in an issue according to things like nationality/ethnicity/political views etc. They have to address the arguments themselves. Since you have the privilege of being an admin surely that obligation applies to you here even more than non-admins ? I'm involved in the topic area, although not the articles in question, but I can't see any possible justification for a topic ban based on the actual events that transpired. If a few reverts over a week is now the state of edit warring and disruption in the I-P topic area there has been an impressive improvement and people should be being encouraged not punished. People can say whatever they want about Nableezy but as a process he tries to increase the degree of policy compliance in articles by actually making sure that content complies with mandatory policy by using policy based arguments and reliable sources. A topic ban will not result in an improvement of article content. Quite the opposite. We shouldn't be encouraging the manufacturing of controversies via talk page disputes when there isn't really a controversy in reliable-source-world by punishing editors who try to build an encyclopedia based on policy. If Nableezy were editing the same way in the evolution topic area where there is zero-tolerance for POV pushing, fringe views, unreliable sources, non-policy based arguments on talk pages, content edits that don't comply with policy etc, no one would bat an eyelid and he certainly wouldn't be topic banned. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re: Ncmvocalist's comment at 10:57, 12 May 2011. With respect Ncmvocalist, I think you're missing the point a bit. The key point as far as I'm concerned is that an editor shouldn't be put in a position where they have to make a revert over silly things like where Ramot is in the first place and they shouldn't have to post an RFC to ask whether Ramot is partly located inside the spatial object that is referred to by reliable sources as "East Jerusalem". It is, as a simple matter of objective spatial positioning, partly inside East Jerusalem just like the Portland metropolitan area is partly inside Washington state. It's this kind of thing that shows how out of touch with reliable-source-reality things have become in the I-P topic area and how editors are being forced to jump through hoops that shouldn't be there to write articles based on reliable sources according to policy. Not that it will ever happen, but imagine if someone were to change the description of the Portland metropolitan area from "an urban area in the U.S. states of Oregon and Washington" to "an urban area in the U.S. state of Oregon". They would be reverted over and over and over again until they were either persuaded to stop or blocked no matter what they said on the talk page. Too much effort is spent trying to solve "disputes" with editors on talk pages when the dispute doesn't matter and it has no legitimacy from a policy perspective because the sources are clear. Editors need to at least be able to make edits based on policy that improve articles without getting punished for it. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Broccolo

I support the ban. user:Nableezy is violating 1RR on a regular basis. Please see the article List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2011. The user made 3 reverts in less than 5 hours.

Broccolo (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not three reverts. The first is a revert. The second is a edit to new text added another editor. The third is a compromise edit based on the edits made by Rym Torch just prior. Please don't make false accusations. Its this kind of mud throwing that's clouding the issue here. Tiamut^talk 06:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A checkuser/sockpuppetry investigation on Rym Torch is pending by the way. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

..and of course both Rym Torch and Tzu Zha Men were blocked for sockpuppetry. Both accounts were used to file recent AE reports against Nableezy and support edits made by others in the I-P topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tiamut

Nableezy has been given four topic bans by two administrators: AGK and Sandstein. AGK issued his first topic ban ever [7], based on a report filed by a sockpuppet of banned user User:Dajudem (of the CAMERA scandal). He set it for four months and after multiple complaints about it being unwarranted, lowered it to two and blocked Stellarkid (the name of the filer) for two months (before he was ultimately blocked for being a sock). Nableezy was burdened by the sanction which has since been used as a baseline every time he has been brought to this board.

Shortly thereafter, Nableezy was topic banned by Sandstein, who lifted the ban on appeal [8] after numerous complaints about it being unwarranted. Sandstein later topic banned Nableezy for two months based on a report filed by User:Shuki which Sandstein himself described as "largely frivolous", but invoking Nableezy's "problematic record", a sanction was deemed justified nonetheless. [9].

Now we have this topic ban, which is based on 4 reverts made at two articles over the course of a week. Ed Johnston claims this alone is enough for a two month topic ban. Really? From now on, all users who revert 3 times at one article over the course of a week, while engaged extensively in talk, adding sources, moving toward compromise wording, can be sanctioned if reported here from now on? I submit this sanction is overkill, as were Nableezy's previous sanctions. Nableezy has a lot of enemies for being persistent in bringing forth good sources to support his arguments and for hunting down socks. As Stifle once said though, if you throw enough mud it will stick. Tiamut^talk 06:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think that administrators who take action against a user should not be considered "uninvolved" next time around (exceptions for vandals etc). It is unhealthy. Zero^talk 10:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamut: How did you come to conclude that it was my "first topic ban ever"?

Zero: Nonsense. Should arbitrators recuse from cases that re-examine an old case in which they also voted? Should members of the community recuse from voting in a second RFA for a candidate whose previous RFA they also voted in? Would your claim that it is "unhealthy" hold if I had concluded in that first thread and in the most recent AE complaint that Nableezy's conduct was not problematic? AGK [•] 13:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "his" in that sentence referred to Nableezy, not you AGK. Sorry it wasn't clear. Tiamut^talk 14:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally though, since you brought it up, it was the first topic ban you ever issued in the P/I area, and the first day you involved yourself in ajudicating cases in this area. The only other topic bans you issued in P/I cases (besides Stellarkid mentioned above and Nableezy twice now) were on User:Passionless and User:Shrike and those were overturned, with your agreement. Besides a probation and warning issued to User:Cptnono on the same day you rendered your decision against Nableezy the first time, I believe that covers the whole of your involvement in adjudicating cases in this topic area. Tiamut^talk 15:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AgandaUrbanit

Moved from uninvolved section; see Wikipedia:ARBPIA for involvement in the topic area.

Learn to write from Yoda I did. Maybe this time we could legalize unrestricted access for the appealing user to WP:SPI. There is no need to cause a great rejoicing in the sock drawer. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to George by Cptnono

Moved from uninvolved section; see Wikipedia:ARBPIA for involvement in the topic area.
If you are going to move comments: at least do it right. Below is my response to George. BTW, when is someone going to nom him for admins?

It isn't a good thing that Nebleezy spends so much time on socks. Yes it is good that he flushes them out but it is on one side only. He has even admitted that he does it on one side only. If he actually attempted to clean up the topic area overall then it would be a good thing. But instead he spends time here and at SPI in a battlefieldesque effort. How many SPI and AE comments has he had since his return vs actual constructive edits? He is a POV warrior. Being good at using SPI to take down what he sees as an enemy is not a net gain for the project. Cptnono (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy's puppet efforts may be one-sided. But a lot of people think that it is a net gain for Wikipedia to frustrate any potential instance of disruption without regard to intent. Actually that was the theory behind this ban if I'm not mistaken. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if an editor made no content edits at all and did nothing but investigate and report sockpuppets from one side of a conflict or even just the sockpuppets of one person or file AE reports against editors who don't follow policy/the discretionary sanctions (and there are many), it would still be a net benefit to the project. It's not like there is a balance of power that needs to be maintained because it's beneficial. There's simply a set of rules and the question as to whether an editor is complying with them or not. If not, they need to be dealt with within the framework of rules by people who follow the rules not by people who use deception and will do whatever it takes because they think they are right. You need a diff to support a statement like "He has even admitted that he does it on one side only" by the way. The question of "pro-Palestinian" sockpuppets is an intriguing one though. Who and where are they ? Despite being pretty familiar with editors in the topic area I'm not able to recognise "pro-Palestinian" sockpuppetmasters with sufficient confidence and evidence to file an SPI. I think the bar for SPI reporting and blocking is too high. If someone looks like an obvious sock and they are participating in the I-P topic area in a way that brings them into conflict with other editors they should just be blocked to reduce disruption where disruption=unconstructive arguments/edits that cannot be justified by policy because no sources were provided etc etc. Also, I don't buy the "Nableezy is a POV warrior" proselytizing. The evidence doesn't bare it out. In so very many cases, what he is pushing is policy compliance and the notion that people base arguments on policy, a seemingly impossible task here because of the abundant supply of tendentiousness together with sockpuppets to support it. I'm pretty confident that even a very smart bot that could automatically and very rigorously implement content policies in the topic area would be called a POV warrior. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to Cptnono, the animosity and intransigence from the two sides is a serious problem. In fact, it is the essence of the I/P problem in my view; everything else is just a manifestation of it. Ironically, Nableezy is one of the more accommodating I/P editors in my experience. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of two minds on this issue. On the one hand, I actually see sock puppets as worse than POV warriors. An editor willing to use a sock puppet to circumvent a block or a ban is inherently a POV warrior, but a zealous one who also puts their personal ideology above the interests of Wikipedia. Compare that to Nableezy, for instance, who has been blocked or topic banned in the past, but has never (to my knowledge) resorted to crossing that line and creating a sock puppet to keep pushing. While I don't always agree with Nableezy, and I understand why he gets the POV warrior label, I can also respect his willingness to not cross that line. I don't tend to pay much attention to how many SPI or AE cases someone files, but rather how many frivolous cases they file vs. how many cases of merit. I haven't done any analysis of his edits, but I have the feeling that overall Nableezy has a fairly clean record in that area.

On the other hand, Nableezy clearly focuses on one side's viewpoint. Editors (on both sides) who edit from a particular viewpoint often don't do it intentionally, or even realize they do it. They write something they think to be true, and seek out information to back up their position. Editors are rarely active in seeking sources that contradict themselves, but we're all guilty of that at times. I do think that the pro-I side is more organized and uses significantly more sock puppets than the pro-P side, but they're probably also a smaller group in terms of numbers, so I can understand why they feel the need to make up for it. But that doesn't mean that what they do is right or acceptable, and it create an even worse state of mistrust between editors. When you don't know if the editor you're trying to work with has any actual good faith or if they've been banned repeatedly, it makes collaborating constructively exceedingly difficult.

On the whole, the whole I/P topic area is a big game of cat of mouse. If you get rid of the largest cat (Nableezy), you're going to have a mouse problem on your hands. In that way, the status quo balances itself out, in that neither side ever "wins", so neither side ever "loses". I think what we really need is to address the mouse issue first and permanently, and then lay the smack down on any cats that are still chasing things around that aren't mice. You can check out an idea I'm mulling around on how to do that here. We should be trying to rehabilitate sock puppets, not forcing them to go back into hiding under a new account IMO. ← George^talk 03:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The real problem with sockpuppets is that they are uncooperative edit-warriors, just like typical I/P editors. They exacerbate the problems that already exist. Sure they overwhelm edit wars but edit wars shouldn't be happening in the first place. They deny consent on talkpages but how often do you see I/P editors give a fair audience to views from the other side anyway? Both sides basically treat the other as an obstacle to overcome. There's no time to compromise for the Conquerors of Namespace. Look at the Old City example Asad brings up below. The regular editors hardly behaved well. Sure there were socks but it takes two to tango; extra tangoers just complicates the process. It is indeed unjust that banned editors continue to edit so freely but it is hardly the only injustice that occurs here. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. Sock puppets edit war like any other I/P editor, but they do so with impunity. They don't care about the repercussions, because there are none. Sanctions, bans, and blocks don't stick, and their nonexistent reputation means nothing to them. Regular I/P editors, while often disagreeing, can build up a camaraderie with each other, which leads to better discussions and more compromise. Take a look at IronDuke's comments on Nableezy's talk page, for example. There's disagreement, but respect too. Sock puppetry is a cancer; the crack that brings down the wall. If you suspect the person you're dealing might be one of these guys that runs a racist, nationalist, or supremacist website, that has been banned a dozen times before, you have no interest in working with them, let alone compromising with them. Even if the person isn't a sock puppet, the fear that they are creates mistrust, which leads to a breakdown in communication and cooperation. "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." ← George^talk 08:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy's bromance with Iron Duke is touching but hardly representative of I/P relations. Again, that's what makes it so ironic that Nableezy is the I/P editor being topic banned. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"...these guys that runs a racist, nationalist, or supremacist website" are just as bad as Nableezy as far as I see it. Nableezy tries to game Wikipedia like people from one of those sites only he is smart enough to do it almost right. All the pro-Israel editors won't just come out and say it: Nableezy is bad for this project not even considering his POV. Nableezy breeds cancer. He inspires sockpuppets by engaging them with the same (albeit it slightly more policy based) fervor

When Nableezy had the balls to say that he knew someone was a sockpuppet but that he was keeping his mouth shut because he likes him it showed that he was here for one reason and one reason only.

And twice he has descended down into complete garbage when he is hit. He made a legal threat after his first big reprimand just to be blocked. Then this time he called people cunts. I could care less about the language (***t=cunt and you know it) but he should not be pretending to be some nice guy when he is not.

Two months? That is a step down. He was just banned for longer. How many editors come to AE and get less than before? When Nableezy stops edit warring this will be a better topic area.

I do like disagreeing with you George. It will make my support vote of you getting the mop and bucket mean even more if you go for it. And Portland sucks.Cptnono (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right of course. Nableezy is bad for Wikipedia. But the thing is you're bad for Wikipedia too. And so is Tiamut and Agada and pretty much every I/P editor. And I like you and Nab and Tiamut and Agada. That's what's so god-damned frustrating. I think you're all good people and outside of I/P probably all good editors. If I can borrow Steven Weinberg's phrase "there are good and bad editors everywhere; but for good editors to act badly—that takes I/P. I've never heard an I/P editor admit that there is an I/P problem. They just think that there is an I problem or a P problem. You guys all worry about how one side is messing things up for the other side without realizing all y'all are ruining the topic area generally and excluding participation from regular editors. I'm not an I or a P and I find it very difficult to work in the I/P area. It would be nice if I had a team to encourage me on. I see less team unity on Hockey Night in Canada than in the I/P. That's why 1RR never worked. I suggested 1RR when we talked last summer (on your talk) but now I think it was misguided. There are effectively only two I/P editors: I and P. Both are more robust than ARPANET and always manage to survive the loss of a node or two.

I don't know what the answer is. But I think individual bans don't really help the general I/P situation and sometimes make it worse even if they are otherwise justified. That's what I was getting at with my Chinatown message below. Maybe Wikipedians are too young for the reference. And I agree Portland sucks if you mean the one in Oregon. You know it's pretty much one big wasteland between Tsawwassen and Sacramento. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying, and I understand your reasoning, but our disagreement is essentially "Which came first—the chicken or the egg?" Could you link me to where he said he knew about a pro-P sock puppet but wouldn't report it? I sort of remember him saying something like that in a hypothetical sort of way, but if he ever actually did that it would be pretty strong proof of a battleground mentality. I know I've "caught" several pro-I sock puppets, and gotten them banned, but I would have just as readily gone after a pro-P sock puppet if I ever saw any (which I haven't). Doesn't matter too much I guess though, 'cause I'm not really in the sock-hunting business any more. There are two or three editors I strongly suspect of being pro-I socks, but I don't feel like putting hours of research into it, and to some extent I'd rather see them stick around on their current accounts, in a "better the devil you know than the one you don't" sort of way. Oh, and fuck Portland. ← George^talk 18:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No he cant give you a link, because it is a bald faced lie. A malicious untruth made with not even the semblance of an attempt to substantiate it. The discussion he is referencing is here. The issue was a pro-I editor editing with an IP address. I said I knew who the named editor was, but declined to say because of two reasons. The first being that there was no overlap in edits, making the IP not a policy violating sock, and the second was because I sort of liked that user. Not anywhere close to the malicious lie written above that he knew someone was a sockpuppet but that he was keeping his mouth shut because he likes him. Given that a. this was a "pro-I" user, and b. I explicitly said that the IP was not a sockpuppet, it would be impossible for any thinking person to draw the same conclusion that Cptnono draws. I make no comment as to whether Cptnono qualifies as a thinking person. Oh, and Cptnono, "***t" is not "cunt". I would save that word for, well, Ill leave who I would apply that word to untyped. Im sure Cptnonos telepathic gifts will enlighten all of us as to what exactly I mean. nableezy - 19:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Nableezy

"These sanctions are as warranted as the previous ones on Nableezy were." I suppose AGK has reviewed nableezy's entire Wikipedia career and concluded that every action taken against him was warranted. Or maybe the previous ones were as unwarranted as this one is, because it is unwarranted. I certainly do hope you get around to evaluating the edit patterns, as you said you would, AGK, because something stinks here—beside your decision—and you stepped right into it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What of Nableezy's conduct? Your remark only addresses one minor side point of my statement, and says nothing of the actual basis of the sanction. AGK [•] 11:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate Nab admitting that "yes, perhaps I made more reverts than I should have." Admissions save time. Nab pointing to his disagreement with the editor he was reverting does not, of course, excuse Nab's own actions. I appreciate Nab also acknowledging that he has previously been sanctioned a number of times under ARBPIA. The combination of his admission as to the problem with his edits here, and his history of being sanctioned under ARBPIA (which should have informed him of the inappropriateness of flouting wp rules), suggest to me that there is good reason to support the most recent sanction.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, it takes two or more people to edit war, so Nableezy wasn't the only one engaging in it. Being fair, consistent, firm, equal, and strict in enforcing the policies and ArbCom sanctions regarding the I/P topic area is important in letting the participating editors know that the past behavior which caused so many problems will no longer be tolerated. Cla68 (talk) 06:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already indicated my intention to review the conduct of the other editors who were involved in this dispute, but in any case the behaviour of the others does not mitigate Nableezy's own misconduct. AGK [•] 11:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should just hand one of three options to the sanctioned user who has filed this appeal (the last option is more of a "if you're not happy with one of the first two, the second being the obvious default option"), Nableezy can:

temporarily suspend this appeal for no longer than a week (to permit the review of other users behavior to be completed). Under this option, Nableezy can assess whether to continue/withdraw this appeal after the review is completed or 1 week has passed. There may be scope for relaxing the restriction after this time; there might not be; time will tell. If there is not scope, you will still have the ability to appeal back here or to the Committee at another time.
proceed with the appeal right now where the only behavior which will be considered is Nableezy's, as well as remedies relating to that behavior. If the decision is to keep things as they are, then under this option, you will NOT have the ability to appeal this topic ban (except by email to the Committee) unless it is amended again.
move this appeal to the Committee - but bear in mind that under this option, AC will explicitly be given the option to either relax or increase the severity of this restriction, by any duration of time (including indefinitely), if justified in light of your editing record in this topic area.

Nableezy, which of the 3 do you opt for? Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very sensible way of proceeding. AGK [•] 11:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. nableezy - 14:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Nableezy's history of blocks and disputes, I'm surprised he hasn't been indefinitely banned already. OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk) 10:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The optimist in me hopes that these editors will learn their lesson from the continued application of discretionary sanctions, and correct their behaviour. The pessimist in me agrees with your comment. AGK [•] 11:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The optimist in me hopes that twelve-day-old editors editing from Amazon EC2 and who happen to stumble upon AE aren't another of the more nefarious things Nableezy is particularly keen at sniffing out. ← George^talk 12:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would respectfully ask that you to withdraw that accusation George. Nableezy and I were editing and discussion the same article (Lara Logan). I use numerous proxy services to get around internet censorship in my country of residence (Although I've never heard of Amazon EC2 - It must be utilized through one of my third party clients). OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I made an accusation in there, I merely expressed my hopes. If you'd like to discuss the issue further, however, feel free to drop by my talk page. ← George^talk 12:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out: Vandalism by OpinionAreLikeAHoles and anon IP. If I'm not mistaken, the conclusion forming there is that OALAH is socking. Is it any wonder we have troubles in the topic area? Tiamut^talk 17:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The frequency with which this area is coming here is utterly ridiculous. Which part about "this area is under a sanctions regime" do people not understand? We do want editors who care about the project and what it is they are doing, but not to the point that they have lost complete control of how to respond to difficult situations and problematic editors. I see a situation where the Community is soon going to say "enough is enough" (like with the CC topic area) very soon, except that it is relation to how this topic area should treated.
The second most recent remedy which was imposed in response to concerns about Nableezy's conduct in this topic area was a 4 month topic ban for what was in a large part, edit-warring, and this expired on 4 April 2011. At the time, a specific warning was also given in relation to edit-warring and a number of factors were also considered about edit-warring by this participant. A little over a month after this ban expired, we find ourselves here due to a 2 topic ban from the same topic area for what is in large part, slow edit-warring. It appears 1RR is still being treated as an entitlement and the same types of arguments are being expounded each time this is brought here. I don't think thehints are being picked up on and the message has obviously not sunk in even after all of these threads.
In view of all of the circumstances, and the fact we inevitably have yet another trainwreck to deal with in the near future if we do get involved, and Nableezy's decision to proceed with this appeal despite the other options available, I'm not inclined to change anything at this point in time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The AE which led to the sanction appears to have been filed at 18:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC). The RFC was opened at 13:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC). I don't want a message being sent that this area can continue to be subject to an undue amount of administrative investigation each time this chronology repeats itself - purely because editors are not utilizing the mechanisms available to them more appropriately (be it SPI for sock allegations, AE for conduct issues in this area, article RFC etc). Simply agreeing not to revert more than once a week is still not going to address the underlying problem of the revert rules being treated as an entitlement. These and a few other factors led me to change my initial impression (which was similar to Heimstern's view) to the above view. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reason this topic area is under a regime is because the state of this topic area has deemed to be unacceptable on a lot of fronts; that's the point which is being sent here. More than enough months have elapsed for adjustments to your approaches to be made. All of the policies need to be complied with as much as possible and you need to work within those and the confines of any other decisions which are applicable (that includes, for example, "jumping through hoops", doing things effectively, and utilizing the mechanisms available). If you aren't willing to do so, then this topic area is not, at this particular time, the area for you to be contributing in. All of you need to make the effort to move this towards a less problematic area; make the necessary changes to your approaches or take the respective breaks that are necessary. I'm not sure how many other ways I need to put it to impress upon you all to protect the heart of the project AND prevent even the appearances of disruption in this problematic area. If someone is misbehaving in this area, use the mechanisms I referred to above sooner - even if this swallows up a bit more time/effort than any of us would like to spend. Additionally, there is a Committee who you can request clarification from if you are still having trouble dealing with these types of problems or where principles of the project appear to be in conflict as a result of this regime. This may appear very simple on the surface, but you all need to reflect on this for more than just a few minutes or hours in order to move forward even in the options you select. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - A major reason we have such huge problems in this topic area is the proliferation of socks and throwaway accounts. We have users pretending to be new, violating 1RR and even 3RR all over the place while pleading ignorance. They just happen to edit side by side with the same set of established editors of the same POV (I can and will provide names and examples upon request). The socks and throwaway accounts do all the reverting while the established editors on their side do some discussing and throw out the occasional revert of their own. This leaves those of us not socking and editing using sources at a technical disadvantage, open to being sanctioned, often based on reports filed by socks (just like Nableezy's first topic ban which came pursuant to User:Stellarkid's report). This is a huge problem that AE is not dealing with. Instead, AE is being used to punish an editor who has an uncanny ability to detect socks, file reports and get them stopped. We have admins here, in this very section, conversing with socks sympathetically, seemingly missing the forest for the trees. Excuse my frustration, but really, what do you want us to do? Tiamut^talk 17:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - For this appeal, where is the evidence of (1) filing an AE when one of the reverters was misbehaving? (2) filing a SPI on any SSP? (The third question would be using mechanisms instead of reverting, eg; the article RfC but I already made a note on that and that the reverting came before it). For the general problem, which is what your comment seems to tend to, ask AC for clarification on what they want you to do: 'is the regime working the way it is supposed to? How can we make the articles comply with content policies without being sanctioned? How do we address socks, throwaways, and other accounts which may be attempting to evade bans/blocks at the same time (and how many hoops do we need to jump through in order to prevent a cause for being sanctioned)? Is an amendment required? Or should we be following a different procedure? Or do you want us to avoid editing the area altogether?' (Note: you may need to show evidence to support some of the assertions a few of the questions rely on, eg; sock determinations, sanctions, evidence of using all of the best practicse you think of yet something still not working, etc). Where insufficient data has been provided on-wiki, you may also need to forward the evidence to AC and the functionary team. I do at one point hope to have enough confidence and cause for making a recommendation to lift/amend it in a certain way, but that point has certainly not been reached at this time. For now, use the time to review best practice under AC's guidance and presuming it is helpful, think of how all of you will deal with such issues thereafter in accordance with that and policy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I still think the valid points raised throughout the discussion (and through other discussions occurring at some user talks) are going to be lost by not pushing this to ArbCom. I am specifically not suggesting that this be escalated into a new case; the point is to avoid that unless it is absolutely necessary. What I am suggesting is that some clarification could be helpful on the questions I asked above; I don't think I'd gain or lose anything either way, but parties may get a fairer idea of how to go about things and what to expect. At the end of the day though, I'm not going to force them to drink water from the well. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you do in Chinatown? As little as possible. --JGGardiner (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Nableezy

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

I recommend declining this appeal. There are enough reverts documented in the original complaint to show that Nableezy was putting back his preferred version when it was clear there was not yet any consensus for the change. Nableezy was just returning from a previous topic ban. Other editors may have misbehaved as well, but the AE complaint just below this one (opened by AGK) is a place where those issues can be heard. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that I share some of the concerns of those who've objected to this ban. I think it is allowable per policy and was within AGK's discretion, no question, but I'm worried it was still not the best choice to make because, while Nableezy certainly has edit warred, he's also been making clear efforts to comply with BRD. Starting an RFC, as he did, is just the right thing to do, and I'm concerned that this sanction could send the message that trying to resolve disputes through consensus-building is futile. I also do note that Nableezy has been insisting on sources, and my reading suggests those not doing so, by contrast, seem to be using unsourced opinion. All the rv warring by Nableezy was still a bad idea, and particularly given his far from spotless record and the crapfest that I/P is, I see no case for the sanction as invalid. But I do disagree with it and would rather it be lifted. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you say to Ncmvocalist's points in the section immediately above? AGK [•] 10:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it probably doesn't help us that I haven't actually been at AE long and so haven't had to deal with I/P stuff as much the rest of you no doubt have (one of Ncm's principal points seems to be the frequency of these issues coming up, and that's something I've not experienced myself). Maybe I am being too tolerant just because I'm fresher here than everyone else. That's actually very hard for me to gauge. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would never try to give less value to your input as an administrator because you haven't been active here as much as myself or others might be. If anything, I'd give equal or greater value to your input, because you have the benefit of having a completely fresh perspective. But yes, I think it is important to appreciate how problematic this subject area is—even by the standards of AE, which has within its scope as the DS processing page almost all of Wikipedia's most bothersome topics. AGK [•] 14:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not I would have opted for the same sanction is irrelevant. The fact is that AGK's topic ban is within reasonable administrator discretion, and we should not be in the business of micromanaging discretionary sanctions by committee. I agree with EdJohnston that the appeal should be declined. T. Canens (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This appeal should be declined. As T. Canens explains, it was within the bounds of administrative discretion. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The appeal should be allowed. It doesn't matter whether it was "within the bounds of administrative discretion" so much as whether it is in the best interests of the mess that is I/P. We can't manage AE as if socking in this area is under control; it is rampant, and punishing established editors attempting to do the right thing (dispute resolution, relying on sources) is making a bad situation worse, both immediately, and by the message it sends. Personally, I avoid the I/P topic area like the plague, and occasional blunders into always become sharp reminders of why. Anyone who can contribute constructively to this area in the long-term ought not to be banned from it for quite chunky periods for minor offences, leaving the field clearer for sockpuppets. Rd232 ^talk 03:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you propose that we allow an editor to go unsanctioned for his conduct, because he's good at sniffing out sock-puppets? That is a ludicrous suggestion. AGK [•] 12:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Israel/Palestine articles generally

Mibelz

Banned for three months from changing names from one national variant to another, under WP:DIGWUREN. Details within. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Mibelz

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions

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

May 12 - second move revert on the same day, with an incivil edit summary

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

User_talk:Mibelz#Blocked_and_warned - Warned on 22 March 2010 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs)

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

I am not fond of ban/blockhammer use, and whether any blocks are necessary, I leave to the discretion of AE regulars. However, action is needed to stop an editor from move warring and ignoring discussions. Further, Mibelz's incivility is problematic, as such comments directly lead to battleground atmosphere. I'd ask that 1) he is reminded and warned about civility 2) warned that move warring can lead to a block and 3) that the article in question is moved back to the long-established name by a neutral party and move-protected for the next few weeks (with no prejudice to a proper RM being started). PS. I am also open to withdrawing this request if Mibelz apologizes for his incivil comment, and self-revets himself. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On April 18 Mibelz (talk · contribs) moved Rebellion of wójt Albert from its stable location to Rebellion of vogt Albert without a talk comment, and with a rather uninformative editing summary. I reverted him with a more informative edit summary and as I saw no further activity on the article, I thought the matter settled. Today he moved the article again, with a hardly more informative edit summary ([10]). I reverted him (since it was almost a month since the last revert), explained my rationale in detail on talk, and noted that explanation in my edit summary, also asking that any further moves are made through WP:RM. Less than an hour later, he reverted me again, this time with an incivil edit summary ("some Polish nationalists"). Given this unconstructive attitude (lack of discussion, incivil comments, willingness to move war) I am hesitant to revert him again, as I expect he would just revert me back - and a "move war" would hardly help. If it wasn't for the incivility, I'd likely start a 3O/RfC, but with the incivility added into the mix, I am bringing this incident here. PS. Minutes after move, an IP changed all instances of Kraków to the obsolete, old-English redirect Cracow: [11]. In the context of the relatively recent blocks for name-reverting, this is another worrisome sign.

While I realize that AE deals primarily with editor behavior, I'd also appreciate a comment on 1) whether the article can be moved back to the stable name and move protected and 2) whether and when I can move it back so that my action is not seen as "move warring". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Mibelz has not bothered replying here; he has still not bothered commenting on the article's talk page, he has however reverted another editor again, forcing his preferred name spelling (in violation of WP:NCGN: [12]. Note that I have explained this naming issue on talk as well, at the same time I made my original explanation regarding the article's name. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update 2 Mibelz is still refusing to comment on talk, even after Ncmvocalist asked him to. He has, however, made several talk page comments in which he again shows bad faith: [13], [14], [15]. His Kraków example, relevant to him edit warring about the name in the article, is contrary to WP:NCGN (note also that the article itself is at Kraków, Cracow is a redirect, and the name has been discussed on that article's talk, with the consensus still being "keep Kraków"). His latest comment shows part of his POV; but contrary to his statement he has not been reverted yet, because he even added it to the article after making the complain in question (complain, edit)! (Note, also, first, that he does not add information on Polish origin, nor that it is customary for articles to state such origin in the way he is doing it). As such I will not be surprised if he is reverted by another editor. Reviewing his edits, while it seems his contribution to chess/sports articles are usually fine, his recent contributions to historical articles, as demonstrated in this incident, are not very constructive. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Mibelz: yes, you have "argued", in your edit summary to your second revert. You still have not replied to any of the issues raised on article's talk. And if you want to rename Kraków to Cracow, raise it on that article's talk page, although I doubt it will succeed, as this issue has been debated many times, and the consensus is to keep the article at Kraków, which, despite your assertions to the contrary, is widely used in English language. What we are trying to tell you here is that 1) you should use talk pages 2) you should be civil and assume good faith and 3) you should not engage in edit warring, and you should try to discuss issues before reverting more than once (WP:BRD). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[16]

Discussion concerning Mibelz

Statement by Mibelz

Comments by others about the request concerning Mibelz

I agree with EdJohnston; unless it continues, I don't think 1RR is particularly necessary either. A single incident of edit-warring on History of Kiev from a year ago and this recent incident of move-warring on Rebellion of wójt Albert (which has already been dealt with via a 20 hour block by AGK) isn't much to go on.
Piotrus, although I was tempted to move the page back myself, I think you should proceed with the article RFC. The move-warring was strange, and it was fine to bring it here, but things cannot move forward if parties also started avoiding steps purely because of an instance of perceived incivility ("Polish nationalist"). You should ignore it and recognise that the user is obviously having trouble in communicating whatever it is he's trying to say on this matter; if there is no logic in what he was trying to say, there's no harm in getting extra input to be sure. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have left a note on his talk here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the request below demonstrates, Mibelz has already been blocked for 20 hours for page move warring, hence this request would also have to be seen as closed. However, Mibelz, as are all editors, would be now aware that contentious edits within this area are not going to be tolerated. It makes sense to stsart with a short block (which has occurred) and then escalate it if required. Heaven forbid, I've seen editors let off multiple times for incivility in this area as of late, even after persistent warnings, it makes no sense to me to topic ban an editor due to this infraction. But make them aware that is where they are headed if they continue. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 16:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a merit discussion is important, not insinuations - for example: "he again shows bad faith" (Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus), or "you are ridiculous" (81.164.215.61 who renamed of Cracow in the Rebellion of vogt Albert). I have argued that "English name is Cracow, as well as Nuremberg, Munich, Cologne, Prague, Warsaw, etc., not Kraków, Nürnberg, München, Köln, Praha, Warszawa, etc."

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus also wrote: "Reviewing his edits, while it seems his contribution to chess/sports articles are usually fine, his contributions to historical articles, as demonstrated in this incident, are not very constructive." Look at some history articles I expanded considerably (i.e. Galicia (Central-Eastern Europe), Grand Prince of Kiev, List of Ukrainian rulers, List of Polish monarchs, List of Russian rulers, History of the Jews in China, Kaifeng Jews, Shanghai Ghetto, etc.), please.

By the way, I do not intend to write how constructive are Piotrus's articles. -- Mibelz, Ph.D. 18:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Ed, that topic ban needs to be placed both ways, on users who are changing Krakow-->Cracow and on users who are changing Cracow-->Krakow. Especially when those changes are being made under the pretense of "bypassing redirects", which should see [[Cracow]] being changed to [[Kraków|Cracow]] instead of [[Kraków]]. Mibelz is not the only user here who is disregarding these conventions. You should be investigating that. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 16:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia, when did your sanction from the Russavia/Biophys case get revoked? As far as I know you are still "prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with editors from the EEML case, except in the case of necessary dispute resolution." [17]. You were already banned once for breaking this restriction [18] [19]. Yet here you are agitating for topic ban against Piotrus ("topic ban needs to be placed both ways"). Or did I misunderstand that? Since you are not involved in the original disagreement on "Rebellion of (mr.) Albert", this is obviously NOT in any way a "case of necessary dispute resolution".

The sanction in the R/B case against you interacting with people from the EEML case was designed to prevent EXACTLY this kind of battleground behavior. How about you strike your comments and withdraw before more trouble and unnecessary drama ensues?Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Mibelz

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

With the problematic nature of Mibelz's general approach to interaction and with his previous block for edit warring on a Digwuren-related article, I am minded to topic ban him from all such articles for about 3 months. A mentorship might do some good, but we simply do not have the resources for that—and in any case, we cannot permit editors like Mibelz to be active in contested topic areas. AGK [•] 22:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mibelz has been here since 2006 and has 18,000 edits. He has created a lot of articles, many of them on chess players. He also does a lot of work on Eastern European topics. I'd advise against a complete topic ban from Eastern Europe, but a 1RR might be considered. There is a slight language barrier, and in spite of his long record here, he may not know much about WP:Dispute resolution. There is no hint of any ethnic motivation for his recent move warring. Check his move log, which appears unexceptional except for the May 12 fight. EdJohnston (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My efforts to get through to Mibelz have not been successful. I still hope to avoid having him banned from the entire WP:DIGWUREN area, even for three months. Does anyone who commented above want to propose an alternative sanction? Maybe a 1RR/year on moving articles in Eastern Europe? EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A new proposal: Mibelz will be banned for three months from changing any names of people, places or things from one national variant to another. For instance, he may not change wójt to vogt, or Kraków to Cracow. He can propose these changes on the talk page, or at any WikiProject, and leave it for others to handle. This applies both to article moves and to any changes of names in article text. I will close this request soon with the above ban unless there is further discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing with the above ban of Mibelz from changing names from one national variant to another, for a three-month period. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mbz1 topic ban clarification

Create article in user space to be reviewed. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by Mbz1

I'd like to write an article about Israeli medical high pressure bandages please. This article is not falling under my topic ban restrictions as they were specified here There are not going to be any single word about the conflict, and I mean this.User:Gatoclass requested I consult him about my new articles, if I have a doubt about the topic. I have zero doubts, but I did ask Gato, and he eventually agreed that I could write this article without violating my topic ban. I also asked my banning administrator , and he declined my request, but kindly allowed me to ask for a review of my proposal at AE, so here I am.

If I am to write the article, I will write it in my user space and present it for review before it is moved to main space. I will not touch the article and its discussion page after it is moved to the main space. I will not nominate it on DYK, and, if somebody else will I will not comment on the nomination.

IMO it is important for a topicbanned editors to be allowed to write such articles in their user spaces, the articles that are not violating their topic bans at all, but might be seen as borderline. Why it is important? It is important because it teaches an editor to behave in the topic he/she is banned for. It is a very harsh punishment not to be able to edit and/or to comment on your own articles, it is very difficult not to watch what's going on there, but it does teach to be patient and more tolerant to other users opinions.

May I please write this article? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction or remedy that might prevent writing this article

Mbz1 is topic banned from all articles and discussions related to Palestine, Israel or the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, until 7 April, 2012 per this notice by 2over0. EdJohnston (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Mbz1's request

It seems to me your request should be at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. I suggest you move it there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I am not sure about this because I was banned on AE not by ArbCom.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus: He was banned under the discretionary sanctions provision of an arbitration decision, so a clarification of the scope of the topic ban belongs, unless I'm mistaken, here, and not at clarifications. AGK [•] 18:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Ah, I see. In that case, I'd suggest you reformat your request per the guidelines at the top of this page. Admins here, in my experience, pay much attention to such technicalities, and your request may be rejected due to improper formatting. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But there's no template for my situation.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to wonder why we have to keep revisiting mbz's nibbling around the edges of her topic ban. Out of all the permutations of topics within the sum of human knowledge, it should be fairly simple to write about something that has nothing to do with Israel, Palestine, the Middle East, Jews or Arabs. Write an article about arachnids. Submarine warfare in WWII. Buddhism. Water polo. The soon-to-be-crowned American Idol finalist. Anything that gets away from the big I and the big P. Tarc (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- yeah it would be simpler if, instead of annoying us with these requests, mbz1 would just do what User:Nableezy is doing he's subject to the smae topic ban, but he just edits these "borderline" articles anyway - like this one Majida El Roumi (Lebanese singer who sings about Israeli massacres) or this one Lara Logan - TV reporter sexually assalted in Egypt whan a mob suspected she was Israeli. Rym torch (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your attempt to paint those articles as "related to the Arab–Israeli conflict" is pretty lame. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
they are at least as related to the conflict as an article about innovative Israeli bandages or Israeli startups. Rym torch (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info In accordance with this an involved user:tarc opinion should not be taken into account for this discussion. Actually it should not be commenting here at all. I could present lots of links to its attacks on me off wiki.

In general I would like to ask everybody, but uninvolved administrators including of course my banning administrator, to avoid commenting on this thread, if it is possible. It is a simple request, please let not to turn it to another battleground.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion on an editor does not invalidate my position that a topic-banned editor should steer well clear of the topic area; review the tu quoque logical fallacy at your leisure. Everyone is free to offer insight as they see fit. Those that eventually decide these sorts of things can then take into account or discard completely what they see fit, but it isn't your place to censor other editors' contributions. Tarc (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from 2/0: I imposed this topic ban following discussion here, which is why I think that this venue is the appropriate one to request further opinions. I have reviewed the sources for the proposed article, and am of the opinion that it probably veers too close to broadly construed, especially in light of the recent brouhaha at Start-up Nation. On another hand, it looks like it should be perfectly possible to write a complete and informative article on this topic without touching on ARBPIA issues except incidentally. I asked Mbz1 to make a request here to draw out a new consensus whether the proposed article should be covered by their ban. Real life may prevent me from participating much, so please close this discussion under the norms for establishing consensus at this board. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I anticipate that, like Start-up Nation, the first edits to the proposed article will bring it squarely into the Arab–Israeli conflict. ~~For that reason, I recommend against this request.~~ — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Malik, I doubt very much this is going to happen to the requested article. Even very much involved user:Gatoclass blessed me with this article. Besides, if I am to write an article in my user space with no violation of my ban, and will not edit it in the main space, there simply cannot be ban violation.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I saw that in your request. I have mixed feelings about this matter, and I've withdrawn my recommendation.
    The reason I'm convinced this article will become another Arab–Israeli battleground is because I anticipate that the first edits to the article will discuss why Israelis invented the bandages: to treat victims of Palestinian terrorism, or not. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by George

I support this request, provided that Mbz1 abides by the guidelines she herself set out above: she will only edit it in her own userspace, and will not edit it after it is in the mainspace (nor submit it for DYK or the like). The only caveat I would add is to be clear that it should only be only be moved to the mainspace by an administrator. Remember folks, this should be preventative, not punitive, and under those restrictions I see no reason to refuse this request.

If we don't allow banned editors the option of structured contribution (with review) as a way to improve their behavior, we only push them to circumvent policies (like writing the article in notepad anyways, and emailing it to a friend to post). ← George^talk 02:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mbz1 response to HJ.

I want to write this article for two absolutely different reasons:

Israeli emergency bandages are easy to use, could be used by anybody, and sometimes using them could be a matter of life and death for a bleeding person. If after reading the article some wikipedia readers add those bandages to their first aid kit, and a life of even one person would be saved thanks to this, I'd very happy, and no I am not going to write an advertisement article.
My second reason is described in my initial request. Writing such articles in my user space without being able to edit them in the main space is going to help me with editing the topic, when my ban is lifted.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to Ed and Tim, I know it is useless, but...

Ed, this article is not going to be nominated on DYK. The actual wording here, at AE request, covers only conflict, and 2/0 clarified his intentions.
Ed and Tim, so is this OK, if I am to edit-warring in main space in Egypt over the subject of Muslims killing Copts in Alexandria, as another user did over and over again during their topic ban, but it is not OK, if I am to write an article about Israeli medical bandages that are used to safe life in my own user space? Just asking. Anyway... Even, if worse comes to worse, and the article will became I/P related article after it is moved to the main space (not by me, but somebody else) how it is going to affect my ban, if I am not to edit it there?--Mbz1 (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the sources I was going to use

General comments on topic bans

My understanding of the purpose of topic bans is it is imposed to prevent an editor from causing disruptions in the topic. What are disruptions? According to this guideline disruptions are:

vandalism;
gross incivility;
harassment;
spamming;
edit warring

I hope any reasonable person would agree that there is no way to violate any of the above policies while writing a new article in one own user space. I strongly believe that any topic banned editor should be allowed to write a new article in their own user space, move it to the main space in one edit, and never touch it again while under the ban because the purpose of topic ban is preventing an editor from causing disruptions in the topic, and not preventing a constructive contributions to the topic because preventing constructive contributions to the topic is an absolute absurd, and is not good for Wikipedia's image.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mbz1 response to Tim

Tim, thank you for clarification of your position. As I pointed out above there is a discrepancy between the The actual wording here, at AE request and this notice left at my talk page. The first one states that I am "topic banned from all articles and pages covered by WP:ARBPIA ...", The second one states: that I am topic banned "from all articles and discussions related to Palestine, Israel, or the Arab-Israeli conflict". I am not sure if such discrepancies are usual, if it was 2/0 intention, but why we should second guess 2/0 intentions, if HJ asked 2/0 this very question and 2/0 responded "no (the state of Israel yes, but not diamonds just because Israel exports them).--Mbz1 (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Tim.

There is another interesting thing on the matter of my topic ban. Please take a look at the language 2/0 used to close the request: "An argument could be made for dismissing this report with prejudice given the weak and highly inappropriate nature of the filing statement"(highlighted by me). So my banning administrator understood I should not have been banned at all, but banned me because of "consensus". I am far from saying I have done nothing wrong. I did, but I am being greatly over-sanctioned because of what I call "a name recognition" :-) The only thing I am interested in doing in this particular topic is writing new articles. So in an unfortunate case my topic ban cannot be lifted now with no restrictions as it should be lifted IMO, here's my motion to modify its conditions. I hope you find this motion to be fair, and reasonable because the proposed restrictions would completely prevent me from causing any disruptions in the topic and it is a sole purpose of topic ban.

Mbz1 topic-banned indefinitely for all articles and articles discussion pages related to I/P conflict in main space, except the situation described in #4
Mbz1 is topic-banned indefinitely for all deletion requests on I/P conflict related articles.
Mbz1 is topic-banned indefinitely for nominating I/P related articles on DYK and/or taking part in DYK discussions on such articles.
Mbz1 is allowed to write any I/P related article in her own user space, and add it to the main space in a single edit without consulting an administrator. To be eligible to write an I/P related article Mbz1 should write 4 articles that have no relation to I/P conflict for each I/P related article she wants to write.
Mbz1 is banned indefinitely from responding and/or removing any messages added to her talk page in regards to I/P related articles.
Mbz1 has the right to appeal the sanctions in 6 months.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gatoclass

I told Mbz I couldn't see a problem with this topic. The reason I said that is because none of the sources she proposed to use mention the A-I conflict, and, somewhat to my surprise, a quick Google search did not turn up any additional sources on this topic that mention the conflict either. I did however have some concerns about the notability of the topic, which might best be tested by an AFD.

As regards the "Israeli boosterism" issue, I'm not especially concerned about that and it seems to me a stretch to consider articles about Israeli (or Arab/Muslim) achievements to be a violation of an ARBPIA topic ban. However, I am concerned about articles which deal with Arab/Muslim-Jewish relations, because it's been clear for a long time that the Arab-Israeli conflict has spilled over into this area, and I think it would be appropriate for topic banned users to avoid such articles. I also think it's inappropriate for topic banned users to make edits which portray the opposing ethnic group in a negative manner. The longer term solution for these issues might be to file a request for clarification/amendment with arbcom.

Finally, I might add that I think it unhelpful to interpret ARBPIA sanctions as applying solely to article subjects rather than to edits. Lots of articles can be about a subject almost entirely outside the topic area but which touch in some respect on the topic, while at the same time it's possible to make edits which do not actually touch upon the topic to an article which is plainly within the topic area. IMO it's better to focus upon edits rather than article subjects, but certainly, topic banned users should not be authoring articles which cannot be effectively covered without mentioning the topic. I've yet to see any evidence, however, that this particular proposed article falls into that category. Gatoclass (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Observation by Volunteer Marek

I think one particular reason to grant this request is that it can serve as a test case. If indeed Mbz1 can create a good article on the subject while managing to avoid the obvious pitfalls then she will have demonstrated that she is capable of making constructive edits. One of the ongoing themes here has been that Mbz1 does in fact make lots of constructive edits (and images!) but that when she steps into the I-P battle arena, she tends to get into trouble. If she succeeds here she will have demonstrated that it is possible to separate out the controversial from the non-controversial here.

With that in mind, I think HJ Mitchell's suggestion of a resolution (creating the article in namespace, etc.) is a good one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result of Mbz1's request

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

I have two questions. One for 2/0 and/or other admins who were in favour of the topic ban at the previous AE request and one for Mbz.

@2/0: Was it your intention, when implimenting this restriction, to prohibit Mbz from editing any article remotely connected to Israel (not the slighly narrower area of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but those topics concerning Israel which are not related to the dispute)?

@Mbz: Forgive my cynicism, it's not personal, but why do you so badly want to write an article so badly when a coherent argument could be made that it violates the letter of your restrictions? (Whether it violates the spirit of them is what I'm seeking to ascertain from 2/0 or other admins.)

If 2/0's answer is no and Mbz's answer is satisfactory, I don't see a problem, providing one of the admins who comments on this request reads the article before it's moved to mainspace. On a more general note, I think it shows a desire to to adhere to the topic ban that Mbz has requested this clarification rather than risk violating the ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: "no" (the state of Israel yes, but not diamonds just because Israel exports them). Long answer: how broadly is it useful to construe "broadly construed"? I confess that my internal algorithm for predicting what people will consider important is still in the development stages. As always with a topic ban, we have a tension between wanting to foster an environment where people like contributing to the encyclopedia while discouraging edit warring and pointless in-fighting. Is it wise to allow the creation of an article that itself does not have anything to do with ARBPIA, but there is a reasonable fear that it shortly will? - 2/0 (cont.) 04:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will the newly-created article acquire an ARBPIA banner as soon as others start to edit it? Also, if it is submitted for DYK will others see it as Israeli boosterism. How hard will it be to arrive at a neutral article? This bandage was created for the Israeli army, and that army has often taken part in the Arab-Israeli conflict. I see that a bandage of this kind was reported on the 'Good News from Israel' page here. (Search for 'Naimer'). I recommend that this article not be allowed as an exception to Mbz1's ban. The actual wording of the ban, as left by 2over0 on Mbz1's talk page, covers all articles and discussions related to Israel, not just the conflict. EdJohnston (talk) 05:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2over0's topic ban covers more than the conflict, exactly per EdJohnston. I don't see how it is possible to argue that this particular proposed article is not related to Israel. T. Canens (talk) 05:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me put this way. 2over0's topic ban in this case was substantially broader than the usual topic ban we hand out in ARBPIA cases, since it covers not only articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, but also articles related to Israel (or Palestine) generally. A good argument can be made that your proposed article is not related to the A-I conflict, and I think it highly commendable that you asked first instead of creating your userspace draft, but the fact is that such an article is covered by the sanction currently active on you, and other admins simply cannot modify it (by granting you an exemption or in some other manner) without 2over0's (or arbcom's) permission. T. Canens (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Normally I would say the version that's in the talk page notification controlled, since an AE thread is not required for a sanction, but then the logged sanction incorporated the AE case by the link and not the individual notification, and it's not quite clear whether the "articles covered under WP:ARBPIA" referred to WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict or the "bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics" in WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions (that is, articles that a topic ban under ARBPIA could cover). And 2over0's response to HJ above isn't quite illuminating (diamond would not normally fall within even a topic ban for Israel). Okay, 2over0, can you clarify exactly what you intended to ban Mbz1 (and, for that matter, Passionless) from? Just the A-I conflict, or also Palestine and Israel? T. Canens (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the language of the ban immediately after reading up on the old disputes that led up to discretionary sanctions being placed on the whole topic area. An exceptionally broad swath of the encyclopedia has been part of these disputes, and I intended mentioning the states as a way of indicating that the bans should be interpreted broadly. Specifically, they should be interpreted as broadly as the sanctions authorized by ARBPIA, but no more broadly. The point to mentioning diamonds is that a really in-depth article could legitimately mention Israel at Diamond#Gemstones and their distribution, but I would nevertheless not see the topic itself as being covered by the ban. In other words, the bans should be interpreted broadly but not absurdly broadly. The question then is whether this proposed article is of that nature or whether it is more like indirectly participating in the dispute by promoting one side. I have given my answer, but I think that there is enough doubt that I am deferring to this board instead of summarily rejecting the request. Perhaps I should have opened this request myself instead of asking Mbz1 to do the work. If nobody else thinks that the proposed article is a good idea, then we should close this by asking Mbz1 to wait a few months. If the general opinion is that I am being too cynical, needlessly standing in the way of the development of the encyclopedia, or punishing Mbz1 for the possible future edits of others, then we should get out of the way.

Mbz1, I think I was unclear in my closing comment; sorry about that. My meaning was that if I had been the first to see that thread, I would have closed it. I found some of the points made against you singularly uncompelling, but there was enough legitimate concern that I think focusing on other areas for a while would be a good idea. I try to do this for myself periodically, and generally find it quite refreshing. I read your work on Lower Swell and found it quite neat, and your pictures are casually fantastic. - 2/0 (cont.) 11:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With that clarification in mind and any cycnicism I had put to rest by Mbz's explanation of why she wants to write the article, I propose:

We allow her to create the article in her userspace, but
She should seek comments from at least two of the admins who have commented in this section before moving it to mainspace
If the article attracts edits which put it within the scope of ARBPIA after it is moved to mainspace, Mbz must not edit the article any further until the expiration or successful appeal of her topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, this has been open for nearly a week and we owe Mbz1 an answer. I am going to err on the side of getting a new article for the encyclopedia, under the conditions below:
- Article to be created in userspace;
- Article to be reviewed by at least two of the uninvolved admins who have commented here or at the original AE thread before being moved to mainspace;
- If any ARBPIA-related edit is made by any editor to the article or its talkpage, the article will be considered to be covered by Mbz1's current topic ban.

Mbz1, if this is acceptable, I hope to read your article soon; if this is not acceptable, please re-open this request or open a new one. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay

User:GoodDay formally warned for breaching WP:Editwar, no further action taken as GoodDay recognizes his mistake--Cailil ^talk 15:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning GoodDay

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Daicaregos (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case

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

16 May 2011 Reverting "Northern Ireland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom." to "Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann, Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann) is one of the four countries of the United Kingdom." 1st revert
16 May 2011 Reverting "Northern Ireland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom." to "Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann, Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann) is one of the four countries of the United Kingdom." 2nd revert, breaking 1RR restriction: ("All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related."
16 May 2011 Reverting "Northern Ireland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom." to "Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann, Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann) is one of the four countries of the United Kingdom." 3rd revert, breaking 1RR restriction: ("All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls underWP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related."

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

Warned on 16 May 2011 by Mo ainm (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested topic ban

The user GoodDay has broken sanctions on an article relating to The Troubles and should be topic banned from those articles. The Troubles are defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland. The user GoodDay reverted three times within 24 hours on the article Northern Ireland, in breach of WP:1RR restrictions placed on all articles by Arbcom at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case related to The Troubles, which says "All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related."

Additionally, the user is a persistent low level disruptive editor. Numerous requests to edit constructively appear regularly on their Talkpage. There seems to be no awareness that their opinion should be supported by verifiable, reliable sources. Their heavy involvement in sensitive, delicate areas does not seem to be accompanied by sensitive, delicate editing e.g. despite having an extensive knowledge of WP:BISE and WP:BITASK they added "British Isles" to an article here directly contradicting their statements here, here and here at BITASK. Consequently, an extension to the topic ban should be considered to include any British related issues.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [24] :

Discussion concerning GoodDay

Statement by GoodDay

I messed up 'big time' on this article, even though I was trying to restore the status-quo version of that article's intro. A version which 'ironically' I oppose. I plumb forgot about the 1RR restriction on the article-in-question & so I should be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the "threat" that Daicaregos mentions in his 22:52 post, was 'in fact' a typo, which I (moments later) fixed. Therefore, there was/is no threat. GoodDay (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning GoodDay

Please note that I have been contacted by User:GoodDay here, which I consider to be further evidence of their inappropriate behaviour. Daicaregos (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC) ... and they have continued to post inappropriately both at this page and at my Talkpage. Daicaregos (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC) ... and User:GoodDay continues to intimidate me. It is highly inappropriate for them to contact me while this is live. Would someone please ask them to stop. Thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC) ... on and on Daicaregos (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would fully support Daicaregos assessment that GoodDay is a low level disruptive editor. GoodDay seems to contribute very little to this project in terms of actual content but is actively involved in what can only be described as stirring the pot. I also get the impression that he might actual want a ban... Bjmullan (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find this rather poor taste to be honest. GD has already said he'd forgotten about the 1RR, and was actually reverting (believe it or not) to get back a consensus that was 'hard won' a couple of years ago: ie to avoid more 'problems'. He was actually reverting edits that he's been arguing for for years. I don't think that was clever at all (and have told him so) but is it really something to complain about in here? Whatever people say about Goodday, there are clear nationalist agendas that (for me personally) ultimately 'counterbalance' his behaviour. If it is 'extreme' to insist as GD does that Wikipedia can only use the term 'country' for sovereign states, then surely it is also 'extreme' to refuse to allow the term 'constituent country', which the avowed Scottish and Welsh nationalists do. They also use their talk pages as 'Facebook' pages for talking about devolution, which I find totally inappropriate for WP. I personally think they should flipping-well put up with GoodDay's misdemeanour’s, because he really does nothing compared to what they've got away with for years imo. At the end of the day, the whole UKnationality 'area' is much more of a problem than individual mavericks like GD, or Sarah777 too. WP's inability to offer solid guidance on nationality is surely not their fault. IMO it is ultimately Wikipedia's - and largely for allowing these kind of 'cabals' to so-comfortably settle in and light their nightly candles. It's impossible to make progress with cabals as tight as this. 'Cabals' are the scourge of Wikipedia, and to my knowledge wP does nothing to even try to discourage or prevent them. Why not even attempt to deal with it? And I'd personally take this complaint a lot more seriously if somebody neutral opened it, rather than Dai Caregos, who's very much involved in it all. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume Matt Lewis means me, Daicaregos, rather than a user with a similar name. I had no involvement during GoodDay's revert spree on a page with well-known edit restrictions. Matt Lewis's polemic has absolutely no relevance to this matter and is skirting very close to a personal attack. Matt Lewis has had been almost invisible on Wikipedia since August last year (other than to do some campaigning hoping to try to save a reservoir near where he lives), until yesterday, and can't possibly know what has been going on here over the last nine months. Daicaregos (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other than a decidely un-wikipedian template for BI, I've noticed very little changes at all. And I'm not in the smallest bit surprised either. I expect GD has been the same as ever, as I expect has it all. And if Calil is getting cheesed off, when have any one of you ever seen an admin get through all this with a smile on his face? If I've missed anything maybe you could help me get up to scratch? I actually came back for the reservoir thing (not a campaign, but to counter-balance the most obviously-made SPA company bias you'll see on WP), and noticed that Sarah's been indefinitely blocked (which should really be a warning over complaining about GD - these things can get really out of hand). Matt Lewis (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While GoodDay is a long term low level disruptive editor and I fully understand Dai's frustration here it is the case that GoodDay was properly reinstating a long standing consensus position against three editors at least two of which were fully aware of the agreement. Matt goes a little over the top and we could really do with a lot less drama on this subject. I suggest that its a warning for a technical infringement if needed and also that someone keeps an eye on the page. Long term consensus positions should not be changed without agreement and this was a mediated consensus reached across four articles --Snowded ^TALK 05:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say I go 'to the top' sometimes. I've just seen so little change Snowded. But I could use less drama right now too - I can't seem to concentrate on different things on WP like I used to. Anyway, perhaps this could be closed, Dai? (or just left, or whatever). NI wasn't the strongest platform from which to raise your concerns at very least. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this could be closed, but not by me. It should be the decision of an uninvolved administrator. It is not in my gift to allow editors to flout sanctions. As I said on your Talkpage Matt, GoodDay disregards any rules he chooses to, usually claiming ignorance, or blaming his poor memory, when challenged. He added "British Isles" to an article and 3RRed on a 1RR Arbcom restricted article all in the same week. It just doesn't stop. I have followed Snowded's suggested strategy on how to deal with GoodDay's constant disruption (noted on GoodDay's Talkpage during yet another lengthy discussion on GoodDay's behaviour): “I think the strategy is simple. Revert any trolling behaviour, report clear sanction breaking … ”. Well, three reverts, which is borderline edit-warring anyway, on a 1RR Arbcom restricted page is clear sanction breaking. It has been reported. Something should be done. If nothing happens, it sends out a clear message that sanctions mean nothing. And GoodDay's disruption will go on, and on, and on … Daicaregos (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Daicaregos. I consider you a friend. As well I consider GoodDay a friend. I am gently asking you to close this proceeding. As you opened it, it would be appropriate for you to close it. Involving an Administrator as this point would be unnescessary formality. You and GoodDay have your differences. You also both have your good points. Please close this. Thank you for considering this matter. Your friend, Don ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the only thing GoodDay is guilty of is treating WP like a social network and popping onto Talk pages making what are seen as pot-stirring comments - based on his own view of the world or his own opinion. This really has to stop. But I'd say he's Mostly Harmless. In this instance, he picked up the toys of the big kids, big kids got annoyed, GoodDay gets put straight. Hardly needs a sanction though. --HighKing (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And his behaviour has come up at ANI as well. Best a independent admin closes --Snowded ^TALK 11:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello High King. Your characterisation of GoodDay is most uncharitable, and frankly dismissive (especially the "Big Kids" comment). GoodDay made an honest mistake, that he was in the process of reverting when "this proceeding" was initiated. He subsequently made an open and sincere apology for the mistake (one which I have faith in, by the way). You have shown your "true colours" here High King ... and they are not "good-colours" that is for sure. If you ever made a similar mistake ... see who comes here again to help you, I suspect the list will be very short indeed. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two things Armchair. First off, GoodDay and myself have had similar toned discussions recently which he found amusing. Then I stated more like the harmless spirit in a haunted house that occasionally makes its presence felt, and at worst, is mischievous. I usually think of him fondly, but occasionally I want to kick his arse. No offense given, none taken. Similarly here. The "Big kids" comment you dislike is harmless, and I'm sure the analogy isn't lost on most readers. No idea why you've a problem with it, or decided to use that comment as a launchpad to attack my character about showing true colours, whatever that's supposed to mean. Second thing. My comment was helpful to GoodDay. I didn't support any sanction in this instance. But...now that I'm reading through this and looking at the comments across multiple Talk pages left by GoodDay....

Thinking about it some more, perhaps we have reached the point where a more serious sanction should apply before GoodDay turns into a monster. In the past I thought that GoodDay likes to be a spectator, not a participant. Sure, sometimes the comments from the sidelines will get a reaction. Then he started supporting a POV or position, but maddeningly would withdraw support if anyone questioned him, or flipflop to the other position. Then he started making suggestions or making silly analogies. Then he made the same suggestions or comments over and over, even when it had been discussed and dismissed (anyone remember the "Irish Sea" comments?). At this point, he crossed into mild disruption. But now, he's *editing* articles in topic areas that often are under various sanctions, against consensus, and on this occasion has breached a very serious Arbcom sanction. Not helpfuly editing either. Changing a sentence or phrase or word in such a way as to generate a reaction.

But all of that could be forgiven if GoodDay had the good grace to put his hands up and agree he was wrong, or to strongly defend and argue his position. But he's done neither. He's rolled over, practically asking for a sanction and offering no defense. But more worryingly, he has made personal comments about Dai, who reported him, and has tried to garner support on other Talk pages. That, to me, is not the actions of an editor that intends to address the problem. --HighKing (talk) 12:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello High King. What GoodDay does on his own TakePage is GoodDay's business. He and user Jeanne Boleyn have a great Wiki-Friendship, and I personally find reading their friendly discourse of GoodDay's talkpage a delight. If other persons do not like GoodDay's and Jeanne Boleyns friendly conversion on GoodDay's Own Talkpage, well too bad ... simply do not read it.

Secondly, the behaviour of GoodDay on Article Pages (and other persons talkpages) is the only truely relavent topic for discussion here, at this proceeding. Frankly, I am disappointed at you HighKing for helping along GoodDay getting Lynched. I will remember your actions here. Indeed. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 12:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What GoodDays friendship with Jeanne Boleyn has to do with this escapes me. As far as I'm aware no one has mentioned it, for good reason, it has nothing to do with what's happening here. Seriously, do you think you are helping here? Carson101 (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Carson101. The mention of GoodDay's Own TalkPage has been raised in the past (by others), and specificall here by HighKing (albeit indirectly) in the text below,

"About the only thing GoodDay is guilty of is treating WP like a social network and popping onto Talk pages making what are seen as pot-stirring comments - based on his own view of the world or his own opinion. This really has to stop."

The Social Network (i.e., a comparasion to Facebook means GoodDay's Own Talkpage). In answer to your query ... yes I am trying to help GoodDay. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes why is why name being dragged into this? I am beginning to feel like an innocent bystander about to get caught in the crossfire.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Jeanne, don't know what AVDL's motives are with his interventions. On this issue I'm assuming good faith and would give GoodDay the benefit of the doubt. However, I urge admins who are eye-balling this section and who will make the final decision to take note of what people are saying regarding GD's persistent, below the radar, troll like activities. Many editors have asked him over the course of many months maybe years to modify his behaviour but he refuses to get the point. Admins really have to involve themselves on his future activities. --Bill Reid | (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning GoodDay

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

The ArbCom decision allows for blocking on a first offence but as days have passed I don't see this as an appropriate action now. I also note that there is no other record of any other breach of the Troubles RfAr by GoodDay (or indeed any history of blocking at all). In light of this, and of GoodDay's acknowledgment of his "messing up" this time, I would be reluctant to impose editting restrictions on him, since I do not think that a high level sanction (like topic banning) is either appropriate or necessary as a preventative measure in this instance. Rather I suggest that User:GoodDay be warned formally for breach of editing and behavioural practices (WP:EDITWAR) on the article Northern Ireland, with no further action to be taken with regard to this particular breach of the Troubles RfAr.
I would note also that the "low level disruption" attested to does not fall under the remit of this RfAr ruling, and I would therefore suggest that normal dispute resolution or requests for comment be used--Cailil ^talk 01:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm closing this after just over 2 and a half days have passed since my last comment and (about 5 days since this thread was opened) with no further remarks; as such I'm implementing the warning without further action in this instance--Cailil ^talk 15:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gilabrand

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

Request concerning Gilabrand

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: T. Canens (talk) 04:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions; interaction ban and editing restriction

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

See Special:Contributions/85.65.99.40.

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

The cited AE threads and imposed sanctions should serve as sufficient warning; See also [25].

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

To be determined.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It has been brought to my attention that Gilabrand (talk · contribs) has been editing as 85.65.99.40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), per this diff. A brief review of the IP's contribution history indicates that it has been used extensively, including during two different periods in which she was subject to an arbitration enforcement block:

Between December 18, 2010 and March 18, 2011: [26][27]
Between June 15, 2010 and July 12, 2010: [28]

Further, the IP has made this edit, which is, in part, a revert of this edit by Nableezy, which violates their interaction ban.

I'm bringing this here, instead of taking actions myself, in order to obtain more views on the proper action, and allow Gilabrand to respond, if she wishes to. T. Canens (talk) 04:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [29]

Discussion concerning Gilabrand

Statement by Gilabrand

As I informed T. Canens, EdJohnston and AGK, the building I work in operates with a shared global IP. This past week I replied to a question on my talk page but forgot to log in. When I saw the IP number, I replaced it with my signature. I am now being accused of evading a topic ban last year (!!). T. Canens mysteriously received this information from an unknown confidential source. When I say this special contributor account is not mine, and I specifically opened an account over five years ago as advised by Wikipedia so as not to be associated with the global IP, I am mocked, ridiculed, threatened and publicly called a liar. I looked at the contributions of this editor/editors. The list is certainly an interesting mix. I don't think Prostitution in Iran, Lorna Luft, Roxanne Pulitzer, Arundhati Virmani and Madrassas in Pakistan are my specialties exactly...Furthermore, if my English grammar and spelling were anything like the editing summaries left on these pages, I would consider myself in big trouble. Being blocked and banned for months at a time is not fun, but luckily, Wikipedia is not the only thing I do in life. I have plenty to keep me busy, and during my time away I did not edit from a global account (or sneak around trying to find evidence to incriminate others). I edit Wikipedia because I believe I have the skills and sources to improve it. Since my return I have worked hard to do better in the things that I was criticized for in the past, such as incivility and edit warring. I have made an effort to improve relations with editors I may have clashed with. Making Wikipedia a better source of information is my goal, and I would very much like to continue, but it seems like administrators have made up their minds that I am not wanted here. Is there anything I can do to change that? From the tenor of the comments above, it seems not. --Geewhiz (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Gilabrand

@the filing admin→When you write "It has been brought to my attention..." can you elaborate here on the circumstances regarding how it was brought to your attention?—Biosketch (talk) 06:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

for what it's worth, i think you might be over-reacting: the IP address is a common one and not used exclusively by one person. i would check it out more carefully. Soosim (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP belongs to Matam, Haifa. This is a big place, and many can edit from there. Similarity of style is not enough in those cases. Broccolo (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Gilabrand

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

I should like to hear from Gilabrand, but I am inclined that the last topic ban should be reset—because it was never actually served, and so there was never any benefit from the exclusion of Gilabrand from this topic. AGK [•] 15:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with AGK. I encourage Gilabrand to respond here. So far, the evidence looks convincing that she violated her topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Gilabrand has sent me an email claiming that she edits from a shared office IP and that the edits are not hers; see also [30]. T. Canens (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I too received such an e-mail. AGK [•] 22:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The style of the IP's edit summaries are just like Gilabrand's, so I think these edits are hers. I think any edits by the IP in the period 12/18/10 through 3/18/11 constitute block evasion, and any edits from 3/18 to 5/1 fall under the 1RR in 24 hours restriction, and all reverts were to be discussed. This is from my reading of the WP:ARBPIA log. EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see no need to explicate on how I came to notice these edits, since it is irrelevant to the action to be taken. My unblock last July was based on the assumption that the first month or so of the three-month block had been properly served. It is obviously not the case. What concerns me the most, however, is the sheer disingenuousness of her response. The idea that there's someone at Gilabrand's office who edits in the exact same way she did, down to using the exact same style of edit summaries and having the exact same areas of interest is so improbable that it borders on the ridiculous.
Block evasion normally means that the block is reset. This decision of arbcom appears to be on point: a user started socking when there was six months remaining on the block; when discovered, he was banned for an additional six months. In this case, Gilabrand evaded two different three-month blocks, in both cases only a few days after the block was imposed. I think, at a minimum, then, both blocks should be reset, to be served out consecutively, for a total of six months.
The disingenuous response, however, along with the pattern of rampant evasion and disregard of sanctions, in my view requires additional sanctions. In last year alone, she had been blocked five times for violations of a topic ban that was originally set to be three months. When another editing restriction was imposed on her, she simply ignored it, leading to two more blocks, at least one of which, we now know, she disregarded as well. A user who has shown so far zero interest in following the community norms ought not to be editing at all, much less in such a controversial topic area. Moreover, if a user is pretty much lying through her teeth even when she was caught red-handed, how exactly can we expect any of her edits to be a truthful and accurate representation of sources, especially sources that cannot be readily checked by other editors? I think that an indefinite topic ban, if not an indefinite block, is in order. T. Canens (talk) 07:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, how about a rerun of the three-month block, followed by an indefinite restriction from the I/P area, both article and talk, but normally construed. I.e. topics about Israel that are not about the conflict would be OK. She would be under an indefinite 1RR/day on all articles. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that restrictions only work if the user abides by them. Last time she was topic banned she was blocked five times for violations. I doubt that a topic ban in this case would be much different from a block. T. Canens (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support an indefinite block, after further discussion, if we hear nothing from Gilabrand that might indicate awareness of her past failures and give us any optimism for the future. EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also propose an indefinite block, under the provisions of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions. I have asked Gilabrand on her user talk page to urgently make a statement here, but she has not edited since 18 May so I think we should hold off for a while on actioning this thread. However, I do not see what response she could offer that would allay my concerns, per T. Canens, that she will evade her block if topic-banned. AGK [•] 22:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am informed that GIlabrand is presently not editing because it is the Sabbath, so I would reiterate my request that we hold off on actioning this thread until she has made a statement. AGK [•] 22:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a close look the the edits of Gilabrand and the IP, including comparing the edit times, and I would agree that it is likely that there is at least one editor besides Gilabrand using that IP address. The evidence includes topics, edit sequences and edit summaries. However, the same evidence strongly suggest that Gilabrand has used the IP to evade blocks. Note these edit counts of the IP:

April 2010 - 2 edits

May 2010- 0 edits

June 2010 - 117 edits (all occurring after her mid June block)

July 2010 -116 edits (Gilabrand unblocked mid July)

August 2010- 24 edits

September 2010- 27 edits

October 2010 - 1 edit

November 2010- 44 edits

December 2010- 50 edits (47 were made after her December 18th block)

January 2011-282 edits

February 2011- 207 edits

March 2011- 321 edits (199 before block ends March 18th)

April 2011 - 52 edits

May 2011 -27 edits

It reminds me strongly of ABAB patterns in Single-subject research designs. Low edits when Gilabrand is unblocked and significantly higher whenever she is, and back to the lower baseline when the block ends.

In addition, there is considerable overlap in edits, which also put in question Gilabrand's statement above "this special contributor account is not mine." The IP is editing Purim around the time of March unblock, and Gilabrand's first edit post-block is to that article. Post block, the IP edits Bayt 'Itab [31][32] and 3 hours later so is Gilabrand having never done so before.[33] The IP edits List of adventive wild plants in Israel [34] and 3 minutes later so does Gilabrand.[35] having never edited there before. There are others, and as has been mentioned, there is clear similarity in the topics edited and the edit summaries.

What to do? The problem here is the history of evasion of blocks, topic and interaction bands, and in particular as Tim Song mentions, the continuing disingenuous response. Gilabrand can be a great editor, but I really don't see any other option given the history. --Slp1 (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wessexboy

Blocked 24 hours for 1RR violation on a Troubles article. Details within. EdJohnston (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Wessexboy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: O Fenian (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case

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

19:32, 17 May 2011 Partial revert to remove a paragraph added in this edit
12:17, 18 May 2011 Adds back the "anti-Monarchy activist" label originally added as "anti-Monarchist" in this edit by Wessexboy himself
13:49, 18 May 2011 Adds back completely out of context (see below for details) quote originally added in this edit by Wessexboy himself, all three reverts performed within 24 hours breaching the 1RR restriction

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

Warned on 16:39, 15 June 2010 by O Fenian (talk · contribs)
Warned on 04:50, 18 May 2011 by Mjroots (talk · contribs) (note, this is the addition of the restriction template to the talk page, but Wessexboy posted to the talk page at 12:25, 18 May 2011 before making his third revert.

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

Block or article ban.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Wessexboy first appeared on the Troubles radar almost a year ago with this edit, which is virtually (with the exception of the addition of Londonderry) a revert to a version from over a year before which included this section where a known tendentious editor had added the claim that regarding a death threat a living person had received 'subsequently many people were reported to say "couldn't happen to a nicer guy"'.

Virtually every edit he makes to the British Queen's visit article is tendentious.

[36] Claims that the only people alleging British collusion in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings are "Provisional Irish Republican Army and Sinn Fein its sympathisers have repeatedly alleged that members of the British security forces colluded with the loyalists", when the families of those murdered, Taoiseach Enda Kenny and a host of others who believed there are unanswered questions about British collusion are nothing of the sort. You will also see the addition of "left wing" and "anti-Monarchist" labels to Morrisey because he criticised the visit
[37] Removes paragraph about a government report into the bombings
[38] A combination of the above two diffs, addition "anti-Monarchy activist" and removal of the government report
[39] Adds "Trotskyite" label to Joe Higgins because he criticised the visit
[40] Adds quote that completely misrepresents what Gerry Adams said, claiming that he "welcomed the visit, saying "it will be a matter of considerable pleasure, not just for her Majesty but for the rest of us as well."". As both the secondary and original source make clear, what he actually said was that "he hoped the Queen's visit would lead to a "better relationship between the peoples of Ireland and Britain"", and the following paragraph in full reads "The visit by the Queen of England provides a unique opportunity for the British establishment to make it clear that this is its intention also. If this is the case it will be a matter of considerable pleasure, not just for her Majesty but for the rest of us as well." So he is talking about a better relationship between the peoples of Ireland and Britain being a matter of considerable pleasure, not the British Queen's visit. As the secondary source also makes clear, the "pleasure" part is also a reference to his detention at "Her Majesty's Pleasure".
[41] Adds back same quote

Their two talk page contributions are little except attacks on other editors. There is little constructive coming from this editor, so I do not believe a short block will accomplish much other than a day or so's respite before the problems start again, so I request they be banned from the article. There are very few other ways of dealing with editors who persistently make multiple tendentious edits to an article at a time when it is on the main page, since anyone wishing to revert them is hampered by the one revert restriction. Making a tendentious edit, wait for someone to revert it, make a totally different tendentious edit which that person will be unable to revert - that is gaming the system. O Fenian (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [42]

Discussion concerning Wessexboy

Statement by Wessexboy

Comments by others about the request concerning Wessexboy

I was asked to intervene in this case. As I'm a UK resident, I hereby recuse myself in this case. Any admin making any decision on this issue should be from outside the UK and Republic of Ireland, to ensure no allegations of bias can be made. Mjroots (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Wessexboy

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

A 5 day block for the 1RR violation and the tendentious statements could be sufficient. Wessexboy does seem to have a strong POV which he is not shy about. He has made about 200 edits altogether since 2006 and has no previous blocks. A topic ban may not be essential. By the time a 5 day block expired, the royal visit would be over. EdJohnston (talk) 03:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given the clean block log and lack of revert warring, I would prefer a shorter block to start with say 24 hours. Then block for a week if he doesn't change his behavior. If any further disruption occurs while this discussion is ongoing, I fully support a 5-7 day block. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Five days is a bit too long for a 1RR violation on a clean block log. I think Eluchil404's proposed solution is probably best here. T. Canens (talk) 07:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closing with a 24 hour block, per the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Deliciousness

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

Request concerning Supreme Deliciousness

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: —Biosketch (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Purpose_of_Wikipedia
~~Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction~~

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

~~16 May 2011 – 1st revert at Golan Heights.~~
16 May 2011 – ~~2nd revert;~~ insertion of POV claim "in southwestern Syria" despite ongoing discussions
21:39, 17 May 2011 – user decides there is "no choice" but to start editing articles in accordance with his POV.
22:01, 17 May 2011 – user edits Israel(!) with edit summary "This entire country is disputed."
18 May 2011 – user edits 2011 Nakba Day inserting as fact the contested claim that the Golan Heights are "In Syria."

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

Counseled on 5 March 2011 by HJ_Mitchell (talk · contribs)
Blocked on 24 January 2011 by Courcelles (talk · contribs)
Blocked on 1 May 2010 by Tznkai (talk · contribs)

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

Topic ban.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Despite ongoing and earnest efforts to come to an agreement on just how to describe the status of the disputed territories – specifically the Golan Heights and Jerusalem, but now also all of Israel – Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) insists on editing articles in a WP:POVPUSH spirit in total disregard of said efforts. At Talk:Golan Heights, two neutral participants in the discussion, Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs) and George (talk · contribs), have been trying to suggest a formula both sides can agree on – namely not assigning the disputed Golan Heights to either claimant (see [43] and [44]) – but Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is disregarding these centralized endeavors to articulate an NPOV formula and editing based exclusively on what is his personal POV. His conduct is particularly disruptive to Wikipedia because it demands that what little time I – and no doubt other contributors – have to devote to improving articles in general needs to be spent examining his staggering edit history in the I/P topic area to follow up on his contributions. It should also be noted that his only meaningful contributions to Wikipedia are to contentious I/P articles. Virtually none of his edits outside I/P are content-related.

@ZScarpia (talk · contribs), the third diff is not in itself a violation, being that it relates to a discussion, you're correct. But regarding the second diff, if it is not a revert it is still an addition of content to the article when there is no question that describing the Golan Heights as "in southwest Syria" without qualifying the assertion is misleading the reader. The reality is that the territory is disputed – its status is unresolved. But Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) does not accept that as the reality. In his reality, it is part of Syria period. As for what is neutral with respect to Jerusalem, the point again is that Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is not being consistent. Saying that the status of East Jerusalem is disputed or that East Jerusalem is part of the West Bank is significantly more neutral than saying it is part of the Palestinian territories (which SD does here); the latter is engaging in the dispute by assigning the territory to one of two sides contesting sovereignty over it and describing a POV as fact. In the fourth diff it is not just the edit summary, though the edit summary essentially belies any semblance of neutrality on the editor's part. Consider the discussion over at Poison affair of Palestinian schoolgirls. Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs), citing WP:CAT, argues that "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." Is it clear from verifiable information in the article why Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) added Israel to the Category:Disputed territories in Asia? No, there's nothing in the article that supports describing as a fact that the State of Israel is a disputed territory. That is the editor's POV – again, incorporated into the article without qualification, without even one WP:RS that says the State of Israel is a disputed territory. Do you follow what is happening? In Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs)' world , when it comes to East Jerusalem, there is no dispute – it is Palestinian. When it comes to the Golan Heights, there is no dispute – it is in Syria. When it comes to the State of Israel, there there is a dispute. These are not consistent positions – they are products of an agenda. And the Haaretz article is clearly marked as an opinion piece; it is not endorsed by the newspaper and does not constitute anything more than the writer's own view. (But there too, same problem – for SD, when convenient, POV=fact.)—Biosketch (talk) 03:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line as I see it, based on the diffs provided and the user's own comments below, is this: Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs)' edits, whether deliberately or otherwise, fail to properly distinguish between neutral POV and POV. WP:NPOV defines neutral point of view as "carefully and critically analyzing a variety of sources, then attempting to convey the results to the reader clearly and accurately. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them." It further instructs contributors to "Avoid stating opinions as facts" and to "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts."

In the second diff, User:Supreme Deliciousness restored/added (it doesn't matter which) a seriously contested assertion – that the Golan Heights are "in southwest Syria" – making it appear to the reader as a fact.
In the fourth diff, User:Supreme Deliciousness, basing his edit on the outrageous "This whole country is disputed" remark, added State of Israel to the Category:Disputed territories in Asia. There is no mention of such a claim in the article itself. He provided no sources to back up the claim anywhere. WP:CAT says, "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." So where's the verifiable information?
In the fifth diff, User:Supreme Deliciousness edits 2011 Nakba Day, changing "From Syria" to "In Syria." The bizarre thing about this edit is that the headline of the Haaretz opinion piece he cites actually says "Israel was infiltrated." Here again, the language chosen by the user is factual – not supported by the sources that reported on the day's events and not compliant with WP:NPOV.

One last comment. Had this been another user, one for whom such behavior could conceivably be attributed to a lack of understanding or a momentary lapse of judgment, it would have been captious on my part to bring it to AE. But this is not such a case. This is a user who was in the past sanctioned for similar if not identical behavior and who appears to be manifesting the same problems all over again now.—Biosketch (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified.

Discussion concerning Supreme Deliciousness

Statement by Supreme Deliciousness

To admins, I am busy now in real life, and will not be able to reply immediately, please wait until I can reply.

I did not violate "purpose of Wikipedia" or "1rr restriction"

The two edits at the Golan Heights article are right after each other and I did not break the 1 revert rule. I did already tell him that: (reply at the bottom[45]), the second edit was not a "insertion of POV claim", "southwestern Syria" was in the section for a long time, Gilabrand had just removed it without seeking consensus: [46], I re added it back with a source. The source follows the international view: [47][48]. If I am to be sanctioned for that edit where I follow the international view and don't give minority view the same weight, then Biosketch will have to be sanctioned for this edit where he does the exact same thing and states that a disputed area is "present day northern Israel": [49]

At the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues I opened up an centralized discussion if people could help me find international view sources showing West Jerusalem as part of Israel, no one could find one, only sources could be found that it wasn't. So I said there was no choice but to remove the non neutral pov claim, because its not backed up by anything. How is this "editing articles in accordance with his POV." ? How is this "my pov" ?

Yes at the Israel article I added the category "Category:Disputed territories in Asia" because it is disputed. There are about 20 country's who don't recognize Israel and countries who call the area "Palestine", Hezbollah and Hamas (Hamas being elected by the Palestinian people) do not recognize Israel either, so Israel is a disputed country. So what is the problem? Gilabrand removed it without explanation:[50] and another user re added it:[51]

At the Nakba day article I added "in Syria", because the events happened in Syria, I have already showed worldview sources for this at the GH talkpage, The entire area is internationally recognized as part of Syria: [52][53], Look at this CIA map of the region:[54] see the line that separates both parts of Syria, it was on this line that it happened. I believe that to follow an international view is in accordance with Wikipedia policy npov. If I am to be sanctioned for that edit where I follow the international view and don't give minority view the same weight, then Biosketch will have to be sanctioned for this edit where he does the exact same thing and states that a disputed area is "present day northern Israel": [55] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Biosketch: Biosketch is claiming that I "insists on editing articles in a WP:POVPUSH spirit" , but the edits he brings up are in accordance with npov and are not pov pushing. The same link to Sean comment he links to:[56] Sean supports the CIA map, so Biosketch is misrepresenting his comments. And the map is presented as a CIA map, not as a "fact". How am I disregarding the centralized discussion when there is no consensus to remove the CIA map? The CIA map follows an international view of the situation:[57][58] The GH is internationally recognized as part of Syria, Biosketch edits many articles about a disputed region without putting a minority opinion in the same position as the international, example:[59] yet in this situation he wants to do that. I showed at the talkpage sources showing a large majority of the international community reffering to East Jerusalem as part of the Palestinian territores,[60] An admin re added it to the Palestinian territories section:[61]. When did I say Golan and East Jerusalem aren't disputed? but this doesn't contradict that they are internationally recognized as part of Syria and the Palestinian territores. Concerning the Haaretz article, Gideon Biger is a Professor in the Department of Geography and Human Environment at Tel-Aviv University and he "researched" the "border" information unlike any other source I have seen about this. But that wasn't the reason why I did the edit at the Nakba article, the reason for my edit there was because international view sources, and official UN view shows that that isn't the border between Israel and Syria.

Biosketch wants to disregard the international view, for the sake of the view of one country, but at other articles he edits, he isn't applying the exact same reasoning:[62] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Npov says how to handle due and undue weight: [63], this means that in disputes, a minority view is not put in the same position as an international, this is something you never comment on and this is directly related to this dispute. You said: "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them." It further instructs contributors to "Avoid stating opinions as facts" and to "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts."" So why did you here state that a place in a disputed territory is in "northern Israel" making it appear to the reader as a fact? [64].
Yes in the second diff I restored that Golan heights is in southwestern Syria as a fact, per npov due and undue weight, the same say you restored that a place in a disputed area is in Israel here: [[65].
I haven't read the entire Israel article, but it can be backed up, Hamas: [66], they were elected by the Palestinian people. Hezbollah:[67], in the Lebanese government, Most Arab states:[68], map at Syrian parliament website: [69]
Have you read the entire article? [70], sure the headline contradicts the rest of the article, but if you had read the actual article and not just focused on the headline disregarding the actual article, you would have seen his arguments and what he says with it. But as I said before, this source wasn't the reason for my changes, its the international view sources: [71][72]], that supersedes any pov by individual people.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Boris, I did not make a point, to make a point I would go to the Haifa article and other places in Israel and remove that they are in Israel per your and Biosketchs own arguments at the GH talkpage that the land is disputed and a minority view is the same as an international, therefore a place internationally recognized as in Syria can not be described as Syria. This argument you are using, both of you aren't applying to other articles about disputed places (Israel) that you edit. This is not what I did at the Israel article. I did not remove anywhere that places internationally recognized as Israel are in Israel, the same way you and Biosketch wants to remove that an area internationally recognized as Syria is in Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to AGK, I have a lot of knowledge about the topic area, the Arab-Israeli conflict, so I knew the land was disputed and that's why I added the cat, and I have added some sources here to show that it is, but if you haven't seen them, then here they are again:

"The contemporary conflict between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East is a multi- layered dispute. One component is the struggle, since the early 1880s, between Jews and Palestinian Arabs for control of the same land, called "the land of Israel" (Eretz Yisrael) by the Jews and "Palestine" (Filastin) by the Arabs. The other is a regional conflict of more recent vintage, dating back to 1948, between states: the state of Israel and the various Arab states. This second conflict has been, at times, about the very existence of the Jewish state of Israel in the heart of the Muslim Arab world, but it has also been over tangible issues such as borders, resources, and territory lost and won in the cycle of wars between them", Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace, Second Edition: Patterns, Problems, Possibilities (Indiana Series in Middle East Studies), p 3. Laura Zittrain Eisenberg, Neil Caplan, Indiana University Press.

"Since the Zionist movement claimed Palestine as the homeland of the Jewish people, that land came to be the site of conflict between the Palestinians and Zionists. Thus, at the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, at its current stage, is a disputed but shared territory - that of Mandatory Palestine - with which the history and identity of both sides are inextricably intertwined." Israel and the Palestinian refugees, p 149, Eyal Benvenisti (Editor), Chaim Gans (Editor), Sari Hanafi (Editor), Springer.

Hamas: [73], they were elected by the Palestinian people. Hezbollah:[74], in the Lebanese government and have been at war with Israel, Most Arab states:[75], map at Syrian parliament website: [76]. These are states directly surrounding Israel.

I havent read the entire Israel article and don't know if there is information about this in it, I did not ad any new source in the article with the cat but I knew that sources for the cat existed, I wouldn't have added it if I didn't know this. I only added it once, and I have now opened discussion about it at the talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Supreme Deliciousness

Comment by ZScarpia

In my opinion, the third diff, which is the only one of the group which relates to a page section that I'm involved in editing, should be discounted. On the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues talk page SD raised the issue of a number of articles which state that West Jerusalem is in Israel, something which is heavily disputed. The position of the international community as evidenced by UN resolutions is that parts of Jerusalem which fall within the area of the corpus separatum defined by UN General Assembly Resolution 303 of 1949, which includes a large part of West Jerusalem, are not the sovereign territory of any country. It would be neutral to state that West Jerusalem has been annexed by Israel or is under Israeli control, but not to state or imply that West Jerusalem is in Israel. When, after discussion, SD said, "This gives us no other choice but to remove this inaccurate claim of where West Jerusalem is located," that was in essence correct. Based on the evidence, any good-faith editor would have to conclude that sovereignty over West Jerusalem is disputed and that the articles, as they existed, did not present a neutral position. ← ZScarpia 23:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every place has to be in somewhere; we can't have a place in limbo. The whole of Jerusalem's legal status is to be determined, but meanwhile, East Jerusalem is in the West Bank and W Jerusalem is in Israel. I would be more accurate and describe the whole of Jerusalem as being in Israel, whether this is recognised legally or not, because that is the reality. Just as before '67 E Jerusalem ws "in" Jordan. Chesdovi (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about stating facts. When there is a significant dispute about something, it cannot be presented as a fact; instead it must be presented as facts about opinions or some other form which can be accepted as factual must be found. That West Jerusalem is in Israel is a disputed point of view and therefore presenting it as a fact is impermissible in Wikipedia. When it comes down to it, as with passports issued by countries such as the US and UK to citizens born in Jerusalem which note only that the holders were born in Jerusalem without giving a country, there is actually no need in the articles under consideration to list which country West Jerusalem is in. Your every place has to be in somewhere argument only works for somewheres that have agreed borders, which Israel doesn't. (On a smaller scale, there was a dispute about a boundary path at the house of one of my grandmothers which the lawyers couldn't settle. On the principle that the path must have been in somewhere, my grandmother would have obviously said it was on her land and similarly for the neighbour. Although each of them had friends who would have backed them up, legally and from the point of view of the wider community, neither would have been correct. Until they reached an agreement, ownership of the path was, to use your phrase, in limbo.) ← ZScarpia 01:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So we can't say Abu Dis is in the Jerusalem Governorate. Chesdovi (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do reliable sources record any dispute about whether Abu Dis is part of the Jerusalem Governate?

Above, you say East Jerusalem is in the West Bank. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Israel regard East Jerusalem as not being part of the West Bank, so that to say it is would be to make a non-neutral statement?

← ZScarpia 15:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty dishonest question considering the argument you were making elsewhere. Abu Dis is mentioned specifically in the resolution you posted there. This is an excellent example of the kind of agenda driven POV pushing Biosketch was talking about above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Search again - there's no mention of Abu Dis anywhere on that page as far as I can see. The first time I've heard Abu Dis mentioned is now, here. ← ZScarpia 16:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Did you not read the full text of UNGA 303? You brought it up in that discussion. Considering the amount of times you brought up the Corpus Separatum in various discussions, I find it hard to believe you are not aware of what it was supposed to include. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UN GA Resolution 303 (IV) says: The City of Jerusalem shall include the present municipality of Jerusalem plus the surrounding villages and towns, the most eastern of which shall be Abu Dis ... . Therefore, any statement saying or implying that Abu Dis was indisputably part of the sovereign territory of any entity would be non-neutral. Also, I think that the fact that Abu Dis lies in the UN Jerusalem corpus separatum zone should be mentioned in the Abu Dis article.

You seem to be arguing that presenting the pro-Israeli point of view as factual is neutral, whereas trying to present the pro-Israeli point of view as a point of view is agenda driven POV pushing?

← ZScarpia 17:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm arguing that selectively using the same source material to push a POV that West Jerusalem does not "belong" to Israel, while arguing that Abu Dis does "belong" to the Palestinians is agenda driven POV pushing. Your careful usage of language above is pretty transparent. Is Abu Dis in the Jerusalem Governorate of the Palestinian Authority? Is Bethlehem in the Bethlehem Governorate? Is West Jerusalem in Israel? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But:

I'm not arguing that West Jerusalem doesn't belong to Israel, just that the point of view that West Jerusalem does belong to Israel is a point of view (which, of course, is contradicted by the point of view that it doesn't).
I haven't argued anywhere that Abu Dis belongs to the Palestinians.

Apologies to anyone who thinks this discussion should be taking place elsewhere or has gone on too long. ← ZScarpia 18:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great non-answer. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it's a "great non-answer" ~~which means~~ whose meaning is that your accusations are baseless. ← ZScarpia 18:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second diff purely involves an addition of text so it's not immediately clear whether it is a revert. In any case, though, the edits of diffs 1 and 2 are contiguous and therefore cannot count as two reverts. ← ZScarpia 00:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, what is being objected to in the fourth diff is the edit summary, "this entire country is disputed," which acts as justification for adding the Israel article to the Disputed Regions in Asia category. Offensive as it may appear to pro-Israeli editors, as a factual statement, there being Arab groups who object to the existence of Israel as a self-proclaimed Jewish state and, probably, countries who still don't have diplomatic relations with Israel, it's true. ← ZScarpia 01:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the Haaretz article that SD gave as a source when making the edit shown in the fifth diff makes that edit look highly justifiable to me. ← ZScarpia 02:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the description given by the filing editor is tendentious and misrepresents. Having seen evidence that SD was the target of organised offwiki attempts to have him or her sanctioned last year, including by trying to portray him or her as an antisemite, to me it looks suspiciously like something similar is being repeated. ← ZScarpia 03:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by BorisG

The diff #4 is making a WP:POINT in the context of ongoing discussions at Talk:Golan Heights, e.g. [77] - BorisG (talk) 03:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However I must admit I do not find this tit for tat AE requests by both sides healthy. It is out of control. I think admins should find some alternative ways of Arbitration enforcement in this area. Ditto for similar contentious areas. One option is to automatically decline all AE requests from (heavily) involved editors. Maybe this is silly, but we need something. - BorisG (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone who wants to file a complaint against an editor who they are in conflict with should have to put it on a separate page which is just a queue of requests. Then an uninvolved administrator can delete it or move it here for discussion if it seems to have prima facie validity. I wrote "administrator" otherwise it would be sock city. Zero^talk 12:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds liek a good idea. - BorisG (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

agree. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by EdJohnston

There was no 1RR violation at Golan Heights, so the mention of the 'General 1RR restriction' as one of the sanctions to be enforced ought to be removed. All of SD's edits to Golan Heights on 16 May were consecutive. EdJohnston (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ynhockey

I was going to stay out of this discussion, and other I–P discussions on this page if I could help it, but this edit summary caught my attention and I felt that I had to emphasize it here. I am well aware of WP:AGF, but it is extremely difficult to assume good faith in light of such an edit summary. Clearly this editor should not be editing Israel-related articles if his underlying assumption is that "the entire country is disputed". —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note:Ynhockey is an involved editor who for example has created a list of non neutral maps showing occupied territories as part of Israel:[78][79][80][81][82]. Well the fact is that Israel is disputed, there are about 20 country's who don't recognize Israel and countries who call the area "Palestine", Hezbollah and Hamas (Hamas being elected by the Palestinian people) do not recognize Israel either, so why are you not assuming good faith and why are you saying I shouldn't be editing Israel-related articles because of me saying a disputed country is disputed? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the idea contained in SD's comment, that there are those who cannot tolerate the existence of Israel as a Jewish state on any part of the land enclosed by its current borders, just the same as the one contained in statements by Israeli politicians who say that the Arabs (or, at least, Islamists) want to destroy Israel and drive its Jewish citizens into the sea? ← ZScarpia 20:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comment is that Israel and its land is disputed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty as charged, I am generally involved in the Israeli–Palestinian topic area, otherwise I would have posted in the uninvolved admin area with my recommendation for a topic ban. It is clear that Supreme Deliciousness continues to act in bad faith by saying that Israel and its land is disputed, which can be logically paraphrased as: Israel's land and Israel itself are disputed. Should an editor who openly says this be editing Israel-related articles? I already stated my opinion on this matter above. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that it's possible that you might be getting the difference between the statement of facts and advocacy confused? ← ZScarpia 01:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Snakeswithfeet.

Israel and its land is disputed. Supreme Deliciousness is correct. It is a factual statement. Nothing else could/should be read into it. I think admins should closely consider the advice of Zero, above: "Perhaps someone who wants to file a complaint against an editor who they are in conflict with should have to put it on a separate page which is just a queue of requests. Then an uninvolved administrator can delete it or move it here for discussion if it seems to have prima facie validity. One can only begin to imagine the amount of grief that could be avoided, if this process is typical! Snakeswithfeet (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would add, however, that if we accept that Israel as a country is disputed, we must also accept the disputed nature of the Golan, Judea and Samaria, which Supreme Deliciousness does not. Why would we accept that Israel is disputed but not the other? Snakeswithfeet (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am, I never said they aren't disputed. But I always said that if we treat disputed regions like the West bank and Golan in a certain way and don't follow the international view and instead give minority views the same weight, then we must also treat other disputed regions like Israel in the same way. To clarify: this doesn't mean that we treat Israel as a disputed region like the occupied territories, but that we follow the international view in all articles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SD, thank you for confirming that you were making a point. - BorisG (talk) 11:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How was I making a point when I didn't apply the same reasoning that you wanted to use? I never removed that places internationally recognized as being in Israel as being in Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than one way to make a point. Let the admins judge. - BorisG (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jaakobou

The spirit of this diff ~~we should encourage said editor to add a note on~~ uses as origin (e.g. 20 Arab countries as well as Hamas) which can also be used for adding to Holocaust that "The Holocaust's veracity is overstated." ~~Same reasoning (e.g. 20 Arab countries as well as Hamas) can be made here as well with a multitude of sources. After that, he can add to~~ The same origins can also be used for even worse, and clearly antisemitic statements such as to add to Jews that they (including me as well) deserve expulsion for their crimes against humanity throughout history (Source: Al-Quds website, Nov. 6, 2010 ) and that they are descendants of Apes and Pigs (See: What is Arab antisemitism). If we're going in that direction, of considering these origins as legitimate encyclopaedia material for matters of "opinion", another example of an extreme addition could be used on European Union, ~~then the same reasoning can be applied here as well on European Union where he'd devote a paragraph stating that~~ where the "opinion" of these origins are that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a "European plot on the Arab stage" (see first source as an example).

Personally, I think pushing "sick mindset"[83] propaganda origins into an encyclopaedic project as if they were legitimate ones is very dangerous to what is set out to be achieved here and that WP:ARBCOM made a clear note that this type of behavior is a blunt violation of the purpose of the project. Using Hamas* to support this goes further to illustrate the point of concern.

Hamas charter: "Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree".[84]

p.s. in case it was unclear, I and a few others who commented and have not bothered to make it clear, are involved editors.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC) + 19:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC) +c Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC) +fix phrasing. 11:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC) +m 11:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is it "pushing "sick mindset" propaganda"" to ad a "disputed territories" category to a country reliable sources show is disputed? [85] "The contemporary conflict between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East is a multi- layered dispute. One component is the struggle, since the early 1880s, between Jews and Palestinian Arabs for control of the same land, called "the land of Israel" (Eretz Yisrael) by the Jews and "Palestine" (Filastin) by the Arabs. The other is a regional conflict of more recent vintage, dating back to 1948, between states: the state of Israel and the various Arab states. This second conflict has been, at times, about the very existence of the Jewish state of Israel in the heart of the Muslim Arab world, but it has also been over tangible issues such as borders, resources, and territory lost and won in the cycle of wars between them" [86] "Since the Zionist movement claimed Palestine as the homeland of the Jewish people, that land came to be the site of conflict between the Palestinians and Zionists. Thus, at the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, at its current stage, is a disputed but shared territory - that of Mandatory Palestine - with which the history and identity of both sides are inextricably intertwined." and: [87][88][89][90] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary made it clear you were objecting the existence of "the entire country". Using Arab "20 countries" and Hamas concerns me with where this is going. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't objecting anything, I added a "disputed territories" category to a country reliable sources show is disputed.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a record of you doing just that on the pretext that the "minority" (read: antisemitic propaganda) view should be fairly represented on account of 20 [Arab] countries and Hamas(!) being within that opinion. If anyone is not following why I call ~~this~~ these antisemitic, I'll be more than happy to clarify. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC) +fix phrasing. 11:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please clarify why you call that view "antisemitic". RolandR (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to. But first I have to ask you if you have any idea on where it might be possible to purchase that Gharqad tree. The so called "Jewish tree" that Hamas says will not call out together with the other rocks and trees to Muslims to kill the Jews that hide behind them. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you make an accusation, claim that you will be "more than happy to clarify" your reasons, and then demand that anyone who asks for such clarification should first answer loaded questions that you pose. That is not good faith editing, and your attempt at spreading guilt by association should be disregarded. RolandR (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation lies in the body of the question. The core of the aforementioned 'there shouldn't be a Jewish state' "minority", as can be seen in the references I've linked above, has this motivation in wide circulation. Keep the [good] faith. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please, as you offered, clarify in what way this is an antisemitic view. RolandR (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Email me and I'll explain further. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of emailing you. This is not a private conversation. You made a serious allegation against an editor during an arbitration enforcement discussion, and publicly averred that you would be "more than happy to clarify" it. The allegation, which is a classic example of guilt by association, remains in this thread, but you refuse to substantiate it. Therefore, I request that you withdraw/strike out your untrue assertions above, in order not to prejudice this case. RolandR (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not at war with you RolandR, but it feels as though you are turning the discussion page into a battlefield. There is, off course, a well documented matter of basic association (I'm surprised you call it "guilt") between the narratives and propaganda (sample) and I assume the average person, who's not a declared anti-Israeli, can understand these points I've raised. This issue has clearly raised alarm bells for more than one editor. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC) +f 12:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be correct to infer that what you're trying to say is that, as with the subjects of the article you linked to, SD's "ultimate goal ... is to demonize Jews and de-legitimize Israel?" ← ZScarpia 14:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The violation of WP:ARBPIA derives from the action of actively objecting the existence of Israel, and citing Hamas as justification is the icing on the cake. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What finding of ARBPIA would this violate? Are you seriously arguing that an editor should be sanctioned for citing Hamas? RolandR (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that there are those who object to the existence of Israel is actively objecting the existence of Israel? ← ZScarpia 16:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be naive, the violation is not a mere act of citation. If that were the case, I and others wouldn't have bothered to post here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If someone adds a disputed territory category to the Israel article that may or may not be valid, is being actively discussed on the talk page, is debatable despite being RS supportable simply because the category has no documented inclusion rules, surely it's reasonable to expect them to be able to do so without being compared to a holocaust denier and being accused of spreading antisemitic propaganda. To paraphrase a Thai saying, don't ride an elephant to chase a grasshopper. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not only the added category, it is the edit summary used to add it: "the entire country is disputed". This edit summary alone speaks a volume and cries out: "A user who writes such edit summaries should not be editing the topic." Broccolo (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A number of editors, including me, have indicated that they think that SD's comment, as a factual statement, is true. Should that disqualify us from editing in the IP part of Wikipedia too? ← ZScarpia 22:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, there's a huge difference between noting that a portion of the land, which Israel holds, is in dispute and between ranting and advocating that the existence of the State of Israel is in dispute. As Supreme Deliciousness decided to go with the latter, he is in breach of Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Purpose_of_Wikipedia.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC) +f 01:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC) +more to the point. 01:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Malik Shabazz,

In review, I've made a careless error that was unhelpful to the discussion. I apologize for phrasing myself in a clearly careless manner in regards to the issue of concern. I opened with a somewhat personal tone (per "we should encourage said editor") in the context of the reasoning of the sources used to justify the allegedly encyclopaedic nature of the clearly provocative statement. I clearly missed emphasizing further that the problem comes from misuse of antisemitic sources and have, in doing so, left in the air a suggestive tone towards Supreme Deliciousness. I did not have any intentions of this kind and have now amended my error to the best of my ability. All my comments in regards to conspiratory and antisemitic views (e.g. "The Holocaust's veracity is overstated.") were not meant to paraphrase/attack the editor but rather the sources he presented as a legitimate minority view. I can certainly see that my phrasing was of poor choice and assure you that it will not happen again. In a bid for defense for my carelessness, which I truly regret, I note that I was not the only one to take a personal tone as it is difficult to clarify the separation between the "entire country is disputed" statement from the bid to note that the user should probably not edit articles which relate to Israel. Regardless, I have expanded on the sources without making the issue clear and this is something which I should have paid better attention to. I reiterate my apology and assurance to pay great attention to this matter in the future so that it will not reoccur. As a side note, I must reiterate that while the editor has not given justification for anyone to align him with antisemitism -- and doing so is extremely poor form -- the origins themselves are indeed antisemitic and should not be presented as a mere matter citing of opinion.

Closing note: I've made a careless error that was unhelpful to the discussion. I've amended it to the best of my ability and I apologize to everyone, and especially to Supreme Deliciousness. This will NOT happen again.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC) +m 11:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC) +diff of amendment 11:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Liberal Classic

I feel compelled to comment on this arbitration after following the discussion from Nakba Day Protests 2011 that was featured "In The News" from the main page. The insistence that Israel should labeled as a "disputed territory in Asia" pushes the point of view that Israel is not a sovereign nation. I do not believe this view is supported by consensus. See: Foreign relations of Israel and List of territorial disputes. I also worry that the arbitration process is becoming a theater in the edit war. See:[91] and[92]. Please note that I do not mean to single out the author in question as the sole culprit here, but it is relevant to the discussion at hand. These items, in addition to a previous topic ban, raises concerns in my mind about tendentious editing on the part of this author. Liberal Classic (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, see this source: "Since the Zionist movement claimed Palestine as the homeland of the Jewish people, that land came to be the site of conflict between the Palestinians and Zionists. Thus, at the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, at its current stage, is a disputed but shared territory - that of Mandatory Palestine - with which the history and identity of both sides are inextricably intertwined." Israel and the Palestinian refugees, p 149. This doesn't mean Israel isn't sovereign. "Korea" is also in the same cat: [93], this doesn't mean South and North Korea aren't sovereign states. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Korea" is not a sovereign state. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never said that it was, but two internationally recognized states make Korea. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobrainer comment by asad112

Of course the land is disputed, putting aside the 20 or so countries that don't even recognize the country outside the '67 borders, Israeli claims East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights as its sovereign territory. This point is disputed by every country in the world besides Israel. The category is more than appropriate. These frivolous AE requests are getting to be ridiculous. -asad (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by George

I don't really have the time to get into this whole discussion, but I wanted to voice my opinion on something getting much discussion here. Many seem to be misinterpreting the statement "Israel is a disputed territory" with "Israel should not exist". The former is absolutely accurate, while the latter verges on hate-speech. Israel is, indeed, disputed. Who disputes it? About 22 countries in the world. Does that mean that Israel shouldn't exist? No, it just means that it's disputed.

The real question is where to draw the line on inclusion of this category. Places including Taiwan (recognized by only 23 countries) and Kosovo (recognized by 75 countries) include the category, while other places, such as Cyprus (recognized by all but 1 country) and Armenia (also recognized by all but 1 country), do not. Oddly enough, what is probably the closest situation to Israel is the State of Palestine, which is recognized by about 120 countries, and does include a child category of the disputed territory category. Anyways, this isn't really the place for a content discussion, just wanted to weigh in on some of the misplaced outrage in this discussion. ← George^talk 01:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between a disputed territory and a state with limited recognition. Looking at the examples you gave above, the "disputed territory" cat is used in cases of states when the whole territory of the state is claimed by another state, but not when there's a dispute over part of it. Which makes sense. China claims all of Taiwan. Azerbaijan does not claim all of Armenia. Serbia claims all of Kosovo, Turkey does not claim all of Cyprus. Etc. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that many Arabs consider the whole of Israel to be "occupied" territory, while "the international community" (for lack of a more concise, accurate term) considers just areas in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, or the Golan Heights to be occupied. That makes the whole of Israel disputed by some Arab countries, as far as I understand it. ← George^talk 10:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Arab country claims all the territory of Israel. And even if they did, looking again at the examples above, the "territory" cat is used for states that are recognized by a minority of other states. Israel is not a "disputed territory". It's a state that is not recognized by a minority of other states. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is not in accordance with the reliable sources that has been provided that shows the entire territory of Israel is disputed. The cat also has Korea which two internationally recognized states are part of. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. The source which you're using now (you didn't have it when you made the edit) says Israel and the Palestinians have a dispute over territory. It doesn't say Israel is "disputed territory". The difference is obvious and I find it hard to believe you don't get it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources show that all of the territory of Israel is disputed.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't. They say there's a dispute over the territory of the British Mandate. The British Mandate was a "territory". Israel is a state, recognized by the vast majority of other states. It is not a "territory". These different terms have different meaning, and I hope George is reading this and will revise his opinion that pointing out what you're trying to do here "verges on hate-speech". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source says: "The contemporary conflict between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East is a multi- layered dispute. One component is the struggle, since the early 1880s, between Jews and Palestinian Arabs for control of the same land, called "the land of Israel" (Eretz Yisrael) by the Jews and "Palestine" (Filastin) by the Arabs. ", this is not a dispute over the Britsh mandate of Palestine, but "control of the same land, called "the land of Israel" (Eretz Yisrael) by the Jews and "Palestine" (Filastin) by the Arabs." this is the territory of Israel. Notice the "struggle since" and "contemporary conflict" which means occurring and modern conflict. Another source says: "Since the Zionist movement claimed Palestine as the homeland of the Jewish people, that land came to be the site of conflict between the Palestinians and Zionists. Thus, at the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, at its current stage, is a disputed but shared territory - that of Mandatory Palestine", notice the "current stage" meaning today, Mandate Palestine doesn't exist today, the territory of Mandate Palestine is the same as Israel + West Bank and Gaza. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Land of Israel" and "Palestine" are not the same as the "territory of Israel". Yes, notice the "since the early 1880s". What did "Land of Israel" mean then? What did "Palestine"? Are they the same as the territory of Israel? Obviously not. Also a dispute over the territory of the Mandate doesn't mean that the territory of Israel is under dispute. You are trying to force an interpretation of the sources to fit the POV you're trying to push. You do this quite a bit, which is why you once again found yourself here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what is "contemporary" for? In this context it is referring to the same territory of Israel. But the source doesn't say there is a dispute over Mandate Palestine The End!, it says: "at its current stage", you are not addressing the issues in its full context. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly addressing the issue in its full context. You have not supplied a single source that says Israel is a "disputed territory", you are just interpreting the sources to fit the POV you regularly push all over this encyclopedia. What happened to the "worldview" you regularly use when it fits your agenda? Israel is not a "disputed territory". It's a sovereign state, recognized by the vast majority of other states. While I understand you think you can change reality by editing wikipedia, I really hope the admins are going to put a stop to that kind of thing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No you are not. I have supplied sources and you are choosing not to accept what they say. Thats not the same thing, has the international community voted if its a disputed territory or not, and the conclusion is that its not? The Hatay Province is also disputed and has disputed cats in its article, though there is only one country disputing the area as Turkish. This doesn't mean the area is not Turkey, per the international view. Israel being a sovereign state doesn't contradict that its disputed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, you guys write a lot, and I had too many beers last night. Anyways, NMMNG, I don't think any Arab country claims the land that is currently Israel, but I do think that certain Arab groups do - namely, the Palestinians. I completely agree that a majority of countries recognize Israel, so that's something we should consider.

What are your thoughts on the State of Palestine though? As far as I know, no country currently claims the West Bank. And the majority of countries in the world recognize a State of Palestine. The bigger question for me is why to include the disputed category in that article, while keeping it out of the article on Israel. You could say "Oh, Israel is recognized by 170 countries, while 'Palestine' is only recognized by 120, and the bar for using this category should be 150 countries", but I just haven't seen anyone try to quantitatively set that bar. ← George^talk 17:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Palestinians, through the PLO, their "sole legitimate representative" at the time, recognized Israel. That means there's at least some territory in Israel they don't dispute.

I'm not really sure what the status of SoP is. That question will be easier to answer if the UN accepts it as a member in September. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Malik Shabazz

My recommendation is to sanction Supreme Deliciousness. Had she thought for a moment that Israel belonged in the same category as the Republic of China or Republic of Kosovo, that of states with limited recognition, she would have put Israel into the category that includes those articles. The fact is, little or no thought went into this categorization.

I also strongly encourage the closing admins to review Jaakobou's comments carefully. Jaakobou all but calls Supreme Deliciousness a Holocaust denier and antisemite. I believe Jaakobou should be sanctioned for his behavior. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made one single edit (not a revert), adding a category that several people say is correct and that is backed up by sources, and I have opened a discussion and participated at the talkpage while both users who reverted it and removed the category has not said one single word at the talkpage. When did I say that I believed Israel belonged in the same category as the Republic of China or Republic of Kosovo? I don't know anything about Republic of China or Republic of Kosovo or the issues with them, they both have the Category:Unrecognized or largely unrecognized states, why would I ad this category to the Israel article? Israel is a very widely recognized country and if I had added this category, it would have been incorrect and someone would probably have opened enforcement about me.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Shabazz,

I have to apologize. While I had no such intentions, I clearly phrased myself carelessly and in poor form. See my above note for further acknowledgement of the mistake.

Supreme Deliciousness,

I would like to apologize personally. My phrasing was a bit scattered minded and of clearly poor form and I apologize that it could have been seen as a personal attack on your character. My dispute is with naive notion that the origins of concern are valid for encyclopaedic content and at no point did I intend on suggesting anything beyond that. Seeing as I have used poor form, I amended my phrasing and reiterate my apology again.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gatoclass

I can't see much that is sanctionable here. SD has not edit warred, there are just two edits on two separate pages and I think they would probably come under WP:BRD. The Israel category is contentious but again, I don't see why BRD should not apply. Users are entitled to do some editing, and occasionally to make errors of judgement, without fear of sanction. I do however agree that the Golan Heights issue could use some more discussion, and I think SD should refrain from making edits on that topic unless or until it becomes clear that consensus is unachievable, in which case, some other course of action will be required. Gatoclass (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are allowed to make errors in judgment, but SD seems to make them quite often and they always have something in common. Can you guess what it is? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Supreme Deliciousness

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

Supreme Deliciousness: You say above that you had reliable sources for your edit to Israel which added the "disputed countries" category. What specifically were your sources, did you cite those sources in your edit, and did you discuss such a major change on the talk page beforehand? AGK [•] 22:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Wikifan12345

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: Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: 8 month topic ban under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions. original AE thread.

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

Notification of that administrator: notified

Statement by Wikifan12345

The topic ban was imposed on December 2nd 2010. I have served approximately 5 and a half months of my original sentence. Following my ban, I spent more time editing less controversial areas of Wikipedia. I have created several articles and devoted some of my time at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests and providing third opinions at Talk:St. Bernard (dog) and Talk:Airbreathing jet engine.

My original ban involved quite a bit of drama, as can been seen by the lengthy talk discussion at Norman Finkelstein and the AE thread. I really can't defend my edits there. I know I have had a lot of problems dealing with users I disagreed with and accepting the consensus. I obviously have a passion for Israel related topics and my emotional investment has corrupted my judgement and ability to edit in a neutral fashion. But I have contributed positively to many other articles in I/P area, such as Arab-Israeli conflict, Israel-Palestinian conflict and creating the articles Palestinian casualties of war and Israel casualties of war.

I don't think it would be fair to reverse my ban entirely, but considering my relatively conflict-free history and positive contributions to other areas of wikipedia since December perhaps the punishment could be modified? Maybe reduce the topic ban to an article ban at Norman Finkelstein (the original area of dispute) for the remainder of my ban and place my account on probationary status. If there are other articles admins/editors think I should be banned from I'm open to that as well. In the event of future conflicts during my ban if they were to arise, my account would be banned from the Israeli-Arab area permanently. And of course restrictions on reverts if necessary.

I feel I'm ready for this. I would like to polish Israeli casualties of war and Palestinian casualties of war which have been neglected for the most part since my ban. I don't plan on getting into a huge argument about my past history here because I know a lot of editors would be opposed to any modification of my ban. I take full responsibility for my previous actions and behaviors. Also, for clarity it should be noted two AE were filed against me during my topic ban. The first by User:Passionless (a sockpuppet) which was dismissed without prejudice. The other AE was also dismissed according to this rationale: "A technical infringement of the topic ban, but assumed to be a genuine error. Accordingly, this request is closed without prejudice to any future appeal."

Anyways, I appreciate all comments and criticism. I don't want to get into a huge argument, so if editors/admins have questions be specific as you can. I've seen a lot of these appeals bubble into comical trolling and drama.

If this ban is modified, I can promise I won't be spending as much time on Israel/Arab topics as before. But I would like to have the freedom to edit some articles when I'm not busy dealing with issues in real life. :D

Thank you.

@AKG Yes that was the original AE and it was dismissed as noted above. I only provided a brief comment in the AFD and did not contribute to the article at all. I didn't realize the article was under Arab/Israeli review. The admin closing the AE did so without prejudice so it shouldn't be held against me here I think right? Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Ncmvocalist Yes good questions. As I am here to appeal my topic ban and not defend my previous edits, I'll defer to the admins responsibility for implementing the ban:

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.

- User:Timotheus Canens

Obviously, if after 3 months Wikifan12345 can show a track record of responsible editing, then we could review the situation.

- User:PhilKnight

Full quotations can be found at linked AE thread above.

I have made a strong effort collaborating in less-controversial areas successfully. I have devoted much time to editor assistance boards, provided numerous third opinions, created articles, etc..etc. If you have the time to look at my 3 or 4 year history on Wikipedia, you will see I've spent a lot of serious time collaborating on articles and most of my edits are sound. The issues seem to be unique to talk discussions, which those familiar with I/P can mutate overnight.

The incident at the AE emerged at Norman Finkelstein. I had worked on numerous other conflict-related articles - Hamas, Palestinian Liberation Organization, Economy of Palestine, Israel, List of modern conflicts in the Middle East (created) Arab-Israeli conflict, and of course Palestinian casualties of war and Israeli casualties of war which involved many hours of meticulous study and editing.

Like I said before, I don't intend on editing Norman Finkelstein and prefer to avoid articles that draw a lot of drama. So, perhaps a more narrow ban could be implemented - exclusive to Finkelstein, probationary status, etc. It seems other editors have been granted modified appeals.

As far as I can see, a lot of editors who appeal their bans do so to return to articles they previously engaged in conflict in. I have no such desire but would be open to the freedom to access articles on the general Arab/Israel/Middle East area - which is a very broad and large subject of articles. I have contributed several thousand edits to conflict-related articles, the vast majority of which remain.

I can't tell right now how this appeal will play out from here - uninvolved editors and admins look like they're on the fence. I don't want this appeal to drag out too long. If admins truly think this appeal has no merit, I won't protest a close. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Timotheus Canens

Statement by (involved editor 1)

statement by Broccolo

I am supporting the appeal. The user has served more than half of the time of his topic ban. Bans are not used as punishment. They used only as prevention of disruption. At this point there is no reason to believe this editor will be disruptive while editing the topic, and if he is he will be topic banned again. Broccolo (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Wikifan12345

I'm also ambivalent, and I'm not comfortable granting this appeal - at least based on what I've looked at so far.
Wikifan, I don't understand why you are making this appeal. Irrespective of the restriction expiring (in July?) or being relaxed as a result of an appeal (now), any further problems would lead to the same result: an indefinite restriction, possibly subject to a clause that limits appeals to 1 per year. You've stated you made a few positive contributions in the area...but was this not at a time where your other contributions in the area were deemed to be not so positive (to the point that they outweighed the positive and resulted in the restrictions you've received)? And is it a good idea for the project to let you back in this area of conflict at a time where there is less going on in your RL, and therefore, less to force you to leave the area (particularly at the moments when you become too "emotionally invested")? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK, you say I am ... disinclined to decline... I think this means inclined to accept. It seems inconsistent with the recommendation to reject. - BorisG (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Wikifan12345

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

After reviewing the users contributions since the topic ban, I have to say that I am ambivalent about granting this request. While he has largely stayed out of trouble and generally abided by the restriction, there is still some evidence of a battle-ground mentality. If the appeal is granted a narrower ban on I-P conflict related BLP's should probably be left to run the original duration. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am grateful to Wikifan for contributing positively in the time since he was topic-banned. But I am always disinclined to decline requests for the early lifting of sanctions, because it makes it more difficult to determine when to grant subsequent appeals for early-removal from other editors, and because, as a matter of experience, it rarely results in much benefit. I also cannot help but notice that Wikifan contributed to the AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accusations of Arab Apartheid in March 2011, which unless I am mistaken is in violation of his topic ban. I would reject this appeal. AGK [•] 22:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kehrli

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

Request concerning Kehrli

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kkmurray (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: "Kehrli is indefinitely topic banned from metrology-related articles, broadly defined, including talk pages and discussions." - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kehrli_2#Kehrli_topic_banned

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

05:43, May 22, 2011 - Lightbot 10 performs "Janitorial edits to units" and is in effect a "metrology bot."
07:40, May 22, 2011 - Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) is a talk page related to metrology.

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

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

Warning and/or 24 hour block.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Kehrli appears to dispute the topic ban remedy here User_talk:David_Fuchs#My_ban with response here User_talk:Kehrli#Your_ban.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

11:08, May 22, 2011

Discussion concerning Kehrli

Statement by Kehrli

Comments by others about the request concerning Kehrli

As an aside to Kkmurray, I will note that I moved his notification to Kehrli of this request to its own, new, separate section on Kehrli's talk page, and would encourage him to make this his standard practice for such notifications in the future. While it might seem logical to place such notices in the same talk page section as the notice of the Arbcom case closure, it can sometimes be difficult for a user to see exactly what has been changed on his talk page, or to catch a new one-line notice added to a three-month-old thread. Not all editors are aware that they can check the talk page's history to locate all new comments, nor are they sufficiently diligent to do so—nor should they be expected to be.

At first blush, I was inclined to dismiss this request with a warning to Kehrli. While the diffs provided do include metrology-related content and therefore represent a technical violation of his ban, the edits don't relate even tangentially to the locus of this arbitration case (the use of Kendrick units). Further, the edits are to discussions relating to bots and the Manual of Style, so it might be that Kehrli felt his ban (on edits to articles and related discussion pages) didn't strictly apply.

That said, such an interpretation would be incorrect, and Kehrli should be firmly discouraged from relying on any similar reasoning in the future. Discussions relating to style guidelines or bot activities very much pertain to articles in the context of any "broadly construed" arbitration remedy. That the effect of these discussions is general and to a broad class of articles and article content rather than to specific, individual articles is immaterial.

On further examination, I note that Kehrli has made very few edits to Wikipedia since the closure of the arbitration case imposing this remedy. Looking at his editing history, it would appear that his only edits since the case's closure in March have been to dispute the legitimacy of the ban with an arbitrator, and then to violate the ban with the noted edits a few hours later. This is not a promising pattern of conduct.

Finally, it is worrying that this is not the first arbitration case in which Kehrli was the subject. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli closed in 2006, involving a similar dispute: appropriate choices of terminology in measurement. In that case, the ArbCom applied time-limited (now-expired) and more-specific article and notation-changing bans; I presume that this previous case is the reason why the Arbcom chose to impose a broader topic ban this time around. While a reasonable argument might be made that the current case's remedy could have been more narrowly-crafted, one's first edits post-case are not the best place to try to demand that change, nor is it wise to immediately violate the existing ban. Kehrli needs to build a record of uncontentious, constructive editing within the framework of the existing remedies – probably for several months at least – before he tries to lodge any appeal. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Kehrli

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

((John Huarte)) "was never the freshman football coach of Servite - Servite is the rival of his high school Mater Dei"

USERNAME

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

Request concerning USERNAME

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Huarte (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#SECTION

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

Date Explanation
Date Explanation
Date Explanation
Date Explanation

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

Warned on Date by Name of administrator who imposed warning 1 (talk · contribs)
Warned on Date by Name of administrator who imposed warning 2. If there is no warning 2, delete this entire line (talk · contribs)

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning USERNAME

Statement by USERNAME

Comments by others about the request concerning USERNAME

Result concerning USERNAME

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

[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 535: / Line 535: @@
 * I also propose an indefinite block, under the provisions of [[WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions]]. I have asked Gilabrand on her user talk page to urgently make a statement here, but she has not edited since 18 May so I think we should hold off for a while on actioning this thread. However, I do not see what response she could offer that would allay my concerns, per T. Canens, that she will evade her block if topic-banned. [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]]<small> <nowiki>[</nowikI>[[User:AGK|&bull;]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 22:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 :* I am informed that GIlabrand is presently not editing because it is the Sabbath, so I would reiterate my request that we hold off on actioning this thread until she has made a statement. [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]]<small> <nowiki>[</nowikI>[[User:AGK|&bull;]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 22:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
+*I've taken a close look the the edits of Gilabrand and the IP, including comparing the edit times, and I would agree that it is likely  that there is at least one editor besides Gilabrand using that IP address.  The evidence includes topics, edit sequences and edit summaries.  However, the same evidence strongly suggest that Gilabrand has used the IP to evade blocks.  Note these edit counts of the IP:
+[[File:Ip edits by month and compared to Gilabrand block.GIF|thumb|right]]
+:April 2010 - 2 edits
+:May 2010- 0 edits
+:June 2010 - 117 edits (all occurring after her mid June block)
+:July 2010 -116 edits (Gilabrand unblocked mid July)
+:August 2010- 24 edits
+:September 2010- 27 edits
+:October 2010 - 1 edit
+:November 2010- 44 edits
+:December 2010- 50 edits (47 were made after her December 18th block)
+:January 2011-282 edits
+:February 2011- 207 edits
+:March 2011- 321 edits (199 before block ends March 18th)
+:April 2011 - 52 edits
+:May 2011 -27 edits
+:It reminds me strongly of ABAB patterns in [[Single-subject research]] designs.  Low edits when Gilabrand is unblocked and significantly higher whenever she is, and back to the lower baseline when the block ends.
+:In addition, there is considerable overlap in edits, which also put in question Gilabrand's statement above "this special contributor account is not mine." The IP is editing [[Purim]] around the time of March unblock, and Gilabrand's first edit post-block is to that article.  Post block, the IP edits [[Bayt 'Itab]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bayt_%27Itab&diff=420947221&oldid=382064294][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bayt_%27Itab&diff=420947538&oldid=420947221] and 3 hours later so is Gilabrand having never done so before.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bayt_%27Itab&diff=420963356&oldid=420957654] The IP edits [[List of adventive wild plants in Israel ]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_adventive_wild_plants_in_Israel&action=historysubmit&diff=421127136&oldid=357280285] and 3 minutes later so does Gilabrand.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_adventive_wild_plants_in_Israel&diff=next&oldid=421127136] having never edited there before.  There are others, and as has been mentioned, there is clear similarity in the topics edited and the edit summaries.
+What to do? The problem here is the history of evasion of blocks, topic and interaction bands, and in particular as Tim Song mentions, the continuing disingenuous response. Gilabrand can be a great editor, but I really don't see any other option given the history. --[[User:Slp1|Slp1]] ([[User talk:Slp1|talk]]) 19:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 == Wessexboy ==

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