Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:36, 8 January 2012

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

Nableezy

Nableezy topic banned on P/I, 6mo. Also specific ban on 'Palestine' wording. -- DQ (t) (e) 08:22, 4 January 2012 (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 Nableezy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Jiujitsuguy 02:32, 25 December 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, restriction on adding word "Palestinian" to any article, GAMING and tendentious editing

Nableezy is restricted from adding the word Palestinian' to any articles until 15 January.

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

December 22, 2011 Adds word "Palestinian" to Jewish population by cities and city areas
December 23, 2011 Adds word "Palestinian" to Palestinian Arabic
December 21, 2011 Adds the word "Palestine" to Ecce Homo (church)
December 30, 2011 Adds the word "Palestinian" in to Rachel's Tomb
The Category: Resistance movements is added to one article about a pro-Israel organization, and Nableezy reverts,[1] demands sourcing on the talk page,[2] and when a list of sources are presented he demands specificity. [3]

Yet, around the same time, Nableezy adds the very same category to ten articles in the span of less than five minutes.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] All of these are anti-Israel organizations and most of them considered terrorist organizations by the West. It is impossible to find the sources and the articles in that span of time. It is clear that Nableezy is not interested in even checking for sources for his edits when it suits his POV. This type of behavior represents tendentious editing in the extreme.

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

Nableezy is restricted from adding the word Palestinian' to any articles until 15 January. The restriction even applies to vandalism[14]
List of Blocks[15]
Log of Bans[16]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Nableezy is an experienced editor who is well versed with the rules and no stranger to these boards. He knew that he was restricted from adding the word “Palestinian” into articles per the last and rather mild AE sanction (tailor made just for him). He also knows that his page is closely watched by his followers. So he cleverly makes an edit that contravenes the ban and self-reverts with an edit summary self-rv, somebody else revert this tho. That edit summary is akin to a call to arms or the sounding of the trumpets. In fact, someone heeded his call[17] and Nableezy thus accomplished his objective. He performs this game three times. The aim is quite simple; to get his version in without technically violating the restriction. The first time he did it, one can perhaps AGF and credit it to a one-time lapse. The problem is that the edit summary on the self-revert demonstrates that Nableezy is very calculating and knows precisely what he’s doing. The second problem is that he did it three times thus evidencing clear knowledge that he is under a restriction, hence the need for a quick self-revert. Thus, the multiple self-reverts on multiple occasions were merely a means to an end. The edits were purposeful with intent to circumvent the restriction and a rather brazen attempt at that.

Nableezy’s explanation of "forgetfulness" and "absent mindedness" rings hollow and is remarkably insulting to the intelligence of the community. He expects us to believe that on December 21 he had a bout with "absent-mindedness" and this "absent-mindedness" repeated itself on December 22 and yet again on December 23. Moreover, the restriction was imposed on Nableezy barely a week prior, not six months nor even three months prior but one week prior! Gentlemen, please further bear in mind we are not talking about a novice here but a rather sophisticated and experienced account.

So while Nableezy is under the microscope and his edits are being watched by friend and foe alike, one would think that he would be a bit more circumspect. But in an incredible display of supreme arrogance, he violates the sanction yet again with this edit and then quickly reverts with "dammit forgot again" There are three possible explanations for Nableezy’s inexplicable behavior. First, it represents a contemptuous display of defiance as if Nableezy is trying to tell us, "I am Nableezy and I can do whatever the hell I want, whenever I want to do it." Second, it represents sort of a desperate "Hail Mary" defense, as if he’s trying to tell us "you see? I’m so absent-minded that I even inserted the word when I was under the microscope; Silly me." The third and most remote possibility is that Nableezy suffers from acute memory lapses when it suits him. If anyone believes that latter possibility, I have exclusive rights to sell you the Golden Gate Bridge and the Taj Mahal and no CODs please.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Nableezy

Statement by Nableezy

The edits and self-reverts were not, and are not evidence of, an attempt to evade the restriction. To begin with, one of the edits adds the word Palestine, not Palestinian, and it was out of concern that certain less than honest editors, among them the filing editor, would attempt to wikilawyer that into a violation that I self-reverted. The others are simply a result of absent-mindedness, not malice. This isnt a typical ban, I have to think about whether a word is added, not whether a subject is touched or an article is added, and at times I may forget. But as soon as I remember that I have such a restriction I self-revert. I am not prohibited from raising that the edit I initially reverted should be reverted on the talk page, so I make an equivalent note in an edit summary instead. If that is a problem then I will refrain from doing so. But the actual edits are simply from forgetting about the restriction. The self-reverts from remembering it. As far as the second paragraph of JJG "report", that has been discussed at length at Talk:Irgun.

At the risk of saying what should be left unsaid, I feel compelled to say this. Jiujitsuguy is among the very worst editors I have ever had the displeasure of dealing with. It has been established, several times, that he lies about sources to push a fringe political POV. Edits such as this should be themselves result in bans. Edits such as this should by themselves result in bans. Take a look at his act at here and at Talk:Katzrin where he attempts to place what is provable false material in an encyclopedia article. That alone should result in a ban. JJG has, since literally day 1 of editing here, been a serial violator of nearly every single content and conduct policy, from WP:V and WP:NPOV to WP:MEAT and more. He has been interested in one thing here, using Wikipedia as a propaganda instrument. You let him get away with lying about sources the last time. Exactly what is necessary to rid this most disruptive and bad-faithed "editors" from this supposed "encyclopedia"? nableezy - 22:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nish, no, I wouldnt try to make such an argument. I just had a momentarily loss of short-term memory. Something that is known to happen with people of my ilk. Had I recalled the restriction I would have just made an edit on the respective talk page, like I did here. I am not trying to avoid the restriction, hell I voluntarily agreed to it. nableezy - 23:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the concern with the edit-summaries, if it is a problem Ill ensure that any future self-reverts only say self-rv. It is just easier than opening a talk page section about the issue. If the restriction said that I could not even discuss such changes on talk pages then I could see the edit-summaries as an actual problem, but I am allowed to discuss the issues. It isnt as if I am going around asking editors to make certain reverts, I really dont see the difference between having the edit summary and having no edit summary and opening a talk page section. But the initial edits were due to forgetfulness, nothing else. I mean really, do yall actually think Im that stupid? That if I wanted to surreptitiously evade the ban by asking others to revert edits, I couldnt come up with a more clever way of doing it? I dont mean to sound arrogant, but really, come on. nableezy - 06:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TDA, you dont understand my point. The slip up was the initial edit, and that led to the self-reversion. I am actually allowed to ask that people make the needed edit, I can do so on the talk page, just as I did at [Talk:Bethlehem. I made a comment in an edit summary instead of a talk page. I dont think that makes much of a difference. If told otherwise by an admin Ill just make the note on the talk page instead. But I can ask that others make the edit. There is no effective difference in writing it in the edit summary or in the talk page. The only ways that somebody would see it would be either checking my contributions or having the article in the watchlist. Either way that person would see that I say the edit should be made. It isnt as if I went to a favored user's page and asked that they make the necessary edit, as evidenced by the fact that my edit at Jewish population by cities and city areas had not been restored until JJG himself brought it to wider attention here. I am not claiming that my edit summaries were a lapse of any kind, I dont think there is anything wrong with them to begin with. The momentary lapse was making the edit in the first place, necessitating the self-revert. Had I simply remembered the sanction I would have done what I did at Bethlehem, request the edit be made on the talk page. I dont know where you get the idea that I am asking someone (specifically a person) to make an edit I am restricted from making, or, generally that I am restricted from asking editors in general to make an edit that I am restricted from making. You are incorrect on both counts. I wrote to any passing person that an edit should be made. I did not request that any one editor, or even a particular subset of editors, make an edit. So no, I was not asking someone to do anything. And yes, I am allowed to request edits that I am restricted from making be made. My ban does not include commenting on the subject, it is specific to adding a word to an article. I mistakenly did that a few times, and self-corrected each within a matter of minutes. I am not surprised, well a little bit considering the pettiness of it, that it has drawn attention, though I am surprised that anybody who is not a committed partisan (and honestly I would expect some of them to be shaking their heads at this) could see this as anything at all. I made a mistake and corrected it immediately. If my choice of venue for requesting the edit be reverted was wrong I will not do so again in the future and simply request the edit be reverted on the talk page instead. I am not however going to not request such edits be reverted. Look I just did it again, and again. I am allowed to discuss the issues and allowed to request that an edit be reverted. I am only restricted from actually performing the edit. I made a few mistakes in doing so, and corrected them as soon as I realized, without even being prompted to do so. I dont think this will even be an issue in the future, as I think I have been sufficiently reminded of the zeal of certain users in being able to, well, I leave that unsaid. nableezy - 07:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shuki, that is a gross distortion of the events. What I advised you to do was not to self-revert an edit so that you could then revert a different edit. That does not resemble this in any way. And, if I am not mistaken, once you self-reverted that ended the dispute, and I thanked you for doing so. nableezy - 17:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, JJG, I expect people to believe me when I say that I simply forgot about the restriction as I made those reverts, and as soon as I remembered them I self-reverted. As I, unlike you, do not have an established history of lying here I think it is fair that I expect people to believe me when I say something. And to be clear, youre belief that I did this three times is demonstrably false. I made one edit that added the word Palestine, and self-reverted out of what may be over-cautiousness with regard to respecting the sanction. I made two edits that added the word Palestinian and self-reverted within minutes. You can continue distorting the events, and you may even get a less than careful admin who is not aware of your extensive history of willful distortions to believe you, but your claims remain false. nableezy - 20:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boris and TDA, I object to the equivalence you are giving between JJG's report and the one I filed against him. JJG lied about sources. That is among the most serious offenses an editor can commit. You cannot seriously compare that to bringing a couple of quickly self-reverted edits here, in either substance or pettiness. You cannot seriously be claiming that my reporting an editor who repeatedly lied about sources is at all comparable to this. Boris, as far as your thoughts on how I would react to an "opposing editor" who self-reverted soon after an initial violation, I wouldnt raise it. In fact, I tell people they can self-revert an edit to avoid being brought here. In fact, even with an editor who repeatedly lies about sources, I give him the opportunity to self-revert rather than be reported. So, if I were asked about an "opposing editor" giving the same explanation, who had self-reverted both violations within minutes, I would accept it. nableezy - 02:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TDA, I honestly do not understand how you can come to the conclusions that you do. You are inventing arguments and attributing them to me. I am not saying that I was just discussing the issue, I freely admit, and have done so several times above, that I was plainly call[ing] for other people to perform the action [I was] prohibited from taking. I already told you that. I can say an edit should be reverted. The sole issue here is that I did it in an edit summary and not the talk page. If that is a problem I apologize, I didnt think it could possibly be an issue. As far as bringing up the past incident, the relevance is that I raise that as evidence of JJG's general tendentiousness, which I think making this report is an indication of. He reported me for several edits that I self-reverted within minutes. This after he spent the last week trying to push into an encyclopedia article demonstrably false statements (see the RS/N and Katzrin talk page), and that after he had just gotten off by the skin of his knuckles here at that AE for repeatedly lying about sources. In my view, all of these things combine to show that the user's purpose remains what it has been since the day he got here, and this report itself is just a continuation of that. nableezy - 05:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I am saying you are wrong. There is nothing wrong with me doing this, nothing at all. And again, I am not telling someone, that implies I am asking an individual to do something. No, I am making a note that an edit should be reverted, and not alerting any specific editors over anything. As far as what the restriction was imposed to prevent, I doubt it was this type of nonsense. nableezy - 06:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TDA, you can think whatever you like, but my restriction is specific to adding a word to articles. It does not say that I cannot ask others to add that word to articles. I am not "topic banned", I am "article banned", there is a difference. But since you are not an uninvolved admin, I cant say that I think it is a productive use of my time to explain this to you any further. Ill wait for comments from uninvolved admins before responding further. nableezy - 15:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, I struggle to imagine that anything you have done in the topic area has been in good faith, but that is besides the point. You and a group of editors have been attempting to have me banned on the most trifling of charges, while you excuse editors lying about sources, making asinine accusations of antisemitism, or edit-war against consensus. There has not been any leniency for me, and this idea is horseshit. There havent been the sanctions handed out to me that you wish there were because they arent, despite the distortions of this group of editors, justified. You think I bring every little issue to AE? I waited days, and repeatedly asked the user in question to retract the accusation, prior to bringing the accusation of supporting genocide here. With Shuki I gave him repeated opportunities to self-revert instead of being reported, and when he did the matter ended. I have not brought JJG here despite his bad faith attempt at inserting what he knows to be false material into an article (Katzrin being the largest town in the Golan), though I could have. With you, I waited until you three times (!) reverted an edit that has consensus before bringing the issue here. I ignore a ton of crap that gets thrown my way, it is the egregious things that make its way here (with a couple of exceptions, exceptions based on long histories with particular users). You can pretend that I am the one abusing AE and violating WP policy, but anybody who actually goes through your contributions both here and within the topic area, starting with the ridiculous discussion at Alon Shvut, will quickly see that your words are better directed inward. This case remains about 1 edit that added Palestine, not Palestinian, that was quickly self-reverted and 2 edits that added Palestinian that were quickly self-reverted. Your distortion of the record is duly noted, however it does not change the facts here. nableezy - 22:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, if that is your judgment, I respect it. I am being honest though, I really did forget each time. But I do ask that you choose to make it a month topic ban instead of a block, there is some work I would like to put in elsewhere. nableezy - 23:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But as far as the level of rhetoric, I think I have been rather restrained. But I dont know how you honestly expect me to react to some of these things. nableezy - 00:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasnt suggesting that it should be anything. I was asking that you consider making it a ban instead. I still think this should be closed with no action. I made two mistakes, due to forgetting a not exactly common type of sanction, and corrected those mistakes within minutes, unprompted. I dont think that merits any sanction at all. But if given the choice, Id rather take the block. nableezy - 02:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Id like to respond to WGF, but I cant separate his decisions in the past JJG case where he refused to allow an editor be sanctioned for repeated lying about sources, an action based on a belief that was rebuked by ArbCom, his decision to close the complaint against MichaelNetzer below, and his past attempt to impose a sanction on me based on his indignation at my daring to question his incompetent closing of another case with this newest recommendation for an extended ban. Yes, I know, there is that tone again. nableezy - 02:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry, but this is absurd. WGF, please explain It was ignored in favor of edit warring. And that four month topic ban was replaced with a revert restriction, a restriction I never violated. Where did I edit-war? Ed, he quickly resumed adding the word 'Palestinian' to articles is a severe overstatement. I had two lapses, quickly corrected. WGFinley has repeatedly advocated for harsh sanctions on the basis of incomprehensible statements. You cant seriously say that 2 quickly self-reverted edits merits a long term ban. I forgot the restriction, and as soon as I hit save page remembered and self-reverted. How is this different than this, which didnt even have a self-rv? In an earlier case, mentioned repeatedly here, WGF excused a user who, despite a previous year ban for misrepresenting sources, misrepresented a source and removing consensus material because he self-reverted one of the edits after being reported. But here he argues that I should be indefinite ban for two edits of a truly trivial nature that were quickly self-reverted? You are allowing the chorus of disgruntled editors who wish to make a mockery of the content policies in the topic area, who insert propaganda and outright lies into articles at every turn, to, by sheer volume, make a quickly corrected error be a cause for a ban. Comparing the Netzer case below and the JJG case in the archive is a stark reminder of just how fucked up this place is. Lying about sources is excused. Adding the word Palestinian and quickly self-reverting, now that needs a firm response. nableezy - 04:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WGF, I have asked that you substantiate your claim that the agreement I made with Ed was ignored in favor of edit warring. You neglect to do so. You are here, once again, advocating harsh sanctions on the basis of incomprehensible claims that do not stand up to any scrutiny. Youre claim that you have no aniums to me is plainly false, so much so that even the briefest looks at our past interactions, such as here, shows that. But I dont even care, that isnt the problem. The problem is that you make unsupported assertions, bizarre judgments, and refuse to back them up. So answer the question please. How exactly was the agreement ignored in favor of edit warring? nableezy - 06:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isnt surprising that WGF makes false claims with no evidence, his carelessness has been extensively discussed in the past, but the claims that I disrupt what is supposed to be an atmosphere of collaboration and that the agreement between Ed and myself was ignored in favor of edit warring are completely spurious and in my opinion further demonstrate that WGF lacks the competence to be administering any part of an "encyclopedia". His actions in this and several other threads (JJG, where he ignored repeated lying about sources and refused to allow him to be sanctioned; Cptnono, where he argued that my raising an interaction ban was something that should result in my being indef banned; Netzer, where he refuses to allow other admins to comment, closing a request on edit-warring against consensus by himself, despite his judgement to have been shown to be ill-formed in the past) demonstrate either gross incompetence or incredible partisanship. I have said he should not be involved as an admin both in cases against myself and in ones that I brought, even if he, momentarily at least, wanted to action a complaint I brought. I repeat that feeling now. I do not think WGFinly competent to be commenting here, his repeated and overzealous attempts to have me banned on the most spurrious of charges and his repeated excusing of such behavior as lying about sources should disqualify him. But if he is allowed to continue pretending that he is qualified to be commenting in that section, then he has to justify his comments. Again, WGF, justify the comment that the agreement was ignored in favor of edit warring. nableezy - 14:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to abide? Really? I made two edits, both due to lapses in memory, and quickly corrected them. How is that a "failure to abide"? How is this possibly being played up into a ban-worthy offense? I mean seriously? Yall ignore a user lying about sources, but my adding Palestinian, and then quickly, upon remembering the sanction, removing it, that should result in a ban? Unreal. nableezy - 15:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And as far as the idea that I am using this page as a battleground, I call BS. Instead of trying to "battle" with editors in article space I bring issues here. That is what I thought was supposed to happen. You are arguing that I should be banned because I raise the misbehavior of others? Why? nableezy - 15:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, I know, and honestly I dont care. The decision appears to have already been made, so I dont know why I should hold back. This is bullshit, from start to finish. I am brought here for having made 2 mistakes that were quickly self-reverted by myself with no editor asking that I do so. JJG was brought after refusing to self-revert, lying about sources, and WGF argued then that because he self-reverted 1 of the edits (incompetently ignoring the other edits) he should not be banned. He wrote then I don't see the particular offense here to merit AE. He put something in, the point was made to him he wasn't being accurate and after 30 minutes of reflection on it he self-reverted. That's the exact thing I would expect. He later tried to close the case on the basis of that self-revert, despite another admin recognizing the seriousness of the misconduct. After making those comments at that case, how exactly can I read his claim here that my self-reverted edits, self-reverted without "30 minutes of reflection" or anybody asking me to, should result in an indef ban? The only answers are either incompetence or partisanship. If my saying that makes me difficult to work with then fine. WGF being an incompetent tool, an incompetence further demonstrated by his bizarre and unsupported comment about me ignoring the sanction and edit-warring instead, makes it difficult for me to work here as well, but that complaint seems to fall on deaf ears. nableezy - 16:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are, hopefully, my final thoughts on this. I honestly cannot believe that this incredibly petty "violation" is being trumped up into a ban worthy offense. I forgot about a restriction and quickly self-reverted. You dont believe me? Fine, lets say I did this on purpose. Are those two edits actually worthy of a ban? Really? When the filing editor just got away with lying about sources? When a below case involving repeated edit-warring against consensus results in no action? Really? Ed, I trust your judgment, and it was only out of respect for you that I even agreed to the restriction. But you are allowing a clique of editors to distort the events of what happened into something sinister and, by sheer volume of their complaining, to remove one of the few roadblocks between them and their wet dream of making the topic area an arm of the Israeli MFA. This is truly unbelievable, as in I have trouble believing even a place as messed up as Wikipedia can make those two decisions. If you are going to ban me then get to the point already. But realize what you are doing. You are rewarding one of the worst users in the topic area, a serial liar who has repeatedly distorted sources, who has repeatedly put propaganda into articles (including this recently). And you are doing so on the most petty of violations. Its your call obviously, and by banning me you may well see a more collegial editing environment. But what you wont see are better articles. What you will see is people like JJG being able to continue using WP as a propaganda instrument unchecked, to continue lying about sources unchecked. I can see why WGF wants this, but I for the life of me cannot figure out how you are falling for it. I think it is due to some misplaced sense of respect for your fellow admins, regardless of their competence. But I wont speculate further. I am brought here for violating a restriction and then quickly self-reverting. If that violation merits a ban then fine. Do what you feel is required. But know what you are doing and why. nableezy - 16:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JJG, if it were supreme arrogance I would not have immediately informed one of the admins that has recommended a long term ban that I had again forgotten. Believe it or not, but noticing a single addition of a word in a decent sized edit is not easy to do. nableezy - 00:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezy

Comment by Michael Netzer

The restriction that Nableezy accepted on adding 'Palestinian' is not like 1RR and 3RR where a self-revert remedies a violation. No such stipulation of self-revert was made by EdJohnston nor accepted by Nableezy. The self-revert cannot thus be said to remedy the violation. It's enough that he does it 3 times to constitute a violation that shows little respect for the sanction, and even more contempt for it by self-reverting and then calling for other editors to revert again. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This case is a symptom of a larger malady. Nableezy is not alone in sowing a contentious behavior in this area. The forgiving hand at AE that he's received has also empowered his friends to arms who've adopted his style. I came from a far more harmonious editing space and quickly found myself assaulted simply for engaging in good faith editing that unfortunately disagrees with how this group operates. It's not easy to stand by and watch how everything Wikipedia stands for is being trampled by a few editors abusing its policies. There is very little respect for facts or civility in this area and the abuse is largely coming from one side. Certainly not all of it, but the aggressive battleground behavior is very one sided. Being silent and forgiving about it is only making things worse. I shrug at one editor pointing fingers at others after the hostility they've dished out of late. I shudder at an editor taking the high moral ground about not hastening to AE every time Nableezy is called to the carpet for a violation. Nableezy has been empowered to get away with spreading intimidation and lording it over others as if he owns the encyclopedia. He jumped into a dispute he wasn't involved in, giving orders as if someone appointed him General, made an edit that had no consensus - and has now filed a complaint for reverts to restore the content to its pre-dispute state. This egregious abuse of policy, also evident in this case, will not stop unless AE begins to treat him equally, and the same judgments are meted out to him as they are to others. Maybe it's time to reconsider whether the leniency has been effective. The results so far, and the growing dissent of editors suffering at his hands, are undermining Nableezey's cause itself. Instead of being an effective spokesman for a cause, his methods are becoming a blemish. This case is only a symptom. But it is a rather clear one for a behavior pattern, and should be seen in the wider context of Nableezy's behavior. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Cautioning for great wisdom seems like a pillar of WP guidance whether for an editor or administrator. For lack of confidence in my own, I've not suggested what action needs to be taken in comments since participating here. I'd wish for a day that no editor would want to bring a case to AE, but instead try to work out disagreements on the field. I know that's not easy for everyone and that tempers flare under duress. I've seen the more collaborative side of Nableezy and I believe he'd like to have it be his dominant approach to editing. I also know that's not always easy for him as the near sole representative for his cause, though he does enjoy wide editor support. Your concern for swirling trouble seems to be of paramount importance. Until we learn how to eradicate storms, the best remedies are protective constructs that help everyone endure them. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nishidani

If this place were civil, a self-revert would cancel the error. NMMGG told me I had (inadvertently) made 2 reverts. I couldn't understand his point, and took his word for it, and selfbanned myself for a month, from article edits. That is how this should be done mainly, on talk pages, notifying an editor and seeing if he is amenable to reason. As to the diffs, Nableezy is worse than myself in the precise construal of what is said. He was told not to add 'Palestinian'. Some of them consist not of 'adding' the word Palestinian to any text, but restoring it to articles where it had been, vandalistically, subtracted'. Subtraction and addition are diametrically opposed processes. But I think Ed is the person to decide on this. Jiujituguy, this bit about Nableezy dropping hints to 'followers' is pure fantasy. User:Taivo, who followed the point made in Nableezy's edit summary is an awesome wikipedian, a professional linguist who knows exactly how to make the right call on a page dealing with languages, independently bookmarked, and he did as any one competent would do. Seeding tagteaming suspicions where they is no evidence for them is not a proper way to make a formal complaint. Nor is waiting 3 days to bring up old evidence and present Nableezy with a 'Christmas gift'. Gift in German means poison.Nishidani (talk) 16:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you slip up, you should, in my view, police yourself and we should all try to get used to it. It was 'subtraction' not 'adding'. Secondly, once one realizes the mistake, one should drop a note on any AE editor's page, explain it, and impose, irrerspective of the advice there, a self-ban. It saves admins a heck of a lot of time. The temptation for notoriously poor editors to play games and out someone is great here. This however, Nab, is not a mitigating factor. Just take a break, son, for a month or two. If the admins here really think it is more serious than that, they will extend the sanction themselves. I personally think Goffman could write, were he alive, a funny treatise on the mad rules we must adhere to if we join the wiki tribe. But rules are rules, and when in doubt, the guest is obliged to defer to the 'community's' (another word I hate) sensitivities by displays of good will in which one's own personal values (honour, regard for maintaining the highest standards) at times take second place. This is all intensely trivial, alas, and stinks to high heaven, but, at times, you concede nothing to enmity by complaint. To the contrary. Social order in democracies is not secured by police sanctions, but by the daily exercise of individual self-restraint.Nishidani (talk) 07:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, with good reason, asked me not to argue on his behalf anywhere (I probably do more harm than good). I'll break that pact, because 3 months indefinite won't hurt Nableezy: he needs a rest, but it would injure the encyclopedia, and I am arguing for the good of the encyclopedia, not to save Nableezy's neck.

(a) To accuse Nableezy of a battleground mentality that must not be tolerated and therefore sanctioned is to say he is worse than 90% of the I/P editors, anons, socks and non-RS spouters who proliferate here. We all know it will always been treated by a majority of editors as a battleground. Unlike real warfare, virtual battles (chess being a palmary example) are rule-governed. The impression over time which Nableezy gives with his extremely fastidious insistence on rule-observance or respect for consensual arrangements is, to administrators, one of a distinctive warrior mentality. Unlike a large number of people he has brought here, Nableezy to my knowledge has no record of introducing contentious material, or false material, or extremely poorly sourced material to articles, something which cannot be said for most of the people he interacts with. Given his insistance on meticulous fidelity to rules, for whatever reason, he broke one, and a sanction is inevitable.

(b)I haven't said it before: you take the judge that happens to turn up and shouldn't whinge. But WGF, you did make a, to many, incomprehensible comment, and call, on the prior case over the Golan Heights, refused to justify, when several people noted it, what was an obvious misconstrual of the record, and the editor got off. Your page cites with approval Thomas Jefferson's dictum on laconic statements. I commend the dictum, but my impression is that, as with the M Netzer case, and others, if a thread develops and the issue gets to look more complicated than it is, you have a slight tendency to tire of having to review it, and, at least twice to my knowledge (probably less than the average admin's error rate) rushed to conclude what you haven't had the patience to examine. That played, I presume, some part in Nableezy's evident frustration recently. Unfortunately, he hasn't learnt to manage that. It's inevitable. I got permabanned for 8 reverts in 45 days. I thought it wrong, unjust, but just shut up. Not that I should be an example. But incidents like this happen not infrequently, and as a lawyer once told me: 'the law has nothing to do with justice, but the state of the evidence at hand'.

(c) With Nableezy indeffed, this place (AE(AI) may be, yes, quieter. I very much doubt that the articles will improve, and this is what worries me. Experience suggests the contrary. I don't know how many pages Nableezy monitors - must be several hundred - ten times more than I can manage to control and see that they aren't regularly jerryrigged with nonsense. I think he's done more to make bad editing harder in the I/P area than anyone else since wiki's inception, and that is why his presence arouses intense dislike. I don't note that to suggest he be given a free pass. But rather to caution against an excessive sanction for a brief set of peccadillos, reverted, which did not damage the encyclopedia. There's something offensive in that trivia (I take it however to be sanctionable) being reported, of all people, by Jiujitsuguy, who is a paragon of tendentious editing, and like a dozen here, has set his sights on ridding this place of Nableezy.

Ed Johnson has everyone's confidence, and, on review, he has seen reason to go beyond the 1 month he originally thought appropriate. I think he is probably right. Three months seems however, the limit. You don't get editors of Nableezy's calibre very often in this area. He has a problem with emotive language, true. He has a respect for the precise observance of rules that few of us can equal. He will always be a nuisance, but far more for the invasive POV warriors who care little for the NPOV pillar, than for admins. Sorry for the TL:DR. Nableezy will perhaps read it with anger. The rest yawning.Nishidani (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by The Devil's Advocate

I am torn on this question. On one hand I want to assume good faith that Nableezy self-reverted because of an honest failure to remember the restriction or confusion over it. On the other hand the fact he has done this three days in a row, self-reverted within a minute or less of making the edit, and on two occasions in his self-revert calls for someone else to make the revert (something he should surely know is no different from reverting the change himself) leads me to suspect JJG may be correct about Nableezy's intent. At the same time I can see how Nableezy might see several of these cases as legitimate exceptions to the restriction, especially the edit to Palestinian Arabic that I think probably qualifies as vandalism. Such a muddled case makes me wonder if the restriction has much chance of being enforceable. There is a broader issue, however, in the way JJG and Nableezy are both apparently attempting to use this request to pursue a personal vendetta by raising frivolous concerns (the Irgun cat where Nab reverted a sock) or issues that have already been decided on (the Mount Hermon case that was already ended).--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy No, I do not think you are stupid. I think you are more than intelligent enough to understand that asking someone to make an edit you are not allowed to make is a clear-cut violation of the restriction and not an effort at discussing the issue. Obviously you wanted someone to see your comment about the material needing to be reverted and act according to your wishes. Maybe you could argue that it was a slip-up in the heat of the moment, but again you did it more than once in a very short period of time. That doesn't make such a defense very convincing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for Heaven's sake! JJG took his little squabble down to the AE case from Nableezy directly beneath this one and now they're duking it out there too.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, the problem is not with the case you presented against JJG, I think you were right. However, bringing it up here where it has no relevance at all after it has already been concluded and complaining that the admins should "get rid of" JJG is not the way to challenge this request. In fact, by immediately resorting to such tactics you are only making yourself look worse. By the same token trying to say that you were just discussing the issue when you plainly called for other people to perform the action you were prohibited from taking is not helping you look better. The examples you give of you discussing are not working for you either, because in two you are making purely technical comments that would not really involve adding the word Palestinian, but simply changing Palestine to Palestinian. The other discussion is you talking about the problematic editing of a user making one of the changes you briefly reverted after other editors have been reverting the editor. None of them shows you simply telling other people to perform a revert in your stead. I do not think the restriction was imposed with the understanding that you could just ask someone else to make the same edit you are restricted from making, though Ed's clarification would be helpful.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I am objecting to the idea you have put forward that telling someone to make a revert in your stead so you can avoid a violation is the same as discussing the issue on the talk page. Honestly, I think the actual reverts and self-reverts could be reasonably construed as innocent mistakes or confusion and in one case I think the revert could even have been exempt from the restriction, but insisting that you can just tell other people to make the edits you are prohibited from making yourself does not make you seem so innocent. If another situation like the one the restriction was imposed for should arise it seems like you would be of the impression that you can just tell other people to revert in your place and not be doing the very thing the restriction was imposed to prevent.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Telling someone to revert obvious vandalism is one thing, but telling someone to revert a more ambiguous edit is not. Your expressed belief that telling people to revert edits in your place in order to avoid violating a restriction is ok is a serious problem. Just because the few cases involved have been plausible exemptions or unclear does not mean that your position is respectful of the restriction.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Ed It should be noted that he in fact did this three days in a row and on two of those occasions he requested that another editor revert the edit for him, something he apparently believes is completely legitimate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@WG Seriously, you should take the advice some editors are giving and excuse yourself from these cases with Nableezy. Your reference of the Cptnono case above just goes to show the bizarre hoops you seem to jump through when it comes to Nab. There you did initially agree with AGK about an indef, but the moment someone suggested Nableezy might have technically violated the interaction ban as well you do a complete 180 and insist that not only should there be no action taken against a blatant violation of the interaction ban by Cptnono, contradicting AGK's suggestion, you suggest lifting the interaction ban. Now, you are taking that same insistence on an indef by AGK and citing it here to push for an indef against Nableezy. This after having already pushed for such an indef in a previous case involving Cptnono's interaction ban with Nableezy because you found it frivolous only to back down after several admins told you that would be incredibly harsh, including the other admin you mention to support this latest suggestion of an indef. My advice to you is that you, in the immortal words of Zach Galifianakis, better check yourself before you wreck yourself.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@JJG Your latest diff is stretching it. If anything this indicates that the restriction was unenforceable as a revert like that would easily result in accidentally violating the restriction without a person realizing it, while otherwise being a legitimate revert. For me it is far more conceivable that this instance was just a mistake. As far as Nableezy previously repeating this violation three times in three days, his calls for other editors to perform the prohibited reverts, or the way he has acted on this AE case, I believe the first issue should be treated with a little more leniency given the restriction would probably have been difficult to follow anyway. The other two issues with Nableezy's conduct are still, in my opinion, legitimate cause for imposing sanctions on him. Not sure if that would really change the resulting sanctions, but endorsing the use of this kind of restriction in the future would probably be a bad idea.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Shuki

I don't see any reason to even contemplate Nableezy's innocent and naive 'slip' of an edit since he just a few days ago, kindly warned me on my talk page, actually threatened to take me to AE, about a problematic edit of mine in which he even brought up his four month topic ban from exactly a year ago where he was caught gaming the system by self-reverting among other things to prove I was in the wrong, which I accepted. So any reasonable contributor to this project would step back and be careful when under the magnifying glass, the same one he uses for others. I would advise Nableezy to take the initiative and precaution and self impose a topic ban but Nableezy (and most of us) seems to understand that he'll just get a free pass once again, a little slap on the wrist, and 'advised' about some behaviour or something. --Shuki (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, you're making a joke out of AE with your inconsistent handling of penalties and breaking your back with this new AGF. And please tell, 1) what does it matter who reported Nableezy's three reckless infractions? 2) What exactly do you have something against JJG? Actually, I think you are quite consistent at handing out bans to many others reported by Nableezy while giving Nableezy a free pass on most, if not all cases. I know that Nableezy is jumping for joy on your latest comment, even saying that he (SPA) would be able to finally work on other things if you make it a ban, not a block. ~~LOL~~ --Shuki (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One would think that being under the magnifying glass would make the editor in question take a step back, be careful, and basically take a low profile. Since the AE was filed, Nableezy has not let up at all. I guess he knows that he's going to get off once again with a little shake of the finger, maybe even that short month ban on IP so he can work on Egyptian articles in the meantime. --Shuki (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Boris

When I saw this, I did not believe my eyes. Nableezy is a known warrier for the cause, but he is usually impeccable with respect to various rules. And here after the recent restriction, he is under a magnifying glass, and then this. He is restricted from using one word, and he adds precisely this word several times. Puzzling. Now comes an explanation; it is all forgetfulness. OK. But then there are these edit summaries. I just imagine what he would say if one of his usual opponents profesed innocence in this way... I would say like this. Edit summaries by themselves are ok. But edit summaries in the self-revert are problematic, because the self-revert is supposed to be an act of contrition. And then this combative defence. This whole thing has a bad smell. But then, as always, I AGF.

I would also say that I don't like that the report is made by JJG. Perhaps JJG and Nableezy should try to step back from this sustained confrontation, especially here on AE. Maybe impose a ban on reporting on AE page? - BorisG (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least they should probably be banned from commenting about each other on AE and filing requests on each other at AE.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say indef tban would be an overreaction in this case. Pattern? Well, wait until there is something more serious than this, edit war or something. Surely if there is a pattern, then there is every chance it will happen soon. If not, even better. As for this minor violation, block him for a week or something. - BorisG (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gatoclass

I support EdJohnston's suggestion of a one-month block for Nableezy. I too think Nableezy needs a break from editing, the fact that he has forgotten an (albeit voluntary) restriction after only a few days is an indication to me that he has burnout.

WGFinley, as I have said, I think you should be recusing yourself from cases involving Nableezy given your apparent animus toward him, remarked upon by several editors over the last few weeks. In response to your comment about previous sanctions, I have pointed out that all of Nableezy's past sanctions are for minor technical breaches of revert restrictions etc., and none for the real problem in the topic area, which is POV pushing. The same cannot be said of his opponents. The central problem involving Nableezy for a long period now has been an apparently neverending stream of Israeli nationalist editors who are constantly trying to push the POV that certain territories including East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the West Bank are "in Israel" (a demonstrable falsehood). That is the problem that ultimately needs to be addressed on this board, not the problem of "Nableezy" whose only offence has been to try and defend core policies with regard to these issues. Gatoclass (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the central problem is Israeli nationalist POV pushing. So Palestinian nationalist POV pushing does not occur? Or is fine? - BorisG (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worthwhile emphasizing that this was a voluntary restriction agreed to by Nableezy. He wasn't obliged to agree to it, and may well have escaped sanction altogether, or at least been sanctioned alongside a gaggle of other editors per EdJohnston's comment, had he not done so. A voluntary restriction does not have quite the same strength as a mandatory restriction - particularly given that no alternative sanction had been clearly proposed as an alternative - and I think it likely it slipped Nableezy's mind for that very reason. While a sanction may therefore be considered appropriate, I think the nature and unusual circumstances of the restriction ought to be considered mitigating factors when imposing it. Gatoclass (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck my original comment supporting a ban for Nableezy due to the fact that I unfortunately missed some evidence. I now see that Nableezy reverted all three of these edits, within a minute of making them. While it certainly seems odd that he would forget about this restriction on three separate occasions, the fact that he immediately self-reverted means that he effectively complied with his restriction. I don't find Juijitsuguy's interpretation of Nableezy's actions persuasive given that N. could have achieved the same result just by leaving a note on the talk page, which would likewise turn up on watchlists. There is little if any justification in my view for a sanction in these circumstances; certainly not a lengthy one. Gatoclass (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sean.hoyland

I agree with Gatoclass. We're in danger of losing perspective here. This should be about what is best for content. For example, the first diff in this report shows Nableezy finding a factual error that has been in an article since 2009. His restriction happened to mean that he couldn't fix it at that time but his actions resulted in it being fixed. Nableezy highlighting the issue also allowed me to search for similar factual errors in several articles and fix them. They are the kind of errors, deliberate falsehoods, that are routinely introduced by nationalists who are often frustratingly shameless in their disregard for policy. Once Wikipedia starts blocking editors on sight for advocating or introducing deliberate falsehoods like these which are a clear demonstration that an editor isn't capable of editing in the topic area, the topic area will be a far more stable and productive environment. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the second diff, that is Nableezy reverting an IP, Special:Contributions/108.162.98.101, who has been repeatedly warned and blocked for vandalizing an article by removing the word Palestinian. Trying to erase all things Palestinian is a common sport for the extremist element that edit in the topic area. Punishing Nableezy for this edit and a self-revert appears to be counterproductive and bureaucratic. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by DePiep

@EdJohnston. The introduction of this page says clearly: who comes with unclean hands .... Then while you state this one sentence about requestor Jiujitsuguy: It is disquieting that User:Jiujitsuguy is the one submitting this complaint, [...], you did not see a reason to derive results from that statement. Yet then your reasoning continues about Nableezy, including: so much trouble swirls around Nableezy. From there, you end up supporting ... indefinite topic ban. You did not contemplate that the swirl was put there by others? Jiujitsuguy for starters, and why not take a look at User:MichaelNetzer (who is present here, as the first Commenter in this section: Well, in another recent AE his hands were not checked on cleanness for administrative reasons -- but you have every right to do that check from here), and this, needing protection against apparent target of coordinated IP/sock attack. I myself saw the effect of my edit, after which the indirect accusations (or trolling) by another editor stopped without further ado. With all this, I am not convinced that the "level of rhetoric" (?) and "evident battleground attitude" of Nableezy (which to me did not stand out as such) is dissenting with the other comments in the thread they are in. I think it is misleading that the same "battleground" is visited by multiple others, thereby keeping low both their "trouble swirls" statistics and your attention.
Rounding up: By zooming in on a single editor and their single ARB remedy, the overview is lost and, most importantly, the result is negligible: just one less editor for now, and no behavior is altered re I/P. So (using words from User:Gatoclass's comment here): no improvement against POV pushing by Israeli nationalists. It should be Arbitration's concern that these issues are not handled at that overview level. -DePiep (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. There is a broader overview with regards to this case that goes beyond just one editor. As I noted in my comments, other editors have been using the AE page as a battleground. There is also the question of WG's behavior with regards to Nableezy on AE, which seems to be the main cause for Nableezy's frustration above. Mind you, while other admins have commented Nableezy appears to only have an issue with WG's behavior and WG's behavior in the JJG case saw ArbCom step in to correct WG's perception there, though no action was taken on the actual case, so he cannot claim that it is some tactic employed, or to be employed, unfairly against all admins. On a further note, it doesn't seem anyone is terribly concerned about the way JJG brought up a rather frivolous issue (Nab reverting a sock who inserted a category at Irgun) to pad his request.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by 172.190.235.61

(Moved from top to this place to keep structure. Corrected sectiontitle. -DePiep (talk) 09:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Someone above said, and someone else agreed: "The central problem involving Nableezy for a long period now has been an apparently neverending stream of Israeli nationalist editors who are constantly trying to push the POV that certain territories including East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the West Bank are "in Israel" (a demonstrable falsehood). That is the problem that ultimately needs to be addressed on this board, not the problem of "Nableezy" whose only offence has been to try and defend core policies with regard to these issues."

Clearly this statement is in itself an example of the "central problem" with respect to Nableezy. Editors like Nableezy and the person who said this believe that Palestinian nationalism, not "Israeli nationalism" is the correct political position that reflects Wikipedia's 'core principles'. Clearly if one is able to rid Wikipedia of those pesky Israeli nationalists, then the "true" Palestinian nationalist position will be able to be fully expressed. This is the position that Nableezy and his supporters take, and they are more than willing to fight after fight to rid Wikipedia of the opposite POV, constantly pushing the envelope of acceptability with these kinds of games, rather than actually collaborate with editors who do not share their view. This is precisely what the Arabs and Palestinians do in real life, refusing to acknowledge the Jewish nature of the Israeli state, colluding with other Arab nations and the Western-named terrorist groups for the eradication of the state of Israel. Wikipedia is a microcosm of this, except that at Wikipedia, the "Palestinian state" viewpoint is dominant and the Israeli viewpoint (generally called 'Zionist' here at Wiki) struggles mightily to be heard as can be seen in the quote above. Nableezy and a few others dictate policy. I salute the Israel supporters on Wiki, who constantly take a beating at the hands of Nableezy and others of "his ilk." This is permitted by the basically democratic (read: mob-rule) nature of Wikipedia, and supported by those editors and administrators who believe their pro-Palestinian "anti-Zionist" position is the correct, unbiased one. If history (at Wiki) is any answer, we can expect more excuses for Nableezy and the Palestinian nationalists and more hard knocks for the Israeli "nationalists" here at Wikipedia. The facts, the atmosphere, and Wikipedia's reputation are what really suffers. 172.190.235.61 (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dajudem. Nice of you to join us on an AOL IP. nableezy - 17:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notified the IP and logged to prevent future embarrassment. -DePiep (talk) 10:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Zero0000

It seems to be that WGFinley simply cannot think straight when it comes to Nableezy. Every casual visitor to these pages will see it very clearly. This is bad for everyone. WGFinley should recuse himself. Zero^talk 02:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by ElComandanteChe

I took the liberty to ask for closure on this case at WP:ANRFC. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Nableezy

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

I recommend that this be closed with a one-month block of Nableezy. He agreed not to add the word 'Palestinian' to articles and he should be able to stick to this bargain. The diffs show him adding, and then removing the word Palestinian (less than a minute later) on two successive days, December 22 and 23. This does not look to me like a lapse of memory. It is disquieting that User:Jiujitsuguy is the one submitting this complaint, since in my opinion he is on thin ice regarding sanctions. Nonetheless Nableezy should follow what he has agreed to. The level of rhetoric that Nableezy uses against others in his response is painful to see and I invite other admins to see whether they think further action should be taken based on his evident battleground attitude. I continue to be concerned that so much trouble swirls around Nableezy though great wisdom may be needed to decide what to do about that. EdJohnston (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: You suggested this should be a one-month topic ban instead of a one-month block. I would consider recommending a *three-month* topic ban instead. You are one of a handful of editors who I suspect may wind up with long topic bans in the next few months one way or another. EdJohnston (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Partially think this is your call Ed as you issued the previous warning. However, if you are going TBAN (which is what should be considered in my opinion) I don't think three months is sufficient given Nableezy's history of TBANs. --WGFinley (talk) 02:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@WGF: If it were just your call, what sanction would you recommend, and what rationale would you give? It seems to me that bans are often given out (a) if there is a blatant event for which no real defense can be given, or (b) the editor exhausts people's patience. I think Nableezy is getting close to the second, but whatever standard we apply to him we should be willing to apply to others. That's why I'm asking for the rationale. EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of cases on this page and it seems to me, as suggested by AGK and Cailil in cases above, it's time the indefinite TBAN comes out for repeat offenders instead of being seen as some sort of death sentence and it's because of cases like this. You took an action and gave a narrow restriction to avoid a behavior and give Nableezy a chance. It was ignored in favor of edit warring. Nableezy has a history of second chances and already had a 4 month TBAN this year. I think it's time to make clear this topic space and AE are not a battleground and those who choose to make it one and disrupt what is supposed to be an atmosphere of collaboration are not entitled to unlimited chances to remediate their behavior. --WGFinley (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My December 15 negotiation with Nableezy led to a deal which broke down quickly, since he quickly resumed adding the word 'Palestinian' to articles. I'm prepared to support a topic ban anywhere between 3 months and indefinite. With any luck some more admins will comment on what to do. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective, Nableezy's failure to abide by a consentual restriction (ban on adding Palestinian) coupled with the longer term issues in this topic area, as well as the repeated use of this page by Nableezy in a battleground fashion are indeed grounds for an indefinite ban from all articles and discussions (including discussion of other editors involved in this dispute) of Palestinian & Israeli topics. Per my above comment re Cptnono, if Nableezy is indeed a good editor but for one hot-button issue, and/or series of interactions, then Nableezy can show us by demonstrating collaborative & collegial editing elsewhere. This restriction can be reviewed after 3-6 months as it is a ban of 'no definite duration', rather than 'a long-term restriction'--Cailil ^talk 15:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Gato - I haven't had any animus against Nableezy, he has fabricated the perception of bias with his constant torrent of criticism he hurls my way. Recusing myself in cases concerning him would just create an example of how to get rid of admins you don't want to deal with. I've taken no individual action against him and kept my comments to his action and the case that's at hand, he hasn't done likewise at any juncture. I have a thick skin, I can deal with the insults, but I have not been biased in my treatment or assessment of his actions. In fact in this case I deferred to Ed and he asked me what I thought. --WGFinley (talk) 06:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: Your criticism of Wgfinley's comments is not helping your case. Any admin could have asked WGF to reopen the Netzer case if they disagreed, and no one did. Your further statements give the impression that you are in battle mode 24/7. You seem to be going out of your way to prove that you are hard to work with. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Nableezy needs a break from this area. A 3-6 months topic ban is reasonable. Considering the self reverts in mitigation, an indef topic ban is a little on the harsh side, but I can go along with it if that is the consensus. The original sanction was a little unusual and could possibly be drafted more elegantly, but that's beside the point.
I think the MichaelNetzer case was closed prematurely. It seems to have been closed on a truncated "no documented warning, therefore no sanctions" analysis. But serious consideration should have been given to whether we should find that MN has been constructively warned given his history of participation at AE and the warning box at the top of Talk:Jerusalem. In addition, the diffs show a prima facie case of edit warring, which is blockable even without discretionary sanctions; this aspect seems to have been overlooked as well.
I agree that WGF need not recuse from cases involving Nableezy. T. Canens (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reopened the MichaelNetzer case, hopefully that will let us stick to this case. Nableezy's prior TBAN was 4 months, the offense is minor but the AE conduct and gross incivility is not. I think the TBAN should be indefinite, 6 at a minimum. With that, unless a fellow uninvolved admin has anything else to ask me, this is my final comment on this case. --WGFinley (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: someone makes a custom monobook.js that prevents Nableezy saving an article page if there are more occurrences of the word "Palestinian" than when the page was opened. A request at VP(T) would achieve this in short order. Rich Farmbrough, 11:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
As admins we are not here to predict or guess or try and understand Nableezy's motive (whether it was intentional or not) with his edits. We refer to the guideline of AGF, and use it to the best of our abilities. In my opinion, assuming good faith has been exhausted as an option here. After reading all the comments, and reading through the evidence, under Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions, Nableezy is topic banned, broadly constructed, for all subjects surrounding and including the P/I conflict area for a duration of 6 months. Nableezy is also further non-voluntarily restricted by the previous voluntary restriction that was agreed to, extended until March 1st 2012. To also claify this, it is any form of the word Palestine. -- DQ (t) (e) 08:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelNetzer

1RR, Topic ban, and Probation in relation to either P/I or Jerusalem. -- DQ (t) (e) 04:44, 5 January 2012 (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 MichaelNetzer

Users who are submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy 23:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC);Nishidani (talk) 06:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Edit warring against consensus at Jerusalem

17:53, 21 December 2011 (edit summary: "Restored meaning of name in lede. No consensus achieved for this change. See talk page.")
01:13, 23 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 467092211 by Zero0000 (talk)Discussion and procedure is still ongoing. Lede should remain as was before dispute. Please do not make these changes until consensus is achieved.")
08:16, 25 December 2011 (edit summary: "Restored opening sentence to long-standing community consensus. See talk page and please wait for clear consensus before changing again.")

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

The user has been a regular participant here so is obviously aware of the ARBPIA case

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

MichaelNetzer, after long discussions at Talk:Jerusalem and WP:DRN, threatened to revert against consensus. MichaelNetzer is alone arguing that a folk etymology be retained as though it were factual. He has threatened to revert against consensus, and has made good on his threat, having reverted the same material 3 times, which has been added by 5 different users at this point.. He has also refused to self-revert, claiming that his argument is superior and despite the overwhelming rejection of that argument his consent is required to remove the material from the lead. No one editor should be allowed to hold an article hostage, and when that editor threatens to do so, and then makes good on his threat, he should be restricted from continuing to do so.

As far as "protocol" demanding the user be officially notified of the case, that wikilawyer-esque objection was heard, and rejected, in the past. The purpose of the notification is to ensure a user is aware of the case. In the last month or so MichaelNetzer has been a constant presence on this board and is obviously aware of the case. nableezy - 19:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JJG, Im glad you are amazed that I might momentarily and absent-mindedly forget something and then remember it but can remember other issues after thinking them. I am likewise amazed that you do not remember that thread as your were rather involved in it. But I dont think you are forgetting, there is another word that I would use for your feigned ignorance over that issue. nableezy - 20:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it necessary to reply to Michael, as his response is filled with the same distortions that characterize his contributions at Talk:Jerusalem and WP:DRN. He writes I asked for an answer to this [WP:NOTDICT] and none was given. That is untrue, a reply was given (here). He writes I have never threatened to revert against consensus. His words in this diff were

If an editor changes the lede, based on arguments made here and in the talk page, motivated by prejudices against nationalism ("These are the prejudices I bring to edits."), lack of knowledge of facts ("In fact the phrase was alien to my ear, until my eye caught it some years ago on this page") and bias towards "holy writ" ("Very biblical. 'Abode of Peace' is holy writ, and guess who's enjoying the infallibility associated with some office!"), in order to supersede WP policy and scholarly sources that support the lede as it is, then I will revert it

He wrote I have never claimed my argument was "superior" nor would I presume to be a judge of myself. He wrote, in reply to my saying that his belief that consensus has not been achieved based on his feeling that his argument is stronger is not acceptable, that I have a stronger argument and you are wrong. Here he shows the same willingness to distort the record that led him to revert the same material over and over again. This is both tendentious and disruptive. It needs to stop, either by his agreement or through some administrative sanction. nableezy - 20:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I am talking about. The arguments that are made routinely twist plain English. Michael, it isnt that you just claim your argument is stronger, it is you also say that CONSENSUS says the quality is the more important factor and on that basis there is no consensus. Next, you continue with this absurd accusation of a prejudice against a Hebrew association. Nobody is removing the Hebrew from the lead, nobody is even placing the Hebrew after any other language in the first sentence,and there is a link to an explanation of the meaning in the first sentence. What we have done is remove a folk etymology, an error of fact in an encyclopedia article when translating a word. There is no dispute that al-quds means the Holy in Arabic, so this game of claiming that there is no balance and that a Hebrew translation must balance an Arabic one fails. But even then, several people have offered to remove the translation of the Arabic, even though it isnt necessary, just to satisfy that ill-founded demand for "balance". But no, your argument is stronger, and that determines consensus. And yet you claim you arent taking the article hostage. nableezy - 06:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that MN's 5-year-old account with a completely clean record is a mitigating factor is a red-herring, because he had not been editing in the topic area during this period. MN's contributions, from literally day one, in the topic area do not show a a history ... of trying to work with people. See his contributions at WT:WESTBANK and Talk:Alon Shvut, where you can see the same tendency of distorting the plain English of WP guidelines and comments of others. As far as his having his having such a history on the Jerusalem article, this is, again, simply untrue. MN attempted, several times, to push into the article a map that shows occupied Palestinian and Syrian territory and as being "in Israel", and he did this when there was a relatively wide ranging agreement to use a different map. He continually claimed that saying that occupied territory being "in Israel" is not "political", and he routinely made outrageous charges of others being on a political crusade. When he was told that such charges have a distinct flavor to them (given the context of the word crusade), he simply brushed that aside and continued making these types of attacks. Michael has routinely distorted what others have written, he has routinely attempted to push in to articles an extreme minority view as though it were fact, and he has routinely distorted several policies and guidelines while doing so. He most decidedly does not have a history of trying to work with others, he regularly instigates hostility with others, such as when he made several outrageous attacks on Nishidani, claiming he is so prejudiced that he should not be allowed to edit. And Ed, MN did bold I will revert it, see this diff. nableezy - 15:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as far as 6 months being harsh as a first topic ban, that may be true. However my very first topic ban, a result of edit-warring in the lead of the article Gaza War (against a sock of a banned user, who also initiated the report) resulted in a 6 month topic ban, later reduced to 4 month article ban and 2 month topic-wide ban. See here. That was, besides 2 short blocks on unrelated articles, my first ban of any sort. And it has been used, repeatedly, to argue for excessively lengthy bans for any misbehavior on my side. nableezy - 16:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning MichaelNetzer

Statement by MichaelNetzer

Long before I came to this area, the first sentence in Jerusalem included the meanings "Abode of Peace" and "The Holy Sanctuary" for the names in Hebrew and Arabic respectively. The Etymology section covers the pre-Hebrew meaning "Foundation of (the god) Shalem", with an uncontested scholarly source that was also there before I came.

The same source also states immediately afterward "The popular meaning of Jerusalem, "the city of peace" comes from the Hebrew word "shalom", meaning peace, harmony and wholeness."

I did not fabricate this source, nor insert it into the article. "Abode of Peace" is supported by 5 (five) reliable scholarly sources in the article.

The etymology is factual. How can some editors claim it is not supported by sources when it appears in the article with Five scholarly reliable sources? What else is needed to prove this meaning is factual?

These additional supportive sources that are not in the article show 'Abode of Peace' is the most popular and recognized meaning of the name Jerusalem. They are only supportive sources, but in that WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and the lede is intended for "a good definition and description" of the topic, 'Adobe of Peace' is factually and extensively supported by sources for inclusion.

On that basis I asked to explain why it should be removed and no answer other than "folk etymology" was given. Yet WP policy clearly states:

"An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) rather than linguistic concerns."

I asked for an answer to this and none was given. This pillar policy for the lede was disregarded as if it doesn't exist. Some editors are trying to remove, by force, a long standing community consensus definition in one of the most sensitive articles in the I-P space.

I did not threaten to revert against consensus". Anyone reading what I said there can see that.

I have never threatened to revert against consensus.

I have never claimed my argument was "superior" nor would I presume to be a judge of myself. I pointed to WP:Consensus: "Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." That's all I said about quality of an argument.

I have adhered to Wikipedia guidelines diligently throughout the discussions. I only reverted the article to the state it was in before the dispute, until consensus is achieved.

The "overwhelming rejection" of my argument has been exaggerated beyond compare. In this diff, it was said to be "a dozen voices". Some time later in this diff, it became "14-15 people". My latest count shows 7 against 4. Where are the 14-15? Why was this said?

I adhere to the following guideline on achieving consensus:

"This does not mean that decisions must be unanimous (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); it is not based on majority voting either. It means, rather, that the decision-making process involves an active effort to reach a solution that addresses as far as possible all legitimate concerns raised by interested editors."

I have not seen the slightest attempt to have the most minimal concerns about this addressed.

These are the discussions: Talk:Jerusalem * DR Noticeboard * Talk:Nish * Talk:WGFinley.

They need to be read fully to understand this case. Nothing said here by anyone, including myself, can be taken at face value. To me, they show the process to remove the Hebrew meaning is ill conceived and violates WP policy on the most fundamental levels. No consensus has been achieved to warrant it. I'm willing to be convinced but not this way. Not in this tone. Not with this incivility. Not with this disregard for everything Wikipedia stands for.

I will not respond to the venom spilled here, it speaks for itself. I only ask the case be reviewed thoroughly. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments:

Nableezy: There is a world of difference between saying "my argument is stronger" and "my argument is superior". A world of difference in tone and presumptuousness. I have never used the word "superior" in this context. Why is it alright for you to imply your argument is stronger but not for someone else?
Zero: What expert opinion? Nishidani's? He said he never heard of the phrase "until my eye caught it some years ago on this page." Yet this phrase has been around for nearly 2000 years and saturates sources. It is mentioned nearly everywhere the meaning of the name is referenced. This is expert?
I have never accused others of wikilawyering and tendentious arguments because I respect WP guidelines about this being a serious accusation. My only fault is in trying to argue in good faith. When looking at the volume of words Nishidani pours on the discussions (evidenced by the length of his opening statement compared to mine), one wonders why Nishidani's verbosity does not cause these editors "misery" as does mine. Is their misery only due to hearing someone disagree with them?
I did not open the discussions on Nishidani's talk page nor on WGFinley's. I reserve the right to answer when someone else starts a discussion and accuses me as Nishidani and Nableezy did. To imply that I was responsible for them is a grave falsity.
I have not argued on grounds of politics. Only on relevant cultural status of the city. Nishidani attempted to drag the discussion into politics nearly 10 times and continues to falsely accuse me of politicizing when it is he who does so. I argued repeatedly for the meanings pertaining to the two cultures presiding over the city.
There was never a consensus for the change Nableezy made when he did it, which removes the Hebrew meaning and leaves the Arabic. AgadaUrbanit, who supports the previous status quo, correctly points to the severe POV imbalance favoring only one meaning in the lead.
The editors have said my sources are poor and unacceptable, yet Zero admits they are acceptable and uncontested in Etymology. How can they be acceptable in the Etymology section and suddenly become poor and unacceptable in the lede? Especially when the lede is more concerned with broad definitions and not linguistics? These are the types of argumentative runarounds that have been applied here.
None of these editors have posted sources supporting their claim of "minority meaning". I was the only one who posted "extensive" sources showing 'Abode of Peace' as the common recognized meaning for Jerusalem. Peter cohen, in his excitement to eviscerate me and find relief for his "misery" states Nishidani posted extensive sources. He did not. The sources he posted are only relative to linguistics and distort the picture as if they are "commonly recognized". They are not. Common recognition is mostly supported by my extensive sources. Nishidani's argument is mostly based on his personal previous lack of knowledge of it.
In this diff that Nableezy opened the complaint with, and this explanation of it, I've stated why there appears to be a prejudice against this Hebrew language association in this case, driven by Nishidani's declared prejudices against "nationalism" and selective "holy writ", pushing to remove only one meaning for the Hebrew name of this seminal article in I/P area. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem is a a city rich with history and conflict, unique and cherished by prominent cultures for their lot in it. Even scholars who decry the violence over it, and have no favor for Israel, recognize its meaning 'Abode of Peace'. Removing the Hebrew meaning and leaving the Arabic, defies all encyclopedic integrity. Removing both meanings from the lede gravely compromises the article's introduction in that both the Hebrew and Arabic meanings, as they appeared by long-standing community consensus, define what the city is most commonly recognized for. They are both "holy writ" and one cannot make an argument that only one such "holy writ" should be prejudiced. There was never a properly achieved consensus for removal of this information. Arguments were ignored by editors on one side who seemed more than happy to win a fight instead of showing concern for neutrality. I acted only to defend the integrity of Wikipedia information against this POV push. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy: What you have done is disregard WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, WP:Consensus, WP:Reliable sources and WP:civility as observed here and repeatedly. Had you and others tried to address my concerns, as I did yours by producing 9 maps in order to satisfy your every objection, in a drawn out process which is the proper way to achieve consensus on such sensitive disputes, we would not have this problem. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TDA: You are misinformed and appear to repeat others' arguments without checking facts. I am not insisting on any changes. I am only insisting on maintaining long-standing community consensus until a proper agreement is arrived at for changes that others want to make. I declined "compromises" that removed well sourced information on questionable grounds and were not compromises at all. I proposed this compromise based on Nishidani's and Jayen's concerns, which was rejected by Nishidani. I have repeatedly stated that I would support a reasonable compromise. Your comment did imply your agreement that 'Abode of Peace" is one of the primary meanings of Jerusalem. You now reverse your position. Please study the facts before making such allegations. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani's opening statement, full of links, is framed in a way to distort the contexts everything was said in. His presentation is an egregious misreading of the case. They can only be understood by reading the discussions themselves. These are the links again: Talk:Jerusalem * DR Noticeboard * Talk:Nish * Talk:WGFinley.

To close my comments: The way this dispute started reveals the battleground tone and incivility from the first words Nishidani addressed me with. Many of his first comments are laden with personal remarks about my understanding and abilities rather than simply arguing content. This set the tone for everything to follow and nothing I said would matter anymore. I asked Nishidani repeatedly to stop making such remarks, to no avail. Here are only a few of them:

("devastating incomprehension") * ("What on earth do you mean by 'earlier incarnations'? That is meaningless.") * {"You do not understand the simplest issues of historical linguistics") * ("You do not understand the issues") * ("trying to edit on an area you know little about") * ("your opinion on a technical issue you are totally unfamiliar with.") * ("your comprehensive lack of understanding") * ("Just back off") * ("you should move on to blogging elsewhere").

For all of Nishidani's self-professed superiority in linguistics, it turned out that much of his argument was based on his lack of previous knowledge of the term, which has been around for 2 millennia and prevalent everywhere in sources. To assault my knowledge on that basis reveals a serious behavioral issue. All my sources were dismissed categorically in the beginning, without sound reason for their context, yet the primary ones are in the article itself and have never been contested there. Something started out very wrong here. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 08:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy: Read everything I've said to see that I did not ever base my view of consensus on "quality of argument" alone, as you say. It was only one of my points, next to "majority does not..." and "...addressing all concerns". It is hard to AGF when you state such falsities, while the record clearly shows otherwise. Either read more carefully or desist from egregious misrepresentations. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq: You disregard everything else in this dispute and base your appraisal of me on a few select comments. Read how this started and how it continued and you might understand my statement to Nishidani better. I don't think you will, seeing how you're going to extreme lengths to support his uncivil behavior from the start. It is not that "some people" like that meaning, as your weasel definition states. Scholarly sources support it as the common meaning. There's a world of difference between your one-sided approach to "mediation" and "dismissal" of sources - and between the whole body of facts. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nableezy as if he answered my question about linguistics vs. definition are again misleading distortions. His answer suggests I throw out linguistics when no such thing was implied. There exists a linguistic basis for the common meaning "Abode of Peace" which is dismissed here as "wrong" or "folk". What matters for the encyclopedia is support in scholarly sources, which exists abundantly. The few that say it is entirely "wrong" are themselves the minority. There is a natural dispute for such an ancient name but the meaning has been cemented in modern culture and for 2 millennia. It is referenced by most sources. It is being denied by these editors against all evidence. This entire case, most everything they are saying, is one distortion of the facts after the other. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On re-opening the case and T.Canens' comment:

WGFinley did the right thing by re-opening the case. He's been right and fair in his arbitration.

The record shows I entered into the discussion in good faith and conducted myself with civility and patience in the face of enormous hostility, which persists to this moment. If my conduct is to be considered below expected standards, what should be said about the behavior towards me?

I do not apologize for defending the integrity of due process on Wikipedia, nor for the patience and goodwill I tried to convey to editors who disregarded the most basic tenets of good collaboration, and presume to rule the encyclopedia in their contempt for editors who disagree with them.

I regret the disruption but did not cause it. The battleground agitation in the I-P space began long before I came here, and will continue long after.

My reverts were proper and in good faith because the edit-war was instigated by trying to remove well-sourced sensitive information in a sensitive article, without achieving agreement. Due process was not upheld and a long-held community consensus was violated without considering the most minimal concerns raised. I was attacked vehemently from the very beginning for daring to suggest there should be consideration for why the information has been in the article, long before I arrived.

Though I do not apologize for what I've done, I've learned the futility of trying to uphold the values and guidelines Wikipedia stands for, in such a situation.

Administrators will do what they deem proper. It will be the right thing by each administrator's view, and it will be acceptable.

My presence in the topic area is not critical to the encyclopedia.

The future of Wikipedia, should things continue this way, is.

--MichaelNetzer (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed. I think in that thread I am responsible for the bolding, and Michael should not be held responsible for the emphasis I gave the text. Apologies Nishidani (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate AgadaUrbanit's comment on long protracted discussions on talk pages. I've allowed myself to be led into a few for lack of familiarity with Dispute Resolution processes. In becoming more familiar with these of late, I found the same thing repeating itself there. They show I was not alone in verbosity, though I take responsibility for mine. I understand it's been nonconstructive and will not engage in it any longer.

The comment quoted by Ed, which I did not myself make bold in the original text as Nishidani states above, is not representative of my attitude or demeanor in the discussions. As 99% of the discussion shows, this was said in frustration of not having been heard, and in reply to a statement made that implied a severe prejudice behind refusal to consider my points. I might have misunderstood that statement, regret having said it and apologize to Nishidani for it. Characterizations of me do not properly reflect how I've conducted myself in the overwhelming majority of edits and exchanges.

I reverted the edit in question believing it was made without achieving consensus, and even under the consensus that was claimed, the edit violated that also. I did not believe they constituted an edit war and would not have made them if I thought they did. I now understand the distinction and would not repeat the action.

Everything I did was in order to uphold due process and policy. I was wrong in some of it and will not repeat the mistakes made due to being relatively new to this area. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning MichaelNetzer

Comment by Peter Cohen

I am aware of at least two other people who were talking about filing an AE on this subject. No doubt they will reveal themselves here.

Of far more interest to me than the three reverts which Nableezy has identified is the tendency of MN to argue ad nauseam and the tendentiousness of what he says while he is arguing. Both are exampled at Talk:Jerusalem#Abode_of_Peace which just goes on and on and on with one person arguing against several. Nishidani has produced in that thread an extensive number of references from reliable etymological sources yet MN insists on giving undue weight to an ill-founded folk-etymology by having it in the first sentence. Then when I make my one edit on the subject which has a perfectly clear explanation, he tries to engage me in an equally tendentious argument on my talk page, accusing me of edit-warring and asks me to self-revert, as if he wasn't edit-warring. After all, he could not revert me himself because he had already used his 1RR for the day in that very edit war.

I decided to archive that thread. After all I have seen him at work in various tl;dr threads at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(West_Bank)#Dispute_on_exceptions_6C_and_D and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#Alon_Shvut where he is equally long-winded and equally tendentious in Wiki-lawyering about the meaning of some perfectly clearly written text in a guideline which was created at Arbcom's instigation to try and stop this sort of nonsense.

Dear admins, please remember that tendentious editing is one of the grounds under which sanctions can be applied and put us all out of our misery.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WGF, (and any admin looking at closure as unwarned,) if I started acting up on I/P or Shakespeare matters and was brought here, would you close the case becauss I had not been warned formally?--Peter cohen (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by The Devil's Advocate

Seems to be a pretty clear-cut case of edit-warring. In one case just over 31 hours elapse between reverts by Netzer with the last instance seeing just 55 hours elapse before Netzer reverted again. Maybe not close enough to still be considered a violation of 1RR, but still clearly repeatedly reverting to the exact same version each time in a very short period.

A broader issue concerning this case is that I have seen a similar dispute arise over the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article. That case was the reverse where an editor insisted on the lede "unfairly" excluding an Arab name for the topic in the lede, similar to how this case focuses on "unfairly" excluding the Hebrew meaning of the topic's name in the lede.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero You are correct that I do not support his position. It seems like many other editors I am just another person who tried to point out what the facts on the matter are, that they did not support the specific change Netzer wanted, suggested a middle ground to resolve the dispute, only to have Netzer insist on the exact same change he has been insisting on for some time. He seems to be quite insistent on rejecting all compromises or perhaps just thinks compromise means everyone taking his position. Maybe there is a legitimate concern as it relates to inclusion of different translations when it is relevant to a dispute over territory, but edit-warring and stonewalling are not the way to go about resolving it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael No, I never "implied" that I supported your specific contention that "Abode of Peace" is the most common meaning. I suggested that "city of peace" may be a possible translation, though not considered the most likely. My comment even specifically said that there was nothing in the source directly backing your desired wording. You interpreting that as support of your specific position and presenting it as supporting your position without even asking me if I did support your position is insulting.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@WG If you look through Netzer's edit history prior to his contributions in the I/P topic area, you may notice that pretty much all of his edits were in articles where he had a clear conflict of interest whether it was his own Wikipedia article, some fringe theory for which he is an enthusiast, various people who he apparently is familiar with on a personal level, or a comic book character he created. Now, I think someone is perfectly capable of objectively writing an article about something they have a personal investment in (it seems on his own article there have been some successful efforts with him towards reaching a NPOV), but I also think editing regularly in such areas with little to no activity elsewhere without anyone pursuing action against you should not be counted in someone's favor.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JJG, Netzer's edit history outside of I/P has been "clean" as far as blocks and sanctions go, but his editing habits over those years he has been contributing would have likely gotten him subjected to administrative action had he not been editing in such an underserved topic area. That said I support a close along the lines proposed by WG, though I think the proposed Jerusalem ban needs clarification on whether it would be a broadly construed topic ban pertaining to that article, i.e. whether discussion of Jerusalem would be allowed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Zero0000

MichaelNetzer is one of the most disruptive editors to come to the I-P area in recent months. He came with a profound ignorance of the subject combined with a pathological inability to admit that anyone else might be right. His style is to endlessly weave and duck, repeating his opinions over and over (and over and over), falsely claiming support from other editors for his views when in fact he hardly gets any support. He has hardly a clue about what a reliable source is. All the time he is accusing everyone of malicious motives while being mortally offended if anyone dare suggest he is not an angel from heaven. This business of the lede of Jerusalem could have been solved in 30 minutes to the satisfaction of all parties if MichaelNetzer wasn't around, but thanks to him it has turned into a monumental waste of time with no end in sight. This isn't the first time his contribution has been of this nature; he should have been topic-banned for his earlier strenuous attempt to break Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank) by repeatedly violating it while posting reams of sophistry about it. (Sorry for not adding diffs, it is 2am in my part of the world so that will have to wait until tomorrow). Zero^talk 14:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the lack of an ARBIA warning, the purpose of such a warning is to make sure that the receiver is aware of the arbitration ruling and the consequences of breaking it. Since MichaelNetzer has repeatedly commented on other cases on this very page, it is completely impossible that he was unaware of what was going on. It has been recognized for many years on all dispute resolution pages that sufficiently experienced editors don't need to be warned. Zero^talk 01:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, MichaelNetzer's comments here are deceptive and cannot be understood by anyone who hasn't watched the whole saga. Key points:

Nobody has argued that "Abode of Peace" and similar don't belong in the article, and nobody has tried to remove it. Nor does anyone deny that it is popular and there are sources which support it. The problem is that the consensus of specialist experts is that the real meaning is something else.
The only real issue is the first sentence of the article. MichaelNetzer wants it to say "Abode of Peace" with no qualification and no alternatives (a clear violation of WP:NPOV as well as misleading). He has refused to accept any other possibilities, which included (a) putting "Abode of Peace" as a popular interpretation alongside the scientific interpretation, (b) leaving the question of the meaning for later in the article. Either (a) or (b) would be acceptable to the great majority of people who commented.
MichaelNetzer claims that three other editors support him. This is a fine illustration of MichaelNetzer's style. Of those claimed in support, JN466 does not support MichaelNetzer's position but supports one of the alternatives that MichaelNetzer refuses to accept. Piz d'Es-Cha supports leaving the subject out of the lede, which MichaelNetzer also refuses. The Devil's Advocate has not supported MichaelNetzer's version of the lede either, as far as I can determine ~~(correct me if I'm wrong)~~. This is what counts as "consensus" in MichaelNetzer's view.

Zero^talk 02:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nishidani

The problem is a larger one than a simple IR editwarring infraction- It's behavioural.

Background (Content issue, which is not in discussion here, but the behaviour associated with it by one editor)

Open any Hebrew dictionary and under יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim you get the meaning, ‘Jerusalem’, not anything else (‘abode of peace’ etc,.) (Karl Feyerabend, A complete Hebrew-English pocket-dictionary to the Old Testament, Langenscheidt nd. p.135 col.1)

(1) The general etymology given as probable by semitic specialists for this urban toponym is: ‘Foundation of (the god) Shalem’, as the very source, there on the page version Michael defends, writes. Popular, rabbinic, or folk or false etymologies abound; there are several. Google and the results are that ‘abode of peace’ is not the most popular. Michael has threatened to revert, however, anyone who alters this, because of an ostensible historic consensus.
(2) Almost all city articles I have examined, in the Near East and the world, do not have a meaning or etymology in the lead. Jerusalem is anomalous, and old lead was, also, wrong in glossing the city’s name to mean ‘abode of peace’ when the source, Stephen Binz, says the meaning originally was 'Foundation of Shalem'.
(3) 23 days ago I raised the problem. Three weeks over several pages of arguing have produced an industrial quantity of argument, with Michael virtually alone in insisting that the false meaning ‘abode of peace’ be retained. Compromises have been suggested, and accepted. He has accepted none. Almost 20 people have commented on aspects of the discussion. As Zero says, commonsense and respect for process would have resolved this in 30 minutes, without three weeks of indeterminate and exhausting wikilawyering.
(4) After it was apparent Michael has a very unsure grasp of linguistics and appeared incapable of understanding anything technical, I suggested several times he desist from arguing on an issue he misunderstands. He takes that as a personal attack.

(a)From the outset Michael admitted clearly his support for a false or folk meaning reflected political interests. He insists on abode of peace because

The Hebrew meaning is significant for the lead because of its history relevant to the city's current situation.

He repeated this (also dubious as WP:Recentism) a week later, he dismissed Christian folk meanings on similar political ground:

There is no Christian political presence nor territorial issue such as with the Arabic to warrant introducing such a Christian meaning there. (on both points he is drastically wrong, by the way, and confuses Arabic with Muslim Arabs, ignoring Christian Arabs, etc.).

He was reminded that these two remarks violate a pillar of wikipedia (WP:NPOV)

He refuses compromises by third parties (WP:Negotiation), having successively rejected mediations by *User:Oncenawhile, User:FormerIP, User:Jayen466 and User:FCSundae the last three at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.

User:Oncenawhile suggested a compromise here, here and again here. I accepted that, and it was compatible with Zero000’s position. Michael refused to budge. 10 days had passed, 7 of intensive analysis, and Michael was alone against a compromise position supported by 3.(12 December)

The problem is not simply IR. At Alon Shvut, Michael began to try to change longstanding consensus and policy, by wikilawyering Judea and Samaria, in order to establish a precedent for the unrestricted use of those terms in the West Bank. The argument was exhaustive, he appealed to at IPCOL here, and when that fails to produce the desired result, he went to Naming conventions (West Bank)raise objections here. He hoped indeed that an ARBPIA3 be formally convoked to reexamine the whole issue.

Michael consistently dismisses the views of those who disagree with him as politically motivated, with a couple of editors who declare strong biases and appear to be using Wikipedia to advance a political agenda on their user pages. He appears to identify (implicitly) me as a member of some cohort commanded by Nableezy, which, empowered by AE leniency, overlords and intimates nice people, threatens editing in the I/P area, and must be dealt with.

WP:RS

He hasn’t the faintest notion of what RS means. He thinks a book’s inclusion in a major library’s holdings, thereby qualifies it as RS; he thinks that the time stamp for a book’s inclusion into a library’s stacks indicates it was both published by the library and RS by virtue of its place of residence. He argues repeatedly that a Pakistani high school teacher’s Islamic-oriented book can trump modern linguistics because it repeats a meme that happens to be erroneous; he thinks a quaint, outdated, self-published book (68 copies) by an LA mystagogue picked up by an occult books specialist when the copyright expired is RS for semitic philology. When each source is examined and picked apart comprehensively, he goes on undaunted and keeps plastering it, with minimal changes lower down on the page and elsewhere on admin pages with minor alterations as in accordance with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

WP:CONSENSUS

He cites it but no one can understand why he appears not to have read it, since he argues that a lone hold-out impedes the unanimity required, unanimity meaning everyone changes sides and accepts his unique position.

Wikipedia:No personal attacks

He constantly misconstrues simple sentences, and makes insidious inferences from his flawed interpretation of them. Thus he wrote an extraordinarily bitter tirade challenging my bona fides. Indeed, he said my putative prejudices were a threat to what he thought was the core of Judaism itself, if that is what he means by the extraordinary suggestion my presence and prejudices on this area of wikipedia threaten to erase most knowledge of a civilization entrenched in collective nationalism. At the outset he hinted he reads me as, well, anti-semitic, which is what his remark Nishidani, I find your tone unpleasant and combative, as is your visible contempt for Hebrew associations in many discussions,’ implies. It didn’t help with his rabbit-out-of-the-hat misprision about my putative ‘disdain for "holy writ".’ Users Johnuniq and NSH001 either gently asked him to reflect on his complete misinterpretation of my remarks, or apologize. Nothing doing. I don't mind insults. But Michael's use of them shows he has a problem.

Michael interprets editorial disagreements as a form of personal attack I have suffered repeated insults and character assaults by you since we began interacting . . Maybe you know in your heart that I'm right about this, but I can't otherwise understand your unwarranted frustration at me.

Wikipedia:forum shopping

He went to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard here. A lengthy recycling of the same poorly substantiated arguments there involved several more, independent observers and their responses. The result was Michael refused the several compromises, similar to Oncenawhile’s offered by respectively Jayen, FCSundae and FormerIP. He then went to User:Wgfinley’s page and tried to restart the argument there, to my page, and to Peter cohen’s page.

I told Michael to desist from his attacks. User:TransporterMan ended the thread there with a warning to behave. I can see no edit there by anyone else than Michael which could be described as aggressive.

Stacking the vote tally to create the impression of rough parity, and therefore a lack of consensus.

He stacks his vote score by listing people who effectively voted against him. When informed of the errors, he refuses, except for one instance where he noted my protest that one vote for the consensual majority position was improper, to change his own tally.

He added User:Jayen466 to his support list on the basis of Jayen’s first comment here. After discussion, Jayen modified his initial view towards a compromise here, where he writes “So you could say 'Foundation of Shalem'(?), often interpreted as 'abode of peace'", or something of that ilk.” and then approved of my suggestions for compromise, saying in his edit summary ‘sounds good’ here He also added User:AgadaUrbanit, who removed his name from it, declaring himself neutral. The support of two others is doubtful. The list really should have only Michael and perhaps one other on it, against 7 supporters for an edit which will remove the anomaly and error in the lead. I.e. the solution 30 minutes of commonsense could have agreed to. This fiction of a disputed consensus was what enabled him to edit war in the three reverts Nableezy outlined above.

Michael has developed a WP:Battleground mentality that transforms efficient editing into a nightmare of dealing with attrition based on trivia, misunderstanding, and unfounded suspicions of personal or cultural or religious or ethnic enmity.Nishidani (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jiujitsuguy.

This this and this all show Michael thoroughly familiar with the ARBPIA issues, since he has minutely examined and challenged them, and participated on many pages where these protocols were discussed. Nishidani (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael now writes:'I did not threaten to revert against consensus". Anyone reading what I said there can see that.'

If an editor changes the lede, based on arguments made here and in the talk page, motivated by prejudices against nationalism, lack of knowledge of facts ' and bias towards "holy writ" , in order to supersede WP policy and scholarly sources that support the lede as it is, then I will revert it. (bias towards holy writ(!!) must mean its opposite:'bias against holy writ). That editorial opposition to nationalism in wikipedia must be subject to automatic reverts reveals Michael's clear position as a nationalist POV editor.

Any attempt to change the lede based on your sordid prejudices will be met with the staunchest opposition.

how is the mention of the Hebrew different from the mention of the Arabic in the lede? Unless you can address that, without basing it on etymology, my core point about notability stands, and forbids its removal from the lede.

A majority opinion existed when he made these remarks, whose tone was peremptory in asserting frequently he would revert unless his unique personal conditions were satisfied.(WP:OWN). Nishidani (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, this is not the place to repeat content arguments. Arbs needn't be required to wade through the massive archives of sheer chat and equivocation. The central fact is that a simple solution was readily available and that even though about 20 people watched, advised, commented or voted in what was the thankless task of following these huge meanderings, you refused to listen. You challenged virtually everyone to the bitter end, which is unfortunately this. (ps. 'abode of peace' googles low or middle in the ranks of common 'meanings'. What one community thinks familiar, another may ignore (that's why we have WP:NPOV). I occasionally heard as a boy 'Visio pacis'/vision of peace,etc., (which was the predominant etymology for Jerusalem in Western civilization for almost one and a half millenia,) and encountered the scholarly etymologies as a young man at University).Nishidani (talk) 07:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you still complain of my 'prejudices against nationalism', Michael, and appear to have identified your own position as one of defending 'the entrenched nationalism of a civilization', you'd better read policies like Civil POV pushing and its warnings against 'nationalist issues'. Our differences are summed up there. I don't think editors with a mission to entrench nationalism should be editing here.Nishidani (talk) 08:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WGF. Actually Agada, bless him, screwed up, but in that charming third-dimensional chessmatch manner we peon connoisseurs enjoy analysing. The point that persuades you was something I raised in discussing this with Nableezy 10 days ago, where I wrote:

Given his clean sheet (my presumption, I haven't checked) any serious ban is out of the question and should not be called for. I would suggest that you offer him the option of asking for a third opinion, and/or going to WP:RS to see if he can muster any support for his extremely isolated and idiosyncratic interpretations of a very simple, straightforward issue. He certainly should not have reverted a consensus reconfirmed after almost three weeks in which he has failed to persuade anyone he has had the better in what has been an endless succession of repetitive arguments.

I believed that at the time and hoped MN would mollify his intransigence on reading this. He didn't. Perhaps Michael persisted after that date (21 Dec) in forum shopping and further reverting because he assumed from what I wrote that whatever happened if he crossed the red line, his record would save him from a serious ban. That is just one of several possibilities, though. The fact is that he kept up his exasperating behaviour, and was supported in this by AgadaUrbanit, who did not act as a neutral party trying to mediate. I won’t go into details, but AU’s version of events is all summed up in his aside (‘However something went wrong’) between the 9th of December and the 21st of December. When I read that I mentally posted an Oscar to AU, who is wellknown for his antic sense of wry but highly purposive playfulness. He has never been 'neutral' and did not step in to mediate. To the contrary, he himself acted against consensus (his edit summary is a joy to read), and only very lately in the piece stepped forward when Michael's persistence became startingly dangerous to MN's reputation here.

Michael reverted three times. The third time I restored the consensus version. AgadaUrbanit reverted me, i.e. supported Michael’s defiance of the consensus immediately 08:38, 25 December 2011‎, intervening for the first time on that date, 3 weeks after extensive discussion on 4 distinct pages. Within 7 minutes, Michael gave me a formal warning for edit warring and disruptive behaviour and, an hour later, added Agada’s name to the (otherwise mostly fictitious) list of people supporting him.

Much happened (something went wrong?) but a full day later, Agada suddenly decided to remove his name from Michael’s list and classify himself as neutral. In that same edit, while supporting Michael’s view, he accepted finally a compromise others had been suggesting to Michael for over two weeks.

I have hesitated to say anything here. I therefore must correct the impression people are liable o have that this is vindictive. I don’t believe in longterm bans. I think people ought simply to be told, when they show egregious POV behaviour like this, to write an article that treats of an issue dear to the hearts of the ‘other side’. If Michael undertook to write an article on ‘Fatalities among navvies/labourers on Israeli construction sites’ to NPOV, then as far as I’m concerned, no sanction at all would be necessary. Once it was completed, and reviewed as satisfactory, comprehensive and neutral, he could come back. That is the kind of sanction I would apply to everyone from ‘every side’ who has failed to respect NPOV, and who brings to the encyclopedia an undue interest in only one ‘angle of incidence’.

Comment by Jiujitsuguy

I have reviewed User:MichaelNetzer's talk page as well as the ARBPIA logs[18] and it appears that he was never issued an ARBPIA warning (unless I missed something). If this is indeed the case, protocol would mandate the issuance of such a warning to the account before a sanction (if any is warranted) could be imposed.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cut and pasted the relevant section from the page:

Standard discretionary sanctions

6) All Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning. (Emphasis added by me) Passed 14 to 0 by motion, 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: I find it amazing Nableezy that you can remember an event that occurred over two years ago within seconds of my post but you are “absent minded” or had a “momentary loss of memory” when it comes to your own sanction that was imposed barely a week prior. Keep burying yourself.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Wgfinley. I think Tim voiced concurrence with Cailil's compromise when he noted "works for me" just under Cailil's comment.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Malik. Cailil noted MichaelNetzer's unblemished record and further noted that any temporary ban should be limited to the Jerusalem article. He did not however, specify a duration of the article ban. Considering that Netzer has been editing for five years and has never been cited for anything in the past, I think a one-month article ban is a bit on the harsh side.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Johnuniq

I encountered Nishidani at an unrelated article (SAQ), and occasionally scan his talk page, but have not been involved with any P-I issues. I was amazed to see a claim on his talk page that Nishidani had made a statement that "is enough to block users from editing areas relating to their prejudice" (i.e. Nishidani should not edit P-I topics due to a prejudice) (01:42, 20 December 2011 by MichaelNetzer). I have no idea what perspective Nishidani has on P-I matters, so while I was skeptical of the claim that he had a blatant prejudice I am sufficiently open minded to consider that he might have a problem, so I investigated the background to MichaelNetzer's comment. I then responded and engaged in a discussion that leads me to believe that MichaelNetzer should not be editing any controversial topics, and that he has violated ARBPIA#4 (AGF, NPOV, CIVIL, NPA).

My reasons for these conclusions are that MichaelNetzer has grossly misinterpreted some comments made by Nishidani, and maintained those gross misinterpretations with no hint of compromise even after the errors were explained. Following the diffs is too confusing, so I will merely outline the issues which can be seen in the wall of text at User talk:Nishidani#Notes (permalink): Nishidani made a comment at DRN that included: "I'm a pagan, so I have no horse in the race. I dislike or rather have deep suspicions about feelings of nationalism, esp. collective, that rise above the love of a landscape, food, and language. These are the prejudices I bring to edits." (diff). MichaelNetzer responded (link above) with a claim that this statement shows Nishidani has a prejudice [and should not edit P-I topics]. I responded that "Nishidani of course is saying he has no prejudices other than that NPOV should be observed". MichaelNetzer's reply switched to '"I'm a pagan, so I have no horse in the race" means the editor has a "pagan horse" in the race'. That interpretation is simply absurd so I realized that it would not be fruitful to further explain the meaning of Nishidani's clear statement, so I switched to the more substantive issue of how to interact with an editor (Nishidani) who disputes an edit (Jerusalem means "abode of peace")—my attempts failed.

While the gross misinterpretations made by MichaelNetzer at Nishidani's talk could be overlooked as just another event at Wikipedia, they demonstrate that it is not possible to rely on MichaelNetzer's judgment about what a source says—when a couple of obvious errors are visible, it is likely there are many more.

Regarding the content issue of whether the word "Jerusalem" means "Abode of Peace": I gather that no one disputes that there are many sources containing that claim—the point is, that scholarly sources show the claim is not correct, it is only that some people like to refer to the city as "Abode of Peace". Johnuniq (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by FormerIP

I have no opinion about whether sanctions should be applied here or what they should be. I would say that I find Michael's position regarding the content issue to be fairly absurd, and he is also a little too trigger-happy with personal attacks.

What matters is that the article is improved by excising the folk etymology from the first sentence. No other editor appears to support its retention.

As an aside, perhaps Wikipedia could benefit from a specific guideline regarding folk etymologies. As an aside to the aside, this is a good example of where "verifiability not truth" does not make sense. Folk etymologies are usually very easy to verify. Genuine etymologies are harder, but they have the merit of being closer to "truth". --FormerIP (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by DePiep

So an admin reopens this, quite probably through my edit. But I am not allowed to post a single word here without a diff. -DePiep (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Boris

So a six-month topic ban is proposed. In other cases, on this page, indefs are proposed for long-term editors (and for much smaller violations). We hear a lot from admins that term bans are ineffective and indefs are the way to go. Can we have some clarity of the overall approach please? - BorisG (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by AgadaUrbanit

Hope my comment here is appropriate. I've been involved lately in discussions on Jerusalem, trying to separate fighting parties. I am not sure that Michael reverted a "consensus" version as submitter claims. It is really important in the topic area of Jerusalem to preserve balance between religious and ethnic groups involved in the subject.

edit by Oncenawhile, 9 December 2011, edit summary: "removing abode of peace from lede, as per talk. Nishidani, will you amend the etymology section?"
After the discussion of this edit revert, it was suggested by user:Oncenawhile to remove both Hebrew and Arabic translations of the name, see diff:

Hi all, can I suggest the following for a compromise proposal for the lede: Jerusalem (Template:Lang-he-n (audio)^ⓘ, Yerushaláyim, ISO 259-3 Yrušalaym; Arabic: القُدس (audio)^ⓘ, al-Quds)

However something went wrong and next edit trying to fix the first sentence was not balanced: edit by Nableezy, , 21 December 2011, edit summary: "inaccurate, consensus to remove this on talk page and DR/N" The wording introduced was not hammered on the article talk page.
I've noted on the talk page that the wording is not balanced, see diff and waited couple of days. There were no objections, Michael specifically "Generally agreed", see diff. So I went ahead, see diff and changed the article per Oncenawhile's suggestion.
The wording was immediately(within 16 mins) balanced even more, see diff. Who could disagree that "one transliteraation is plenty" ( for Hebrew, when Arabic language has only one )? With that, on downside, this change was not discussed by submitter of this request on talk page either.

Previously, Michael demonstrated a great flexibility in handling a long standing issue of Jerusalem location map, see talk. Submitter of this request claimed "consensus" prematurely, see diff. With that Michael managed to achieve an agreement with submitter of this request on question of map, so I am not sure why the submitter still pushing this enforcement request. Maybe it is related to this submitter's comment on Michael during previous AE request. I think we're lucky to have Michael as a contributor. With that Michael should realize that wall of texts on article's talk page is not a purpose of Wikipedia. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by ElComandanteChe 2

I took the liberty to ask for closure on this case at WP:ANRFC. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Malik Shabazz

It seems to me that Cailil and T. Canens agreed to a six-month Jerusalem topic ban and a six-month Israel–Palestine probation. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jiujitsuguy, the question is whether words mean what they say. I'd be on board for a Jerusalem topic ban and a Arab-Isreali topic wide probation for 6 months. That means a topic ban on Jerusalem and an Arab–Israeli topic probation for six months, not thirty days. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning MichaelNetzer

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

WP:ARBPIA requires the user receive a warning, the report template includes a space for the warning diff as well. Per the decision (emphasis mine):

6) All Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.

MichaelNetzer wasn't previously warned, warning and closing the case. --WGFinley (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given questions I am reopening this AE report to discuss more, I won't be doing it. ~~This is my final comment on this matter.~~

To me the process of sanctions concerning AE is very important, if we sanction users who haven't been warned without giving them an opportunity to remediate their behavior we are setting a very dangerous precedent. I am not and have not justified any conduct by Michael as my warning shows but I still feel he is entitled his chance to listen to the warning and remediate his behavior. This case should be closed but it won't be me who will do it. --WGFinley (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained the reason for my view that the original close was premature in my comment in the Nableezy case. Two aspects of this matter require more in-depth attention than what has been given to it thus far.
- First, I'm of the view that MichaelNetzer has been, at a minimum, constructively warned of ARBPIA sanctions prior to this report and may consequently be sanctioned under the discretionary sanctions. There is no requirement in ARBPIA that the warning be particularly directed to the editor, or given by an administrator, or logged (or even loggable); all that is required is "an initial warning". My view is that MN's history of participation at AE, especially when considered in conjunction with the ARBPIA banner on Talk:Jerusalem ("WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES"), compels the conclusion that he has been constructively warned and no additional warning is necessary. This reading is consistent with the reading of the discretionary sanctions provision that allowed for article-level 1RR: the edit notice advertising the 1RR was considered sufficient warning to allow for imposition of a block as a discretionary sanction. (See this request for clarification.)
  If there is ever a case where finding constructive warning is appropriate, this is that case. We have here an editor who's clearly familiar with the discretionary sanctions provisions by virtue of his repeated participation in this noticeboard. To require yet another warning before sanctions can be imposed in such a case is, at a minimum, counterintuitive, and we should try to interpret the remedies in a way that avoids such a counterintuitive result whenever possible.
  Turning to the actual conduct, I'm of the view that the complaint has merit. I have reviewed the discussions at WP:DRN and Talk:Jerusalem, and frankly MN's conduct in those discussions is well below the expected standards of behavior, to say nothing about the revert warring. His style of discussion made him...extremely difficult to work with, to put it charitably. Johnuniq and FormerIP's comments are well taken.
  I propose a six-month topic ban.
- Second, a simple edit warring block should have been considered even assuming that another warning is required. As I'm of the view that another warning is unnecessary, I'll not comment on this aspect at this moment. T. Canens (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Just a question for Tim - are you proposing a topic ban from I/P generally, or Jerusalem related topics, or something narrower (etylomological edits/discussions in articles under WP:ARBPIA)?--Cailil ^talk 15:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm actually thinking of the broadest topic ban available to us - my personal inclination is a broad Middle East topic ban; failing that, an I/P-and-Jerusalem ban will work too (I added the Jerusalem part just to be extra clear; my view is that any edit to Jerusalem will fall within a straight I/P ban, but it never hurts to make it clearer). We have a pretty bad case of inability to collaborate here, and I frankly don't want him to be anywhere near this topic area. T. Canens (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree that MN should be considered to have been constructivey warned and concur with Ed that edit warring in the lede of Jerusalem is an incendiary act. However, WGF has a point: a 6 month ban from the whole Arab-Israel topic is harsh considering that MN has no record, that any disruption here is related to a single issue. I'd be on board for a Jerusalem topic ban and a Arab-Isreali topic wide probation for 6 months. If that gets violated harsher sanction would be inevitable--Cailil ^talk 16:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Works for me. T. Canens (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a person like Michael Netzer who has edited extensively at WP:Arbitration enforcement regarding Arab-Israeli topics (64 edits altogether) should be considered to be aware that ARBPIA carries discretionary sanctions. A six-month topic ban sounds correct. I was especially influenced by his firm declarations at WP:DRN about the lead of Jerusalem: "Any attempt to change the lede based on your sordid prejudices will be met with the staunchest opposition". Translations of names and alternate-language terminologies for place names are often at the center of ethnic disputes at Wikipedia. These are the kind of disputes that discretionary sanctions are intended to address. Michael Netzer's uncompromising persistence, and his use of phrases like "I will revert it" ~~(in bold type)~~ does not sound like an open-minded search for consensus. Fighting over the lead of Jersusalem is like grabbing the third rail of mideast disputes. His persistence seems to reveal a lack of common sense. If MN returns to general editing of I/P topics you can probably expect a lot more talk comments from him like the unhelpful and stubborn ones you seen now in the DRN thread. You would then be expecting regular editors who want to work in the I/P area to calmly and patiently search for consensus with a person who displays that attitude. There is a limit to what they should have to put up with. EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC). Corrected my comment -- MN did not use bold face in the original. EdJohnston (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my mind and am going to weigh in one more time on this. First, I found AgadaUrbanit's comment above as the most insightful from someone who has been working on the article. MichaelNetzer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a history on the article of trying to work with people, he has a 5-year-old account with a completely clean record: no blocks, no bans and no formal ARBPIA warning before this AE report. I find a P-I TBAN to be extremely harsh for someone who has no prior history. Finally, I think we see something rare here on AE and that is some contrition: "I was wrong in some of it and will not repeat the mistakes made due to being relatively new to this area." I think his formal warning and admonition I delivered is sufficient but if others feel some sort of TBAN is required I think 30 days on Jerusalem would be the most appropriate for his tendentious editing there. --WGFinley (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also as to Tim's point that this is the perfect case where someone didn't need a warning I feel this ignores half of what the purpose of a warning is. Per WP:AC/DS the warning is not just to make someone aware problematic editing in the topic area is subject to sanction, it's to specifically tell that editor his current actions could lead him to sanction and counsel on how to avoid sanction. It's an opportunity for someone to remediate their behavior before sanction, outside of blatant and gross disregard for WP policies I feel every editor should get that opportunity. --WGFinley (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move For Close

To try to summarize here and see if we can get this one warped up. Tim and Ed suggested longer TBANs, I thought that was harsh given the record and Cailil has suggested a middle ground. Can we get agreement on:

30-day Jerusalem ban
6 months P-I probation
Any verified complaint of WP:TE during probation triggers a 6 month P-I TBAN

--WGFinley (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a little different set in mind, just didn't get around to posting last night:

1RR on ~~P/I~~ Already set in the case & Jerusalem topics, broadly constructed, in 24 hours
4 month Probation on P-I
1.5 month Topic ban on Jerusalem topics broadly constructed
Any verified complaint of WP:TE during probation trigger of P/I TBAN, allowing the enforcing admin to use discretion on time, recommending 3 month minimum.

I am recommending this because:

MichaelNetzer was not clearly notified as a requirement of WP:AC/DS, but had knowledge of DS in this topic area
MichaelNetzer was edit-warring, and threats to continue were observed
MichaelNetzer created a tense topic editing area with his edits ignoring quite a few WP policies.

I'll wait around for a reply before closing. -- DQ (t) (e) 04:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Modified 19:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that modification. --WGFinley (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tuscumbia

Most of evidence submitted is stale, WP:SOCK allegations need to be submitted to WP:SPI, single purpose accounts are admonished that tendentious editing in this topic space can lead to topic bans. --WGFinley (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2012 (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 Tuscumbia

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Winterbliss (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

AA2, ethno-nationalistic battleground conduct

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

Ethno-nationalistic battleground conduct:

[19], denying validity of neutral sources on grounds of their supposed ethnic origin, line 73.
[20], denying validity of neutral sources on grounds of their supposed ethnic origin. N.B. User:Tuscumbia was topic-banned for six months by User:Sandstein [21] because of a similar violation [22].

Revert war on Murovdag page:

[23], First revert on Murovdag page
[24], Second revert on Murovdag page
[25], Third revert on Murovdag page
[26], Fourth revert on Murovdag page

Revert wars on other pages:

[27] First revert on Gülablı article on 27 Sept.
[28] Second revert on Gülablı article on 27 Sept.
[29] Third revert on Gülablı article on 28 Sept.
[30] First revert on 1990 Tbilisi-Agdam bus bombing article on 30 Sept.
[31] Second revert on 1990 Tbilisi-Agdam bus bombing article on 30 Sept.
[32] Third revert on 1990 Tbilisi-Agdam bus bombing article on 3 Oct.
[33] Fourth revert 1990 Tbilisi-Agdam bus bombing article on 3 Oct.

Unfounded accusations on sockpuppetry Wikipedia:NPA.

[34], unfounded accusations on sockpuppetry running counter to evidence
[35], unfounded accusations on sockpuppetry running counter to evidence, line 47, accusing User:George Spurlin of sockpuppetry

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

Warned on [36] by Stifle (talk · contribs)
Warned on [37] by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs)
Arbitration Enforcement topic Ban for 6 Months [38] by Sandstein (talk · contribs)
Blocked for violation of Arbitration Enforcement Topic Ban [39] ] by Sandstein (talk · contribs)
Blocked for edit warring [40] by Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise (talk · contribs)
Warned on Dec 27, 2011 on [41], line 81, by Anomie (talk · contribs): "Reach a consensus before using {{edit protected}}. Protected edit requests are not a vehicle for continuing your edit war."

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The editing record of User:Tuscumbia shows that he has been topic banned several times. His most recent six-month topic ban expired in mid-summer 2011. Since then User:Tuscumbia returned to an editing behavior that is highly unwelcome and needlessly combative. Since the end of the ban User:Tuscumbia demonstrates continued disregard of those Wikipedia rules for which he was banned.

A special concern is Tuscumbia's battleground attitude regarding sources. Tuscumbia has been warned and topic banned by User:Sandstein [42] for specifically choosing to exclude sources based on his or her ethnicity, as evidenced by [43]. He still continues to use racism in his arguments regarding sources: [44], [45]. Tuscumbia recent speak [46], line 73: "Neutral sources"? Are you kidding? Bournoutian, Cheterian, Gilanentz? Come on... These are Armenian authors who are likely to indicate the Armenian names in their writings rather than the correct names." As a note: George Bournoutian is a world-renowned peer-reviewed Western USA-based academic with impeccable reputation. Gilanentz is a medieval (!) author. Cheterian is French. In addtion to these 3 authors whom Tuscumbia is demonizing as "Armenians" User:George Spurlin also mentioned the following sources: John F. R. Wright, Nicholas Holding, and Karl Derouen [47]. Tuscumbia pretended he did not notice these other NPOV sources and focused on his supposedly "Armenian" targets. As pointed out by User:Sandstein when enforcing a topic ban on Tuscumbia [48]: entering into conflicts about either editors or sources on the basis of any ethnic, national or other background, rather than on the basis of their individual reliability or the strength of their arguments, is entirely at odds with WP:NPOV and WP:NOT#BATTLE, as well as strongly morally objectionable. User:Tuscumbia is continuously found in various revert wars. The most recent example is the Murovdag page. This and other examples are shown above. Winterbliss (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comments by administrators and others

I have been CU-checked in an SPI just recently. In fact that was my first encounter with Tuscumbia who accused me and a group of other editors of being socks by filing an SPI report. I was active in Russian Wikipedia for a long time and know rules, regulations and techniques of WP editing relatively well. It still takes me while to file a report like that though. As a confirmation, I type this sentence in Russian: Я хорошо знаком с правилами Вкипедии и технической стороной редактирования текстов в режиме Вики. Please look into the matter and essence of Tuscumbia's continued misconduct. Suspecting someone to be a sock or meat is not an excuse for violation of rules of WP editing or disregarding Tuscumbia's battleground attitude. Here is the opinion of an independent editor Lothar von Richthofen who commented on Tuscumbia's misuse of SPIs: "Checkuser is not for fishing. If you can present actual evidence other then "they make edits that I don't like and it makes me mad so I want to harass them with SPIs on the offhand chance that they will turn up to be the same people", then maybe a new Checkuser might be in order. Otherwise, your invocation of phantom sockpuppeteers is borderline disruptive"→ [49] Winterbliss (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WGFinley and other administrators. It is with pleasure that I disclose my old WP-RU account. It was Участник:Brindz (before I moved to the USA). I hope this will stop groundless accusations in sockpuppetry, "drawers," etc. You can learn from my Участник:Brindz page I was majored in chemistry, and I recently published an article about Crocodile fat. I was postponing publishing it because was carried away by battleground conduct of Tuscumbia and Verman1. You can also see that I edited an article on Biodiesel [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] before filing this AE report and being confronted by sockpupptry accusations. As Участник:Brindz I also extensively edited pages on Armenian monasteries and Armenia too. Winterbliss (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[55]

Discussion concerning Tuscumbia

Statement by Tuscumbia

Actually, there is no statement to be made as I expected one of the new suspicious accounts to report me on one of the boards. That's the main intent why these accounts are generated. This account Winterbliss by itself is a part of the suspicious group of new users who don't act like new unexperienced editors and seem to know their ways around the most controversial articles. The simultaneous appearance of the accounts Dehr, InTheRevolution, Winterbliss, Sprutt, Zimmarod, Hablabar, George Spurlin, shortly after blocking of the following sockpuppet accounts: Bars77, Gorzaim, Vandorenfm, Szeget, 2492BC, Repin3, Oxi42 is not coincidental. Their contribution histories suggest that they are generated to make just a few or several minor edits like typo fixing, removal of names, adding commas, etc to build a contribution history and seem genuine; and in between reverting controversial articles pertaining to the subject of AA2. The main purpose is to assist the established users on their side to avoid santions or being reported, and more importantly, drag the established users from the other side into reports such as this one with an intent to get them sanctioned. Note that they are there to sacrifice themselves to sanctions and pull the established users along with them, thus clearing the path for their established peers. This is a long term practice by these users and many have gone into indefinite blocks (Please see rich archives of similar sock accounts for Hetoum I, Meowy, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xebulon/Archive, Andranikpasha, Paligun, Capasitor, Aram-van and many more which can be found in SPI archives. However, neither administrator enforcement is able to stop these sock masters from generating newer sock accounts as range blocks of IPs are often discouraged. At times, new accounts like that of Winterbliss may also act as meatpuppets using people at different locations or proxy IPs. It's a well established fact that the user Meowy, Ararat arev, for example, edited from various locations. It is also likely that you will often witness them try to fool administrators by lame compliments to themselves such as this one where Aram-van compliments himself by using this sock account 2492BC and then responds to himself as Aram-van. Little do they know that they are to be disclosed soon as yet another sockpuppet.

Now, responding to the "ethno-nationalistic battleground" claims.

[56] does not state anything claimed by the reporting party. It just states what I just reiterated above in this report.
[57], this is actually a valid response to User:MarshallBagramyan, who discredited three neutral authors of Jewish, Swedish and Persian heritage, giving the credibility over them to the Armenian author Bournoutian. In other words, an Armenian Wikipedia user adds POV information to the article supported by an Armenian-American author, and when the article was NPOV-ed by adding arguments by three non-Armenian authors (who are also non-Azeri), MarshallBagramyan started this discussion. By the way, he had been indefinitely sanctioned for making derogatory statements on authors based on their ethnicity, place of their publication, etc. Discussion with George Spurlin on Murovdag is of the same content.

Murovdag article. Yes, I made all those reverts. So? What's your point, Winterbliss? It is perfectly explained on the talk page of the article why the reverts to the stable version have been made. Even the admin reverted it back to the stable version. Ironically, User:George Spurlin made the same reverts ([58], [59], [60], [61], [62] as the sockpuppet Oxi42 of sockmaster Xebulon: [63], [64].

Gülablı article. Yes, I did make all those reverts as well, but did you forget to mention the discussion on the talk page of the article and how users Fedayee, Takabeg, MarshallBagramyan engaged in the same war [65], [66], [67]? Or are you just being selective?

On sockpuppetry statements such as this [68]. Please see my response above. An intelligent person, understanding how accounts come and go in Wikipedia, will confirm that these accounts do act suspiciously and the pattern of editing behavior suggests their activity is coordinated. An experienced admin involved in AA2 and SPIs that got many of similar socks and their masters blocked will tell you how often and likely these sockpuppets operate. So, whether these accounts are technically found related or not at some point is not that important. What's important is that these accounts acts the same way, edit with the same pattern and revert in the same articles.

What are those diffs for warnings? Did you forget to post a warning by my kindergarten teacher three decades ago for spilling the juice on the floor? Yes, there had been warnings and bans which have been taken care of. Unlike your peers, I had continued to edit on various subjects, because I am not a casual editor like you who's brought here to edit war and subsequently drag established users into arbitrations.

The bottom line is that reverting is not a crime, as long as it's a blind reverting without commenting and engaging in conversations. Many of the socks are usually used for that. I have not violated a WP:3RR, neither did I make unsubstantiated edits. The user George Spurlin whose only edits are an engagement in edit/revert wars (other minor tweaks are for display) was even requested not to use the edit-protected article request, he had made as a vehicle for for edit warring. Note that the reporting party lied in section 6 of Diff of notifications above claiming the admin is warning me. The admin is in fact warning the George Spurlin account who had filed the edit protected request. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashot Arzumanian, please read the whole discussion and see in what context the reference was made to an author of Armenian heritage. Very simple. User A (MarshallBagramyan) was adding information to the article, in favor of Armenian version of historiography written by Armenian-American author (unsupported by any neutral source), while User B was adding the counter arguments by neutral authors of Swedish, Jewish, American and Persian heritage which do not promote the Azerbaijani version of historiography and as already as stated here, both the arguments of User A were retained in the article and views by non-Azeri neutral authors were included. When the issue is controversial, the preference is to use neutral sources. I hope this clarifies.

Moreover though, since you have been "busy", is it really coincidental you appeared on this page to comment? Or was it the suspicious new user George Spurlin, who became pretty active right around December 11, 2011 when you ceased your activity, that inspired you? After all, Ashot, it's an established fact that you have previously used sock accounts. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MarshallBagramyan, I'm sorry but your statement has no base whatsoever. First of all, I can produce dozens of diffs where you revert other new users or IP without that "patience" you're pretend to advocate here. Secondly, was this not you proposing to avoid using sources based on the ethnicity and place of publication? Or this one where you denigrade an author? In fact, this section on the article talk page shows evidence how you mistreat Azerbaijani authors while favoring the Armenian ones (of the same credibility). Last but not least, I'd like to show MarshallBagramyan's insincere intent here where he first bashed an author claiming he has "a discernible affiliation with Azerbaijan, such as Charles van der Leeuw" and then said something quite different: "...even the two non-Azerbaijani government affiliated sources, van der Leeuw and Bolukbasi, make use of the word allegedly...". Gaming the system and admins, Marshall? Anyone?

Anyway, Marshall and others, you may try to come onto me in this kind of baseless reports by numbers, but your arguments hold no content. Hence the use of potential socks. After all, all accounts who edit warred on AA2 pages in coordination such as User:Vandorenfm, User:Gorzaim, User:Bars77 and so forth, lately, turned out to be socks. So, this new wave of socks mentioned above in my statement as well as this report is most likely coordinated off-Wiki. Your off Wiki coordination with a professional sock master Meowy is indisputable. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashot Arzumanian, just a simple fact that after a long absence you appear on this page to be a part of quantitive attack against me indicates two things: either you're in a constant off-Wiki coordination with the filing suspicious user and others who have been trying to get me blocked, or you're using one of sockpuppet accounts yourself and have been all aware about the ongoing revert war by George Spurlin (the account that became active the day you decreased your activity).

MarshallBagramyan, I'm not a part of any Russian Wiki group busted by Russian administrators that you have been promoting in all forums and never wanted to be. You, on the other hand have been in an off Wiki coordination and have been known to use proven sock accounts.

The Devil's Advocate, thank you for seeing what I have been seeing in disguise. These new sock accounts are well aware of the Wikipedia rules and go-arounds. They are a repetitive pattern which come and go, which I don't expect to decrease. The archives for the above mentioned socks and their masters clearly indicate they are nowhere near to stop.

EdJohnston, I had actually filed two SPIs suspecting Meowy's and Hetoum I's possible sock accounts which were found unrelated. However, I do believe they use many techniques to avoid SPIs. For instance, we know Meowy travelled and used various IPs for his sock accounts in the past. At one point in time, his IP 93.97.143.19 was not found related to the sock master first, but with the insistence of another editor, the same IP was found related to Meowy. The George Spurlin account did file an SPI on himself, but what's the point? He could have travelled from his regular location of User:Ashot Arzumanyan, as I allege, to another where he used the alternative account User:George Spurlin. One thing is clear. The new editors who come to Wikipedia with a genuine intent to contribute, do not appear to make minor tweaks to build themselves a contribution history and create a fake user page to seem like regular editor and then edit-war. Many of them such as Dehr, InTheRevolution, Winterbliss, Sprutt, Zimmarod, Hablabar come and go in a suspicious pattern. They might as well be friends of blocked users living on another continent, who would log in and edit/revert/remove on their behalf spending only 2-3 minutes a day. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall, don't mislead administrators. The off-Wiki coordination charge is not currently against Kafka Liz but against you and the link I posted above proves that you are in off-Wiki coordination with blocked sock master Meowy, the fact that speaks for itself. As for the Winterbliss comment, as I mentioned above, the reason the new suspicious accounts are brought to edit war and drag established users into arbitration is that when and if administrators decide to sanction both the reporting party and the reported party, the established editor loses because he loses his only established account and ability to edit while the loss of a sock does not matter. Do you understand that? Tuscumbia (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to The Devil's Advocate's and WGFinley's comments

Devil's Advocate, thank you for your investigation of Winterbliss. I must remind you that there is yet another account Winter Gaze which was generated on November 21, two days after Winterbliss was originated with similar "simplistic user page. I mention this account because it fell into the category of casual editors who edited articles pertaining to AA2, with Winter Gaze being a more frequent minor edits contributor, who all of a sudden stopped on December 3. Like I had mentioned in one of SPIs, these new casual yet seemingly very experienced accounts get generated around the same time for a planned campaign. A most likely scenario is to storm the same topic area articles supporting "each other" and then drag established users countering their POV to arbitration, such as this one. If one of them gets blocked, no problem, they have the similar new accounts which were started around the same time and built some "contribution history", to continue. For instance, if Winterbliss is found a sock, it is likely that Winter Gaze will revitalize and continue the same type of edits Winterbliss had engaged in.

The fact that Winterbliss mentions he was some account in Russian Wikipedia does not mean that he's not Xebulon, Meowy, Andranikpasha or Hetoum I. I find it very hard to believe that a user with such a proficiency in English Wikipedia would edit in Russian Wiki and not in English one. In fact, if he mentions that he moved to US (with a nice haha laugh, by the way which he later deleted), then everything adds up and suspicions will grow since it might as well be some blocked user who relocated and continues his edit-warring from a new location with a new account. As far as his quick contributions on Crocodile Fat and Biodiesel, please take a look at this interesting fact. The account RobertMel who was found to be the same as blocked user Magotteers, who was one of dozens of Meowy's socks, also edited on topics related to biochemistry. Please scroll through his edits to see more. The funny thing is that every single sock of Meowy desperately "fought" the claims that he was a sock and ironically at the end of the day, each one of those accounts were found to be his socks.

That being said, I wholeheartedly support WGFinley's proposal to get both George Spurlin and Winterbliss on TBAN and see how genuine their intentions are on contributions to Wikipedia versus their immediate edit-warring on "battleground articles" right after accounts were created. I bet they won't withstand that test. See George Spurlin's continuous edit-warring despite the fact that the consensus was not reached on the talk page (Warned by WGFinley). The history of sockpuppeting by sock masters is too long to ignore: Hetoum I, Meowy, Xebulon, Andranikpasha, Paligun, Capasitor, Aram-van. What else is new? Tuscumbia (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil's Advocate, no, I don't get that impression, God forbid. I was just making a reference to another suspicious account which not only resembles the same editing pattern but has a similar user name. I never said or implied that I was using the sockpuppetry of the above mentioned accounts as a shield. Whatever opinion you have on those articles is simply your opinion and can be voiced on the article pages. As you correctly mentioned, this is a conflict area. The articles on those villages and town names were created by a proficient non-involved editor who relied on third party sources, not Azeri, not Armenian. The fact that Armenians live there, whether it was where they lived before the conflict, or they forced out hundreds of thousands of Azeris during the war is irrelevant. By the same token, Azeri names would need to be added to half of Armenian cities and villages where Azeris constituted a sizable minority before the conflict and even majority before the second decade of the twentieth century. Unfortunately, Armenian users don't want that happening. Neither do they want to see Azerbaijani name added to the article Kars ([69], [70]), even though Azeris constitute the biggest minority in the city today and Armenians - none. The point is though, Devil's Advocate, that whenever there is a dispute over an article, you will see some established users back off, and new sock accounts pop up to continue the battle, relieving the established users from pressure to fall into arbitration. That's the whole argument I have been presenting over several days. That's the reason this kind of accounts are not afraid to use labels like "chauvinist". Established users would have been more careful with their words. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Tuscumbia

Comment by George Spurlin

In my short interaction with Tuscumbia he showed zero effort to listen and reach a consensus. It was like talking to a wall. He definitely needs a break from editing, all that nationalistic anger can't be good for his health. --George Spurlin (talk) 11:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I usually edit at a very specific hour for my time zone. How many of the sockpuppets and their masters have done the same? This accusations are really getting old. What happened to the AGF? --George Spurlin (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to be checked. As a matter of fact, I requested to be checked, but was turned down. And yes, I created the userpage to stop it from being red, but had no desire to add more. My first encounter with Winterbliss was when he notified me about this report. --George Spurlin (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ashot Arzumanyan

I wanted to report Tuscumbia myself, but nowadays I am very busy out of WP, so this is a good chance to share a serious concern on this editor. One of his topic bans was for this comment: "Armenian authors ... are naturally biased ... because they dismiss any reference to anything good Turkish/Turkic." [71] However he recently came up with very identical statement: "... you, as usually go on giving credibility to the historian of Armenian heritage who is more likely to write in favor of Armenian majority, than those three (of Persian, Jewish, Swedish, etc heritage) who have no affiliation to Azerbaijan and thus wouldn't fake the demographic information in favor of Azerbaijani majority" [72]. I can't see any improvement though almost a year has passed. -- Ashot ^(talk) 16:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not acceptable to criticize sources on the basis of the alleged ethnic heritage of their authors. People cannot influence where they are born, and it is fallacious to assume that they hold certain opinions or are more or less reliable simply because of who their parents are. Advancing such opinions is misusing Wikipedia as a vehicle for ethnic conflict (see WP:BATTLE). Instead, all sources and authors should be evaluated only on the basis of their reliability as set forth in WP:RS. This is very simple, and Tuscumbia was made aware of this by Sandstain. However his last comment demonstrates that he is reluctant to change his views, therefore the issue needs to be addressed by admins. -- Ashot ^(talk) 17:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does that really matter who the filer is? The filer's identity issue really needs to be addressed since the his/her history of contributions is suspicious at least. But I agree with Marshal that this doesn't diminish the evidence brought forward. I am ready to refile the report on behalf of myself if this technical formality is the case.

And per Tuscumbia's unfounded allegations regarding me. Any checkuser can confirm that I logged in WP almost everyday from my regular locations once I opened my browser. The checkuser can also confirm that I always follow my watchlist.

PS: I have no problem with being checked if it is necessary. -- Ashot ^(talk) 06:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Marshal Bagramyan

I've shared similar concerns about Tuscumbia and it should be noted that I had reported him earlier to the Arbitration page in October; for some inexplicable reason, the complaint was never followed up on, even though I re-listed it twice on this page (see, e.g., here). I don't want to dwell on that report but I would just like to address Tuscumbia's point on the alleged sockpuppets: regardless of how many of them spring up, he, as an established editor, should exercise restraint and be patient when working with other editors, even if they are suspected socks. Report them if you have enough evidence, but there is nothing compelling you to make those immediate reverts and thus no reason for you to be sucked into these edit wars that they initiate.

I must reiterate, furthermore, that never have I used the ethnicity of an author to exclude them as a source. If one goes back to the discussion page of the article Tuscumbia keeps making reference to, they will notice how much I emphasize that the article must rely on the works of peer-reviewed scholars and academics, and not political scientists and individuals who are not experts in the fields they are working on.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "coming on to you" Tuscumbia. In all the cases you cite to support your argument, nowhere do I mention ethnicity as a reason for exclusion. I take in other factors into account, such as the conditions they are writing in, their scholarly credentials, their level expertise in a given field, etc. And let us not pretend that sockpuppeting and off-Wiki coordination is a one-way street on these articles. I hardly need to remind you and everyone else here about that, let alone the massive off-Wiki coordination that was taking place on the Russian Wikipedia before that ring was busted by an editor and dealt with by administrators. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tuscumbia, perhaps you should stop trotting out that false canard of off-Wiki coordination when you know full well that Kafka Liz's interaction with Meowy was personal in nature; the fact that the former has offered to disclose the details of that communication should be enough to dissuade you.

Ed, regardless of who or what Winterbliss is, does that still mitigate the merit of the evidence he has brought forth? As I noted above, I, too, had filed a complaint here two months ago (the link is found in my first comment) and that was promptly ignored, even after I re-listed it two times. The invasion of sockpuppets is disconcerting but I think we shouldn't allow it to detract from evaluating the material presented. Nevertheless, I would it desirable if Winterbliss at least subject himself to at a CU.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by The Devil's Advocate

Seems to me like the sockpuppetry allegations against the filer have some merit. Winterbliss is unusually familiar with the process. See this in light of this. Also, see these violations of WP:CANVASS: [73] [74].--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Devil's Advocate: you are an account banned recently by Wgfinley. See above. You are not supposed to be on AE pages and posting comments. Your comment about WP:CANVASS is not accepted. I was obligated to notify George Spurlin and MarshallBagramian because their names are mentioned in the case. Winterbliss (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who has been topic-banned from one topic area is perfectly free to comment on AE cases involving other topic areas.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear part of the evidence is that Winterbliss filed an SPI within a month of registering accusing an editor of being a sockpuppet that was ~~similarly accused of being sockpuppets~~accused of meatpuppetry by banned account User:Vandorenfm.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked that and this is not true. I filed an SPI on Verman1 and he has never been SPI reported by the account called Vandorenfm. Yet another manipulation by Devil's Advocate. Winterbliss (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did accuse Twilight Chill/Brandmeister of being a sockpuppet in that report, though it seems I mistook a comment from the Vandorenfm account as implying sockpuppetry, when it was in fact just noting that they are the same users.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Winter, according to SUL you registered at the Russian wiki after registering here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Devil, this is a manipulation on your part. I never edited in Russian wiki as Winterbliss and had a totally different user ID. But if someone is in English Wikipedia and happens to visit Russian pages globally from his/her English account, he/she leaves a trace by automatically creating a phantom account. The same is true with Wikipedia Commons and other wiki outfits. You are trying to misrepresent this trace as a separate account disregarding that there are no edits there at all. Absurd. Please try your devil-advocate skills/manipulations somewhere else. Or perhaps you are Tuscumbia's sock/meatpuppet? Winterbliss (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You said that you have contributed to the Russian Wikipedia and so I checked to see if you had. When you mention contributions you have made with another account it would be good to provide the name of that account so any interested admin can check your claims.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the CU inquiry only determined that you are not User:Meowy. It did not determine that you are not a sock.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@WG Winterbliss has said he has a separate account for the Russian Wikipedia. Should he provide the name of that account an admin can check to see if it matches up. As for what other account Winter may be linked to, it seems Vandorenfm/Xebulon is the most likely candidate if Winterbliss is a sockpuppet account. Winterbliss has made a revert to Caucasian Albania, an article that had been a favored target of both the Vandorenfm and Xebulon accounts. In an SPI Winterbliss filed, not only is the editor who filed an AE request against Vandorenfm named as a sock with no supporting evidence, there are numerous references to the Amaras monastery article that Winter has no history of editing, but that Xebulon does. Vandorenfm, Xebulon, and Winterbliss all demonstrate this focus on Armenian monasteries in their edit histories.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With my old Russian account Brindz (before I moved to the USA) I made a total of 35 edits on Armenian monasteries :)):)))) And I checked the editor who filed an AE request against Vandorenfm. He was NOT named as a sock by me in my SPI against Verman1. Devil you keep manipulating and making things up. Most of Vandorenfm's and Xebulon's interests and topics do not overlap with my edits. Winterbliss (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you would say that given that anyone can look at the diffs I provided in my initial comment and see clearly that User:TwilightChill/User:BrandMeister requested enforcement against Vandorenfm and that you named User:TwilightChill/User:Brandmeister in your SPI.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the history of various Xebulon socks brings up more correlations. User:Oxi42 was blocked as a sock of Xebulon on November 15th, 2011. Four days later Winterbliss registers his account. Though there do not appear to be any other significant correlations with that sock (Tuscumbia has, however, alleged a connection between Oxi and George Spurlin), Winterbliss has edited the Gandzasar monastery and Tsitsernavank Monastery articles that have similarly seen contributions from User:Bars77 and User:Sarmatai, both socks of Xebulon. Sarmatai also specifically criticizes User:Verman1 who is the subject of the SPI Winterbliss filed that also named TwilightChill/Brandmeister who filed the AE request against Vandorenfm, another sock of Xebulon. The Russian account Winter has provided seems to have been inactive for almost two years. I find that to be a very long time for someone to not be editing at all without some apparent instigating incident. If he has edited since between the last activity of the Brindz account and the creation of the Winter account it would be nice to know.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Tuscumbia I do not want you to get the impression that finding your allegations against one or two editors to be of merit means I endorse your actual behavior on the articles above. Sockpuppetry by another editor is not some magic potion that gives you +5 sanction resistance. You appear to be using accusations like this as a bit of a shield here given that the reverts to Gülablı show no evidence of involving sockpuppets and most of the reverts to the Agdam bombing were of an established editor, not a sock. Also, sock or no sock, I do not find your contributions in the Murovdag article to be constructive. In deference to the fact that both sides have a stake in the dispute, you should not be insisting on only presenting the Azeri name for or the Azeri connection to a piece of territory subject to that dispute. The objection on the basis of sourcing is quite irrelevant. Armenians reside in that territory and claim it as their own, whether you like it or not, so the name they use for that territory should be included in the lede right next to the Azeri name. Edit-warring over that kind of change is a very serious problem. Should an editor with clean hands present this case here I would see plenty of cause for sanctions against you.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Tuscumbia

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

Since there has been so much sockpuppetry in the area of Armenia-Azerbaijan, I would be tempted to disregard complaints by editors who don't have a track record of useful contributions. User:George Spurlin seems to be too new to be submitting a complaint like this one. I'm afraid that the page at User:George Spurlin looks like a typical sock user page ('Hi, I'm George.'). This appears to be noninformative content added simply to keep the user page from showing up as a red link. Forgive my skepticism. WP:SOCK forbids socks from editing project space, which is where AE is located. I would withdraw my objection if you are willing to identify yourself to a checkuser. EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Ed I could hear this quacking a mile away. Although just to correct Ed, User:Winterbliss submitted this and has a "typical sock user page" and talk page. Winterbliss's account was created November 2011 and has around 90 edits. George Spurlin's account was created in May 2011 and has around 90 edits. While I don't know if these two are socks of one another, as Ed says the Armenia-Azerbaijan sock drawer is full to overflowing.
Recommend closing and sending this to SPI--Cailil ^talk 21:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We appear to have a new pair of socks for the sock drawer and I would agree to SPI but to which accounts? Both George Spurlin (talk · contribs) and Winterbliss (talk · contribs) have few edits, went right to the conflict area and have already been on SPI and AE. I'd go with TBAN on both, indefinite, they are free to build some standing editing outside of the conflict area and demonstrate they aren't socks. --WGFinley (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would concur that if Winterbliss' reason for lack of edits yet extensive DR knowledge is an account on WP-RU then yes, he should disclose that account. --WGFinley (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FkpCascais

FkpCascais (talk · contribs) is topic banned from WP:ARBMAC topic area for 6 months, LAz17 (talk · contribs) is topic banned from WP:ARBMAC topic area indefinitely. --WGFinley (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2012 (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 FkpCascais

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 17:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBMAC

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

22:35, December 22, 2011 He accused a discussion participant, DIREKTOR (talk · contribs), of committing personal attacks and trolling and insisted on him getting blocked and on continuing the protection of the article being discussed.
07:33, December 23, 2011 After his report failed he went to the admin that originally protected the article and asked him to extend the protection, but this request also failed.
16:59, December 23, 2011 He then attempted to get AniMate (talk · contribs), an admin who commented in the incident report against DIREKTOR, blocked for what Fkp has called "blatant lying" via Jimmy Wales' talkpage.
04:43, December 27, 2011‎ He attempted to get another participant, Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs), blocked on the basis that he is a sockpuppet. This also failed.
05:50, December 28, 2011 He then asked the admin who closed the SP investigation to "reconsider".

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

05:52, April 16, 2011 Warning
09:24, June 2, 2011 "1 revert per 48 hours" for 6 months restriction

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It is evident that FkpCascais is gaming the system and does not wish to participate in a proper discussion, but get users who disagree with him blocked by any means necessary and coerce admins. This is just the latest episode, but Fkp has a history of using whatever evasive techniques possible in order to dismiss sources and sourced information: he misquotes policies, seeks further protection, and flat out ignores sources. When all this failed he went on this spree you see above.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[75]

Discussion concerning FkpCascais

Statement by FkpCascais

This is actually ironic, as I was the one insisting on discussion and consensus building, and the one who analised and found flaws in sources, while it were the others that sabotaged discussion and restarted the edit-war immediatelly after the protection was lifted. Whoever reads the reports and checks what really happend will see what is really going on. In my view it seems great that the issue was brought here, as there was a number of disruptive episodes that were ignored to the other side. I am available for any clarifications. FkpCascais (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning FkpCascais

Comment by WhiteWriter

I am user who didn't participated in entire process, neither on article, nor on talk page. Well, reporting user failed to state that edit warring did restarted after page protection ended. So, it looks like FkpCascais suspicion was well founded, as user is question (DIREKTOR) didnt want to find consensus, but just waited for protection to end. Following that, his move to protect the page until agreement was the best possible Wikipedia guideline practice, while this report may (amd probably is) bad faith, as PRODUCER is under dispute with him in this content dispute, while FkpCascais didnt edit article in question since 19 December... But he is trying to follow Wikipedia guidelines, what may be quite a problem to some. And PRODUCER is the one who is trying to block users with whom is in dispute. This report is one, and this comment other obvious example. This only looks like a WP:BOOMERANG to me. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 13:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) User:WhiteWriter, while you've not participated in that particular discussion, please avoid trying to present yourself as anything like a "neutral" party. You are FkpCascais' "ally" and friend, and always come put in favor of his position. As I said on ANI, I do not pretend to be neutral here as I am engaged in a content dispute with FkpCascais, but nevertheless, I believe the disruption that is taking place there is a real issue that needs to be reviewed and addressed by objective, neutral users. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus was achieved between the other users in the dispute who properly engaged the sources and policies. Fkp spent more effort "lobbying" to get the article protected with his preferred version intact and using source evasion tactics than he did properly engaging in discussion. As for your suggestion that I'm acting on bad faith: I first brought this up at the ANI incidents page due to the concern of other individuals and this was done after discussions were wrapped up. Only after an admin recommended that this is be taken to AE and after it was evident that no one wished to get involved in a Balkans incident was this report made. So enough with trying to make it appear I have it out for Fkp. Further more, I don't know what point your trying to make with that archives link other than a misleading one. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 14:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely untrue that a consensus was achieved. People who had one opinion always were on consensus while people of another opinion did not agree to the biased views imposed on the article. The article is filed with tenacious editing and my sources which I have backed up have continually been removed due to POV of the edit warring parties, Producer and Direktor. What bothers me the most is that even after I had provided sources by scanning pages, these users disregard that. Producer for example outright says that he does not believe this and that... it's become very difficult to deal with these users who simply do not want to negotiate anything that is different from what they believe. Especially with Direktor, who often threatens when one dares change something - his continual threats are seen all over the Yugoslav Partisans talk page. (LAz17 (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Nonsense, a version that all participants agreed on including myself, DIREKTOR, and Peacemaker27 was made. Do not try to create this image that we all unanimously agree on everything because that is simply not the case. I would like admins to note that LAz17 was indefinitely blocked for his tenacious editing by breaching his topic ban with the article in question and was later arbitrarily unblocked for no apparent reason. [76][77] I would like to point out for the record that while he was blocked he evaded his block with a sockpuppet, GibbonGiboo (talk · contribs), posing as "neutral" party who came "came to the page by accident" in order to sway the matter to his advantage through numbers and even admitted the matter on his talkpage. [78] In addition to this he had the shear tenacity to refer to me, sneakingly through a file he links in his apparent appeal, as "PRODUCER ustaska govnarcina" = "PRODUCER the Ustase shithead". [79] Now to top it all off he is spreading misinformation to the events that occurred. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 17:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you purpously forget to tell that you, DIREKTOR and Peacekeeper share the same POV... LAz17 may be a young editor but he clearly had his reasons on article content. BTW, perhaps admins should check yours and DIREKTOR´s block logs to have a clearer view. FkpCascais (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that we do not, and constantly repeating that we do, does not make it any truer. Fkp, do you really believe LAz17's tenacious editing, violation of his topic ban, sockpuppeteering (GibbonGiboo (talk · contribs)), and personal attacks ("PRODUCER the Ustase shithead") are to be ignored on a whim because of his age and because he had "his reasons"? Frankly I'm astounded at your suggestion that his actions were justified. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 19:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been blocked, and recently have been unblocked.

I did not do tenacious editing. You and Direktor did. Direktor did it in the past, but I was not allowed to address it due to bans. Finally the bans have been lifted so I look forward to mediation to resolve the issue after the holidays are over. Some weird things happen on wikipedia, like how Direktor and you are allowed to edit war without being punished. But so be it, mediation will hopefully solve the disagreements. (LAz17 (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

The problem PRODUCER is that by LAz17 being blocked and unexperienced doesn´t make you necessarilly right about everything. FkpCascais (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FkpCascais, I'm going to request mediation for the article on January 10th. By then the holidays will pass and Producer/Direktor will not be able be able to simply reject sources that are not to their liking, like they have been doing up till now. Not sure about you, but I have been threatened by them a lot in that talk page, much more than you have. It's quite aggravating. (LAz17 (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

I beleave that any step towards conflict resolution which includes supervision from some uninvolved admin is welcomed. FkpCascais (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Direktor

I apologize for going into some detail.

FkpCascais' statement is more of a retaliatory "counter-attack" in-line with his WP:BATTLE perceptions, rather than a proper response, and as usual concerns itself primarily with the behavior of others rather than that of himself. It does however provide some context on the serious problem that, in my opinion, needs to be addressed in some way. Namely, his perception of discussion is that it is a "battleground" where he need only achieve numerical superiority in order to prevail, and where sources can be opposed on any nonsense imaginary grounds as long as this is so. The user obviously and without doubt holds that his feelings and opinions should be taken into account as "counterweights" to sources. His goal is to have allies (like the Serbian User:WhiteWriter), who, even when he lacks any semblance of a coherent argument, might drown out any source-based opposition on the talkpage, and which might help him justify the removal of referenced text through his many WP:EDIT WARS. I am not afraid to say that FkpCascais is an exceedingly disruptive, textbook WP:POV-PUSHER of the most obvious order, as defined on WP:NPOVD and WP:ADVOCACY. His activities on Wikipedia prominently include Serbian football - and the preservation of the good name of the World War II Serbian nationalist Chetnik movement.

The usual modus operandi is the user will

1) oppose sourced information on the basis of opinion. If its negative info on the Chetniks, FkpCascais will oppose it. If there is a source, he will attack the author (on the basis of his "assessments"). If people don't buy that, he'll simply claim (without backing) that the sources is "misrepresented". If there are several sources, he will quote WP:UNDUE (again without any backing). He might proclaim the sourced fact is "outrageous" or "exceptional" (because he thinks so), and he might demand more sources until he is personally satisfied, which of course, has never ever happened yet. I can go on and on like this, there's a lot more. Even when all his objections are rejected, and the sources are overwhelming, he will not agree to add whatever they support, he will simply go away for a while to start the conflict anew with a different baseless objections from the arsenal above.
Then he will typically 2) remove this information from the article (without exception edit-warring against any opposition); at the same time
3) he and maybe one or two of his friends will oppose the sourced info on the talkpage supporting his actions (a couple users is enough on these obscure articles). The user can then proclaim that the sourced information is "non-consensus" (on the basis of his own thoughts, feelings, and opinions), and voilà - sources are ignored on our project. When the user cannot swing enough pals to join him (which he continuously tries to do), he of course continues to edit-war and oppose sources. And even when that fails - there's a contingency: he desperately tries to get the opposing users blocked so the numbers on the talkpage are back in his favor (even with the most absurd tactics, such as posting an SPI case where he admits that User:Peacemaker67 acts like an entirely different person, but that this is all part of his "plan" and so forth :)). His perception of discussion is textbook WP:BATTLE.

The sheer WP:DISRUPTION these tactics have caused on many Balkans articles is difficult to explain. FkpCascais is a phenomenon onto himself. Prominent examples are available all over Talk:Chetniks and Talk:Yugoslav Partisans. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, right. The steps you describe are actually your own attitude, thus you know them so well. Also, curious enough is the fact that all neutral participants ended up mostly disagreing with you, like User:Fainites, User:Sunray, User:Nuujinn or User:Jean-Jacques Georges and I am counting only the ones who are long-established and non-involved. Yes, we are all "evil Chetniks", right, disturbing the poor innocent direktor who does nothing less than edits of this kind, where he ignores discussion, restarts an edit war, removes sourced info about ethnic composition, replaces it by a new section named "Croatian Partisans", and adds an accusation of "ethnic cleansing" to Chetniks without even having a source saying it... Very "neutral"... Outragius is the fact that you managed to remove all other users from the discussions by all other means than demonstrating to be right. So now it is only me and Nuujinn left, and I am the first and next to be eliminated, right? But, I am doing everything under policies, so needs some extra efforts and all the imagination and manipulation of events as possible.

Once I see you using my hobbie football as excuse, It really means I can edit in peace and that I am doing a good job. Perhaps you should better prepare yourself, as immediatelly after I find some more time after hollydays I will challenge all disputed edits that you managed to insert into the article, and I´ll definitelly ask for a neutral third party to be present (RfC, RfM, or any other WP mean of solving disputes), as I refuse myself to keep on continuosly being ganged-up by you. FkpCascais (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DIREKTOR's description of your behavior is absolutely spot on. You attack reliable sources with whatever baseless and invalid accusations you can come up with and simply brush them off because they do not pass your personal arbitrary standards: [80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87] (Note these are only some examples from the past month) In addition to this, you regard and treat Wikipedia as a battleground of sorts and even use the terminology that someone on an actual battleground uses: [88] -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 21:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those same concerns about your sources are shared by other neutral users, as seen in this discussion (Nuujinn has informed that he is on hollydays, so they are probably counting as this time as the ideal for this unfounded accusations against me). If you are all so sure of yourself, why all this effort of avoiding resolution disputes? You have a wrong approach into this important historical articles, as you disregard what actual scholars say, but you try to source your own missconceptions first. You are adding conflicting nationalistic content into articles, not me. You just have a biased view on the issue, and you think that by finding a couple of weak sources you can make and expand your own OR in WP... Anyone has the right to oppose it by citing adequate policies and flaws, and if you don´t like it, well, that is not my problem. If calling another user to bring sources is "offensive" to you, well, what should I think of DIREKTOR´s 80 counted reverts at Chetniks article? Accept arbitration, instead of loosing all the time trying to eliminate me and the others opposing you. In other words, if I am so bad and wrong as you claim, why is that I am the one asking for neutral arbitration of some kind, while you are doing all the possible to avoid it? Don´t answer to me, as I know the answers. FkpCascais (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning FkpCascais

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

I don't know if I see enough here for a sanction for disruption. FkpCascais does seem to be flailing quite a bit going to AN/I, two admins and SPI to get action against someone without much evidence of anything. I'd lean more towards an admonishment unless other admins think there's enough here for a TBAN. --WGFinley (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The warring parties are not giving us much usable information to work with. (Looks to be some kind of a giant argument about sources that would take months to read through). FkpCascais did just come off a six-month 1RR/48h limitation on Yugoslavia-related articles that was imposed by Future Perfect. That was based on this ANI discussion from 2 June, 2011, and FP's sanctioning message was here, which includes some diffs of what he believes were the improper edits. That's all I have time to dig into tonight, and FP unfortunately seems to be still on vacation. Without fully understanding FkpCascais's last sanction, it's hard to tell if it should be continued.

When we find that people continue the same arguments year after year and seem unable to converge on a solution without constant admin supervision, we do sometimes impose bans from the troublesome articles. Since we don't have hundreds of hours to research this, and the parties are not helping, something like that might be considered. In the case of Mass killings under Communist regimes, we finally resorted to permanent full protection and are using edit requests to make changes. That's another option to consider. Here we have several articles about the Yugoslav Partisans where either the editors or the articles might have to be restricted. Unsure which of these options would be practical. EdJohnston (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review Findings

I took a while to more extensively look at the behavior of the parties concerned across these articles. The following would outline my findings.

FkpCascais (talk · contribs)

Is in philosophical opposition to Direktor/Producer and frequently questions the credibility of sources though frequently without providing any of his/her own. Prime example: Talk:Yugoslav_Partisans#Content_dispute. FkpCascais pointed to this as example of violations by his opposition when all I can see is FkpCascais wants to remove sourced material in the article, the sources appear to be reliable to me (one of them is the BBC) but FkpCascais offers no sources to contradict those provided.
Talk:Chetniks is another example of this behavior specifically Talk:Chetniks#Non-Serbian_Chetniks, I see FkpCascais doing a lot of objecting with no sources being supplied. I can see why the others get frustrated.
Going to all the various venues including Jimbo's talk page is pretty egregious forum shopping and shouldn't be condoned in this topic space, these disputes spiral out of control just fine on their own.
Has pushed pretty heavily for mediation, Direktor and Producer seem to be uninterested, that is their right, all parties have to be willing to mediate for mediation to be meaningful.

In light of these facts and prior sanctions I think a 90-day ARBMAC TBAN is in order.

LAz17 (talk · contribs)

Currently on indefinite block for socking.[89]

As this socking was used to avoid sanctions and a previous unblocking agreement I think an indefinite ARBMAC TBAN is in order in case he should ever be unblocked. Also since he's using his talk page to further his position in these disputes I would remove his talk page access as well.

Others

I have other concerns about WP:OWN that Direktor in particular can exert on these articles and while he can be a bit condescending the work is generally well sourced and there is evidence of trying to collaborate with others on these articles. I don't see any action to be taken at this time outside of a reminder to the others to stick to sources, avoid personal attacks and work to build consensus on talk pages.

Barring any other admin objections I'll close this one out with these actions. --WGFinley (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a topic ban of FkpCascais is appropriate. No objection to the ban of LAz17. Regarding Fkp, the problems have been going on for a very long time and if your thought is that a ban addresses the problem, I think that six months is a more reasonable duration. Will accept your judgment either way. EdJohnston (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested change to practice: comments by non-neutral editors

Discussion concluded, further discussion likely merited in another forum, possibly with some consultation with ARBCOM. --WGFinley (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

In recent months, there has been a substantial increase in the volume of commentary on enforcement requests. Much of this commentary is not by uninvolved editors and administrators, but individuals unconnected with the enforcement request in hand yet involved in the related subject area. When my term on the Arbitration Committee begins on 1 January 2012, I hope to discuss with my colleagues whether the enforcement process is operating to the satisfaction of the administrators who contribute here; from the astonishingly low number who choose to play an enforcement role, I suspect it isn't. I know from my own time on this noticeboard that it is frustrating to read excessive comments by users who are not the complainant or respondent but who edit the related topic or article, and I therefore propose we prohibit such participation in future. A minority of such comments are useful, and I don't want to tar all contributors to contentious topics with the same brush, but I think we can agree that most input of this type is not helpful.

I am receptive to a partial prohibition, for instance only on comments that do not point out factual errors in the submission or an administrator's observation (which may be fairest), but I think a complete limitation would be easier to enforce. (The terms of the prohibition would have to be elucidated clearly: some low benchmark of non-routine edits per month to an article or talk page on the topic may be easiest). Do any other editors think this would be a sensible change to our practices? I have opened this discussion here because the talk page for this noticeboard redirects to the talk for the main arbitration requests page, the scope of which is too broad for this issue, and because I know the other administrators who watch this page are guaranteed to see my proposal if I post it here. If my proposal would not make this an easier place to contribute, then I'm fine with that, but I am keen to address the hostile environment that this page creates - and I think reducing the obligatory debates that enforcement threads create would be a productive first move. AGK [•] 00:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome this. It seems that it is very easy for certain editors to game the system by using extensive use of hard to follow edits in their section and in replies to others, and often recently (and seemingly tolerated) comments in the admin section as well. It was very obvious that most admins and others could not keep up the pace in such cases. How's about adding some requirement limiting one's comments to their sub-section for starters (with authority of anyone to move editor's comments back to their sub-section). Allowing people to reply in order in sub-sections is convenient for the flow of the discussion but encourages a discussion if you know what I mean. Another suggestion is limiting each editor to 500 - 1000 words and not allow endless replies and counter replies. --Shuki (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The very same question is discussed here: Comments by other editors on WP:AE cases. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there has been an increase per request (non-involved editors, not total words). Regardless, I think any change should be specific to the I-P cases since that is the ongoing problem (the system may not be in shambles for editors seeking remedies in other topic areas)Cptnono (talk) 07:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said in other discussions I think the proposal is good and I support it.If people think its too extreme the other option would be to create are two different section for involved and uninvolved.The section of the involved should be hated.--Shrike (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that some users tend to just drop by with a predictable bunch of accusations, usually either reliant on ancient diffs irrelevant to the current dispute, or with no supporting evidence whatever. Over time, one can learn to ignore the more tendentious commentators and focus on the useful ones, but the sheer length of discussion in some cases might I suppose be daunting to a less experienced administrator.

Regardless, I couldn't support an outright ban on comments from users not directly involved in a given dispute, because I think the arguments of some editors who fall into this category can be extremely worthwhile. I suppose it might be possible to allow uninvolved admins to redact material they deem irrelevant to the current case, or to remove accusations unsupported by evidence, but then, I dislike anything that smacks of censorship, and disputes arising from redactions might end up making the whole idea more trouble than it is worth. Arguably there may also be an element of catharsis involved in these cases, where users get to blow off a little steam and head back to the topic area feeling a little calmer. So while the notion may sound agreeable in theory - who wouldn't like to read less in these cases? - in practice I have doubts about its efficacy. Given that cases are often open for quite a while, one usually has time to stay up to speed with all the new comments in any event. Gatoclass (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in the discussion Che linked above, I think there should be a closer look at the specific behaviors creating this problem and the general topic area or particular editors who are contributing to the toxic atmosphere most.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree with Gatoclass. While this is a good-faithed proposal, it is also misguided.

First, not all comments by "involved" editors are junk. In fact, "involved" editors tend to have the most thorough and detailed - although often biased - knowledge of particular disputes. Yes, I know reading some of these comments can be a big pain in the butt, but I just don't see how an "uninvolved" admin can come to any sort of reasonable conclusion regarding an issue without being at least minimally familiar with the issues at hand. And that means reading and checking what "involved" parties have to say.

Second, even if a particular "involved" editor is not the subject of an AE request themselves they very often fall into a broader category of... let's call it 'stakeholder' or 'interested party'. Editors often collaborate with one another, and a sanction against one particular editor may affect the work of others. Hence, it is natural that, as 'interested parties', other "involved" editors express their opinion. In fact, this kind of practice, is part and parcel of any kind of adjudicating process in the real world.

Third, the proposal is pretty much unenforceable. As someone else pointed out somewhere else, all you're gonna get is that instead of people bickering over some particular issue, they're going to start to bicker over whether or not they are "involved" or "uninvolved" and no explicit standard or threshold is going to prevent that. I've certainly seen plenty of editors and admins make claims of "uninvolvedness" over the years, despite the fact that in my own subjective opinion they were very clearly "involved".

Fourth, "uninvolved", by Wikipedia's definition, does not mean "unbiased", nor does "involved" imply "biased". Not only there's no "if and only if" here, there's no "if" and there's no "only if". As an example you can have an admin or an editor who has gotten into arguments with a subject of an AE request OVER OTHER ISSUES - hence, technically, "uninvolved" - come to AE to pursue personal grudges. I have never been able to understand why this kind of pursuit of personal conflicts is seen as "ok" by Wikipedia's standards (its definition of "uninvolved"), while having people who are knowledgeable about a particular issue is seen as problematic.

Fifth, here, the proposal does in fact sound like an attempt at censorship or at least at silencing some voices simply because they are perceived by some admins as "irritating" (read: they force admins to actually work a little before coming to a conclusion). I'm sorry, but just because some editors tend to annoy admins with their comments and "that it is frustrating to read excessive comments" is no reason to start silencing people. In fact, dealing with such comments is part of the job description and part of what an administrator who chooses to be active at AE signs up for. The purpose of AE is to help solve problems not to make banning people easy and arbitrary by making life easy for admins.

So, um Oppose. Volunteer Marek 18:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<- I think part of the problem is that the stakes are too high. There is often an opportunity to remove a perceived opponent/problem from the topic area for a lengthy period. Some editors are therefore willing to invest a lot of time and words in trying to achieve that objective (despite it having no effect on what reliable sources have to say and no effect on everyone's obligations to comply with mandatory policy no matter what their personal opinions are on an issue). Since bans are potentially lengthy, admins may take too long to process cases and the whole process can become self-sustaining and ant mill-like. I think lengthy and indefinite bans should be reserved for the really egregious cases where someone is clearly incapable of following policy or just doesn't care about it. They are usually obvious when they come up and they often don't even make it here because the editor is simply blocked by an admin. Routine cases of editors not complying with policy and the sanctions could be dealt with quickly using temporary preventative topic bans for fixed periods like a month. The objective should be to make editors and therefore content better by quickly addressing misbehavior, not to reduce admin burden. If an editor does something wrong they could be topic banned for a month. If they do it again when they come back they get another month and so on until they learn that not following the rules gets them quickly topic banned for a month everytime. When editors are not getting the message that they must comply with policy they should be topic banned quickly and for long enough to stop them causing disruption over a particular discussion/issue. I don't see why the cases couldn't be dealt with quickly like edit warring/1RR reports so that the admin burden isn't too high and editors don't feel the urge to make extensive comments. Unfortunately the sanctions (Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Editors_counseled) talk in terms of what editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and adhere to other Wikipedia policies are "counseled" and "may wish" to do when they should explicitly spell out that editing privileges within the topic area will be revoked if an editor cannot edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and adhere to other Wikipedia policies. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that cases brought to AE are not always straightforward and obvious. Sometimes there is a need for detail and longer explanations and opinions from others involved can provide insight that uninvolved editors would not.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True occasionally but policy violations are almost always obvious because anyone familiar with the topic area will have seen them hundreds of times before. People keep making the same patently invalid edits to articles and patently invalid arguments on talk pages. I think part of the complexity and inertia in these cases comes from admins having to factor in previous "bad behavior" and previous sanctions. I don't think they should do that. I think everyone should have a clean slate after they have completed one or any number of one month topic bans. If they mess up again they just get another topic ban. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've identified the fundamental problem with this proposal Sean - in a process where a user can face an indefinite topic ban for the slightest technical infraction, the stakes are simply too high to be disallowing evidence. If, on the other hand, there was a set and limited penalty for certain kinds of infractions, like breaches of 1RR for example, it really wouldn't matter a lot whether someone was unfairly sanctioned, because they'd be returning to editing in a relatively short time anyway. In that circumstance, I think it would be acceptable to have a total ban on comments from parties not directly involved - but not otherwise. It's partly for this reason, BTW, that I started developing a "lightweight" process for dealing with common problems, which can be read here. I've been intending to push ahead with development of this process for some weeks now, but unfortunately haven't been able to find the time. If you or anyone else would like to comment on the proposal, feel free to do so, on the associated talk page. Gatoclass (talk) 08:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two users can present the evidence themselves why they need a cheering team?Most of the comments say eventually the same thing and in 99% of the time is pretty obvious what party the involved user is going to support.--Shrike (talk) 09:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to allow outside comments with strict limits: Have a page with sections worked on by one or more editors who all agree to work together (one editor can only participate in one section). The idea would be to workshop a "perfect" statement of their case, within some predefined maximum size. There would be a defined period (three days?) allowed for this; after the period, some "do not change" box would be applied. The AE page would have a link to the statement. Corrections of fact would be a problem—perhaps don't allow them. The world is not perfect, and AE cannot be perfect either. Johnuniq (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see why so many people are pushing for stricter limitations on all editors without regard to the fact that some cases are more complicated than others, when it is obvious to me that this is an issue of bad behavior from certain editors. Forcing everyone to work within a restricted environment where they will effectively have to prove in one paragraph why a mountain of evidence, as some cases often involve, does not amount to a violation worthy of sanction would give all the power to the filing editor and force more work on the admins as they would be forced to suss out whether there are other facts not mentioned in the case. Some may very well tire of going out to look for that and be quicker to hand out sanctions, thus meaning the initial case will be lopsided in favor of the filing editor. I believe that there are legitimate concerns about behavior on AE, but they concern specific behavior that is generally already frowned-upon or prohibited in AE and other areas for requesting administrative action. Why not consider ways to more strictly enforce those existing standards rather than create new standards that will serve as an impediment to all editors?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a good idea to limit the input from involved editors when a dispute is taken to AE. I'm aware that involved editors can sometimes offer useful insight into disputes, but I think that it usually does more harm than good. Too often AE threads turn into a messy, uncontrolled rehash of the original dispute due to the heavy involvement of other editors from the dispute's origin. A lot of the time these editors become involved just to support their friends or to push for sanctions against the editors they dislike, without offering any new insights on whether the complaint itself is valid. This is a problem in more topic areas than just Palestine and Israel articles.

Ultimately it should be the job of the filer of the complaint to adequately provide the necessary background and diffs, and the subject of the complaint to attempt to justify or explain them. That should be enough information for admins to make a decision. I do not have a strong opinion on whether all involved editor comments should be disallowed from AE, or whether they should somehow be limited, but I would not be against a total prohibition. Overall I support the proposal.

If implemented, I think that some measure should also be taken to prevent subsequent editors from filing the same complaint (based on the same set of diffs) about an individual if the first one failed. I imagine that this could be an unfortunate result of this proposal if multiple involved editors are disallowed from participating in one thread. Instead of a single AE thread bogged down with comments from a dozen involved editors, AE would instead be bogged down by a dozen different complaints about the same set of diffs. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps introduce a form of proactive clerking instead of an outright ban? And/or forbid free-form discussions between parties, e.g. like arbcom /Evidence are structured? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I could support the latter. Although users are supposed to comment only in their own sections, it's a guideline that's honoured more in the breach than the observance at AE. Free form discussion tends to lead to more bickering and to more clutter IMO, if the rule was enforced it would I think it would go some way toward reducing the noise level. Gatoclass (talk) 05:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't people commenting in other sections. The problem is editors showing up here way too often and then bickering back and forth. Funny enough, they are bickering within their own sections which has got to make it more confusing to any admin trying to close it. This whole thing is blown out of proportion. Some editors comment here too much for things such as actual filing, presenting cases, defending themselves/defending themselves from BOOMERRANG, and so on. I think people commenting on the accused gets less space then the accuser bickering with them. We should be advised to watch ourselves and when we fail we should get the bounce. And this whole discussion has to be some sort of joke since I am now doing what I boohoo about. Happy New Year. Off to get hammered in the streets. Love you guys.Cptnono (talk) 05:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so, this is weird. The way I read the above discussion is roughly that some people think there's some value to the idea, some think it's a bad idea, generally speaking it's in some kind of a "it's worth thinking about some more" stage. Yet it seems that apparently AGK has jumped to interpreting the statements above as "broad support" [90] (I'm not sure what "broad support" means in this context) and is planning on using the ArbCom to unilaterally implement the proposal by fiat.

This is pretty obnoxious. There's no clear consensus for such a decision and calling the above discussion "broad support" is ... well, to put it nicely, "weird". He goes on to say that he "will implement the change him(her)self" because it is "an obvious improvement". The first part displays a disturbing inclination for ignoring others and doing what he wants regardless. The second part displays a prejudicial way of thinking - it may be obvious to him/her, but it is obviously not obvious to others - his/her mind was set before this was even brought up and this discussion is some kind of phony formality to give the preconceived decision a veneer of respectability.

This is particularly troubling since as an ArbCom candidate AGK fed us some nice words and phrases about transparency and replacing the "unreliable and non-public (ArbCom) mailing list" with a "usable public space" where, presumably, these kinds of things were to be decided. Yet here s/he is proposing to utilize this very "unreliable and non-public mailing list" to achieve a result which s/he wants, but which otherwise enjoys at best... a shrug of shoulders. Jeez, how many days has it been since the election closed? Usually candidates wait a bit longer before they so blatantly contradict their election campaign promises.

For myself I just want to register my opposition to the proposal in general, but even more so, to the implementation of this proposal via the illicit endeavor of having it decided upon in the smoke filled rooms of the ArbCom mailing list. I plan to ignore it wholeheartedly should it in fact be implemented. It has no basis in policy, no consensus behind it and it is an ill thought out whim of a single person. That's not how Wikipedia works.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume from your apparent surprise about a "phony formality to give the preconceived decision a veneer of respectability" that you must be new around here. Let me be the first to welcome you to Wikipedia. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is always that nobody says outloud what everyone is thinking.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also oppose any restriction other than a voluntary pledge not to chime in if you don't have anything constructive to add. As I wrote at WP:RFAR, I'm afraid that under such a restriction, this page will devolve from commentary on the enforcement request to debate about whether an editor is involved, and lobbying will move from this page to administrators' Talk pages. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muzzling people's ability to speak out is rarely a good solution. At the same time, AE needs streamlining on many levels, and discussing what works and what doesn't is always a good idea. Reading the above, I'd suggest elimination of involved/uninvolved sections and introduction of an obligatory "how am I involved with this issue" subsection for anybody commenting or taking action in a given request. Further, other editors should be allowed to add to those sections, to ensure that those who try to hide their involvement fail at that. The answer to improving AE discussion is not censorship, but full disclosure and transparency. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to that. Anyone commenting on ANY enforcement request should be obligated to state (a) their interest and (b) their competency to comment. Whether they are involved or not in the particular instance of conflict under discussion is largely immaterial. And, quite frankly, there is also too much drive-by whack-em by the uninformed self-righteous whose effect is mainly to further polarize issues by applying personal prejudices and stereotypes to situations, only to inflict further damage. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. That means Oppose to the original suggestion of limitation. Furthermore, "neutral", "non-neutral", "involved", and "uninvolved" are nothing but labels to argue over and should all be dispensed with. All that should appear is (a) the filer of the request and (b) who are the parties with whom they believe they have a dispute. ("Involved" should be stricken from that list as well.) "My dispute concerns (a) my interactions with XYZ and/or (b) edits by XYZ". PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. And declaring one's interest is not "I want to make WP a happier place", any such declaration must be specific enough to indicate their input and opinion are relevant. There are all too many editors on WP who profess to be here only to make friends and create an encyclopedia who are functionally little more than POV attack dogs. (To Volunteer Marek's point about "nobody says outloud what everyone is thinking".) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too strongly oppose this proposal. I think it is very misconceived, and risks causing more problems than it resolves. I recognise that there are problems here, in particular with various editors piling on the charges, and then arguing with each other; but I am concerned that this proposal would remove helpful as well as unhelpful interventions. I would not like to see a situation where editors are precluded from expressing and explaining their support for the targets of complaints, and if the price for this is allowing others to add further complaints, then that is a price we will have to pay.

In the first place, I am concerned that certain editors could find themselves the target of repeated malicious complaints, but others would be unable to assist them in rebutting these. Thus, editor A could face complaints laid consecutively be editors B, C, D, E and F, and have to refute these alone. But editors G-Z, who might support A and wish to counter the complaints, would be prevented from adding comments, which could create the false impression that A is a maverick editor, opposed by all others. The proposal could also disadvantage newer editors, and those less conversant with Wikipedia practices, faced by charges laid by an experienced editor. The net effect of the proposal would, in my assessment, weight the who;e process unfairly against the targets of complaints.

It is also the case that this proposal would be difficult to enforce, and would most likely merely shift the location of such comments and discussions. If they were to take place on several talk pages, instead of centrally here, as at present, this would again disadvantage the targets, who could have to monitor and respond to multiple discussions, and could easily miss some and thus not be aware of discussions leading to sanctions against them.

It is clear that there is no consensus here in favour of the proposal, and I hope that no admin is so rash as to attempt to impose it in the absence of such consensus. RolandR (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One thought I have, after reviewing some of the comments in these discussions, is possibly having a new format for these requests. The filing editor's section would be the same, meaning they would have a place for providing evidence and making an initial statement with this followed by a section for the editor who is the subject of the request to leave their statement and possibly evidence. After that is where things would change. Underneath their statements my thought is to have a section for additional evidence. This area would be strictly for any interested editor to provide relevant diffs, with perhaps a subsection for any relevant policies and Arbitration decisions with comments limited strictly to the most minimal of explanations, like "this diff shows x policy violation" or "this decision suggests such activity is allowed" and other short statements of that nature. Following that section would be a place for additional comments by other editors. Having stricter enforcement of civility, off-topic discussion, and repeated raising of other cases without established relevance would be helpful in keeping the additional comments section from being troublesome as well.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AGK's proposal did not enjoy broad support in either thread. Will he withdraw the comment? Jd2718 (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC) In this section, 20 people have gotten involved in the discussion. Of them, 4 support the proposal, and one more sort of supports it. Of the other 15, several discussed, and 10 specifically opposed the proposal. Jd2718 (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC) And at the other page Comments by other editors on WP:AE cases I quickly counted (or miscounted) about 6 in favor, 9 opposed. There seemed to be broad support for some way to allow commenters to self-identify as involved or not. But there was no broad support for AGK's proposal. Jd2718 (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Verman1

Indefinite topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 06:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Verman1

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: va c io 09:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Verman1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: AA2: edit warring and turning Wikipedia into battleground

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

10 Dec Revert 1
14 Dec Revert 2
19 Dec Revert 3
28 Dec Revert 4
29 Dec Revert 5

Daşkəsən

4 Dec Revert 1
5 Dec Revert 2
13 Dec Revert 3
29 Dec Revert 4

Other pages

User is/has been also edit warring in the articles Tsitsernavank Monastery and Gandzasar monastery.

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

Warned on 29 March by Sandstein (talk · contribs) (for criticizing sources based on ethnic origin of their authors)
Warned on 22 Dec by Wgfinley (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Dear Arbcom members, for some weeks I really did my best to reach consensus on several topics with Verman1. Unfortunately this user seriously fails to stick to the talkpage. Again and again he simply neglects what has been discussed and continues a reverting war. During discussions I have several times warned him for this disruptive behavior (some examples are this or this). The talkpage of this user is full of warnings from various users (including users involved in edit warring with Verman1). Only a couple of days ago WGFinley severely warned and remembered them about AA2 sanctions (see diff above).

I request any kind of sanction (topic ban, block, revert limitation) that can stop Verman1 from continuing this kind of disruptive behavioral. va c io 09:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just would like to add to my earlier comments that the edit war in the article Agdam Mosque is specially a bad. First because Verman1 is trying to push the statement that Today the mosque is being used as a cowshed referring to sources published in 2010 or before. Second because it is violating the arguments we agreed on in the TP, This kind of edit warring is very harmful since it aims to – or results in the – use of WP for nationalist or ethnic accusations. --va c io 12:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Verman1: I don't say –and hope you are not– deliberately making "nationalist or ethnic accusations", but that's being the result and that is making an edit war worse. --va c io 09:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that was what you said. That I am using WP as a ground to "make ethnic and nationalistic accusations". Can you please prove your words? --Verman1 (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread my statement above: This kind of edit warring is very harmful since it aims to – or results in the – use of WP for nationalist or ethnic accusations. --va c io 10:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[91]

Discussion concerning Verman1

Statement by Winterbliss

Vacio's comment above shows present mis-behavior of Verman1 who returned to same pages for which he was banned and turned them again into a nationalist battleground: Gandzasar Monastery and Tzitzernavank Monastery specifically. But the fact is that he is guilty of yet another major misconduct which went unnoticed for some time. Verman1 was topic banned for six months [[92]]. In order to evade sanctions, User:Verman1 deleted notification on sanctions → see here [[93]], after which he continued routinely editing restricted pages on Armenia and Azerbaijan [[94]], [[95]], [[96]], etc, etc, etc. Winterbliss (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is very curious for me how did you get to know almost all participants of Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict area, their past performance and activities during a month? Your talkpage and userpage is empty, but you are editing like an experienced user and aware of Wikipedia rules.--Verman1 (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shrike(uninvolved)

Question for ED:Isn't those violation you brought are several month old and considered stale because of it.Several editors were warned against bringing stale diffs.Could you please clarify this issue.Thank you.--Shrike (talk) 06:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Verman1

I see no point in this AE request. There was reasonable discussion in talkpages, we were trying to get into consensus by any means, but seemingly Vacio decided to interrupt the discussion and get rid of me "easily". Should be noted that Vacio himself got warning ([97]) during his disruptive edits on these articles, but he again tries to emphasize ethnic background of the sources in articles nevertheless ([98]). During discussions, instead of focusing on subjects, he continuously made accusations on me and threatened with reporting. --Verman1 (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Verman1, please be careful with your words. Seraphimblade (talk · contribs) did not warn me for "disruptive edits", but for a comment. Seraphimblade thought that I denounced sources merely based on the ethnic origin of their authors, which I tried to explain him, wasn't really true (see the link on my talkpage).

And frankly, I am not here to "get rid" of you. If you showed willingness to refrain from edit warring, I would definitely not start a request against you. --va c io 19:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To vacio: Could you please clarify where I made "ethnic and nationalist accusations"? --Verman1 (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of my Topic ban evasion is in here. --Verman1 (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Verman1

Result concerning Verman1

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

User:Verman1 made a number of edits in mid-2011 that were in violation of his six-month topic ban. The ban was imposed by HJ Mitchell on 9 April 2011 and expired on 9 October 2011. He was banned from the topic of the AA dispute on both articles and talk. At least five edits between April and October appear to be in violation of the ban.

Verman1 made a talk comment from 5 September 2011 that refers to Caucasian Albania, a well-known subject of dispute between advocates of Azerbaijan and Armenia on Wikipedia.

A rape incident was reported in Thomas De Waal's book which was said to take place on 20 February 1988. Verman1 added this to the Nagorno-Karabakh article on 21 September, during the period when his topic ban was still in effect, when he was supposed to be abstaining from AA matters.

He discussed AA matters at User talk:Golbez on 22 September.

He made an edit at Nagorno-Karabakh war regarding the rape incident mentioned above, added to the article by Verman1 on 22 September.

He made an edit at Battle of Kalbajar made on 5 October (this is a battle which took place during the Nagorno-Karabakh War).

There seems to be a continuing slow edit war at Askeran clash. The book (De Waal) which serves as a source does not seem to make the rapes be the cause of the Askeran clash, according to other editors at Talk:Askeran clash. Verman1 has been warring to insert mention of the rape incident in that article, though he did not do so during the period of his topic ban. He inserted mention of the incident on 19 November and also later on 3 and 11 December.

Since Verman1 violated his previous topic ban, I suggest that the case be closed by imposing a new topic ban, starting now, that will run for the full six months of the original. EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. --WGFinley (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When preparing to close I went over this one more throughly, I actually think an indefinite is in order here. The previous ban was six months, we have some violations of the TBAN and fresh WP:TE activity not long after the 6 month ban has expired. It just seems to be some of the partisan POV pushing, of particular note there's this which was more or less reverting sourced information that has long standing in the WP-RU article. The same article on RU has been stable for some time yet any attempts to bring the EN article more in line with it are resisted by Verman1. Given the history I would be more inclined to go indefinite here. --WGFinley (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing with a indefinite ban of Verman1 from the topic of the AA dispute on both articles and talk pages, per my own comments (above) plus the additional reasoning of Wgfinley. Figuring out the issues in dispute on the AA topic is not something I find easy to do and the comments left on AE requests by involved editors usually give admins little usable information. You have to read through a lot of hostile commentary hoping to glean a few diffs that will show what is going on. WGF's idea of comparing the en.wiki and ru.wiki articles on these topics is an idea that may be helpful, both now and in the future.

My own comment about Verman1 (above) may not have fully expressed my shock about his editing at Askeran clash. In my opinion he was misreading what the source said (De Waal's book), which Arbcom reminds us we can take action on as a conduct problem. It would be kinder to Verman1 to view this as extreme partisanship on his part instead of outright misreading of the source, which never said that the rapes were the cause of the Askeran clash. It seems that Verman1 was cherry-picking items from the book and making a synthesis. He also edit-warred to get this result of his own original thinking into the Askeran clash article. EdJohnston (talk) 06:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boothello

Boothello (talk · contribs) is topic banned from the Race and Intelligence topic area, broadly construed, indefinitely for tendentious editing by a single-pupose account. --WGFinley (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note - I am resurrecting this, because while Boothello left wikipedia when his pet article died down, a resumption of editing activity at the article brought Boothello back. Please do not allow this to be archived without resolution. Hipocrite (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Boothello

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This single purpose account is continuing the behavior that other accounts were banned for in August 2010 - consistent violations of NPOV. Further, while it's obvious that this is not the users first account (second edit shows facility with templates beyond what any new user has - [99], and fourth edit already knows what "OR" is - without having edited a talk page, ever.), the user is evasive about their prior history [100], even though their IP is in the public domain and has only one edit - [101], though it is in exactly the same metropolitan area as now topic banned David.Kane (who, shockingly enough, stopped editing with any regularity just 3 weeks after this SPA showed up!)

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[102]

Discussion concerning Boothello

Statement by Boothello

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

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

I am a single purpose account, I'll admit. I edit solely in this topic because it's where my post-secondary education lies, and it's no mystery that IQ/race articles on wikipedia need more work than articles on most of my other interests. But for someone uninvolved looking at my edits, I don't think there's any evidence that I'm editing the articles in a way that isn't consistent with policy and consensus. This is clearly a thankless job. My decision to go from vandalism to productive editing has caused my edits to be criticized more rather than less. I've tried removing content from the articles that's excessively favorable to the hereditarian position about race and intelligence, such as [103] and [104] but nobody seems to notice that. Hipocrite is offended that I also remove excesses about the perspective that everyone who researches R&I is a racist. It's true that I make that kind of edit more often, but not because I think it's more important. When someone adds content that's excessive in the hereditarian direction it's usually dealt with right away by people like Aprock and Maunus. But currently people don't seem to care as much about avoiding excesses in the opposite direction. NPOV requires that we avoid both.

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

Comment on Hipocrite

Since Hipocrite is who posted this thread, I should point out the string edits he's made to the article today. He's removed a lot of well-sourced information with the misleading edit summary "not a reliable source". [105] [106] [107] The sources that he removed with this edit summary include papers published in the journals Psychology, Public Policy and Law and The Open Psychology Journal, and also books published by Praeger, Methuen Publishing, Pergamon Press and W. W. Norton & Company. When Victor Chmara reverted the removal of these sources, Hipocrite threatened him with a ban. [108] [109]

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

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

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

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

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

For now I just want to point out the number of edits I've made that were obviously helpful. I've added a lot content from secondary sources and rewrote several sections to make them less undue, such as [110] [111] [112] Taking edits like this into account, I think my involvement in R&I articles has made the articles better than they would have been otherwise.Boothello (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing?

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

The four editors who have been most consistently involved in this topic are Maunus, VsevelodKrolokov, Victor Chmara, and Aprock. Of these four, three do not have any problem with my editing. Maunus is the most significant because as Mathsci points out below, Maunus was initially suspicious of me, and I eventually won his trust. More recently he's commented that he thinks my editing shows me to be a reasonable person. [113] Maunus's perspective about R&I is the opposite of the POV I've been accused of pushing, and he does not by any means always agree with me about content, so I think it counts for a lot that he still thinks my editing is alright. This thread was posted at a time when he, VsevelodKrolokov, and Victor Chmara seem to be all inactive, so the selection of people commenting in this AE report is not a good sampling of how the regulars on these articles feel about my editing. Administrators NEED to decide whether I'm POV pushing by looking at the diffs, and not just reacting to the editors who've posted here.Boothello (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Boothello

Comment by Mathsci

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

Boothello is a single-purpose account editing solely in the area covered by WP:ARBR&I. His editing started not long after the case was closed. It is editing in one area but he usually makes only a few low-level edits a week. He intially edited logged off from a Brookline IP 24.60.23.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which had been used by another user with a completely different editing profile, This has never been adequately explained by Boothello. His MO on wikipedia is indistinguishable from that of David.Kane/Ephery, indefinitely topic-banned from the same set of articles. He recently edited logged off by mistake from an IP address 71.232.157.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which locates to within a radius of 1 or 2 km of the registered private address of the now defunct website User:Ephery/EphBlog. In this recent diff [114], Boothello inadvertently displayed an intimate knowledge of the mode of editing of Race and intelligence during the period in Spring 2010, a long while before his current account was registered. That is inconsistent with his previous statements on this noticeboard and more recently on his talk page[115] that, while editing as an IP, he was an "immature vandal"[116] but then reformed overnight to adopt an online persona indistinguishable from that of David.Kane.

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

Boothello gives an explanation of his own editing patterns which is not credible in any way. When he apparently had turned over a new leaf, infantile edits still appeared out of the blue [117]. Clearly these edits were made by somebody in quite a different age group (a generation or so below Boothello). That is supported by the fact that his named account has never suffered from such bizarre lapses into childish editing at any stage whatsoever. I would imagine that any long-term puppetmaster, active for a sufficiently long period (in this case just over one year), will inevitably make mistakes; that appears to be what has happened here. Boothello's claim that his editing is somehow related to a supposed university course in the Boston area also lacks any credibility whatsoever. Yes, his account has a single-minded agenda with "troubling overtones" (to use Newyorkbrad's euphemism), but that was already the problem with David.Kane's editing. He has been reminded on several occasions about the special editing conditions that apply to articles covered byWP:ARBR&I on his talk page. Here for example is a notification in May 2011 from Aprock.[118] Mathsci (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boothello has now written a message to David.Kane.[119] Mathsci (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Although he has taken time off from wikipedia, a while back, when being lobbied by Boothello about Volunteer Marek,[120] Maunus did make some fairly frank comments directly to Boothello.[121] Mathsci (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

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

In addition to the fact that

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Professor marginalia

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

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

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

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

Comment by aprock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by EdJohnston on the request concerning Boothello

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

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

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

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

Result concerning Boothello

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

The links between Boothello and other named accounts are suspicious but not, in my mind, definitive. Boothello's mode of interaction is certainly highly reminiscent of that of previously banned agenda accounts in this topic area (e.g. Captain Occam (talk · contribs), David.Kane (talk · contribs)). In fact, Captain Occam is at present making nearly identical arguments about "warnings" vs. "notifications" of discretionary sanctions (e.g. [122], [123]). But in the end, I think the matter of potential alternate account use is academic.
The last thing this topic area needs is another single-purpose account dedicated to promoting a minoritarian viewpoint. This is both a personal administrative viewpoint (see #17) and my reading of the gist of the ArbCom case. This topic area has been awash in such single-purpose agenda accounts. The fact that this particular account is suspicious as a sockpuppet is perhaps an aggravating factor, but I think the underlying issue addressed in the ArbCom case was that these sorts of agenda accounts are problematic and thus liable to discretionary sanctions.
As such, I would favor a topic ban, but I'm not going to close this thread or act unilaterally. I will await input and a decision from EdJohnston and/or other admins. MastCell ^Talk 18:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Section 5.2 of WP:ARBR&I#Case amendments provides that editors contributing to the area of conflict must: "..adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to: maintaining a neutral point of view; avoiding undue weight; carefully citing disputed statements to reliable sources; and avoiding edit-warring and incivility." Single-purpose agenda accounts will not be able to meet the neutrality requirement, so I am sympathetic to a topic ban. This area has been troubled by agenda accounts in the past, so we would not be responding to an imagined problem. EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Single use account + patterns similar to banned editors = quack to me, we don't have the resources to prove each and every one. I support a topic ban, open to discussion on term. --WGFinley (talk) 05:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The supplied diffs were not that strong but the case presented by other editors in this topic area (a great case for the need to have comments by editors) were far more telling with examples of tendentious behavior. The editor is an admitted WP:SPA, SPAs are not consistent with WP:NPOV and do not work in this topic space and cause disruption. As such I'm going with an indefinite Race and Intelligence ban. If the editor can demonstrate collaborative editing in another topic area he/she can request this indefinite ban be reviewed. --WGFinley (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone35

Someone35 (talk · contribs) blocked 30 days for clear violation of previous WP:ARBPIA topic ban, ban reset for 1 year from this date. --WGFinley (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2012 (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 Someone35

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: RolandR (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Someone35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

[124] Message on my talk page, which translates as "Since when do anti-Zionists (except for Amira Hass) speak Hebrew?" The message is clearly intended to provoke me, and can be regarded as trolling. The user was topic-banned for one year from all Israel-Palestine articles, The terms of the ban were that he is banned "from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces". This provocative edit is an unambiguous breach of the topic ban.

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

Topic banned on27 August 2011 by T. Canens (talk · contribs)
Topic banned on 11 December 2011 by Wgfinley (talk · contribs)
Blocked for breach of topic ban on 17 December 2011 by Worm That Turned (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This user has already been reported twice for breach of this topic ban: [125], [126],

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here: [127]

Discussion concerning Someone35

Statement by Someone35

I wasn't trying to provoke him and I have no interest to do so. He has a userbox on his userpage saying that he's an anti Zionist and that he speaks Hebrew, so I was interested about it and asked him since when do anti Zionists speak Hebrew, because from what I know, anti Zionists don't usually speak Hebrew and I was interested to know more about it so I asked him.

I didn't think it was a breach of my topic ban since I wasn't referring to Palestinians or to the I-P conflict, but in the moment I saw this report I removed it with an apology from his userpage.

I'm sorry if it offended you, I didn't think it will (because you have a userbox on your userpage saying that you're an anti Zionist)-- Someone35 16:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I mistakenly breached my topic ban twice before because I am still an active editor so once in a while I make an edit that breaches my topic ban by mistake and then I immediately revert it if I see that somebody complained about it, but this time I honestly didn't think that it was a breach of my topic ban or offensive

Comments by others about the request concerning Someone35

Result concerning Someone35

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

First, this is a breech of the topic ban, second, this is the English Wikipedia and messages should be in English let one construe they are meant to avoid scrutiny. Someone was given an opportunity to revert prior breeches and has run out of chances. Any attempt to claim asking if someone is an anti-Zionist is not a breech of a WP:ARBPIA topic ban is pretty disingenuous. Blocking for 30 days. --WGFinley (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PCPP

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

Request concerning PCPP

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

This user has been banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to Falun Gong, broadly construed, across all namespaces. In the two diffs presented he is editing Falun Gong-related content on a page about a Chinese-affiliated educational institution, including deleting one paragraph related to Falun Gong and removing Falun Gong-related content in another. This is consistent with the behavior that led to his ban.

6/1/12 (note that I'm just going to copy/paste another editor's explanation, because he/she already wrote it out): Deletes large amount of sourced information from a paragraph concerning discrimination in hiring policies against the Falun Gong. Removes reference to Falun Gong being “persecuted in China.” Deletes sentence that “human rights lawyers and media commentators in North America suggested that the hiring practices were in contravention of anti-discrimination laws.” Deletes paragraph with relevant commentary from media commentators and legal scholars. Deletes paragraph about Confucius Institute director’s response to the policy.
6/1/12 Here he also removed information specifically related to Falun Gong.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is part of a longstanding pattern (a couple of years at least, I should think) of pro-Chinese government editing by PCPP. Pro-Chinese government editing includes anti-FLG editing. In any case, he appears to have violated his ban on Falun Gong. The pro-China editing isn't actionable in this context so I haven't referred to it in the diffs. Suffice to say that PCPP is not regarded as a neutral editor on that topic, even by peers who share some of his views. He is generally seen as disruptive and uncommunicative and this pattern continues across FLG and non-Falun Gong namespaces. Anything related to the Chinese Party-State, really.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

I notified him.

Discussion concerning PCPP

Statement by PCPP

Comments by others about the request concerning PCPP

Comment by Shrigley

Falun Gong's followers take it as a commandment to spread information about their teachings and plight whenever China is mentioned. Wikipedia, for obvious reasons, is more susceptible to including this irrelevant Falun Gong propaganda than most reliable sources.

I fear that with this enforcement action, PCPP's topic ban on Falun Gong is morphing into a topic ban on all China-related articles. The only requirement seems to be that Falun Gongers first insert a reference to their organization into such an article. For example, there is nothing directly or indirectly related to Falun Gong about the Confucius Institutes (the article of this action). But since the Confucius Institutes are based in China, and since China uniformly bans Falun Gong, half a soapbox is already built.

Clearly, the TheSoundAndTheFury is implying that a topic ban for PCPP on China-related articles would be a good thing, because he deems "disruptive" more than just PCPP's Falun Gong editing, devoting ample space in this complaint towards allegations of "pro-China editing". However, I don't think the use of enforcement to combat such viewpoints was what the arbitrators intended.

Regardless of the unsavory way by which this or any article might have come to mention Falun Gong in passing, PCPP probably shouldn't have touched any text contaminated by that nine-letter sequence. Still, future requests should precisely target the user's Falun Gong editing, rather than his editing about China in general. Shrigley (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning PCPP

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

Blocked 24 hours. It's not a lengthy block, but it's been a while since his most previous block. Hopefully this will make him reconsider, because the next one is going to be a lot longer/indefinite otherwise. NW (Talk) 18:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NYyankees51

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

Request concerning NYyankees51

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: NYyankees51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(Note: While in the past I've never encountered admins unwilling to block at ANEW for edit-warring on 1RR arbitration area articles, whether abortion, Israel/Palestine, etc., the admin who took my ANEW report declined it because there were only 2 reverts and directed me here, so here I am with what is more or less a duplicate of my ANEW report.)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion; drafting arb Jclemens clarified here that the closure of the arbitration case did not remove the existing general sanctions which include 1RR.

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

1st revert: 18:28, 6 January 2012 - adds statement to lead about CPCs providing other services which was previously removed in this edit; moves statement about CPCs providing false information back to lower paragraph after it was moved up in this edit; changes "reported" to "alleged" after "reported" replaced "accused" in this edit (ignoring extensive talk page discussion of the language which he did not see fit to join or consult)
2nd revert: 18:47, 6 January 2012 - repeated same reverts, plus removal of material added less recently, etc.

I'd be happy to provide more instances of disruptive behavior from this user (we could begin with the diffs already provided, which in addition to violating 1RR, also insert uncited information and remove cited information, violate NPOV, etc.) but this is really just an edit-warring report that the closing admin told me to take here, so I'll limit myself.

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

User is aware of the 1RR in this topic area, having been blocked for violating it on three separate occasions, and is also aware that the topic is under ArbCom given that he has been a party since the case was filed and has been involved in the discussion all the way through. For sticklers, here is the user being notified of the closure of the arb case, and here is one instance among many of the user being formally warned about violating the general sanctions including 1RR.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User has a shall-we-say problematic history in this topic area, including but not limited to edit-warring, sockpuppetry, harassment, and paid editing, and was individually warned in the ArbCom decision. As I said, if y'all think we should make a proper case of it then I'd be happy to compile some more evidence, but this is enough to block for a couple of days on the 1RR violation alone, based on the user's history of violating this remedy.

@NYyankees51: anyone can see from looking at your sockpuppet investigation that your multiple accounts edited on articles related to an anti-abortion organization, and the investigation also found (and you subsequently disclosed) that you had a conflict of interest because you worked for that organization. Harassment is harassment even if it was a while ago. Now is not the time to pretend you haven't done anything wrong. To all, with regard to NYY's comment: This "let me off, it was an accident and won't do it again" can only work so many times. It's a violation of WP policy, it just makes more work for everyone else, and after the long hard slog of the arb case it doesn't show that we take the results very seriously if users can pretend time after time that it was just an accident and get off scot-free.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [128]

Discussion concerning NYyankees51

Statement by NYyankees51

I did it again, I was making a series of major edits and forgot to use an in-use template. I did the same thing a couple weeks ago [129]. Sorry, I'll make sure not to do it a third time.

Regardless, I'm not sure this is the appropriate forum - the case found that I engaged in a discussion that reflected a battleground mentality but it didn't have anything to do with edit warring, not to mention the other allegations Roscelese has piled in here. (Which I will address very briefly - I engaged in sockpuppetry on a baseball article, not abortion. By harassment, I assume she means an incident last year that I apologized profusely for. I have no idea where the paid editing allegation comes from.) Forgive me if I'm wrong, I'm unfamiliar with enforcement. NYyankees51 (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Roscelese - Okay, I see what you meant about the sockpuppetry, but it was dealt with and resolved; otherwise I wouldn't be here. I worked as an intern for the SBA List in the summer of 2009; the issue was raised on COI/N and nobody saw a problem. Is that where the paid editing notion comes from? I was an intern, I wasn't paid a dime. Harassment is harassment, but there's no use drudging it up to use against me when I apologized profusely and as I recall, you accepted the apology.

@Nomoskedasticity - I appreciate the sarcasm, but it actually was a mistake.

@WGFinley - I was bold, I expected to get reverted, and I expected to then discuss the issue on the talk page.

@All - I will take a 24 hour block or whatever is appropriate for the 1RR violation. And if I violate 1RR again, regardless of whether it's a technical mistake or an conscious edit warring, I will accept a 120 day topic ban. Does that sound fair? NYyankees51 (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning NYyankees51

Comment by Nomoskedasticity

"I forgot the 'in-use' template" -- does that actually work? If so, I might have to try it myself. I suspect a great many others might try it as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by The Devil's Advocate

As an editor who often makes large edits in segments over a similar time period I can understand why NY would make the mistake, though much greater care should be taken to look at the revision history before making further changes. I believe a two-month topic ban is a bit much under the circumstances. A longer block would be a good idea just because the editor has done this twice and has a history in the topic area.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning NYyankees51

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

Looks like a pretty clear 1RR violation, I also see zero participation by NYyankees51 on the article's talk page while he/she is making substantive edits and reverts. Given the prior block history it appears a TBAN would be in order, I would propose 60 days. --WGFinley (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chesdovi

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

Request concerning Chesdovi

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: asad (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Violation

01/07/2012 Changes a cat in Rachel's Tomb from "Mosques in the West Bank" to "Synagogues in the West Bank" and removes the template "Mosques in the Palestinian Territories". This is all despite objection and ongoing discussion on the article's talk page, in which Chesdovi has taken apart of and is obviously aware of.

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

Topic-banned June 29th 2011 by Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This edit further illustrates the reason why Chesdovi was topic-banned in the first place. It is obvious he clearly disregards what other may feel about the subject to push his point of view. His ongoing insistence on the article's talk page that the location is not, or never has been a mosque, is debated by a large number of high-quality sources. Despite his commenting on the talk page being included with his topic ban, he seems to use his own WP:OR to push his point of view.

This issue is clearly related to ARBPIA especially considering the response the Israeli government gave when UNESCO named the site as a mosque. [130]

@NMMNG - I restored the cat that was already there by simply pressing the undo button, after I filed the report, not before as you have mentioned. I didn't remove anything. -asad (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[131]

Discussion concerning Chesdovi

Statement by Chesdovi

Chesdovi is currently blocked, I have advised him/her to post statements for this AE report here or via email. --WGFinley (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Chesdovi

Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy

Asad is misstating the discussion on the article talk page (his implication that there are a "large number of high-quality sources" contradicting Chesdovi's edit). He is also neglecting to mention that a. while there may be room for both categories, the category Chesdovi changed to is appropriate and in no way OR, and b. the category Chesdovi changed from was added recently (as in 3 days ago), without any discussion, by an editor who also has quite a long history of ARBPIA related sanctions. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in reverting Chesdovi's edit before filing this complaint, Asad himself removed an appropriate category from the article with no discussion. Instead of just adding a category about mosques, he removed a category about synagogues. If what Chesdovi did is inappropriate, so is what asad did. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@WGF OK, didn't notice Chesdovi has a specific restriction. I mistakenly read this is a regular ARBPIA enforcement request. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Supreme Deliciousness: Would like to point out that chesdovi has violated his topic ban many more times, see the diffs here: [132]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jiujitsuguy

In the absence of a response by Chesdovi, I regrettably concur with Wgfinley’s analysis. However, since Supreme Deliciousness has decided to comment, I’d like to highlight SupremeD’s behavior in this sordid mess, which gave rise to Chesdovi’s unfortunate edit. SupremeD has himself just come off a lengthy T-ban. Within days after coming off his ban he refers to other editors in the topic area as notoriously non-neutral editors He then goes on to harass MichaelNetzer asking Netzer personal questions about Netzer’s mother bizarrely asking what was your mother? This earned him a stern rebuke from an admin where he was reminded of his previous topic ban[133] Now, in the midst of a lengthy and rather tedious discussion underway at Rachel’s Tomb concerning whether the site ever functioned as a mosque, SD without consulting the talk page and without even providing an edit summary, adds the category of "Mosques" in the article[134] SD has previously been warned about providing edit summaries here and here and here. Amazingly, the latter warning concerned this very article, “On the above subject, I hope you can consistently provide an edit summary for each and everytime you conduct an edit here on Wikipedia. Note that the article page of Rachel's tomb happens to be one of those highly conspicuous ones” It seems that SupremeD avoids edit summaries in an attempt to avoid scrutiny of his edits. If Chesdovi is to be sanctioned for reverting a troublesome edit, I ask that under the circumstances, the combative editor that caused the problem in the first place (Supreme Deliciousness), by failing to explain his contentious edit or even providing an edit summary, be sanctioned as well.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Chesdovi

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

Chesdovi has more bans than I can even keep my head around on the ARBPIA log and a P-I topic ban is one of them. He/She is also fresh off having a 30 day block reduced in November with a warning from Tim that future violations would likely lead to reinstatement of the block. I'm going to put that 30-day block back in place. I am going to leave this open though because I think it's time for discussion of an indefinite TBAN since Chesdovi shows no signs of reforming. I think some input from admins who have made the various bans would be helpful. --WGFinley (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NMMNG: the issue here isn't whether the action was valid or Asad is misrepresenting the discussion but whether it falls under Chesdovi's ARBPIA TBAN. Changing a "mosque" category to a "synagogue" category would be a prima facie violation. --WGFinley (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SonofSetanta

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

Request concerning SonofSetanta

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Mo ainm~Talk 15:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: SonofSetanta (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

12:13, 8 January 2012 First revert, clearly a revert without any need for further explanation
13:19, 8 January 2012 Second revert, an attempt to remove the same content SonofSetanta attempted to remove an hour earlier before being reverted by me. Breach of the 1RR restriction, as it was done within 24 hours of the first revert

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

Warned on 18:03, 21 October 2010 by Mo ainm (talk · contribs)
Also blocked for 48 hours at 20:04, 25 October 2010 so more than aware.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The background on this editor is relevant here as well. He is a reincarnation of The Thunderer (talk · contribs), see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Thunderer/Archive for details. He will probably still claim he is not the same editor as he tried here, but that wasn't the conclusion at all. The Thunderer's block log can be seen here and would probably have been far worse if not the main target of his edit warring (the Ulster Defence Regiment article he's edit warring on now) being protected on multiple occasions. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive71#SonofSetanta is also relevant, as that was where he attempted to escape sanctions by claiming to be new and denying he was a reincarnation of The Thunderer.

I asked him here and here to self-revert, as if he genuinely made two reverts in error he should have no problem reverting. He failed to do so, yet found ample time to amend my comments on his own talk page.

In response to comment below, "I am not a reincarnation of anyone and there was a full investigation over a year ago which I gather cleared me completely without any reservations whatsoever" the discussion at User talk:HelloAnnyong/Archive 13#Assistance Requested paints a totallly different picture, pointing out he replied to the post reading "I didn't say you weren't the same editor - I just said that there wasn't justification for blocks or other action"
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here

Discussion concerning SonofSetanta

Statement by SonofSetanta

This is a trivial misuse of the 1RR procedure. I am not a reincarnation of anyone and there was a full investigation over a year ago which I gather cleared me completely without any reservations whatsoever. Furthermore I did not break the 1RR on this site. I edited at the same time as this other chap and my edit overwrote his. I've not come across the particular page before which showed we were cross editing so I did a "back page" and pasted the info back in which I had just written. (I always copy my info because of connection problems). My own contributions stand as testimony to the type of person and editor I am. When I realised there was a problem on this article I asked for an RfC on the portion of the site I wished to delete and gave my reasons. I also posted an apology on this poster's talk page. I did not feel I needed to revert afetr placing an RfC and once placed I felt that any editing of the disputed information constituted a breach of the 1RR. I did not go back and revert after a third (unknown) party came in a reverted my edit and feel that he is the one in breach of etiquette, not I. Furthermore I have already given a guarantee in advance that I will not post on that article until the RfC has been completed.

I ask that these allegations against me be dismissed and this editor be warned about making untrue statements about someone being a sockpuppet when it is clearly untrue. Plus a simple check on my IP number will confirm I am not the person this poster claims I am. SonofSetanta

I also ask that it be noted that the only time I have any trouble on this site is when trying to edit articles which involve the Irish Troubles. (namely the B Specials and the Ulster Defence Regiment) There appears to be some form of guard force around these articles who are claiming ownership and only allowing their own cabal to input or delete information. I have no interest in their partisan affiliations. I enjoy editing Wikipedia and hope my contributions are always useful and within the rules. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This MoAinmh has accused me of: *In response to comment below, "I am not a reincarnation of anyone and there was a full investigation over a year ago which I gather cleared me completely without any reservations whatsoever" the discussion at User talk:HelloAnnyong/Archive 13#Assistance Requested paints a totallly different picture, pointing out he replied to the post reading "I didn't say you weren't the same editor - I just said that there wasn't justification for blocks or other action" *

All of this is untrue as can be seen by anyone who reads the link he has given. This goes to prove that this poster is stalking me with a view to presenting me as some sort of problem poster. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The poster "mury" has accused me of being in some way impolite or toublesome. I dispute this emphatically. I merely told him he should not enter into a discussion whilst the RfC was ongoing. A quick glance at the article talk page will confirm this.

I am now feeling that I have been "set about" because I have dared to edit an article which someone has claimed as their own private property. No-one did this to me when I edited any of the other articles I have been on. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 15:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning SonofSetanta

Comment by Murry1975

I reverted the artilce to the stable version and discussed my view of his edits being censorship to which SonofSetanta accused me of personal remarks [135]. He should have self reverted , and by his comments here "This is a trivial misuse of the 1RR procedure" from above and his previous block for similar he seems not to follow Wiki rules or even attempt ot if it does not suit him. He also mentions above the only time he has problems is on Troubles articles, maybe sanctions of a topic ban would suit after the block didnt deter this kind of rule breaking.Murry1975 (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning SonofSetanta

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 1,410: / Line 1,410: @@
 I also ask that it be noted that the only time I have any trouble on this site is when trying to edit articles which involve the Irish Troubles.  (namely the B Specials and the Ulster Defence Regiment)  There appears to be some form of guard force around these articles who are claiming ownership and only allowing their own cabal to input or delete information.   I have no interest in their partisan affiliations.  I enjoy editing Wikipedia and hope my contributions are always useful and within the rules. [[User:SonofSetanta|SonofSetanta]] ([[User talk:SonofSetanta|talk]]) 15:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
+This MoAinmh has accused me of: *In response to comment below, "I am not a reincarnation of anyone and there was a full investigation over a year ago which I gather cleared me completely without any reservations whatsoever" the discussion at User talk:HelloAnnyong/Archive 13#Assistance Requested paints a totallly different picture, pointing out he replied to the post reading "I didn't say you weren't the same editor - I just said that there wasn't justification for blocks or other action" *
+All of this is untrue as can be seen by anyone who reads the link he has given.  This goes to prove that this poster is stalking me with a view to presenting me as some sort of problem poster. [[User:SonofSetanta|SonofSetanta]] ([[User talk:SonofSetanta|talk]]) 16:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
+The poster "mury" has accused me of being in some way impolite or toublesome.  I dispute this emphatically.  I merely told him he should not enter into a discussion whilst the RfC was ongoing.  A quick glance at the article talk page will confirm this.
+I am now feeling that I have been "set about" because I have dared to edit an article which someone has claimed as their own private property.   No-one did this to me when I edited any of the other articles I have been on. [[User:SonofSetanta|SonofSetanta]] ([[User talk:SonofSetanta|talk]]) 16:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 ([[User talk:SonofSetanta|talk]]) 15:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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