Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:38, 27 December 2011

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by The Devil's Advocate

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of that administrator: [1]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since WG claims I continued my supposedly "tendentious editing habits" after the block I figure I should just provide a complete listing of all the edits I made to the article after the block. Here they are: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. On the last diff I gave the following explanations on the article talk page: [8] [9]. I doubt any objective individual could look at those edits together and conclude they represent tendentious behavior.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@NW I am not sure what exactly you are calling a mistake, but if it is about the topic ban being issued over edits for which I had already been blocked it seems that it was not a mistake. On several occasions I brought up that most of the edits were ones for which I had already been blocked. WG clearly seemed to eventually understand that this was the case, but in spite of that he still insisted on the topic ban based almost entirely, if not entirely, on those edits. An admin should certainly be aware that such a sanction might be a violation of policy. Should the mistake be about the AE report, the only possible mistake would be on WG's part in not adequately evaluating the merits of the case. I do not think there was any "mistake" on Jordgette's part as some of the distortions are so blatant that the only reasonable conclusion is that the distortions were intentional. For an admin to miss such obvious distortions does not seem to be a minor mistake.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@MONGO My comments on your talk page were not really intended to be a discussion about improvements to the article. It was more of a general discussion about my editing philosophy and my perspective on the subject. There was never any specific intention that it lead to some definitive end. As such the "unproductive" nature of it does not really deal with this situation. When I have initiated discussion regarding changes to the article the results have generally been productive, even if it is at times difficult to get anything out of the process.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on distortions

It seems there is a need for me to spell out exactly what distortions were contained in the AE report. Here are the most blatant distortions:

Distortion - The following comments by Tom Harrison were cited as evidence of me being "asked numerous times to discuss significant changes to this article and find consensus first" (to quote the AE report) and not doing so: [10] [11] [12] [13]

Reality - All of the above comments came from a section I started on the article talk page asking Tom Harrison to explain why he reverted certain material. One of the comments from that exchange Jordgette left out in the AE report was this one: [14]. There Tom specifically said I should get consensus for addressing two issues I raised and my response was to start a new section on the talk page to discuss it. One of the issues was addressed as a result of that discussion. With regards to the other issue where I found more resistance my response was to start an RfC. That sequence of events clearly suggests those comments cited in the AE report were evidence that even when an editor was refusing to discuss his own actions I responded positively to requests for getting consensus. You will further note that even though I never got a real explanation from Tom on his revert, I made no effort whatsoever to reinstate those changes.

Distortion - Another comment included as evidence of me being asked to discuss changes first was this one: [15]

Reality - That comment was made due to the first two changes I made after the block (two of the post-block changes cited as evidence in the AE report and the changes that were the initial reason for the report). The first edit did make some changes that were understandably, though wrongly, perceived as tendentious (see my explanation for those changes here: [16]). Tom's comment was specifically a response to the second edit I made restoring the other changes that were reverted (here is Tom's partial revert of that second edit: [17]). I repeatedly noted that I was correcting a grammatical error and Jordgette ultimately accepts that there was a grammatical error in need of correcting, though all the same failing to assume that my efforts to correct said error were being done in good faith. I made several subsequent changes to the relevant material to address lingering issues I had with the wording that received no objections. Once more, the context of the situation demonstrates that I am more than capable of editing in a collaborative manner contrary to the AE report's claims.

Distortion - The AE report follows up that list of comments with the claim "he refuses because he doesn't 'need the approval of your group'" quoting a comment I made on the AE report.

Reality - Here is the quote in context:

Now, the insistence that I need the approval of your group, because that is what we are really talking about here as you and people of your shared opinion frequent the article most, for any change would be more acceptable if you would not say things like "snore" when reverting my comments on your talk page about the need for you to explain your reasons for reverting changes or refer to my pleas for discussion as "chaff" as Tom did.

One thing you might notice from the bolded comments is that I explicitly indicated I was not refusing the condition that I get approval for certain changes. I objected to the idea that I needed it for any change made to the article, perhaps it would have been better to have said "every" as that was more reflective of my objection. Even then, I did not say I refused such a condition, but that Jordgette and Tom's behavior with regards to my efforts at discussion did not make it a particularly acceptable demand.

In WG's statement below he literally copy-pastes the part of the AE report including all these distortions into his own remarks defending the topic ban. He claims, apparently based on that part of the report, that I am "disruptive" and not going to "work collaboratively to achieve consensus" so the distortions are obviously germane to any dispute of the topic ban and are not simply efforts to blame other people. The evidence here is as plain as day and there are plenty more distortions to be found in the AE report WG cited as justifying the topic ban. So, I would ask that any admin insisting there was no real wrongdoing in this case to actually explain to me why these blatant distortions in the AE report that WG cites explicitly to defend the topic ban are not sufficient grounds for lifting the topic ban.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On efforts at consensus

Some admins apparently want me to more clearly explain my behavior in editing the article so I will. Rather than re-argue about discussion over the edits for which I was blocked by EdJohnston I will direct anyone to look at my arguments in that case, as well as my unblock request, and subsequent comments on my user talk page.

I will here try to offer a clear explanation of my actions after that block expired. In the second unblock request I made on the edit-warring block I committed myself to discussing and getting approval for major or controversial changes. The admin declined my request because I insisted I was not edit-warring or pushing a POV. Looking back I did not fully adhere to the rather stringent conditions I had imposed on myself in that request (that of not making any changes at all to substantive content without approval), but when the block expired the first edits I made still did not make any changes that could be perceived in any way as tendentious. When making a change to correct a grammatical I did make some minor changes that were seen as tendentious, though as I explained on the article talk page I was not introducing any original wording but just copying wording from the source or wording from earlier in the same sentence. After I made those edits I went to the talk page and initiated discussion on other changes.

Those edits to the article were reverted in their entirety, even as the editor doing so acknowledged that there were uncontroversial changes included. I reinserted the various uncontroversial changes elsewhere in the article, as well as the correction of the grammatical error in the conspiracy theory paragraph, and commented on the talk page to explain my frustration with the constant and unnecessary reverting of uncontroversial changes as well as explaining my changes to the conspiracy theory paragraph. Another editor objected to my reinsertion of the grammatical fix, believing it was POV-pushing, and reverted it but after some discussion they understood that there was a grammatical error in need of fixing. That particular instance of me reinserting the grammatical fix is what seemingly caused the filing editor to go to AE, while we were still having a discussion about it.

I made some minor changes to the article right after the case was filed shortening a few captions and retooling the wording in the grammatical fix. One of the captions was shortened by removing a sentence that, by all appearances, was just a repeat of the fair-use justification provided on the image's page. That change was reverted, but there was no discussion on the article talk page as it was immediately taken to the AE request and tacked on to the case as evidence of POV-pushing. All discussion of that change was in the AE report, though even there no effort was made by the editor who reverted it to explain why this was perceived as POV-pushing. Several more changes I made after that were similarly uncontroversial and minor but did not get challenged.

As this was going on, the efforts I made at getting either of the two main editors on the article to respond to the discussions I started immediately after coming off my block were going unanswered. One editor's reaction was to direct me to the AE report where he made a comment referring to my requests for discussion as "chaff" i.e. nonsense. Despite that I once more asked the editor to respond and finally got a response. Despite repeatedly making good faith requests for explanation I got largely flippant responses. Again, in spite of this, I initiated discussion on some of the issues including an RfC (I did and still have interest in discussion over those other issues). One result of the first discussion was an editor providing an updated citation, as the existing one was no longer going to the correct page, and me putting it in the article.

One week into the AE discussion I made some more changes over the space of two days that were completely consistent with my pledge in the second unblock request. These changes involved refactoring of paragraphs to improve the flow of the article without having any effect on meaning, improving wording or clarifying wording in several areas, and removing outdated or unnecessary citations. For some of those changes I created two separate discussions for editors to raise any objections. Just like several other changes the first reaction of these editors was not to discuss them in the article page but to object on the AE report to me making any changes to the article at all without asking them first, even when they expressed no opposition to the actual edits being made.

An editor then reverted all of those changes saying in the edit summary that I should get consensus first. I informed the editor on his talk page that reverting due to consensus was not a legitimate reason, imploring him to express his objection on the article talk page in either of the sections I started on those edits or to start a new section for discussion. After a day of no action I started a section on the talk page for him to explain the revert and once more asked him on his talk page to explain his objections to the change. Not getting a response for over two days I asked him again to explain his objections to the changes. When I saw him comment on the aforementioned RfC on the talk page I asked him once more if he would respond to the section I started on the talk page asking him to explain what objections he had to the changes that he reverted. At no point did my repeated requests for discussion get a response.

Ever since I came off the block I made every effort to discuss major or contentious changes with the other editors on the article and pursuing normal dispute resolution. Accusing me of not being able to work collaboratively with other editors is getting the situation reversed. I made numerous efforts to get the opinions of these editors about any and all major changes, but many times they were not willing to provide explanation even when I was only asking them to explain why they reverted changes, something they are generally expected to do when using the undo function.

Despite all the frustration these editors have caused me I have never once refused discussion on any point or given them the silent treatment when they expressed a concern. Many times I have had discussion with them that did result in collaborative editing even in the incendiary atmosphere these editors have created. I am not claiming my behavior was perfect (on a few occasions I made some abrasive comments), but it was far from disruptive.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WGFinley

My TBAN was based on the Prior AE report. The report contained examples of TDA's tendentious editing leading up to an AN3 Report and subsequent block. After the block he continued his tendentious editing habits, to quote the report, ignoring calls to build consensus before making substantive changes [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26], yet he refuses because he doesn't "need the approval of your group" [27] and continued to make extensive changes to the article.

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

An extensive exchange on my talk page ensued where I even offered to reconsider the TBAN at a later time, instead he chose to continue pursuing his approach of appeal by completely ignoring WP:NOTTHEM and violating his TBAN[28] which was upheld here on AE until it expired. I think it is premature to reduce the TBAN at this time, the complaint itself seems to do nothing to acknowledge any culpability for these actions but blames others for "distortions and incivility". It would appear TDA would go back and start disrupting the space again as he has provided no assurance he will seek to work collaboratively to achieve consensus. --WGFinley (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by Jordgette

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

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

Statement by Tom Harrison

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

Statement by MONGO

I'd have to second Tom's comments above. A recent discussion at my own talkpage with The Devils Advocate was unproductive and his commentary there became increasingly frustrating. Mainstream articles on difficult topics are generally better if advocates for non-mainstream views are kept at bay. Tedious talkpage rantings usually undermine cooperative efforts for real article improvements.MONGO 21:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by AgadaUrbanit

According to rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. This appeal is going nowhere, this discussion could be closed. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result of the appeal by The Devil's Advocate

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

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

To clarify, I would be disinclined to overturn the block because I do not think it was such an egregious mistake as to warrant immediate overturning. As another admin once said, "AE is not here to micromanage sanctions". ~~I would not be opposed to an appeal in 3 months after evidence of constructive editing in other topic areas. But~~ I'll leave this open for others to comment if they wish. NW (Talk) 04:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to change the status quo. The request is legalistic and not addressing the underlying problems that the tban was imposed for. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono

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

Request concerning Cptnono

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy 14:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

20 December 2011 Directly replying to a comment made by me, directly referencing me, and accusing me of filibustering

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

Notified of interaction ban on 27 June 2011
[29] advised to take greater care to avoid Nableezy in accordance with your interaction ban on 14 December 2011

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The interaction ban specifies that Cptnono may not Reply to Nableezy in any discussion or Make reference to or comment on Nableezy, directly or indirectly, on any page. He did both in that comment. He directly replied to a comment made by me, and he directly references me by saying you guys can keep it up while directly replying to me, and indirectly accuses me of filibustering and potentially violating an interaction while violating the interaction ban. I realize what happened with the last request, but this straightforward and should not be open to the type of drama that occurred last time. Can yall please actually enforce the ban?

apparently nothing to do with Nableezy? You serious? No other set of editors in that discussion has an interaction ban, who else was he referencing? Though I think an indef topic-ban is overkill, the comments are clearly a violation of the interaction ban. nableezy - 15:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biosketch, you arent going to see me defending WGF's view, I dont agree with him and honestly I would rather he not involve himself in adminstering the topic area for reasons I have made abundantly clear in the past, regardless of what his view on this specific request is. However, you wrote that Cptnono's comments had apparently nothing to do with me. How can you make that comment in good faith? Directly replying to me, saying you guys can keep it up, referencing an interaction ban in a discussion where the only people who have an interaction ban are the two of us. I would love to reply to Cptnono, I would love to give an honest response to the claim that this conversation will be filled with filibustering from others and that he is someone who is not an idiot. But I am restricted from doing so. So I dont. nableezy - 16:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before Agada's "contribution" is taken at face value, the first diff he presented was my replying to Kauffner, not Cptnono. The second diff was of a reply I made to GabrielF, again not Cptnono. I have not nor will I in the future reply or reference Cptnono. nableezy - 00:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It boggles the mind that somebody could say that I responded to Cptnono, or that I replied under a section heading that he made. Cptnono made a comment in an RFC, Tiamut replied to that, Kauffner to that, Tiamut to that, Kauffner to that, me to that, GabrielF to that, and me to that. There are a. no section headings, and b. no replies to anything Cptnono was even discussing. I directly replied to a comment made by Kauffner and to a reply made to me. Thats it. nableezy - 05:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similar technical ... nonsense. There is no level heading and just days ago it was judged not to be a violation when Cptnono reverted an edit that I reverted after several others had intervened, and that had been an actual revert of the same material, and you Michael were, unsurprisingly and inconsistently, arguing that it was not a violation. I replied to a different user making a completely different point, after multiple layers of discussion, under nothing that can be called a level heading. To pretend there is an equivalence here is simply dishonest. nableezy - 06:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. In fact, not even a little bit. There is nowhere near the same distance. The previous complaint was on a revert of the exact edit that I made. I was not replying to Cptnono in any way, I was directly responding to an unrelated point made by a different editor. And most importantly, it was decided that the distance in the previous complaint made it so there was no violation. Just in case you have forgotten that. You dont know why there is an interaction ban between the two of us, so kindly stop acting as though this is an issue of collaboration. And if you are at all interested in collaboration, try not distorting the events at every discussion that has nothing to do with you. That might engender some collaborative good will. Just might. nableezy - 06:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, you continue to distort the events. There is no level heading, I did not reply to Cptnono in any way, and Cptnono directly replied to me. Your attempts at distorting the events fail even the most basic test as anybody can look at the talk page. I replied to Kauffner and GabrielF. Cptnono replied to me. Therein lies the difference. In your silly attempt to have me banned at every enforcement thread only demonstrates just how much you are willing to distort what took place. I honestly do not know why you are allowed to comment here, your repeated bad faith attempts at having me banned on plainly specious charges should have been enough to earn you a ban from commenting at AE. Regardless, your distortions here are simply untrue. nableezy - 14:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WGF, I did not comment on Cptnono's vote, technically or otherwise. I was responding, directly, to Kauffner, and then to GabrielF. Cptnono directly responded to me. Removing the interaction ban requires more than just your say so, that was imposed as an arbitration enforcement action and requires a consensus of admins to remove it. I strongly object to the notion that removing the ban is an acceptable way of enforcing it. The ban is not unenforceable, yall just need to actually try to enforce it. And honestly, given your initial reply to the past request for enforcment on a much more closely related set of edits as being contrived and vexatious, I question why you now think that it is plausible that a completely unrelated reply is a violation of that same ban. nableezy - 16:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What pray tell has been the issue with my rhetoric on this page? Regarding the substance of your comment, I dont deny that the comment I made was under Cptnono's vote. I dont see how that changes that my comment was not a reply to Cptnono, or even about what Cptnono based his vote on. I replied to an unrelated point made by a different editor. In a discussion that I had already been a part of, which had spilled over from another page that I have also been involved in. A different user made a claim that a certain name was not preferred by a group of people. I pointed out to him that the very source that user had brought explicitly gave that name as a preferred name by that group of people. That had nothing to do with Cptnono, and nothing to do with his vote. I honestly dont see how, given the earlier request in which Cptnono reverted the exact edit I made with others reverting in between being judged as not a violation, and with you saying it was clearly not so to the point of suggesting I be banned for even raising the issue, you can claim that this is possibly a violation. I really do not understand how you can come to those two conclusions. Please read the comments. Tell me how they possibly relate to Cptnono in any way. And then read what Cptnono himself wrote here of a different situation: It has actually happened before where a "poll" was opened regarding an article on my watch list and I waited until someone else responded so I did not violate my topic ban. So Cptnono is of the opinion that if he waits until somebody else responds it is all right to then respond without it being a violation of an interaction ban. Here we have several responses, to the point that what was discussed had nothing to do with any comment by Cptnono. But yet somehow this becomes a violation. Please explain how you reconcile the past judgment of no violation for reverting the exact same edit but you are now of the opinion that commenting on a different issue is.

Yes, a consensus at AE can overturn the interaction ban, or AGK himself can. You, however, cannot do that simply because you think interaction bans are bad. This ban was imposed due to repeated personal attacks and unfounded accusations, directed solely in one direction. It was imposed for a reason, and despite you thinking little of the idea of such bans, I have found it refreshing to be free from such interactions for the last months. nableezy - 01:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have not said what is wrong with my rhetoric, you have only said that there is a problem. What pray tell is neither hostile nor uncivil. If you want to say that my rhetoric is a problem, say what it is. Just saying it is a problem doesnt mean anything. And what you wrote was I'm of a mind to lift the interaction ban as unenforceable, not that you would be seeing other opinions or see if there was a consensus, but that you yourself would do so because you yourself thinks what is easily enforceable is unenforceable. nableezy - 16:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ban is over at this point, might as well consider this moot. In the hopes that the behavior that caused the ban to be requested and placed to begin with is not repeated, Id ask that you consider this request withdrawn. nableezy - 06:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Cptnono

Statement by Cptnono

Nableezy made a response to my comment. He inserted a comment under a level heading I made. Instead of running to AE I pointed it out there. I don;t mind a topic ban. I even asked for one a few months ago. But when an editor under a topic ban makes a direct response to a comment he is in violation. If Nableezy is not topic banned for blatantly being in violation himself then the process is broken. Nableezy made a response to me and I answered. You guys can call it as you want. I will point out that Nableezy has spent the last 2 weeks calling for enforcement on me. Our interaction ban runs out in less than two weeks. Shenanigans. Cptnono (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to WGF, I made a "Support comment/not-really-a-vote at the talk page. Nableeezy made two comments within that section.[30][31] I have bent over backwards to follow the topic ban when I see his name in a discussion. It has actually happened before where a "poll" was opened regarding an article on my watch list and I waited until someone else responded so I did not violate my topic ban. Nableezy spent the first week of our topic ban disregarding it and I ended up taking a self-imposed few week break from the topic area. And then he opened up an AE just a week or so ago just before the interaction ban is set to expire. If he says "I did not realize I was commenting in a part of the discussion under your name" I won't call him a liar. But he hasn't said that and I believe that he is seeing the end of the topic ban coming up in a week and taking a shot at extending it. My comment was not that malicious and disruption was pretty minimal until it came here (again).Cptnono (talk) 07:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification: by "section" I mean "level heading". The comment was a comment within a "vote/whatever" I made. I saw that as a violation of the interaction ban. Me pointing it out was a violation on my part but I thought at the time that pointing it out was within reason. It was bad judgement on my part but I thought (incorrectly) that it would be acceptable under the circumstances. Maybe I should have just filed a request for clarification. My thought process was that that would have been even more disruptive and was trying to not be a jerk about it. Cptnono (talk) 07:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to see that this is still going open. I did make a blatant violation of my topic ban. I still feel that Nableezy was in violation and that is why I made the comment. I thought he was intentionally just saying "screw it" (he actually made a comment on my talk page ages ago saying that we should mutually ignore a topic ban). At one time I could have made an argument for Nableezy repeatedly violating this topic ban. I know this sound terrible but I actually saved diffs in a document for the first month of it. I deleted it awhile ago since the topic ban made me realize that just trying to stick it to the other guy is not the way to go. It really doesn't matter now (unless I do get an indef) since the topic ban is set to expire. I'm not filing anymore requests at AE against Nableezy even if we are not interaction banned since I am so sick and tired of bickering over silly stuff (who goes to half these articles about places in the middle of nowhere anyways).

So @Devilsadvocate: You don't know what is and has been on my watchlist for years and why they have been there. You don't know what media I read and decide to look into more on Wikipedia. You need to spend less time assuming the worst and trying to poke holes in everyone's comments. It is not healthy here and I assume you do not need a lecture on how that will end up for you off of Wikipedia if you act this way at work or school or with your friends and family. @WGF: The topic ban is about to expire. I have full confidence I can not violate my topic ban over the next several days. The real test will be how we handle it when the ban is lifted (if its expiration is a possibility at this point) Cptnono (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cailil. I actually do edit in other areas just as frequently. I also do not have a history of topic bans here. I have some civility based blocks. I still don't think the single comment (although I misjudged its disruptiveness) would justify an indef. I don't even understand how I could return from it since I do edit in other topic areas already. Cptnono (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Cailil, please do not lump me in with all of the activity below (not sure if that was your intent or not) unless we are doing ARBPIA3. I want nothing to do with those other discussions and won;t be jumping into the fray in 24hrs when my interaction ban expires. Cptnono (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Cptnono

Comment by Biosketch

This is Cptnono's comment:

I forgot to mention that as someone who is not an idiot I know that this conversation will be filled with filibustering and what can only be considered violations of interaction bans. I won't breach it myself but you guys can keep it up.

Where is there any indication that he's "replying to a comment made by" you, "directly referencing" you, or accusing you of filibustering? Other than the unfortunate placement of the comment – in a discussion where Cptnono was already involved, it needs to be stressed – there's nothing here necessarily indicating that Cptnono was addressing Nableezy at all.—Biosketch (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WGFinley, you're proposing to indef Cptnono because he placed his comment after Nableezy's, even though his comment had apparently nothing to do with Nableezy. Am I understanding right?

(As an aside, it should be made standard practice that uninvolved Admins wait for the defendants in these cases to make their statement before rushing to reach conclusions.)—Biosketch (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, I don't know who else he was referencing. Anyway, that doesn't seem to be what WGFinley took into consideration in proposing his indefinite topic ban. If he would at least have offered Cptnono the opportunity to explain this incident, he'd be in a better position to evaluate whether or not the interaction ban was breached. But he's proposing to indefinitely topic ban Cptnono because he commented after you, apprently regardless of the content of his comment. That just makes no sense at all.—Biosketch (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, I appreciate that you're consistent with respect to WGFinley's conduct here. Still, when I said I don't know to whom Cptnono was addressing his remarks, that was an honest observation. If pressed to give an answer, I'd have to say he was talking to no one in particular. People do that when they're frustrated, or when they've been imbibing, and it's not out of the question that Cptnono was one of those two things at the time and making a comment to the audience generally. The point is, it should be Cptnono's privilege to reply here and speak his peace before conclusions are drawn.—Biosketch (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out that Cptnono said in his comment above my section here, "You guys can call it as you want." Who was he talking to? Was he addressing the remark to anyone in particular? No – it was a comment directed at all of us generally. By the same token, his remark at Talk:Arab citizens of Israel was also meant as a general observation directed at no one in particular.—Biosketch (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WGFinley, under the circumstances, your close proposal seems the most sensible suggestion.—Biosketch (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MichaelNetzer

Just like the previous complaint that wasn't considered a violation of the interaction ban, this one cannot be either. Cptnono didn't direct his words at Nableezy or anyone specific. He had already commented earlier and wanted to add an afterthought. The placement is unfortunate but doesn't suggest an interaction. Nableezy was also advised, btw, about excessive appearances here, which evidently hasn't been heeded. Cptnono should be heard before suggestions for such a severe sanction are made. --MichaelNetzer (talk)

@WGF, AGK and other administrators considering this request:

In light of Cptnono's explanation, it seems that, at least technically, Nableezy did initiate the interaction by replying under a level heading that Cptono started, thus giving rise to Cptnono's concern for a violation of iBan by Nableezy. Though Nableezy made no specific reference to Cptnono, the technical condition remains for the concern.
As he states, Cptnono did not rush to file a complaint against Nableezy. This demonstrates a preferred discretion by all WP guidelines concerning complaints brought before AE admins.
Cptnono instead replied in the same level thread that he himself started and made a comment about it, directed to the winds and not to anyone specific, especially not to Nableezy. The same technical condition that Nableezy violated is also prevalent in Cptnono's remark, being in the same level thread he started, under Nableezy's comment.
Nableezy then rushed to file this complaint, showing none of the preferred discretionary behavior that Cptnono displayed, and disregarding previous advice given him about excessive appearances at AE.
Administrators rushed to condemn Cptnono's technical violation before Cptnono even explained his action.
It now appears that Nableezy clearly violated a similar technical placement of his comments under the level heading that Cptnono started. Revealing Nableezy's discretionary behavior as considerably more objectionable in that he is the one who rushed to file a complaint against Cptnono, while the latter showed more restraint and consideration.

In light of Cptono's explanation, it would seem this complaint more represents a WP:Boomerang due to Nableezy's disregard for advice about excessive complaints, and rushing to file one against an editor who showed restraint, even though they both violated the same technicality of comment placement.

Whatever sanctions are meted out against Cptnono, should be meted out in greater measure against Nableezy, based on his level of violations and disregard for advice given repeatedly in AE decisions.
Even if one can say that Cptnono was also given advice to stay away from Nableezy, then we have a more equal balance of violations between the two editors, necessitating the same sanction be applied to both.

Concerns voiced here repeatedly about the forgiving attitude of AE admins towards Nableezy, by many editors in the I-P space, reveal a severe leniency towards him that is not afforded to editors he complains about or who complain about him.

Though this may not have been WGF and AGK's intent, in light of Cptnono's explanation, it seems necessary to either consider dismissing this complaint or alternately at least meting out equal sanctions against both editors, if not an even stricter one against Nableezy.
Continued special favor for Nableezy and the hard hand applied to editors he complains about or complain about him, based on what at least one administrator voiced as favoring him because he is an effective spokesman for a cause, while offering no such lenience to effective spokesmen for a cause from the other side, will become a source of growing agitation in the I-P and AE spaces.

Please take these facts into consideration and at least show you are considering the appearance of severe bias in these cases.

--MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: Boggles the mind? What boggles the mind is that your previous complaint against Cptnono relies on the same distance between your edits and Cptnono's as the distance between your comment and his level heading in the same comment thread in this complaint. Yet you are the one rushing to file complaints when Cptnono was far more considerate and forgiving about it. Your refusal to become more collaborative by rushing to demand sanctions against editors you are in conflict with, while attempting to blur the facts with convoluted reasoning, is what truly boggles the mind around here. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: As someone who must endure your distorted accusations and intimidating tone in the I-P space, and has bent over backwards to persuade you to become more collaborative instead of rushing to file complaints against editors here - if you have a complaint against my participation in these discussions ("try not distorting the events at every discussion that has nothing to do with you."), then either file a complaint about me and substantiate what you accuse me of, or please desist from making baseless inflammatory comments about me. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@WGFinley: Please. Cptnono qualified his statement by specifying what he meant by "response to his comment":

"Nableezy made a response to my comment. He inserted a comment under a level heading I made."

The diffs, [32] and [33] appear under Cptnono's vote (please see the fifth vote down in the survey for the thread.) Cptnono's vote itself is not considered a violation of the ban, but it did develop into a thread that Nableezy participated in with comments (not voting) first, before Cptnono's response. Granted, Nableezy might not have paid enough attention that he was commenting in a discussion about Cptnono's vote. This gave rise to Cptnono's concern for an iBan violation by Nableezy, that he commented on in the diff Nableezy used as the basis for this complaint.

Granted, that neither one of the two directed remarks towards the other or interacted with each other. And granted that both of them suffer the same technicality of being within the same thread. And also granted that Cptnono's comment is directly under Nableezy's, it is still true that he did not direct his comment to Nableezy and this was his own voting thread that Nableezy first participated in. Cptnono did not participate in any other discussions there that would infer a violation of the iBan with Nableezy.

I do not personally see a violation of the ban in either case, but there is a shadow of suspicion that Nableezy first violated it by not paying attention that he was commenting on Cptnono's vote. This is a similar incident that Nableezy brought previously against Cptnono, where he was warned to be more careful. At best, Nableezy must now be also warned to be more careful and the complaint dismissed, as in the previous complaint.

However, in light of both parties ostensibly being suspected of a violation, Cptnono DID NOT rush to file a complaint. The editor who rushed to file a complaint is Nableezy, who can himself be construed to have violated the ban in the same way Cptnono could. And Nableezy adds salt to a wound he inflicts himself by claiming that Cptnono directed his statements to him, when they were clearly directed to the winds in a sort of forgiving frustration at Nableezy's participation in a thread about his own vote.

If Cptnono's comment is to considered a violation of the iBan, then Nableezy's must be also seen as such. Even more so because it was Cptnono's voting thread in which the comments were made.

The violation which results in a severe behavior that disturbs the balance of their actions is that Nableezy is the one who rushed to file the complaint while Cptnono was more considerate and forgiving. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 08:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by BorisG

Well, I don't know if Cptnono's conduct amounts to a breach of IBan, but an indef is so preposterous that even filing party thinks it is too harsh. I would advice Cptnono to stay miles away from discussions where Nableezy is involved. - BorisG (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nishidani

Almost certainly a breach, but I concur with Boris that an indef. is way too strong. Nishidani (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by The Devil's Advocate

I expressed my concerns in the previous request regarding Cptnono that his explanation for why he was not following Nableezy's edits did not seem satisfactory. Here I noticed something similarly suspicious about his actions. He dated the offending comment provided above, but did not sign it. I cannot think of how that could be done accidentally. Seems more like Cptnono did not want people to realize it was his comment. Any claim that he was not referring to Nableezy seems to be a stretch as well. Nableezy was commenting on a threaded discussion started from Cptnono's vote, however Nableezy is clearly responding to another editor. What it does indicate is that Cptnono's comment about "what can only be considered violations of interaction bans" was a reference to these comments by Nableezy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as sanctions, might I make a suggestion? Seems Cptnono has only ever been blocked for three days. Perhaps a longer block with a topic-ban for several months would be appropriate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ill reply here on the technical point. I am quite certain that the innocent explanation for the timestamp but no sig is the correct one. Depending on the number of tildes you input, you may get just the username (3 tildes), the username and timestamp (4 tildes), or just the timestamp (5 tildes). nableezy - 18:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but it does seem a tad too convenient to me that he would make such a mistake at the exact time when a comment being attributed to him would be a problem.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DA, your view is consistent with your interest in conspiracy theories. Sorry for friendly trolling. - BorisG (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just think Cptnono was probably not being completely honest about his actions in the previous case (he made a few erroneous statements about why he was editing certain articles Nableezy was editing) and that makes me question whether this was a "mistake" or a deliberate omission.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@WG Cptnono has never received a topic ban at all. Going for an indef is not even something Nableezy has expressed support for so it seems that something shorter would be better. A long-term extension to the interaction ban would certainly seem to be necessary (I do not think it is a coincidence that these incidents have popped up in the last month of the interaction ban), a months-long topic ban, and possibly a block for a week or two. I agree that the editor is clearly in need of a firmer response, but that does not mean you have to go for the jugular right out of the gates.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that if you go through with an indefinite topic ban that you also impose a longer-term interaction ban.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through two years of Cptnono's edit history and once more found no indication whatsoever that he contributed to the article in this case until after Nableezy contributed to it. This is just like the previous case where Cptnono gave an erroneous justification for his sudden appearance at articles Nableezy had recently edited.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@WG I understand your distaste for more ambiguous accusations of interaction ban violations, but there are many cases where an action is blatant and interaction bans serve a useful purpose in avoiding the punitive impression other sanctions tend to create as it does not stop anyone from editing the topic altogether. Those ambiguous cases seem to focus on whether one user is attempting to bait the other editor into violating an interaction ban without technically violating it as well. Nableezy's edit does not appear to be a technical violation, but I also think there was no intent to violate its spirit. Cptnono does not exactly have a distinctive signature and there were several comments by other editors between Cptnono's vote and Nableezy's response to Kauffner. It seems probable that Nableezy did not even notice. Even if he had, the comment does not appear to be in any way directed at or commenting on Cptnono. The comment could have easily been responding to a stand-alone statement by Kauffner without any change to Kauffner's comment or Nableezy's. Placement is the only issue there and I do not think that alone is a basis for claiming a violation.

Once more I also think it is disconcerting that Cptnono was yet again only showing up at an article after Nableezy made a recent edit there. If he is following Nableezy to these articles and making edits in opposition to him then that is not nearly as ambiguous.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Malik Shabazz

I agree with others that an indefinite topic ban is too harsh in this instance. Perhaps a year-long ban with an opportunity to appeal in six months? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Spoiler

Indefinite ban... year ban...? Anything even more than a month seems pretty ridiculous for a weak violation of an interaction ban. This isn't a more pressing content or civility issue. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AgadaUrbanit

So we're talking about possible WP:IBAN violation between two editors.

There is a Talk:Arab_citizens_of_Israel#Requested_move:_Arab_citizens_of_Israel_.E2.86.92_Israeli_Arabs initiated by 3d party. Both editors commented, casting !votes, presenting opposing views. So far so good. Not ideal though, considering their iban.
Then editor X finds him/herself commenting within !vote comment of editor Y with whom she/he has an interaction ban, see γ and δ.

Is X commenting on the Y !vote above? Do γ&δ constitute comments of editor X on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To keep this readable I'll comment here if you don't mind, I think it's a great question. I think it points out one of the shortcomings of interaction bans. I can see both sides of the argument on this one. They're just voting so it shouldn't matter, right? But what if Y came to vote just because X did? How can you prove that? That's where interaction bans make little sense and are downright silly, a possible causality dilemma or, more precisely, a case of correlation does not imply causation. I'm not a fan of them but they've been accepted here as a means of dispute resolution--WGFinley (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In arvo quaerere verum: The purpose of an interaction ban is to stop a conflict between two or more editors that cannot be otherwise resolved from getting out of hand and disrupting the work of others. Would X and Y agree with removal of their mutual iban? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Closing admin: at this stage I'd say tban them both. Say what? We tried iban, it did not work out as expected. This appears to be a personal conflict and it should stop. Both editors were provided second chances and now they could try to contribute more constructively in other topics of Wikipedia. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gatoclass

It seems Cptnono concluded that since Nableezy had commented in a thread Cptnono started, then Nableezy was violating the spirit if not the letter of their mutual IBAN, which justified Cptnono in making a response. I don't believe Nableezy's comments constituted any sort of breach, and I don't think Cptnono's reasoning was sound in that regard, but in the circumstances I suppose Cptnono might be extended a degree of AGF. Cptnono is undisciplined and at times somewhat abrasive but in my admittedly limited experience, he has appeared to be at least capable of editing collaboratively in the topic area, which is more than I can say for a number of other contributors there. I am therefore inclined to agree with those above who have argued that an indefinite topic ban would be somewhat undue at this point. I would suggest an extension of the IBAN with Nableezy for another six months, assuming Nableezy assents, together perhaps with a topic ban of short duration. Gatoclass (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Cptnono

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

Pretty blatant to me, Cptnono's comment is immediately under Nableezy's. I think it's time for an indefinite TBAN for Cptnono, who was just chided not to do this. Normally I would act on this right away but since I'm proposing indefinite I will let others chime in. --WGFinley (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion for indefinite is based on facts. This is the 2nd interaction ban that Cptnono has had with Nableezy, the first one was lifted and then put back into place 6 months later. We have a fresh AE report that's not even a couple weeks old with clear instruction to avoid areas where Nableezy is editing and not even days after getting that warning Cptnono goes right back and does exactly that. The time consumed on AE and the disruptions caused in this article space are of detriment to the project and I think it is time to start giving long term TBANs for those who have previously been sanctioned multiple times. --WGFinley (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support the topic ban being indefinite, not long-term. We cannot afford to infinitely tolerate problematic users. It was suggested above that we levy a one-year topic ban with no option to appeal before six months; I dislike such a configuration, first because, before anything, we must allow the user to appeal the ban immediately after it begins - in case we were mistaken (which can always happen) or overlooked important information (which is also possible). Moreover, I dislike the idea that we give long-term problematic contributors a "harsh sentence" then allow them to return; the aim is to protect the integrity of our articles. For that reason, I prefer that the subject be permanently excluded from the topic in question, and allowed to return only when they have demonstrated an ability to contribute constructively. With that thinking, an indefinite (not year-long or otherwise long-term) ban is the only solution. I regret that it comes to this, but Cptnono is clearly incapable of learning our lesson. AGK [•] 23:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there's a fundamental misunderstanding that indefinite means infinite, it doesn't. That's exactly where I'm coming from, no term with the person able to appeal at a later unspecified date. --WGFinley (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support indefinite topic ban per AGK (as in, 'a ban or no definite duration', rather than 'a long-term restriction'). This can be removed when Cptnono shows the ability to be a constructive and collaborative contributer elsewhere in the 'pedia. When they relearn the tools of collegial editing then this can be reconsidered--Cailil ^talk 17:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Cptnono Response

Cptnono didn't provide any diffs regarding Nableezy "making a response" to him, I've asked him for some diffs on his talk page as I'm not seeing that in the article history at all. Nableezy has a few edits to the page going back more than a year and Cptnono only made two edits[34][35], both were after Nableezy voted and commented. --WGFinley (talk) 06:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed this and I understand the points being made now. I think this is a great illustration of the silliness of interaction bans and how they just don't work. Nableezy voted, with a comment, then Cptnono voted, with a comment, then a lot of discussion started with Nableezy making multiple comments on discussion under Cptnono's vote. As far as the conversations here, they are pretty much emblematic of the problems in this topic space and AE. I really wish people could tone it down.

Now as for what to do with this mess: technically Nableezy was there first but as I said before I don't think that should matter if there is no direct interaction. Technically Nableezy commented on Cptnono's vote but it wasn't directed at Cptnono's comment just under it. However, were I Cptnono I could construe a comment on my vote as interacting. But still Cptnono pretty much directly took it on with the diff Nableezy originally reported. I'm of a mind to lift the interaction ban as unenforceable, with warnings to both further disruption will lead to TBANs, really only way I can see making any sense of this. --WGFinley (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy Your comment is in discussion under his vote how can you possibly deny that? Thus if someone speaks up in support or opposition to his vote and then you speak up against that you are, vicariously, speaking in support or opposing his vote. But for the fact Cptnono made his vote and comment there's no discussion there for you to comment on, therefore you clearly commented on his vote.

Also, if there's a consensus here at AE to remove the interaction ban, especially since it was AGK who made the ban, it can be removed. I also recall you were requested to tone down your rhetoric on this page, that clearly hasn't happened. --WGFinley (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy "What pray tell has been the issue with my rhetoric on this page?" - you do it in the same sentence you ask what you're doing wrong! Also, I've never indicated I was taking immediate individual action here, in fact my very first comment was saying I wanted other input, don't know how you're making the leap to me unilaterally removing AGK's IBAN, I suggested it and that was all. --WGFinley (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move For Close

This interaction ban expires in a few days, I don't see the need of going through a process to lift it. TBAN, after looking at all the extenuating circumstances, doesn't seem appropriate here for either side, clearly there is honest disagreement as to who interacted first and I think both sides have a valid argument that the other started it. Thus I'm disinclined to extend it as Gatoclass presented. I think Gato's suggestion has merit and seeks to find middle ground but, after a couple of weeks of calls needing to be made on murky actions regarding what is an IBAN violation I can't see extending something that is inadequate.

So I would suggest closing this with no action other than a plea to both parties to cool it as in the next few days we will see if previous sanctions have done any good or if TBANs are next up for consideration. --WGFinley (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Given the repeated violation (by many parties) of restrictions I see no reason to give anyone a free pass here. Indefinite topic bans should not be seen as a nuclear option - and Cptnono should not be an exception. A number of the recurring problems in articles covered by these rulings can and should be resolved by AE restricting the behaviour of accounts until they learn to collaborate. Using increasing blocks or short term bans does not help accounts who have a history of serial violation learn to edit constructively. Therefore if indeed certain accounts (with a history of restriction violation etc) are "good editors but for one poisonous interaction, or a hot-button mindset, in one toic area" let them show us by editting well elsewhere. Given the series of report from this area in the last few days this is the ony way forward I can see--Cailil ^talk 17:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talknic

User:Talknic is banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces for six months. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Talknic

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction and Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

[36] Restores removed label in violation of WP:LABEL
[37] Less than 24 hours later removes sentence from lead because he doesn't like consensus wording. I assume this is a revert since he was editing the same sentence here, concurrently with the previous diff.

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

Notified of case here.
Blocked for 1RR on the same article here.
Received a 3 month topic ban a couple of weeks later. [38] for his talk page conduct, which unfortunately hasn't improved.
Blocked for 1RR on the same article last month

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor suffers from a severe case of IDHT and is very difficult to work with. He probably hits a good 7-8 of the 14 examples at WP:TENDENTIOUS.

This is a discussion where several editors agreed on the wording in the lead, and not a single editor supported talknic's argument. I suggest reading the two sections below that one for a typical example of the kind of talk page behavior that got him TBANed last time. Here he brings up the same issue again. And here it comes up again. In all 3 cases, several quite experienced editors agreed on the wording. Talknic, seeing he's not convincing anyone just went ahead and removed the whole sentence.

@WGF, Ed: I wouldn't have brought the technical 1RR here if that was the only problem. Please read some of the talk page discussions I linked to above, or practically any section in the last 4-5 archives of Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War. You'll see what I mean. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talnic's long and meandering reply here and the examples he links to are a very good illustration of the problems other people face when trying to work with this editor. Notice how many times he accuses others of violating wikipedia policy "by consensus". He is unable to get even a single editor to support either the changes he wants to make or his objections to changes others make. He does not understand policy properly and refuses to listen to anyone who tries to explain it to him. He is now back at the article throwing accusations around. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified.

Discussion concerning talknic

Statement by talknic

~~Preparing a reply: please allow response before taking action... thx~~ talknic (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) "Restores removed label in violation of WP:LABEL" - WP:LABEL was not the reason for GabrielF's revert. He did not say it was a 'controversial' point. [39] //"controversial" needs to be sourced - see WP:WEASEL //

So I gave a Secondary Source, for the word "controversial" [40], as required per WP:VERIFY and requested by GabrielF. No More Mr Nice Guy is mistaken

2) "Less than 24 hours later removes sentence from lead because he doesn't like consensus wording"

This is another of No More Mr Nice Guy's numerous false accusations (my reply 14:57, 3 Dec). The reason for removal was clearly stated; violation of WP policies by consensus [41]. My edit gave both victims of the conflict equal WEIGHT and equal POV

3)I had previously asked for a verifiable source [42] Shows the CN removed by NMMNG. Previously removed by AndresHerutJaim, prior to which No More Mr Nice Guy reverted [43]- reason in Talk [44] The numerous editors giving consensus did not cite ANY sources what so ever [45]. I cited Secondary Sources, which No More Mr Nice Guy falsely claimed were Primary sources. Again consensus was reached to violate WP:VERIFY

After my taking WP:NPOV in respect to consequences of the war in the Lede to the Talk Page[46], consensus was again reached to violate WP:NPOV

4) "Here he brings up the same issue again." The discussion I joined the discussion at 16:52, 26 September 2011 which was in fact BEFORE the addition of material for the fate of the Jewish populationat 20:39, 29 September 2011 , which pushed the Paragraph into contravening WP:WEIGHT & WP:NPOV. So again, No More Mr Nice Guy's accusation is false.

"And here it comes up again" [47]. With the additional WP:NPOV material, it is not actually the same issue " In all 3 cases, several quite experienced editors agreed on the wording." They agreed to violate WP:NPOV WP:VERIFY & WP:WEIGHT, whilst falsely accused me of using Primary Sources when they were in fact Secondary Sources. ... talknic (talk) 13:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops I forgot something

The source I provided for the statement reverted by GabrielF // "Benny Morris, the controversial Israeli historian..." // Is a statement for a book by a most "respected and controversial" Israeli historian.

The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews| Benny Morris | I.B.Tauris | 2003 | Page 300

"Benny Morris is a world renowned author and professor of Middle East History at Ben-Gurion University. His pioneering revisionist work on the Palestinian exodus from Israel in the late 1940's has made him one of the most respected and controversial historians working there today."

Oh, Merry Xmas every one ... talknic (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments on premature Result (before my response)

As there have been premature results before my chance to respond I feel justified in addressing those results:

WGFinley - "The first diff is definitely a revert " It is the addition of a source requested for //Benny Morris, the controversial Israeli historian// GabrielF even put it quotes on the revert [48] //"controversial" needs to be sourced - see WP:WEASEL // Not WP:LABEL

'such sweeping changes' = two small changes, one giving the required Secondary Source for "Benny Morris, the controversial Israeli historian" which was called for by GabrielF, the other to remove information in breach by consensus of WP:WEIGHT/WP:NPOV, my edit gave both victims equal WEIGHT and equal POV ... talknic (talk) 13:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston - See reply to WGFinley.

"He has also been topic banned for three months in the past" T. Canens read only one discussion. Comment on sanctions by T. Canens "I haven't got the time to read through the discussions yet, but I did take a quick look at the edit summaries they are using. Looks like a broader sanction may be needed here." T. Canens (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Despite being reasonably requested, No More Mr Nice Guy and AnonMoos refused to use edit summaries at all in discussions with me in that period ... I used the edit summaries to remind myself of what had taken place. If it said 'false accusation' you will find a false accusation. 'Please address the issue' you will find the issue was not addressed. Where 'asked again for personal comments to stop', you will find a stream of personal comments etc ... talknic (talk) 13:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Results after my response

WGFinley "it doesn't qualify as a reliable source as it's promotional material from a back cover of a book" This [49] is from the promotional blurb in a book. has an ISBN. After going to the ISBN page[50], the reader then has to go further to a copy of the book [51] only to find the citation is actually part of the books own publicity spiel It is there by consensus of the same group of people
I note also there's not one word about continual consensus to breach WP:NPOV WP:VERIFY WP:WEIGHT Which makes one big smelly joke of Wikipedia and it's policies
~~I bid you anon...~~ I have enough ... talknic (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite simply bizarre. EdJohnson - "In a comment made while this AE request was open, Talknic seems to be hurling acronyms at random.."

No EdJohnson they are not at random, they're very specific violations of WP:VERIFY WP:NPOV WP:WEIGHT by consensus, documented in the very same Talk page [52]

Allowing violations of policy by consensus to pass without comment or notice, could be seen to dovetail nicely with No More Mr Nice Guy's remark -- "to put this in terms you will more easily relate to, the people scrutinizing my actions will be my fellow flat worlders"[53], and give weight to The Devil's Advocate's comment of 19:31, 24 December 2011. Enforcing sanctions against those who violate by consensus would prove otherwise ...talknic (talk) 05:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WGFinley - "I had a chance to go through the archives on 1948 Arab-Israeli War a bit and they are quite telling, I agree with your take Ed.. I see several editors trying to work with Talknic and they eventually get worn down and give up." 'trying to work with' = trying to prevent information being added at every turn. Time and again, at the ever moving goal posts I have attempted compromise only to find the goal posts move yet again. Example [[54] ... talknic (talk) 12:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HERE is a classic example of No More Mr Nice Guy's tactics He begins by misrepresenting my suggestion. At no point did I suggest labeling people and organizations as "terrorist".. He even goes as far as to attempt to coerce me into violating WP policy. (swiftly withdrawn on my denunciation)

You will note at least 4 instances where I attempted to compromise, based on his ever moving goal posts. Finally he had concede. His closing remark "Oh well. Nobody can accuse me of not trying" When in fact he tried by every means to prevent information being published. You will also note I even agreed to include similar information on other groups as he suggested. He has never taken up the offer ... talknic (talk) 08:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HERE Another classic example of No More Mr Nice Guy's moving goal posts, obfuscation and desperately trying to defend the indefensible. He was defeated by consensus, resulting in an informative RS, mathematically correct statement replacing what can only be described as weasel worded nonsense ... talknic (talk) 10:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HERE Another example of No More Mr Nice Guy's tactics "As usual you're using primary sources and your personal opinion on what they mean." No More Mr Nice Guy 08:54, 22 March 2011

My reply "The existing uses the exact same source. I can find no objection by yourself to the existing. The editor has misrepresented the evidence in the existing exact same source, by taking items out of order, truncating and misquoting. All of which are listed above. In the changes, I have taken the existing, ordered it and cited it un-truncated (suggesting it be referenced), corrected the misquoted "Arab inhabitants".

As you have not previously objected to the source you cannot claim now that it is invalid and as you have not previously objected to the dialogue, can you please show me where, in the guidelines, that additional material from the cited source cannot be added in accordance with editorial policies. Thx. BTW Citing NON-existent policy guidelines is a reportable offence" talknic 06:07, 23 March 2011 ... talknic (talk) 11:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time and again, it is only on my edits that No More Mr Nice Guy shows interest in the quality of the editing, the lack of sources, the misrepresentations, the primary sources. He has never asked for a CN. On all but one occasion he simply does a wholesale revert. Even reverting to un-sourced versions in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS, by consensus what's more

Recent example After I supplied a Secondary Source for my edit, (the previous was unsourced and did not reflect the Armistice Agreements it referred to. No More Mr Nice Guy had no previous objection to it what so ever! No More Mr Nice Guy reverts to an un-sourced version of a contentious issue, claiming consensus. Consensus to leave unsourced information which does not accurately reflect the Armistices it mentions

No More Mr Nice Guy "I changed the wording to "former Mandate Palestine". I believe that was the term most editors supported in a previous discussion we had." However no such discussion ever took place on the template wording. The discussion was in fact for another section. [55] none of the 'consensus' makers provided any sources what so ever and the article has been left, by consensus, with a statement which is not supported by the Secondary Source!!!

In his recent edit No More Mr Nice Guy says "Casus - still not sure what it means. " It is a part of the template!!! Not even knowing what it meant, he deleted a reliably Secondary Sourced statement ... talknic (talk) 11:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I challenge the responding editors to look closely at No More Mr Nice Guy's rationale for removing the information at 'casus' my recent edit "I removed the text from the "casus" part. I'm not sure what this is supposed to be. Causes? Casus belli? In either case the description there wasn't correct so I removed it" In fact I changed the description so that it WAS correct according to the pre-existing source.

At 13:48, 14 December 2011 [56] at casus, it said the following: "Safeguard the security and right to self-determination of inhabitants of Israel in an independent state" Giving the source as UN Doc. S/745, reprinted in 3 UN SCOR, Supp. for May 1948, at 83–88

At 23:44, 14 December 2011 [57], I corrected the statement to ACCURATELY reflect the information in the pre-existing source.

He even says "Causes? Casus belli?" (an editor with no online dictionary? Amazing!) ... talknic (talk) 07:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WGFinley - You provide this link [58] and said "is pretty bad form and indicative the fight is preferred to harmonious collaboration."

Frederico1234 - says "The first statement about where the fighting took place is true whether the source supports it or not" This is in complete violation of WP policy, which tells us the source MUST support the statement.

My reply "The first part of the statement did not accurately reflect any UNSC resolution, any Ceasefire or Armistice Agreement and; Secondary Sources must accurately reflect the documents they cite and; the first part of the statement is not supported by the given source." Which is entirely in keeping with WP policy. Please tell everyone, how this is "pretty bad form".

Frederico1234 - says "The source could be changed" I point him to where I had previously been attempting to do so and each time the CN was removed, leaving a statement not supported by the source. How it is "bad form and indicative the fight is preferred to harmonious collaboration?" when I made more than one effort to collaborate by asking for the source to be changed via the appropriate action, placing CNs.

Is it not WP policy that a Reliable Secondary Sources must accurately reflect the documents they refer to? Because that is precisely what I then suggested to Frederico1234 "find a reliable Secondary Source accurately reflecting any UNSC resolution, Ceasefire or Armistice agreement saying "former territory of the British Mandate". Completely within WP policy for me to make such a request. In fact it is WP policy that they must

I then point to the fact that the statement, as it stood un-verified by consensus, could lead people to think it includes Transjordan, referring to No More Mr Nice Guy who gave this reason for reverting [59], "lead correctly summarizes article using consensus wording" british mandate is wikilinked in previous sentence so they likelihood that someone would be confused about what it includes is low"

A) 'consensus' was to contravene WP policy by retaining information not reflected in the source and; B) The Wikilink No More Mr Nice Guy provided British Mandate has a map which actually INCLUDES TRANSJORDAN!!! It's not my doing that No More Mr Nice Guy disproved his little theory and immediately shows there IS likelihood that someone would be confused about what the challenged phrase includes

C) How on earth you reach a conclusion that I show "pretty bad form and indicative the fight is preferred to harmonious collaboration" is quite bizarre ... talknic (talk) 09:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning talknic

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

The first one does not appear to be a revert. As one can see by going to the previous diff, GabrielF's revert of an IP editor contained the edit summary "Reverted good faith edits by 82.45.198.134 (talk): "controversial" needs to be sourced - see WP:WEASEL. (TW)" suggesting that Talknic's actions were in fact satisfying a concern about citing a contentious statement. Benny Morris is certainly a controversial historian and I doubt many people, including Morris himself, would suggest his work is not controversial. When an editor removes material for lacking a source it is not a revert to put the material back in with a source.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@WG&Ed How can you call the first diff a revert? Talknic did not restore the material without a citation, the only reason given by the editor who previously reverted the change, but instead provided a citation to back up a label that anyone who knows anything about the New Historians would understand is a legitimate characterization.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wg, I think that argument is using the letter of policy to run roughshod over its spirit and leaving policy mangled in the treads. An editor reverted a change while raising just one specific policy objection, and Talknic clearly and unequivocally satisfied that one objection. The principle of edit-warring policy is that articles should not see any editor abuse the editing process in a way that impedes the consensus-building process. When an editor removes something and says it needs a source, adding the material back in with an authoritative source is not impeding the consensus-building process in any way. Rather, that is a rather stellar example of how the process is supposed to work. In fact, the nature of the source provided clearly suggests that WP:LABEL was also fully satisfied, despite NMMNG's concerns. Talknic's source is the author bio on one of Benny Morris' own books clearly saying he is a "controversial historian" suggesting this is not something that would be even remotely contentious to include. Counting this as a revert would set a bad precedent for frivolous administrative action in the future.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LABEL was not satisfied. It specifically says "When using controversial, give readers enough information to know what the controversy is about". That didn't happen. Also, we avoid labeling every historian in IP articles because, let's face it, many of them are "controversial".

Anyway, even if it was a legitimate edit, 1RR still applies. That's exactly the spirit of the policy. Don't make more than one revert in 24 hours, no matter what those reverts are. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source clearly satisfied that point as well. His "revisionist" work on the Nakba is what makes him controversial. Your point about many historians being controversial is a reasonable one, though. However, that does not make Talknic's change a revert. Edit-warring policy defines a revert as an edit "that reverses the actions of other editors" and even that narrow definition applied in an overly technical manner does not really apply here. The other editor in this case clearly said that his action was based on the lack of a source. Adding a source to that material as explicitly requested in the edit summary is not reversing that editor's action but building on it in the way the consensus-building process expects. Had Talknic restored the material without a citation then it would have been a revert as it would just repeat the offense the other editor's action was undoing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TDA, you ,misunderstand the 1RR rule entirely. This rule is there to prevent edit wars. It is not the best instrument (as it essentially impedes and even prevents improvement of articles by editors who would like to make dozens of edits in one day. However this is considered necessary in this contentious area to prevent edit wars. Under this rule ANY revert is a revert, regardless contentious or not. As WP:3RR says, a revert may be a removal of one word. The point, especially in cases of 1RR, is that if one is allowed to make 2 reverts, others who disagree are prevented from this, so there is no equality. For this reason, 1RR applies to all edits, with some clear exceptions (reverting vandalism, or gross BLP violations, or illegal material). The edits do not need to be contentius to qualify under 1RR rule, although the sanction will, I am sure, depend on what kind of reverts they are. In the current case, both reverts are contentious. I am not saying they against policy, or bad faith edits, or anyhow wrong of and by themselves. But they are violations of 1RR, clear cut. - BorisG (talk) 07:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clear, I am saying the first diff is not a revert.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@WG GabrielF took out uncited material and Talknic put in cited material. Talknic cannot be said to have reversed GabrielF's action as GabrielF's action was based on the lack of a citation. So it cannot be called a revert to reinsert the material with a citation.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on broader nature of dispute

Looking over this article and roughly the past year or so of edits leads me to the following conclusions:

This article is packed to the brim with POV-pushing, poorly-cited material that works together to push a synthesis position that the 1948 war was about the Arabs wanting to kill all the innocent Jews and those who supported them were motivated by anti-Semitism, omitting or glossing over the more nuanced geopolitical and personal motivations of the parties involved.
Talknic has been consistently editing in a manner that seeks to offset this blatant bias towards an extreme pro-Israel position and has made some constructive progress, together with several missteps.
No More Mr. Nice Guy, despite repeatedly getting involved in edit-warring with regards to Talknic, has not been subjected to any sanctions for any of his tendentious editing practices even as he is the one consistently bringing up the other party for sanctions. The evidence is so substantial for this it is only really necessary that one comb through the revision history of this article and look at any instance where Talknic and NMMNG's edits occur within a short time frame of each other.

Under these circumstances, I am baffled at how this situation has been allowed to persist where only one side of the dispute is subjected to increasingly severe sanctions, while the other gets off scot-free every time.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

Talknic, whatever the hairsplitting technicalities, NMMGG has a good case. It's patently useless putting adjectives like 'controversial' before mentions of established and distinguished scholars, historians, unless they are exceptionally controversial like David Irving, who was widely recognized as a considerable historian, and then became extremely controversial. Morris's work, as does that of most good historians, engenders controversy. This does not make him controversial. The second diff shows an edit that is indefensible, for removing sound and easily verifiable content. If you disliked the word 'trigger', you could have asked for a better source on the verb. But the source also contains statistics that standard works on the history of Egypt also use. See Joel Beinin's book, for example. Reverting content that is either easily verifiable or well sourced, is not permissible. I did a large part of the Jews of Egypt page, and this is the only reason, familiarity with one of the details expunged, for my commenting here. Nishidani (talk) 14:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani - as you've addressed me here....

The sentence was removed because of the violation by consensus of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. Furthermore consensus is: not to include such added finer details in the Lede. My edit left both victims equally represented. Both wikilinked to finer detail.

"Reverting content that is either easily verifiable or well sourced, is not permissible." Your advice seems a touch hypocritical. Violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV are not permissible and; the record shows almost without exception edits made by me, even with WP:RS & WP:VERIFIABLE Secondary Sources, have been reverted wholesale by NMMNG, without taking anything to the Talk pages. Never once using an appropriate CN. At times reverting to versions that, by consensus of course, contravene WP:RS / WP:NPOV / WP:WEIGHT

" did a large part of the Jews of Egypt page..." then you KNOW the information is Wikilinked ... talknic (talk) 02:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes undue weight or NPOV is not often clear, and has to be proven. I regard a huge number of articles here as suffering from those problems, but I don't try to fix any by sheer elision of good sources. The only thing I care about, in the hairsplitting nonsense that proliferates here, is that good RS are not erased by anyone, unless they can be improved. Nishidani (talk) 08:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani -- The Paragraph was HEAVILY weighted towards the Jewish victims who were not even in the war zone, while only Wikilinking to the Palestinians, who were in and from the war zone. Look at it[60]. After all the dialogue in Talk about keeping the Lede of articles simple and short, an unbalanced wad of information is added addressing only consequences for the Jewish victims, pushing the paragraph into being in contravention of WP:WEIGHT.

Whereas, I left both victims Wikilinked, which is where detail is gone into and; is in fact gone into from the same source [61]

"good RS are not erased by anyone, unless they can be improved. " NMMNG Reverts good RS Secondary Sources when they're mine in a flash. He simply does a wholesale revert, with an M/O of forcing the issue into Talk for interminable obfuscation via ever moving goal posts. Little concern that often his reverts are to statements contravening WP policies (by consensus of course) ... talknic (talk) 13:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, using a Holocaust denier as an example of the only time it is legitimate to say someone's work is controversial is a tad excessive. Of course, good point or not, that is a matter for discussing elsewhere. Here there is a very clear issue of whether reinserting material with a source when it was only removed for lacking a source counts as a revert. The notion that this is how reverts will be defined should be extremely troublesome to anyone interested in the betterment of Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'as an example of the only time it is legitimate to say...' Please, I never wrote or implied that.Nishidani (talk) 08:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is someone's work need not be that controverisal to be called controversial in an article. However, please take this question to the article's talk page if you want to continue.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Talknic

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

The first diff is definitely a revert but the case for another one after that is a stretch. However, as someone previously sanctioned talknic appears to be tempting fate; it's bad form to make such sweeping changes on a long standing article with dozens of references and over 162 citations on a 63 year old conflict. Prudence would dictate further discussion of changes. --WGFinley (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@TDA It's clearly a revert, there's nothing wrong with that, it's just that you only get one a day. --WGFinley (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a technical violation of the WP:1RR rule. If the editor was in no trouble before, this might be allowed to pass with a warning, but there is a background to consider. The first edit restores the word 'controversial', recently removed, and the second edit is clearly removing some text. Both of these could be good faith changes, but there are not supposed to be two such changes within 24 hours.
The background is not encouraging. Talknic got notified of the ARBPIA sanctions last April as the result of a 1RR complaint over 1948 Arab–Israeli War. (Anybody see a pattern?) In lieu of a block, he was notified. He declined to self-revert because he insisted he had not committed a violation. Then he was in trouble over the same article in November when he was given a 48-hour AE block. He has also been topic banned for three months in the past. In AE discussions User:Talknic never admits to the slightest problem with his edits. Under these conditions even a technical violation is too much, and I suggest a one-week block. EdJohnston (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@TDA An anon added the "controversial" line, GabrielF reverted it about an hour later and Talknic put it back the next day but within 24 hours, a violation. He included a source, it doesn't qualify as a reliable source as it's promotional material from a back cover of a book, so it's still a revert. Since this was already put in and removed the revert was used for the day, Talknic should have gone to the talk page and said "Hey, I think this should be in the article and here's my source." this is how revert edit wars are prevented via WP:1RR and why the community placed said restriction on P-I articles. --WGFinley (talk) 15:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if a block works for me, it seems it's time for Talknic to go back on a TBAN, since it was 3 months prior I would go for 6 months this time around. While this revert is technical, propping up the back cover of a book as a "source" shows pretty extreme length to make one's point. Couple that with an utter refusal to recognize his/her behavior is tendentious, removes sourced material from the article and then acknowledges this AE but instead goes back to the article's talk page to argue some more [62][63] is pretty bad form and indicative the fight is preferred to harmonious collaboration. --WGFinley (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk pages at User talk:No More Mr Nice Guy and User talk:Talknic to get an overview of what they've been involved in. I concentrated on the period since 2 August when Talknic's last topic ban expired. Anyone with enough patience can also look at Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War which contains many posts by these two editors in the period since 27 October. I do not see that *anybody* on the article talk page has supported Talknic's proposals since 27 October, yet has continued to edit the article. This leads me to agree with User:Wgfinley that a new six-month topic ban of Talknic is the best plan. If Talknic seemed to have the slightest understanding of the problems that people see with his edits, a different result might have been considered. The diff provided above by NMMNG hints at why nobody winds up agreeing with Talknic. Talknic's harsh criticism of his opponents and his lack of AGF regarding them is also on display in that diff. 'Tendentious' may seem like a strong word but 'persistent and oblivious' can easily be justified. In a comment made while this AE request was open, Talknic seems to be hurling acronyms at random and lacks the ability to reflect on his own behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a chance to go through the archives on 1948 Arab-Israeli War a bit and they are quite telling, I agree with your take Ed.. I see several editors trying to work with Talknic and they eventually get worn down and give up. Appears the 6 month TBAN is in order. --WGFinley (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. User:Talknic is banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces for six months, for reasons given in the Result section of this AE. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy

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

Request concerning Nableezy

User 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)
The Category: Resistance movements is added to one article about a pro-Israel organization, and Nableezy reverts,[64] demands sourcing on the talk page,[65] and when a list of sources are presented he demands specificity. [66]

Yet, around the same time, Nableezy adds the very same category to ten articles in the span of less than five minutes.[67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76] 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[77]
List of Blocks[78]
Log of Bans[79]

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[80] 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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

MichaelNetzer

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]
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]

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]

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]

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]

Comment by Jiujitsuguy

I have reviewed User:MichaelNetzer's talk page as well as the ARBPIA logs[81] 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]

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]

Result concerning MichaelNetzer

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

Esoglou

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

Request concerning Esoglou

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Editors reminded

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

19:42, 5 December 2011 inserts information about Joe Biden cited to LifeSiteNews, which is consistently rejected at RSN; information about Rudy Giuliani cited to anti-Giuliani press release
13:03, 20 December 2011 inserts information about Nancy Pelosi cited to anti-Pelosi press releases; information on Joe Biden cited to LifeSiteNews, which is consistently rejected at RSN
12:18, 23 December 2011 inserts information about Kathleen Sebelius cited to an anti-Sebelius press release from an organization which campaigns against Sebelius
10:14, 24 December 2011 inserts information about Kathleen Sebelius cited to an anti-Sebelius press release from an organization which campaigns against Sebelius
12:16, 25 December 2011 inserts information about Kathleen Sebelius cited to an anti-Sebelius press release from an organization which campaigns against Sebelius
09:12, 27 December 2011 inserts extensive section about Nancy Pelosi sourced almost entirely to anti-Pelosi press releases

Inserting claims about living people cited to these totally unsuitable sources is a BLP violation, contradicting the ArbCom sanction which states that editors are to obey all regular site policies. Note that Esoglou falsely claims in the citation template that the press release is a news story in the National Catholic Register; following the link shows that it's actually an Operation Rescue press release from Christian Newswire, a right-wing press release service.

The recent BLP violations are the proximate cause of this report, but the user also has a persistent and ongoing problem with original research in abortion-related articles that goes back as far as I've worked with him, and I would be remiss in not mentioning it. A selection:

11:23, 23 January 2011 in a paragraph about the punishment for abortion imposed in early Christianity, inserts information about the punishment for other sins, cited to sources that don't mention abortion, in an attempt to prove that abortion was worse than other sins
09:49, 24 January 2011 in a paragraph about the punishment for abortion imposed in early Christianity, inserts information about the punishment for other sins, cited to sources that don't mention abortion, in an attempt to prove that abortion was worse than other sins; inserts information about ancient Greece and Rome, cited to sources that do not mention Christianity, in an attempt to provide "context" for Christian views on abortion
09:50, 24 January 2011 inserts information about ancient Greece and Rome into an article on early Christianity and abortion, saying that it provides context; sources do not mention Christianity
11:16, 2 February 2011 in a paragraph about the punishment for abortion imposed in early Christianity, inserts information about the punishment for other sins, cited to sources that don't mention abortion, in an attempt to prove that abortion was worse than other sins
12:15, 2 February 2011 in a paragraph about the punishment for abortion imposed in early Christianity, inserts information about the punishment for other sins, cited to sources that don't mention abortion, in an attempt to prove that abortion was worse than other sins (later rephrased to absolutely no effect)
22:44, 19 April 2011 inserts his own interpretation of a primary-source document, dismissing the cited secondary source as "some writers have interpreted" (same content, but even more blatant OR phrasing to be found in edit of 11 September listed below)
13:12, 7 June 2011 inserts information about ancient Greek and Roman philosophy into an article on early Christianity and abortion, saying that it is necessary to give context; sources do not mention Christianity; tries to synthesize further with "in spite of"
20:32, 7 June 2011 inserts information about ancient Greek and Roman philosophy into an article on early Christianity and abortion, saying that it is necessary to give context; sources do not mention Christianity; tries to synthesize further with "in spite of"
21:43, 9 June 2011 inserts information about ancient Roman philosophy/law into an article on early Christianity and abortion; sources do not say that this affected Christian thought or practice
07:51, 11 September 2011 I can best illustrate by quoting from Esoglou's edit: "The authors of one book have interpreted this as 'Pius IX declared all direct abortions homicide',[cited to book on bioethics], but the document merely declared that those who procured an effective abortion incurred excommunication reserved to bishops or ordinaries.[cited to primary source bull]"
20:30, 15 November 2011 inserts a phrase claiming that Catholic opinion on abortion differs from the official church view chiefly with regard to legalization; none of the cited sources in the section being summarized make any mention of any difference between views on morality and views on legality
15:33, 13 November 2011 inserts a sentence saying that "automatic excommunication" "remains" in force as an explanation for why pro-choice Mexican politicians were said to be excommunicated in 2007; cited source is the canon law about having an abortion and hasn't been revised in decades, and for all these reasons obviously makes no reference to these politicians
17:24, 18 November 2011 inserts a sentence saying that "automatic excommunication" "remains" in force as an explanation for why pro-choice Mexican politicians were said to be excommunicated in 2007; cited source is the canon law about having an abortion and hasn't been revised in decades, and for all these reasons obviously makes no reference to these politicians
10:41, 4 December 2011 inserts information which he claims is the cause of several specific listed incidents relating to politicians and abortion, cited to a source which mentions neither politicians (in the specific or in the general) nor abortion
19:42, 5 December 2011 bizarre original analysis of the Latin grammar of a paragraph in canon law - which paragraph incidentally, at this time in the article history, is only connected to the subject by a self-published source from an anti-abortion organization, but that's more of an RS issue
22:24, 20 December 2011 engages in original analysis of sources by writing about what they don't say, using the fact that sources don't mention bishops X and Y citing a paragraph in canon law as grounds for suggesting that they don't think that it applies
11:55, 21 December 2011 engages in original analysis of sources by writing about what they don't say; for example, uses the fact that sources don't mention certain Catholic authorities citing a particular canon as grounds for writing that they don't believe it applies. Even worse, writes that Cardinal Egan did not order certain politicians to be barred from communion over their pro-choice leanings; not only does the source not say this, the source actually writes about Egan and these politicians to illustrate the idea that the Roman Catholic Church attitude to pro-choice politicians and communion is harsher than in the past, in contrast to Esoglou's spin which wishes to portray the incident as an act of leniency
12:18, 23 December 2011 more writing about what sources don't say (second-to-last added paragraph)
10:18, 24 December 2011 more writing about what sources don't say

This editor has also had, and continues to have, problems with RS, with plagiarism, and with NPOV (incl. WEIGHT). Those issues, while serious, are (in my opinion, though others may well disagree) sliiiightly less prevalent in his edits than original research, and if they weren't accompanied by the BLP and persistent OR issues miiiight not deserve sanction on their own, but I can provide diffs of those as well if people would like.

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

No warnings from administrators required by the sanction, but I've warned the user about the BLP violations on the article talk page and on his talk page, as well as explaining in my edit summaries removing the content why it was objectionable. He's also been warned about the original research and the other stuff, and I can dig up those warnings too if you'd like.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Esoglou claims that he didn't add an anti-Sebelius press release. I don't know whether this is intentional deception that goes along with his falsely claiming that it's a news story from the National Catholic Register, or if he got the citations from somewhere else and copy-pasted them in. If the former, he's deliberately adding sources that violate WP:BLP. If the latter, he obviously hasn't read the sources he himself is citing, because the press release has the name of the press release service in bold letters at the top. Adding sources without reading them, and then repeatedly restoring them—still without reading them—after they are challenged, demonstrates a fundamental WP:COMPETENCY issue that should preclude him from editing in a heavily sanctioned topic area. The continual addition of original research, and repeated WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on the subject thereof, likewise demonstrates a lack of interest in site policies that some might let slide elsewhere, but that violate sanction 3 of the abortion arb case.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [82]

Discussion concerning Esoglou

Statement by Esoglou

Do I have respond to each of these points? Perhaps its enough to refer to this and this. Esoglou (talk) 09:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Esoglou

Result concerning Esoglou

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 563: / Line 563: @@
 <!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.-->
 :''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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&action=historysubmit&diff=466007174&oldid=466002053 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. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 23:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 ==MichaelNetzer==

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