Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:26, 31 August 2010

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	332

Shuki

Complainer and complainee both topic-banned for 5 weeks.

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

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

Request concerning Shuki

User requesting enforcement: nableezy - 19:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

[1] Removes reliablly sourced material because it conflict's with the user's own personal view
[2] again
[3] again
[4] again
[5] again
[6] again

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

Notified of the case

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Shuki has been filibustering any mention of the status of these settlements in international law. Originally Shuki has complained that the sources did not specifically say that a certain settlement is illegal. Since sources have been provided that specify for each of the settlements listed that they are illegal under international law Shuki has now changed tactics and insisted that the source "prove" that the specific settlement is illegal. The issue here is not the one or two reverts Shuki has made in each of the articles or the content being reverted. The issue is that Shuki has obstinately filibustered what reliable sources have reported and demanded proof beyond the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS. The arbitration case specifically says that editors should be editing within the policies of the website, including NPOV, RS, and V. Here, Shuki is violating all three; NPOV by refusing to allow a super-majority view to be represented in the article, RS by demanding that a RS is not sufficient "proof" on Wikipedia, V by repeatedly removing material cited to verifiable reliable sources.

Reply to Shuki's statement: The RFC had nothing to do with the legal status of the settlements or how that should be covered. And it is not an exceptional claim that Israeli settlements are illegal, and even if it were reliable sources were provided. The text is not discussing Israeli law but international law, so Israel's High Court's rulings on the legality under Israeli law is immaterial. None of this addresses the issue though, that you have repeatedly filibustered the inclusion of reliably sourced material for pure POV reasons. nableezy - 19:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Gatoclass: How much emphasis should be put on the material is certainly something that is strictly a content dispute, but Shuki has not been simply moving this information from the lead into the body, Shuki has been filibustering the content from appearing anywhere in the article. Is edit-warring the only thing that is actionable under ARBPIA? Is a systematic campaign to violate core policies of this website not actionable? Is everything that is not edit-warring a "content dispute"? nableezy - 04:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, each of those diffs is of Shuki completely removing the content on legality, claiming that because the source does not "prove" it is illegal it is not acceptable. The only reason there are not more diffs is because I have not made any other edits as I would rather not have edits to the 200 or so articles on Israeli settlements be reverted without cause. Shuki is demanding that a source provide "proof" that the settlement is illegal, that it must reference a specific court decision that says that specific settlement is illegal (see [7], [8] where that argument is made). Shuki is completely disregarding what RS says and removing content that says "X is illegal" and the source that says "X is illegal". But if this simply a "content dispute" then there is not really much of a point of any of this. If a user can simply just say no and block what reliable sources say from appearing in an article then this whole system is ****ed. We have had lengthy topic bans for making too many reverts, but things like this just get brushed away as "content disputes", which lead to, guess what, more reverts. nableezy - 05:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Gatoclass, not only has Shuki rejected sources that say all Israeli settlements are illegal, he or she has further rejected sources that say specific settlements are illegal if that source does not provide "proof" that the settlement is illegal. Each of the edits listed above are removals of sources that say the specific settlement is illegal. nableezy - 05:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to respond to many of the comments below. It is understandable that people come to the aid of what they perceive to be an ally. I'll just note that many of these same editors also came to the defense of the sock of a banned editor at a recent SPI, claiming that I was attempting to remove an opposing editor. That may well be the end result, but my purpose here is simple. Shuki's edits have violated a number of core policies of this website in contravention of ARBPIA. If there are editors that wish to show how that is not true they should make that case. Making this about me does not help anything. nableezy - 06:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle: I understand it is easier to say "a pox on both your houses", but if you do so you are effectively saying that it is more important that there is an appearance of an equal application of the rules than it is to actually have an equal application of the rules. I have added well-sourced material about these settlements. The material I added is not "POV", it contains both the majority POV and Israel's by saying that they are illegal under international law though Israel disputes this. The material is both notable and verifiable, in fact every BBC story about a settlement contains that very same information. Shuki has removed notable, relevant, reliably sourced material from a number of articles and has done so by twisting policy such as RS and V or by giving no policy based reason for such removals. Regardless of Shuki's and Ynhockey's absurd comments about this material being "REDFLAG", there are countless reliable sources that flat out say that all Israeli settlements are illegal under international law; to record that in supposed "encyclopedia" articles cannot be seen as disruptive unless "disruption" is defined as anything the extreme right-wing of the Israeli political spectrum does not like. I understand that you all are not supposed to adjudicate "content disputes", but that does not mean you cannot actually look at the content. The material I added is backed by literally hundreds of reliable sources. Shuki removed that material on the most specious of reasons and has done so repeatedly. If people are free to simply remove whatever information they like without regard to how well sourced it is then this place truly is a complete waste of time and fails its goal of providing an educational resource. If you or any other admin is actually serious about creating an "encyclopedia" then you should not, no cannot, tolerate such behavior as repeatedly removing well-sourced content. Our "sins" are not all equal here. You have on hand a user adding well-sourced content. You have another user twisting policy and filibustering the inclusion of that well-sourced material. Shuki has in the past removed sources that say all Israeli settlements are illegal because they dont say that specific settlement is illegal. Now, the removals are of sources that say that the specific settlement is illegal because the source does not supposedly "prove" that and does not cite a specific court case saying that the specific settlement is illegal. That is plainly an absurd reason. If you want to treat both the person adding well-sourced material and the person removing it for absurd, ideological reasons then topic-ban us both. If, however, you want to ensure that our articles follow the policies of this website then I invite you to take a closer look at the circumstances. We are not guilty of the same sins here, and treating us as though we were may be easy but is without justification. nableezy - 14:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Stifle: I would like to know what exactly you say I am at fault of. I added sources that say specific Israeli settlements are illegal under international law. Almost 5 years ago Shuki reverted the same information asking that a source be provided. I provided that source. Shuki has since shifted the goalposts writing that the source must "prove" that Ariel is illegal under international law. No sane person can read WP:V or WP:RS and come to any such conclusion. What exactly did I do wrong here? nableezy - 18:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [9]

Discussion concerning Shuki

Statement by Shuki

Nableezy has never shown any attempt to collaborate and make reasonable efforts with other editors. Nableezy also forgot to mention that he is violating the closure of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Israeli settlements. Since he 'lost' that RfC he started, he has wasted no time in opening a new front with his typical and documented battleground mentality. Nableezy is ~~one of~~ the most negative editor I have met on WP and has nothing good to say on articles. It is not 'fun' to edit with people who hold this attitude for long. Most people mellow out and learn to work with editors with opposing POVs, Nableezy simply cannot. I wish I could say he was pro-Palestinian, but even a superficial glance at his contributions show that he has nothing positive to say on Palestinian pages, and is merely a general SPA for including controversial negative material into Israeli articles. Until now, there was no 'BLP' for geographical places, and because of him, I think there should be one. Nableezy, blocked numerous times for problematic behavior, is himself in violation of AE with his insertion of negative boilerplate WP:REDFLAG material. Specifically, his latest non-consensus solo effort, is to find any mention of a locality that also says that it is illegal. No proof of any court action specifically declaring this and definitely in contrast to many court cases with the Israeli Supreme Court that has decided whether a place is illegal (part of Amona that was in fact torn down) or not (Revava won a libel case against Peace Now for making false claims of its 'illegality').

I have certainly not changed any tactics, thanks for pre-empting me here with what I had just accused Nableezy on another page, I have always demanded that sources specifically mention the locality and not just in passing. There is no such thing as 'super-majority' and the RfC Nableezy filed failed to approve that peculiar non-existent policy. --Shuki (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Nableezy, your RfC was not clear from the beginning, and I'll say that is the reason it failed, and failed to go anywhere constructive and why I (and most anyone not in your POV) was reluctant to take part for so long. --Shuki (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Stifle and others including Nableezy. Peculiar the accusations and follow-up accusations as well. One only needs to look at what both of us do simultaneously to see who collaborates with others and improve WP, and who is merely here to get blood to push his interests. On 18 July at 19:19, at the same time that Nableezy is putting the final touches on this repeat AE against me filed 5 minutes later (and sadly against himself as well - People who live in glass houses should not throw stones), I can be found collaborating with an 'opposing' editor here.

2nd reply, to Stifle, to 'topic-ban us both' Nableezy, and 'take one for the team' RomaC. I certainly do not believe in WP suicide, but we know that Nableezy is ready for martyrdom with many uncivil remarks made and threatened retirement when he was blocked and then surprisingly weirdly unblocked early at the beginning of the year. Frankly, I know that most 'Israeli cities, villages, towns, and more in the West Bank / Judea and Samaria Area' articles are not on the watchlists of many, if at all, and no one has been contributing to the topic of 'Israeli settlements' articles as much as me though I wish I had more help. I admit to the kneejerk reaction to what I saw Nableezy doing (evidently and his admitted flooding of articles with tendentious boilerplate one liners, contrary to Sandstein's closing RfC recommendation to deal with each issue on a case-by-case basis) was to quickly make those reverts, and hopefully merely temporarily freeze him on his admitted conquest to add it to all 200+ articles, so that perhaps the WP community could handle this much better with, hold on, collaboration and consensus. I was not going to follow him around on each page to put it in another section, given that some editors have an issue with that too - something that calm consensus should decide. I cannot recall too many instances in which we have seen a reasonable and rational Nableezy, wanting to accomplish anything except to get is POV included and he only bothers to behave if others are watching too. To his credit, and perhaps the exception that proves the rule, he did start the RfC. Unfortunately, he did not bother to pursue further dispute resolution given his failure with the RfC.

3rd, to Stifle, I do not see how a three month topic ban is proportional to merely reverting six articles once and with my long-term record which is centred primarily around creating, improving and maintaining Israeli geography articles. Since coming out of my single 1RR 'topic ban', I have managed to keep that 1RR behaviour intact except for a repeat SPA anon who was/is repeatedly just making a mess on three articles and has been reverted by others as well. On the other hand, comparing me with Nableezy who was;

topic banned for two months
blocked and topic 1RR and violates it leading to
2month topic ban and then
comes out of his most recent two WP:ARBPIA topic ban swinging to which I alerted the collaboration project and
a very SPECIAL MENTION making blanket reverts not unlike what he is accusing me of doing scroll to bottom to the edit comments sources call this place a Palestinian village (?!)

and his repeated use of AE for the hunt (of me), even though warned only a month ago from making non-actionable claims

by closing admin. Stifle, does that warning count for anything?

The proper thing to do would have been for Nableezy to make another RfC, or use other dispute resolution mechanism to engage editors in this issue, or perhaps get other advice from a mentor, or like-minded but mature editor or admin. I am not interested in 'taking anyone down with me' and frankly, I don't care to see Nableezy topic banned either (and I have tried unsuccessfully in the past to suggest he make positive contributions instead of only the negative edits that he characterizes him). Peace, here on WP and in Israel, will not be made by one side attacking the other but by each side wanting to progress and improve. If I could sanction Nableezy, it would be to A) get him to join Wikipedia:Palestine, and B1) improve above stub status 200 Palestinian locality articles (in contrast to the 200 Israeli articles he was beginning to edit), or alternatively B2) create 100 new 'pro'-Arab/Palestinian articles starting with the requested ones on WP:Palestine (not anti-Israel ones) or alternatively B3) work on getting GA status for five Arab/Palestinian articles of his choice (preferably ones that promote Arab issues, and do not include anything about 'international law', warfare and blood). Instead, until then, I see this as another frivolous attempt ato bully me and scare others as well. Many have come to support me here (surprisingly, thank you and I have not emailed or canvassed anyone either) and few have come to back Nableezy up, and there is no shortage of editors who are on 'his side'. It is a fact that the six accused edits mentioned are definitely not 'an attempt by me at filibustering', that while my accuser prefers otherwise, even if I have shown to accept inserting material my personal POV would rather not have included and I collaborate. --Shuki (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Shuki

Comment by Malik Shabazz

Shuki, where does WP:V or WP:RS require that a source "not just [mention the locality] in passing"? I seem to remember you made the opposite argument in the past. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REDFLAG --Shuki (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that Israeli settlements are illegal under the Geneva conventions is an "exceptional claim"? Wow. Just wow.

I'm sorry, Shuki, but REDFLAG doesn't say what you think it says, and you don't get to set your own bar for which sources are acceptable and which aren't. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mbz1

The issues raised in this request are issues related to the contested content of a few articles, and should be discussed on the articles talk pages as such. IMO the request should be closed as non actionable because Shuki has never violated any policy.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note I am surprised that Nableezy while filing the request about Shuki has no problems with IP, who inserts unsourced POV to the same articles with the edit summaries like this one for example: "an illegal settlement built on a stolen and occupied land is NOT a villeinage!!!! stop promoting lies violating wikipedias terms and the international law!!!!". --Mbz1 (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Gatoclass question about Shuki editing against consensus. No, they did not, just the opposite. Please take a look at one of the articles in question talk page's discussion. Nableezy started it just few hours before he filed this AE, and there's no consensus there. As user:Noon put it:
Israeli settlement is the FIRST descriptor of this locality in this article. Click it and you'll get all arguments regarding settlements. No need to repeat it again and again. This is what links are for in wiki article, unless you wish to make a non neutral point.
I am not going to discuss the fairness and/or correctness of user:Noon's statement because it does not belong to AE. It is a content dispute, which cannot be resolved through arbitration enforcement. --Mbz1 (talk) 05:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really liked Shuki's proposal about sanctions for Nableezy. In general I believe that topic bans should be imposed rarely, if there's absolutely no other choice. I believe uninvolved admins should be more creative in the sanctioning of the involved editors. I actually liked how Tznkai topic banned Supreme_Deliciousness:

"This topic ban will run for 30 days from 00:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC) or until I see one of the following: A comprehensive and good faith proposal for a neutral standard on naming conventions, to be submitted for the consideration of Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration|The Israel Palestine Collaboration WikiProject; a comprehensive and good faith proposal for a neutral standard on how images are chosen for Levant cuisine, to be submitted for the consideration of Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration|The Israel Palestine Collaboration WikiProject; or a 3000 word essay on the meaning and importance of assuming good faith and avoiding battleground behavior."[reply]

So I concur with Shuki proposal about sanctions for Nableezy. It will help Nableezy to avoid being anti-Israeli single purpose account, and it is always the right thing to do. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the closing administrator. I would like to stress out three important points provided by me and others as a small summary:

Nableezy filed this AE at 19:24, 18 July 2010 less than 4 hours after he started the discussion on the issue at the article's talk page, and failed to get consensus. It is not the way to proceed. It was neither an emergency, nor BLP, nor something else extraordinary that could not have waited for a few days. This request created unwanted wiki drama, that could have been avoided by a simple discussion.

Every article in question, except one, is linked to Israeli settlement. Israeli settlement article provides all information about Israeli settlements therefore there's no need to repeat it in every article. As somebody has written ""International law" is a tricky thing that people claim to know, but there has been no binding court case on the matter, and considerable legal debate. The Israeli settlement article discusses the complex legal issues at length", and it is the place to learn about it. The one that is not linked to Israeli settlement is linked to Community settlement (Israel), and I am not sure how it got to Nableezy's request in a first place.

According to the above this AE against Shuki should be closed as non actionable. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the closing uninvolved admins, I am not going to jump into your space as very much involved Gatoclass did, but I do agree with him: banned editors should know what they are banned for. Shuki has done absolutely nothing wrong at all. The issue of the request is a content dispute, which could not and should not be enforced by AE. Nableezy did not make nearly enough efforts to resolve the issue at the article talk pages before bringing the matter up to AE. He demonstrated a battleground behavior, and it is not first time he files non actionable, time-wasting AE. That's why IMO Nableezy should be given 2 weeks symbolic ban on AE just to make him give it another thought before he files another AE. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gatoclass

While I certainly agree that the status of all such settlements in international law should be outlined somewhere in the relevant articles, it doesn't strike me as imperative that this status be noted in the intro, unless perhaps the intro is long and/or the settlement a particular source of friction. IMO, it's sufficient that the status of such settlements be referred to somewhere in the body of the article. In any case, this looks to me like a run-of-the-mill content dispute, and I don't see anything actionable under ARBPIA. Gatoclass (talk) 03:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Nableezy's questions - firstly, your diffs do not demonstrate that Shuki has been "filibustering the content from appearing anywhere in the article". If he has done so, that may be an issue worth addressing, but I think you would need a pretty strong case, ie lots of diffs, to demonstrate that and you haven't provided any. In regards to your other question: Is a systematic campaign to violate core policies of this website not actionable? I would say it is, or should be, actionable, but again it would have to be clearly demonstrated. Perhaps, say, if you could demonstrate a persistent defying of consensus across multiple pages, that could be considered disruptive. But ultimately a lot will depend on the view of the closing admin. Gatoclass (talk) 05:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having just read Shuki's comments above, I am obliged to amend my position. I consider Shuki's statement that "I have always demanded that sources specifically mention the locality and not just in passing" to be an absurdity, as it's clear that if a reliable source states that all Israeli settlements in area x are illegal, one does not need to find a source which specifically mentions that settlement y in area x is illegal. If Shuki has been reverting based on such specious reasoning, that could certainly in my view be considered disruptive and thereby sanctionable under ARBPIA. Gatoclass (talk) 05:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

an Israeli organization .... was forced to pay damages and issue a public apology to settlers after falsely claiming that a particular settlement was built illegally on private Palestinian land - Ynhockey.

Well, fine, but that is quite irrelevant to this discussion. Sources can always be wrong, we knew that. The issue here is that Shuki is demanding a higher burden of proof for the inclusion of material than is required by WP:RS. He is demanding that sources specifically state that a given settlement is "illegal", when logically it is only necessary to demonstrate that a settlement is in the occupied territories to demonstrate its illegality. A source could of course be wrong in making either statement, so that's an entirely separate issue. Gatoclass (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People need to stop making arguments for their take on the content dispute since that it not the scope of these requests - Cptnono.

Cptnono, there is a difference between a content dispute and sheer illogic. If someone holds a position that is plainly logically fallacious, and maintains that position even after having its erroneous nature pointed out to him, that has ceased to be a mere content dispute and become disruption. In this case, Shuki's position is rendered untenable by simple logical deduction:

All Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are illegal under international law.
This is an Israeli settlement in the occupied territories.
This is an illegal Israeli settlement.

There can therefore be no justification for Shuki's claim that Nableezy is required to produce sources that state a particular settlement is illegal. Nableezy only needs to produce a source which states that the settlement is in the occupied territories, because its illegality is a function of its location. If Shuki is prepared to acknowledge his error and agree to stop reverting on those grounds, perhaps there is no need for further action here. If however he is going to insist on maintaining his current view, I think that would be grounds for imposing further sanctions. Gatoclass (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass is in violation of WP:GAME. Nableezy's adding of "illegal under international law [like every other settlement]" to the first -- I repeat: 1st -- paragraph of dozens of articles is exceptionally poor form after the joint RFC to promote this action failed. Gatoclass, Nableezy, Tiamut, and co. support of of this collab RFC did not sway the general public and Gatoclass's comments here are an ARBPIA violation of WP:GAME. i.e. to promote a sanction on Shuki after failing to get the results he was looking for through the proper course of action (RFC, dispute resolution) is a bad faith attempt to use the policies of wikipedia. Thank you. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"the general public", that's a good one! RomaC ^TALK 03:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ynhockey

While it pains me to say so, I have to agree with Shuki's assessment of Nableezy's general editing practices (although I disapprove of the specific terms used). It is unfortunate that Nableezy has chosen not to make constructive contributions to articles about settlements, but rather to go out of his way to "prove" that they are illegal. Even if, theoretically, ample sources could be provided and the significance of this statement could be proven, it still seems like a WP:BATTLE action to just go around articles about settlements saying they're illegal and adding no other content. This WP:AE request seems like yet another piece of WikiDrama to get an editor from "the other side" banned and thus have a certain version of the article say. If Nableezy continues to edit settlement-related articles, I sincerely hope that he invests more resources into improving sections about the history, geography and culture of settlements. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 04:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a relevant note, although this might not belong at WP:AE, but I thought it more appropriate to post it here than on user talk: As Shuki noted, an Israeli organization (Peace Now) was forced to pay damages and issue a public apology to settlers after falsely claiming that a particular settlement was built illegally on private Palestinian land (Hebrew article). What I am saying is that this is an extremely sensitive issue that is essentially similar to WP:BLP (which was created, in part, to avoid legal action against WMF), and it is important that each settlement is examined on a case-by-case basis. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Stifle: I will respect any decision you make, but ask you to look at what each editor has done for the articles in question. In fact, as far as I can tell, Shuki has singlehandedly written most of the content in settlement-related articles. As I noted above, Nableezy has unfortunately failed to make any contributions to these articles. I ask that this is taken into account in any decision you make. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? nableezy was contributing to the settlement articles by adding the entire worldview with reliable sources. And the sourced worldview was removed by Shuki. Who is the one that has been trying to contribute to the articles here? and who is the one who has been tampering the articles here? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cptnono

I hope that any request for enforcement against Nableezy will not look like reprisal since it has been coming for some time now.

The RfC closure set a very good chance to do some case by case basis with a firm reminder not to start any shenanigans. This should have been handled better and Shuki should not be shouldering the brunt of the blame.Cptnono (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Gilsa makes a point that the wording and the sources have been questioned. Editors continuing to stick them in on a mad spree after a contentious RfC is not the way to go about doing things. Shuki was reverting what he saw as contentious edits inserted on multiple articles and now he gets an AE for being a POV pusher essentially. Bad form and Shuki shouldn;t have even been brought here. A little bit of talk page would be better but unfortunately that hardly stops the wackiness going on in this topic area.Cptnono (talk) 06:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People need to stop making arguments for their take on the content dispute since that it not the scope of these requests.Cptnono (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop discussing content here, Gatoclass. Not everyone agrees with it so it is therefore contentious. Methods used to include or removed that contentious material are the concern. Maybe editors feeling so strongly that their edits can be defended with assertions such as shear logic is the problem since their are channels in place for content disputes which should not be ignored. Unless of course the purpose is to set a precedent (Shuki was wrong therefore everything must be mentioned as "occupied"). Basically what I am saying is that Shuki is allowed to revert bold edits. Nableezy is free to seek other channels to include it if that is done. There is not an overuse of the revert function and Shuki is not alone so why make such sweeping changes when there is an ongoing dispute? And I agree that AE needs to get a little tougher on editors who have repeatedly been blocked or received sanctions if it is shown that they have crossed the line. Cptnono (talk) 04:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)\[reply]

Why Nbaleezy is being scrutinized has come up here. I really don't think it matters if Gatoclass wants to switch into admin mode and comment down there so fine I will provide some diffs. Nableezy and I were discussing this on my talk page and he also asked for some evidence of what I thought was his wrongdoing. My thoughts on it are that he needlessly reverts and does not participate with a collaborative mindset. If Shuki is POV pushing than Nableezy surely is but if both of them stop reverting and finding other methods I don't care that much about what they do.

His response was typical for him with deflection and other assertions such as: It was propaganda (kind of a dirty word here), It was sourced (disregarding that the sources have been questioned and that we should not be mirroring the tone of biased sources), reverts were to a troll (even though he has edited in tandem with an IP that others have accused of being a troll), and so on. I'm not going to list diffs of accusations of edit warring not related to the subtopic this AE gets into, civility, gaming, outing , and other potential problems since Stifle might have a good suggestion and overdoing the diffs would just lead to needless mudslinging. What is an obvious problem is that Nableezy came off of a restriction and within a day started rocking the boat in issues dealing with the legality of places, occupation, and settlers. Regardless of his feelings, he needs to stop hitting the revert button.

I think a full-on topic ban would be fine but I am obviously frustrated with him and Stifle's idea might work. I also think a 1rr would be good. For Shuki, if he is reverting as much as Nableezy than he should suffer similar consequences. I don't buy any argument that says the listed reverts show him as POV pusher but I am admittedly biased.

Diffs and thoughts and stuff
Ateret (195.50.69.30 was already active here making contentious edits about the same thing): Bold edit Revert of Shuki's partial revert Talk page used after reverting and discussion follows about the source. Ariel (city): Bold edit even though there is already questions about the use of the source in another article Revert of Shuki's partial revert Talk page not used. Ma'ale Adumim: Again and again. Talk page again used after* the reverting in regards to where the info was placed. It does not appear that some involved realized there was even a somewhat related discussion ongoing at another article. The last message on this talk page regarding the term "occupied" was a week before the edit was made. Ariel: again and again Halamish (this one is interesting because there was already an ongoing edit war between Shuki and 195.50.69.30 over the same thing): same edit Revert of tagging for failed verification (me this time)revert of my removal since the tag was removed partial revert of another editor (albeit it guideline based) Talk page discussion started by me. Nableezy jumped on after reverting and failed to mention that the same source and edit was already being questioned elsewhere. Katzrin (this one involved several editors including Shuki): an edit regarding settlement revert of another editor revert (guideline based but a tag or providing a source himself might have worked instead) Talk page at least used even though it did not address that this sort of problem was ongoing. Hebron (more reversions based on "settlement" and the map. All to an IP using pop-ups without a note in the edit summary, their page, or the article's talk page. This should have been easy enough to address once to get it fixed.)[10][11][12][13] Mount Hermon (More with the settlement, occupied, where it is issue. Supreme Deliciousness pops up in this one like he does in a handful of Nableezy's edit wars. Jiujitsuguy was also active.):revert of an editor revert of another editor an IP one of the previous editors Neve Ativ (Nableezy edit warring over a line with another editor while talk page discussion was ongoing. Supreme Deliciousness stepped in and Nableezy eventually reported the other editor for edit warring. Agree with Nableezy that it could be included but the edit warring was not needed):revert [14][15] Nableezy, Supreme Deliciousness, and Shuki reverted eachother at Ortal, Golan Heights after the RfC was closed They were using talk so why didn't they just chill out and work towards finding a solution?[16] Tourism in Israel saw a slow edit war of reverts, restorations, and partials, IMO, based on legalities and where the places are. The first was jumping into an already ongoing revertfest with political disclaimers less than a day after coming off of a two month arbitration enforced article topic ban in the topic area.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] Reverting at Golan Heights over the Arabic translation coming first (presumably since it is Syrian and not Israeli under intl law). It sounds like there was a discussion so that is good but this is just sill and if it is being edit warred over people need to put in a hidden comment or link to the discussion in the edit summary. I slack of on making edit sumaries in gneral especially when it is IPs but I think this shows Nableezy's mentallity.[25][26][27] (sporadic reverts of this stretch back for quite a bit)

Reply to Cptnonos "Diffs and thoughts and stuff" I have edited 1080 articles. I am interested in the Arab-Israeli conflict and so are many others, so those who are interested in the same topic will of course run into me on several articles. Now to Cptnonos accusations where he mentions my name:

I have edited the Mount Hermon article for a very long time, my first edit there was over a year ago. So I did not just "pop up" there just because nableezy edited it. And my edit there on the 7th July was not the same as Nableezys, they were two seperate edits. At the Golan Heights article there has been talks many times and at Mount Hermon talkpage we have had many talks about the issue, and I have participated at the talkpage discussions at both articles every single time. All reliable neutral sources show clearly that we can not say that the area is in Israel since that is against the entire international view (Npov). Also notice that at the Mount Hermon talkpage pushing for the Israeli pov is at least one topic banned sockpuppeteer Amoruso and his sock the Sipio account.

Concerning the Ortal, Golan Heights article, nableezy actually reverted himself there, back to Shukis verion, so there was no rv there from him. The problem there was that Shuki had changed position of the settlement and kibbutz and he had not gotten any consensus for the rearrangement yet he continued to change the position from the status quo. So why did he do this? I asked him repeatedly at the talkpage to show me at what time the "kibbutz" was before "settlement" but still he hasn't shown this til this day. And I did one rv at the 24th June and then almost one month later on 18th July did another rv and the only reason for the second rv was because he still after all this time hadn't shown me at the talkpage at what time exactly when both terms was in the article was the "kibbutz" before "settlement". Just like he right now hasn't answered to my latest post there. Also my last revert there at the time 18.32 18th July was by accident, I unintentionally pressed the rollback button, but I reverted back to his version and explained this to him: [28]

Concerning Neve Ativ, I did not just "stepp in" there, as I will explain below that I am familiar with Jubata ez Zeit and Neve Ativ. A newly registered account Martinakohl came and removed that Neve ativ was built on top of Jubata ez Zeit, he claimed that Marsad was an unreliable source [29] so Nableezy added a source from cambridge university[30] but the newly registered account continued to remove this clearly reliable source several times and also edit warred with a user named Jeff G. and several IPs to remove the sourced information. And I knew in advance that Neve Ativ was built on Jubata ez Zeit because it was me who started the Jubata ez Zeit article, and I had edited the Neve Ativ article before adding this info:[31], and I also had another source to confirm the same thing from the Jubata article, so I added the other source [32] and I explained at the talkpage [33] and just because the title of the book source I added was called "Settlements and cult sites on Mount Hermon, Israel: Ituraean culture in the Hellenistic and Roman periods" , he removed it saying: "Jubata ez-Zeit is not a Roman village" which is complete nonsense since it has nothing to do with anything, the text I added to the article did not say it was Roman and the source in the book did not say it was Roman. He was blocked [34] and then he created two sockpuppets to continue to forcibly removed the sourced content: [35][36]. So in this "conflict" I made one rv and in that rv added another source and I participated at the talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if there was confusion. I wasn't trying to single you out here and I did not intend for it to an argument against your editing. I think you still make some mistakes. So does Jujitsuguy on the other side. Both of you have mirrored some bad habits seen in more experienced users like Nableezy but neither of you are under any scrutiny here.Cptnono (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gilisa

Yes, the removed material was sourced. However, the wording was far from being neutral. The international status of Ma'ale Adumim is far more complicated than these sources show. The USA discussed with Israel many times the possibility of acknowledging such cities as regular part of Israel, in fact, it's also discussed between Israel and the palestinian representatives.

Also, these sources are all from Guardian and BBC. While they are usually RS, they are not considered impartial in their attitude through Israel. Infact, once Israel submitted official complaint against the BBC for being biased against it. The BBC then was forced to establish a committee that scrutinized these complaints. They never published the committee's conclusions. If you search the web for it, you will find many reliable sources heavily doubt the neutrality of British media sources like the BBC and the Guardian about the I-P conflict. When it comes to settlements thing then no one is argue that the BBC came up with MA being considered as a settlement by the UN. But it does not represent the entire issue and the wording by itself is harsh and not neutral still.--Gilisa (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jiujitsuguy

Funny how Nableezy’s name keeps popping up on these boards, over and over again, either as a complainant or respondent. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. It seems to me that he comes into this with soiled hands, edit warring while mastering the art of tag-teaming. Nableezy has adopted the Lord of the Flies approach to editing Wikipedia, reverting endlessly, baiting others into edit wars, tag-teaming and initiating harassing enforcement actions when things don’t quite go his way. The admin who rules on this case should also note that Nableezy has been indeffed (for threatening legal action, later lifted when withdrawn) has been blocked and subjected to lengthy topic bans. This is not exactly your model editor. As for the substantive issues involved, this is a content dispute in which Shuki has provided ample and cogent reasoning for his edits. If anyone should be sactioned, it is Nableezy who continuously uses these enforcement actions as tools of fear to silence his opposition.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sean.hoyland

This is about policy compliance. We can't have people removing sourced information because the information isn't wearing a hijab or whatever the nothing-to-do-with-policy reason was here. Editors are obliged to edit according to policy. If they are upset by reliable sources saying that Israeli settlements are illegal and editors adding that information to articles there are plenty of other subjects for them to work on. What would happen I wonder if, rather than topic bans and such like, editors who find it difficult to comply with the discretionary sanctions were simply restricted from removing sourced material from articles ? They could add sourced material, reword existing material but not remove it altogether without calmly proceeding to the talk page and making their case. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another alternative to the standard and clearly ineffective methods currently employed to deal with neutrality-challenged editors might be to require them to swop to 'the other side' of the conflict for a period. This is something I would really like to see happen personally. If an editor wants to blatantly ignore WP:COI, blatantly ignore the 'Editors counseled' section of the sanctions and consistently advocate for a side in a conflict as so many do then maybe there should be a cost to the editor. Perhaps they should have to advocate for 'the other side' too and the benefit should accrue to Wikipedia in the form of improved content and a general reduction in silliness. If an editor is genuinely here to build a better encyclopedia they shouldn't mind adding policy compliant material for a period even if it comes from sources they don't like such as..um..the BBC and even if it makes 'their side' look bad in their eyes. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Epeefleche

When we have highly disruptive editors (as in, those who have been blocked three times already this year) elevating their content disputes to non-actionable complaints, in apparent efforts to further their own POV, we have a wasteful time-suck. Perhaps it's time to consider ways to slow down our most disruptive editors; especially those who gravitate towards controversial areas such as the I-P area. Something that slows down those editors who have already been blocked 3 times in 2010, say, from taking any of various steps that lead to wastes of time for the community at large (ARE, AfD, etc., in the I-P area). In the U.S., felons are prohibited from voting in many elections. And at wikipedia, when articles are controversial, we limit editing to certain editors who we view as more trustworthy -- such as non-IPs. Extending those concepts here might prove beneficial.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Misarxist

Just over a week ago Shuki came of a 3 month 1r restriction (AE result) this doesn't appear to have sunk in as since then:

Halamish edit warring over several days on same point [37], [38] & [39] with no attempt to discuss on talk page.
Israeli settler violence unactioned 3r violation [40], [41] & [42] again no discussion.

He just doesn't seem to be here to edit collaboratively and probably requires a topic ban rather than another revert restriction. Misarxist (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to get into your space I will move my comment, if you'd like me to, but did you notice by any chance that in first three examples of so called edit warring you provided, Shuki reverted IP vandal, who was reverted by quite a few other editors, me including, as well. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re the admin comments about 'content dispute', obviously there is disagreement about the content, but the complaint is about straight-foward multiple reverts of sourced content without discussion. As I noted above (even with Mbz1's note, yes that's not as simple as I claimed, but the 3r example is undeniable) we are talking about an a know tendentious edit-warrior. There doesn't seem to be any real argument about Shuki being sanctioned again. But the complaints about Nableezey's record (the bulk of the responses here) are not relevant to that. And if Nableezey's conduct is at fault there's going to to need to be evidence cited, the fact that he's in a dispute with a tendentious nationalist editor isn't good enough in itself. Also while the underlying and widespread dispute does need to be dealt with, this simply isn't the right venue. Misarxist (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by AMuseo.

Since the status of all land that has been conquered in a defensive war is a complex matter and the status of the West Bank finds no consensus among international legal experts, it is POV pushing to write the kind of statement that User:Nableezy is defending. I do not see nableezy questioning the status of the Western Sahara, or of Tibet, or criticizing the recent genocidal attack on the Tamil. He writes on behalf of a political cause dear to his heart. This does not make him a useful colleague. You can, after all, always find newspaper articles making flat assertions about just about anything. this is not scholarship. A simple statement that there is no consensus regarding the legal status of the West Bank would be better and could be well-supported. But I do not expect scholarship or balance from Nableezy. He is a highly contentions editor, the kind that drives moderate, informed editors from Wikipedia. Actually, I have come to believe that it is his goal to make editing so unpleasant that moderate people will go away, leaving the field open to him to use Wikipedia as a battleground to wage a Palestinian proxy war.AMuseo (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Fandriampahalamana

Although I wasn't involved in the articles mentioned above, I do feel it necessary to decry Nableezy's disruptive edit habits and intimidation of editors. On the Helen Thomas article while I explained every move I made, he vandalized my edits without any explanation, or with meaningless ones which is even worse. Once, it could have been explained away, but not a pattern of them. Then he had the gall to try to intimidate me by pretending that he is an administrator and admonishing me (for doing what is right) when he should have admonished himself for editing in bad faith. On one edit on July 13 (not pertaining to me) seeing that he can’t have it his way, he then made another controversial edit slanting the lead and explaining it with "all right, you want specifics add specifics, not just one part of the story." He seems to be using Wikipedia to tell the story the way he wants it to be told, as he actually admitted in a moment of truth and exasperation, of if you're getting it your way then I'll get it also my way. He sees everything as "your way" or "my way". I think he is unhelpful and a drain on controversial articles. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Peter Cohen

It's unfortunate that this request is following the usual pattern of people's views on Shuki's conduct being 100% corfrelated with their views on the IP dispute. I regret that I'm conforming to that pattern. Looking at the last edits listed by Nableezy, I see that theis effect is to remove any mention of the status of these settlements under international law. It has to be a notable effect about these places that they are considered illegal by major international institutions that pronounce on and enforce international law. The major institutions I have in mind are such organs ases of the UNSC, the high-contracting parties to the Geneva Conventions, the ICC, ICJ etc. When all those that pronounce on the matter say the settlements are illegal and none dissents, then the fact has to be mentioned in the articles. To remove any such mention is a clear violation of WP:NPOV.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Noon: I'm surprised by your reasoning. The quote from Nableezy indicates that there are a number of banned or permanently blocked editors who persist in creating sockpuppets in order to carry on distorting Wikipedia in favour of their political position. Persistent sockpuppeteers are damaging to Wikipedia. They increase the appearance of conflict between legitimate editors and anyone who uses SPI/CU to root out these users is to be praised. Accusations by the likes of Stellarkid who was a puppet of a user banned for participating in a drive by an external organisation to distort the content of Wikipedia have a wholly deleterious effect on the project. The fact that they have edit-warring and the reporting of legitimate users to the various admin boards as weapons is just evidence that thre is an organised effort to malign political opponents. One of those opponents should not be criticised for pointing this out. That certain editors leap to the defence of such sockpuppeteers also raises the question as to whether they are here to improve Wikipedia or whether they are themselves part of the effort to disrupt the project.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Brewcrewer

As this is apparently the place to hang out these days, I feel obliged to chime in lest people forget my existence. Unlike some other editors here who feel this is an content related dispute and should be closed as unactionable, I'm of the position that some action should take place as a result of this report.

The editor who filed the report insists that the first three words of any article on an Israeli entity beyond the '48 border should be "illegal settlement". This position has resulted in lots of edit warring. Numerous editors and a RFC later (linked above) have revealed a consensus that although the argument for illegality should clearly be included in an article, it should not be the first three words, per WP:NPOV.

Nevertheless, Nableezy still insists that "illegal" be in the opening sentence and any position taken to the contrary is "stupid". Not only is it "stupid", arguing that it does not belong in the first sentence is an ARBCOM violation.

Nableezy claims that Shuki wants to remove any mention of illegality of article, but that's blatantly false. Each article linked by Nableezy mentions the illegality issue, some even have an entire section discussing the illegality argument.

Thus, what we have here is a blatantly frivolous AE report filed by one of the most prolific AE filers, who should know better. Some sort of action should be taken so that this huge waste of time does not reoccur. Perhaps an AE ban? --brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brewcrewer, sorry for placing this statement here, but that is simply not true. Nowhere did the RFC say that the words "illegal settlement" should be used as the first three words, legality was not even the topic of the RFC (which, oh by the way, certainly did not result in the consensus that you claim). And nowhere in the articles Ofra, Ariel (city), Amona, or Immanuel (town) is the legal status discussed. Kindly do not misrepresent what I have written or the RFC or the content of the articles. nableezy - 14:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first two links you brought as the basis for your claim have entire sections catered to the illegality issue.[43][44] I don't plan on spending more time litigating and word playing. This has wasted enough time already.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the rest of them? You wrote "Each article linked by Nableezy mentions the illegality issue". Is that or is that not true? And you did not address the gross misrepresentation of the RFC. I guess that is "word playing". nableezy - 14:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by RomaC

Concur with Peter Cohen above on all points. See many examples of Israel saying A and the rest of the world saying B, and some editors pushing A first, then a mention of B, then a rebuttal per A as "neutral." As for the admin suggestion below re: possible concurrent 3-month blocks, excuse my cynicism but I imagine Shuki might agree to "take one for the team" and be blocked if Nableezy were also taken out. There are few topic areas with nearly as much concerted partisan activity as Israel-Palestine. Yes, Nableezy may be biased, but he's also badly outnumbered which makes him sort of stick out in these content disputes. Respectfully, RomaC ^TALK 14:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Noon

As I understand the AE regarding the I-P articles, one of its purposes was to facilitate a reasonable editing atmosphere in this contentious area. Contributors who exhibited "battleground" mentality and aggressive behaviour were banned or were blocked for a long period of time. In contrast to this purpose, the filing party of this request is engaged for a long time in trying to get the upper hand in content disputes by making considarable efforts to ban his opponents or block them indefinitely. Just one sample illustration of his "battleground mentality" may be found here, where he says: "There were three people who had pushed for my first topic ban. One of those was later blocked as a sock of NoCal100, the one who filed the complaint has now been blocked as a sock of Dajudem/Tundrabuggy, and the last is still taking aim at me." WP is not a battleground nor a venue for shooting ducks as done in Luna Parks. It looks as if the filing party spends most of his energy either to make small controversial edits to push his political views, while violating the fundamental WP:NPOV policy, or in targetting disruptively his opponents, espacially those who dare criticizing or reporting him, until they get out of his way. Content should adhere WP:NPOV not only in the facts and refs, but also in the tone of what is written, and how and where the facts are presented (ie. either in the lead, or as a link to the relevant article where all POVs are presented, or in a separate section in the same article where more views can be presented). accordingly, and for the huge waste of time dealing with this unwarranted request, it seems that the filing party fails to adhere to the purpose of building an encyclopedia, and the I-P AE penalty guidelines may apply to him. Noon (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed this "and the last is still taking aim at me" too, and I agree it is yet another example of a battleground behavior by user:Nableezy--Mbz1 (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Peter Cohen regarding this quote: Please listen to the music, imagine the moving targets, listen to the 'shootings', listen to the happy victory shouts, imagine the sniper tracing and targetting his 'enemies' above earth and in war tunnels, look at the sparkling eyes of this sniper when he realizes that some 'enemy troops' are still there hiding disguised somewhere or trying to sneak away... don't you hear real sounds of WAR here in Wikipedia? and this is just one example I've found in few minutes.

In my opinion this battlefield mentality is what the Arbitration Committee tried to stop, or, at least, significantely reduce, in their harsh sanctions in the I-P case and its subsequent AE mechanism.

There is no place for such a war mentality when trying to build a useful and accurate encyclopedia. Noon (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Supreme Deliciousness

Stifle, Nableezy has not done anything wrong here, while Shuki has been removing sourced information. Please look at the real issue instead of what other people say here at this enforcement. Every time there is a pro-Israeli editor up for enforcement, the same group of people show up in defense of that editor. Please look at the real issue here instead. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle, please think about what you are saying, you are talking about a sanction on a user for adding the entire international view with a reliable source into an article. This is not a content dispute, when someone removes the entire worldview that is sourced with a reliable source - that's censorship, you can not impose some kind of "collective punishment" here. Also agree with Gatoclass, please explain your comments about this in more detail, "each side is at fault" is vague. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment by Jiujitsuguy

When evaluating sanctions, prior disciplinary history should be factored in. A look at Shuki’s record reveals two relatively short blocks, the last of which occurred more than a year ago This is an indication that Shuki is adhering to wiki policy and guidelines. By contrast, Nableezy’s block history is a mess, full of lengthy blocks and topic bans[45] In fact, Nableezy has just come off a topic ban. In addition, Nableezy has previously been indefinitely blocked for threatening legal action against Wikipedia. It was lifted when he withdrew his threat but it shows that he has lost sight of reality and can not distinguish between the real and virtual worlds. It is clear from his prior sanction history that this is an editor who takes a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing with a “take no prisoners” mentality. Clearly, under the totality of circumstances, the person who deserves to be permanently banned from the topic area is Nableezy.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot Shukis recent 3 month 1rvpd restriction [46] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you are a recidivist, like Nableezy, when your block log history reads like a lengthy rap sheet, like Nableezy’s when you find yourself on these boards on a daily basis, either as a respondent or complainant, like Nableezy, When you come into every I-A article with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, like Nableezy, when an editor loses his grip on reality and threatens to sue Wikipedia, as Nableezy has, it’s time to ask; Is this a productive editor or a disruptive one? I leave it to the admins to decide.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pantherskin

I have not encountered Shuki in the past, although it is clear from the diffs provided that he has a strong POV which is reflected in his edits. On the other side, he is prolific content contributor in the Israel content area, and most of his edits clearly improve the enyclopedia. Regarding Nableezy I have encountered him and again it is clear that his edits reflect his strong POV. That in itself is not necessarily a problem (although usually it is), but when coupled with incivility and combative language ([47], [48] - some recent example, but from cases clearly a pattern), speculations and accusations about the ulterior motives of other editors ([49], [50]) it becomes a problem as it makes collaborative editing difficult to impossible. I am ignoring here the partisan editing of Nableezy and presumably Shuki - it would probably be beyond the scope and my take on it is that we probably need a fully fledged arbcom case to deal with the current detoriation in the Israel-Palestine topic area.

Nableezys comment "Go away" was to a blocked sockpuppet who had repeatedly disrupted the Golan heights article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was directed against an IP address that was temporarily blocked and tried to start a discussion on the talk page (at last). I do not know where you get the sockpuppet part from, as there is no indication on the IPs talk page and no sockpuppet investigation. Pantherskin (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP was blocked [51] and then he used another way to edit the talkpage while his other IP was blocked, that's block evasion. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tariqabjotu

This isn't about Shuki specifically, but the prevalence of arbitration enforcement requests and posts on AN3, ANI, and RFPP, especially as of late, regarding Israel-Palestine articles and articles that only mention something Israel-Palestine-related suggests that it's high time for another ARBCOM case. Either that, or admins need to be more willing to exact serious sanctions against editors that have been shown to be disruptive on these articles. We see the same editors being reported again and again (and the same editors doing the reporting again and again). This is one of today's most persistent and divisive conflicts, and while I appreciate people's willingness to give editors second, third, and fourth chances, the fact of the matter is, those people who edit disruptively in this arena will almost certainly always edit disruptively in this arena. This method of moderate sanctions and warnings that never get followed up on is not working. It's clear that a certain set of editors are testing the community's patience, and if they can't voluntarily move to an area in which they can more constructively edit, they should be forced to do so post-haste. -- tariqabjotu 12:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Agree with Tariqabjotu. However the administrators who regularly "manage" these areas are just as much at fault for the disruption as those who some consider "problematic" editors. The admins have become unwilling pawns of so called "battlefield warriors" and are therefore are unable to be non-bias, uninvolved parties themselves. Part of the solution, I feel, to defusing this situation (in addition to a new/clarified ARBCOM case) is to remove the administrators who regularly "enforce" actions on this board. I'm not suggesting revoking their admin status, only that since there is gross failure on their part to effectively administer IP-related disputes on ANI/AE (as evident by the level of REPEATED drama that regularly appears here), they should no longer be making binding decisions on editors whose action is brought to ANI/AE. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 19:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's entirely fair to blame the administrators here. The problem is not so much the administrators, as the AE system itself, which is still remarkably undefined and arbitrary. What this project needs more than anything in my view, is a simple, streamlined, transparent and predictable process for dealing with content disputes, which is what most disputation is ultimately about. We have got to stop throwing the content dispute dilemma into the too hard basket, and come up with a method of dealing with such disputes that doesn't compromise the Wikipedia commitment to NPOV. Gatoclass (talk) 03:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The administrators who regularly handle the tag-team "game" that AE has become have ignored concerns stated by others about the process and summarily ignored or dismissed those who question their neutrality. They have allowed themselves to become pawns of those who use Wikipedia as a battleground and therefore have ceased to become "neutral" "uninvolved" parties. Therefore, they do indeed share in the blame. True, the current AE system has been greatly abused and become a tool with which to "do battle", but you cannot ignore the fact that this "three ring circus" has been allowed to carry on as long as it has -- and to the extent that it has. There are other remedies for abuse of wikipedia processes themselves, completely separate from IP Arbcom regulations, but no one seems to be interested in taking advantage of them. Instead, the destructive, abusive, and disruptive behavior is allowed to continue unabated, with editors gaming the system knowing full well that the worst that will happen is a slap on the wrist. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 04:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my concern is that remedies are often too drastic rather than too lenient. But it can go either way. That's why I think this process is unduly arbitrary - it's usually left up to a single admin to decide upon a remedy, and depending on who he is or how he sees it, it might end up being anything from a 24-hour block to an indef ban. It's kind of like Russian roulette, you just never know what the outcome will be. We ought to be able to do better than that. Gatoclass (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What if we had three admins decide a short term remedy - Maybe if an immediate block is warranted, do an emergency block for 12-24 hours, then have a group of admins decide what the "new" block should be. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by ZScarpia

Unlike the Israeli legal position, which is irrelevant to it, the overwhelming international viewpoint, as embodied in such organisations as the UN, is very staightforward: the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law (see the article on Israeli settlements, such documents as the text of UN Human Rights Council Resolution 7/18 and newspaper articles such as this one from Le Monde Diplomatique).

The Wikipedia rules require, as stated by Nableezy, that articles should present the all significant viewpoints and in a proportionate manner. Those on Israeli settlements and outposts, particularly major ones such as Ma'ale_Adumim and Ariel, should reflect the main global point of interest in them (as shown by the context in which they normally appear in sources), their status as illegal settlements in occupied territory and their role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Trying to minimise or suppress the proportionate representation of that viewpoint amounts to point-of-view pushing. That is particularly true when reasons given for reverting edits, rather than being based on the Wikipedia rules, are, as they have been here, where a reason given for reverting was that the status of the settlements is uncertain because it has never been examined in a law court, is based in a particular viewpoint (from the international point of view, the settlements are illegal because that is the ruling of the bodies responsible for making those judgements).

The reliablitly of the BBC as a source has been mentioned above. The BBC is far from infallible, but its duty as a public service broadcaster to report neutrally means that its reports are subject to more than normal editorial oversight, which, in Wikipedia terms, is an indication of greater reliability. In 2006, the report produced at the end of an independent review commissioned by the corporation's board of governors was, unlike the internally-produced Balen report, published. The review suggested that the BBC's reporting, if anything, favoured the Israeli side. The review panel recommended that the BBC should make public an abbreviated version of the Israel and Palestine part of its journalists' guide to facts and terminology. In light of the conversation going on here, perhaps the guideline which says, "when writing a story about settlements we can aim, where relevant, to include context to the effect that 'all settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this," which is very similar to the text that Nableezy was trying to introduce, might be seen as of interest.

← ZScarpia 21:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you comment on the RfC? That comment would have been better there. Anyway, so what you are saying is that the articles should start - Ariel is a city in the West Bank....established...with x population. Ariel is an Israeli settlement. That would satisfy what you suggested. --Shuki (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very revealing comment from Shuki. Even at the end of an enforcement case against him, in which he faces a possible topic ban, he still cannot bring himself to concede that the illegality of these settlements should be mentioned in the settlement articles. Shuki's lack of objectivity in this topic area could scarcely be made more apparent. Is it any wonder that other users become frustrated? Judging by the comments he has made at this AE case, it appears to me that it's time for Shuki to find some other topic area in which to contribute. Gatoclass (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again it is a content dispute, which should be decided individually in every situation at the articles talk pages, and it could not and should not be enforced by AE. It is not as black and white as some try to present it here. And no, it is not an enforcement case against Shuki, or at least it is as much against Shuki as it is against Nableezy. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the entire worldview from articles that is sourced from reliable sources is not a content dispute, its embarking on an article in a harmful manner. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has demonstrated any wrongdoing by Nableezy in this case. Everything that's been said about Nableezy has been in the form of either vague generalities or dredging up of old disputes. I've seen no evidence of current misbehaviour, and I might add that I think his past record of alleged misbehaviour is also overblown. But that of course is another issue. Gatoclass (talk) 03:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously did not read my comments above in which I show specifically that Nableezy has done exactly what I have and much more, and given that his record is problematic, while mine is significantly better. There is nothing 'revealing' here, and as an admin you should know to discuss the AE here against me (and consequently Nableezy for bringing the spotlight on himself as well) and relative to other accepted/tolerated behaviour on WP, not content. --Shuki (talk) 08:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that I did not previously read all your comments, per WP:TLDR. However, I have now read them per your request and stand by my previous comment. Moreover, on closer examination of your arguments I find the following:

Nableezy, blocked numerous times for problematic behavior, is himself in violation of AE with his insertion of negative boilerplate WP:REDFLAG material. Specifically, his latest non-consensus solo effort, is to find any mention of a locality that also says that it is illegal. No proof of any court action specifically declaring this and definitely in contrast to many court cases with the Israeli Supreme Court that has decided whether a place is illegal...

Here, you are characterizing the position of every major international legal body that the settlements are illegal as an exceptional claim per WP:REDFLAG. As Malik noted above, that is simply a preposterous claim. Not only that, but you are conflating Israeli law regarding the legality of settlements with international law, when they are entirely separate entities.

I don't want to speculate on what might motivate you to try and defend these indefensible positions, but the fact that you are continuing to try rings very loud alarm bells for me. I'm not in a position to judge your overall contribution to the project, but if this is typical of your approach to disputes, then I'm sorry to say that I think you are editing in the wrong topic area and need to look for an area that is less emotionally charged for you. Gatoclass (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{Reply to the comment addressed to me by Shuki at 22:29 (UTC) on 21 July 2010} Ideally every involved editor should be co-operating to produce a less single-perspective article. If the lead section were to be written by me, it would start something like:

Ariel is a city in the West Bank which was founded as an Israeli settlement in 1978. It is now the mother settlement of 26 others in its vicinity. Together, these comprise the Ariel settlement bloc. Like all settlements in the West Bank, the international community views these as illegal, though Israel disputes this. After the one at Ma'ale Adumim, the Ariel settlement bloc is the largest Israeli settlement in the West Bank.

← ZScarpia 20:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to court judgements on the legality of the settlements, in its role as the principal judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice stated the following in an advisory opinion given to the UN General Assembly on the 9 July 2004:

(page 9 of the summary) ... the Court considers that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable in the Palestinian territories which before the 1967 conflict lay to the east of the Green Line and which, during that conflict, were occupied by Israel ...

(page 10 of the summary) The information provided to the Court shows that, since 1977, Israel has conducted a policy and developed practices involving the establishment of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention which provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” The Security Council has taken the view that such policy and practices “have no legal validity” and constitute a “flagrant violation” of the Convention. The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.

← ZScarpia 02:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of statements noting the international view that particular settlements are illegal has a long history and is not, as far as I can see, a breach of established consensus. For example, in the article on Ariel, the first time such a statement was added in April 2005, a year after the article was created, by Doron. ← ZScarpia 15:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Hope&Act3!

it is the first time that I express my views in such a setting and being inexperienced I will probably be clumsy, please be indulgent. Some have already said things I agree with, no need to repeat them

I don't contribute much since I have been busy reading kilometers of Talk pages, exclusively in the I-P domain, (which is the most vicious battleground in wp despite every guide line,) trying to understand where the grip is and hoping to come up with a proposition to fix it. In my following comment I will adopt the 'they' and 'us' 'pro-I' and 'pro-P' style although it's not my vision of the I-P in real life it only represents the actual situation in wp:en
(1) the context
it's obvious to everyone I think that this endless bickering is a waste both of time and energy, - war is not appealing to most editors so they avoid taking part in it and in consequence don't contribute and that ends being wp's loss
(2) the actors
I won't address directly Nableezy's accusations, the root of the problem is beyond that.
Did you notice that Shuki is the main 'pro-Israel' contributor in these so called discussions? so much so that seeing all the 'pro-Israel' on this page is amazing since they (like myself) don't figure so much there. That's the way it is, only Shuki managed to bear with Nableezy's uncompromising atitude: Nableezy won't ever be ready to give up until he has achieved his goal: occupation is illegal must be mentioned every 3 words at least so that nobody can forget the unforgivable wrong doings of the Zionists... (don't read it literally, it's a caricature, just to make the point of how it feels discussing with him)

I admire Shuki's patience and fortitude for Nableezy is a relentless attacker, if Shuki did fail in anyway it is because he has been pushed unto that intended breaking point.

Nableezy, which might be a pleasant person, is a victim of his blind hatred of the State of Israel and Zionism, and through that is easily manipulated by the 'pro-Palestinian' party: he is the willing spearhead which will eventually take the fall and that did happen many times already as we know
(3) my personnal experience
as soon as I started to grasp the depth of the war -consider that Jiujitsuguy added 'Jewish' before Gamla and SD could not take it: no such word is to be written in any place on the Golan which is Syrian, was Syrian, and will be forever Syrian.... Gamla was Jewish and many RS exist , so when I understood that I refrained from editing and as I said above read and read and read .... and I specially decided not to engage Nableezy in any dispute -not even about the 'stupid things' attack- and let it go since I consider that to be a futile exercise in nothingness and due to lead to frustration and possibly even anger hence my admiration for Shuki.
once in a while I did edit but that brought upon me a tentative of intimidation by RomaC for 'vandalism and warring' (I was waiting a few days before filing a complaint)
out of that I got the message that 'they' want to have a free rein in the I-P editing -as said Ynhockey, AMuseo, Noon - and will try to discourage anybody 'pro-Israel' bold enough to dare come and play in 'their' courtyard -since I am a genuine account 'they' had no chance to oust me for sockpupettery which is 'their' regular feat so 'they' have to find different ways. one must not forget: it's WAR! ('their' opinion)
(4) solution?
- quit this war state of mind (as many advocated)
- blocking editors doesn't work, it's brutal and when they come back, well it's back to square 1 (remember the last return of Nableezy -sorry, I don't mean to target you but this the only example I can think of presently- )
- I too thought like Sean.hoyland of this technique used in conflict resolution groups when everyone has to bring up the other side's position but I figured that in a workshop setting the participants will stay in situ and collaborate, here those which don't want to will simply stay away for the time of the exercise and then... resume the same game

- I will plead not to ban either Shuki or Nableezy -it should be both, albeit not identically, or none- for (see Mbz1) a ban is cruel since it hurts and doesn't reform and in the long term it's bound to be counterproductive, just demand a monitored* cease fire in litigation and pov push and instead of the inumerable rfc et al a serious brainstorming with everyone interested to come up with a friendly solution (not just the administrators), as oppose to the big stick policy which has failed so far -that at least is clear to me-. Violence breeds violence and is to be avoided. I believe that with a lot of good will from everyone we can pull it up, it won't be easy but there is really no choice, carrying on the present way is a dead end. Guide lines are just that, they must not be blindly -and foolishly- enforced but with flexibility to meet both parties' wishes, unless we intend to institute once again the good old Pax Romana
- if you still think that only a firm hand will bring results and do want to break their back, I will suggest a very radical measure: a topic ban of ALL the editors and hopefully the new batch will be wiser (I very much doubt that though)

*should be very closely monitored in order to avoid the type of policy SD -which is not the subject here- adopted so that s.o. else would fight his battles (re Tznkai /topic ban)

:@RomaC: There are few topic areas with nearly as much concerted partisan activity as Israel-Palestine. uh! if it's how you see it that does explain a lot regarding the failure in reaching balance! that is a point to clarify then. Nableezy may be biased, but he's also badly outnumbered which makes him sort of stick out in these content disputes. I disagree, as I said Shuki was mainly left on his own to face endless days of lines of over and over the same words and arguments, are you saying that Nableezy believed he was alone holding the fort? I felt under attack myself I guess that I do not think that I only can save the world where he felt desperately obligated to fight to the end, was it so? that also is to be discussed . On another wiki I read an essay: 'Nobody is irremplacable' (fortunately) still each one of us is unique, ok?
I read again the comments and I saw a lot of a militantist attitude, I hope this is not the tone which will prevail
@Stifle: thanks for offering your help, Hope&Act3! (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment by Pantherskin

One of the most destructive tactics to use on Wikipedia is the introduction of hoaxes into articles, and the use of made-up sources. At the Syria article both Nableezy and Supreme Deliciousness wanted to include the sentence "...to defend itself against Israeli shellings into Syria. According to the UN office in Jerusalem from 1955 until 1967 65 of the 69 border flare-ups between Syria and Israel were initiated by Israelis." in the article, cited to "Kamrava, Mehran, The Modern Middle East: A Political History since the First World War, University of California Press; 1 edition, p. 48". I checked the source in the library, neither on this page nor anywhere else in the book is there anything even remotely. You can even check it on Google Books, [52] For me page 48 does not show, but it is clear that this chapters is about the pre-World War I era. You can also search for the numbers 67 and 69, the numbers 67 or 69 are not mentioned anywhere in the book. In short, these editors used a made-up source to bolster their claims and only after being caught red-handed did Supreme Deliciousness remove the fake source (see [53] and [54]). I do not know how one can work collaboratively on this projekt or have trust in Wikipedia articles if we cannot trust our editors to be honest about their sources. This is even more important than civility and conforming to NPOV.

I did not "want to include the sentence" I reverted an edit that you made that removed something that I did want to include and you never once raised any concern about the other material. Perhaps I should have checked the first part of the edit but as you never once said one word about the material or the source I did not. Kindly do not misrepresent my actions here. nableezy - 21:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We even discussed this section on the talk page and on the NPOV noticeboard, and I made it clear that the claims of Israel having shelled Syria are in conflict with what virtually all other sources say. I even quoted the first part, the part with the made-up source Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Syria, so how you manage to be completely oblivious to this is beyond me. Either way I do not know how one can trust you as an editor when one has to double-check the sources you use. Pantherskin (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You never once said one word about this source. If you had either removed just this and the material it was sourcing or if you raised the issue on the talk page I would have checked the source. But you did not, you just kept removed it with the Dayan quote. The reason I reverted that is because of the Dayan quote, of which there is no doubt of the authenticity or relevance. I dont particularly care what you think of me because, well, I dont think too highly of you. If you want to pretend that this was the issue you can, but anybody who looks at the discussion page can see that it was focused on the Dayan quote and you never once raised a question about this source. nableezy - 21:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence has been in the article since November 2008. It isn't unreasonable for Supreme Deliciousness and nableezy to assume good faith that the source supported the sentence. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comments here above from Pantherskin is clearly Assumption of Bad faith. That text was in the article and looked to me as well sourced, Panterskin removed it together with a well sourced Dayan quote and did not say anything about that the Jerusalem office text had a false source. As soon as it was pointed out to me that that specific part about the Jerusalem office had a false source, I removed it myself. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The content was questioned several times by editors on the grounds that it contradicts what is known about this conflict from reliable source, including me (Talk:Syria#Border_Flare-Ups, /Talk:Syria#Invalid_Source_on_Dayan_Admitting_to_Israel_Provoking_Clashes). But you Supreme Deliciousness insisted that it is well-sourced. You never said that you do not know what the source actually says and mislead other editors about the content. The manner in which you removed the content after being caught red-hand furthermore suggests that all the time you knew that the source was fake. Pantherskin (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it suggests that if you had once questioned that line on the basis of the source not supporting it SD would have checked it and removed it himself. nableezy - 16:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by unomi

To me it seems clear that what we have before us is not a content dispute. The dispute may be grounded in the content, but the enforcement request is solidly regarding policy violations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal_of_sourced_edits_made_in_a_neutral_narrative_is_disruptive

We have had a number of public discussions regarding how sources deal with the illegal settlements; at IPCOLL wikiproject, and across a multitude of talkpages. While there are sources which dispute the 'illegal settlement' moniker, the majority of quality sources support it. For a light primer see fx Daniel C. Kurtzer's article in Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs reprinted here:

Secretary of State Cyrus Vance made this clear in Congressional testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, March
21, 1980: US policy toward the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories is unequivocal and has long been a matter of public record. We consider it to be contrary to international law and an impediment to the successful conclusion of the Middle East peace process...Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention is, in my judgment, and has been in the judgment of each of the legal advisers of the State Department for many, many years, to be. . .that [settlements] are illegal and that [the Convention] applies to the territories.
Vance's view was based on longstanding US policy. For example, in March 1976, Ambassador William Scranton told the United Nations Security Council: Substantial resettlement of the Israeli civilian population in occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under the convention and cannot be considered to have prejudged the outcome of future negotiations between the parties on the locations of the borders of states by the Middle East. Indeed, the presence of these settlements is seen by my government as an obstacle to the success of the negotiations for a just and final peace between Israel and its neighbors.
Scranton's statement was based on the position expressed by Ambassador Charles Yost, who told the UN Security Council in July 1969:
Among the provisions of international law which bind Israel, as they would bind any occupier, are the provisions that the occupier has no right to make changes in laws or in administration other than those which are temporarily necessitated by his security interests, and that an occupier may not confiscate or destroy private property. The pattern of behavior authorized under the Geneva Convention and international law is clear: the occupier must maintain the occupied area as intact and unaltered as possible, without interfering with the customary life of the area, and any changes must be necessitated by the immediate needs of the occupation.

I think it is fair to say that these are not fringe views, and they are supported by ECJ and ICJ publications. In light of the supermajority of sources which support the wording that Shuki tendentiously edited to remove I find Nableezys enforcement request entirely reasonable. Unomi (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify the limits

Can you please clarify the limits of this action? Does it basically include; 1) all locality articles in the region, 2) all geography articles (including parks or attractions), 3) talk pages as well?.

I made a couple of comments at Talk:List of national parks and nature reserves of Israel today. If they are included in the ban, I will refrain from continuing. --Shuki (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the purpose of this ban is to prevent edit-warring over whether or not a particular site is actually in Israel, surely all that is necessary is to restrict editing in this limited area. Even accepting the legitimacy of the block, I can't see a reason why Shuki or Nableezy should be prevented from making edits like this or this. RolandR (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Shuki

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

I invite Shuki and Nableezy to show cause why they should not both be topic-banned for 3 months from articles about towns, cities, settlements, and other places or locations in Israel and neighbouring countries. And I request in advance that all comments relating to this request are added here, not at my talk page. Stifle (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, "here" means "on this page". Stifle (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I have read all the submissions and am analyzing the evidence. In a couple of days I intend to propose a final sanction and invite admin comment on same. I am reading the diffs and other details provided and will not be jumping to conclusions. Stifle (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read and reviewed all the submissions and diffs and remain convinced that each side is at fault. There is a possibility that one party is more at fault than the other, but that is neither here nor there. I am still minded to impose a topic ban on both parties, although I will shorten the duration to the end of August. I invite comment from other uninvolved administrators here (i.e. this section) as to whether this appears appropriate. Stifle (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. This is a content dispute which the people involved can't resolve in a collegial manner. I considered proposing limiting the scope to Israeli settlements, but that's probably too open to gaming and disagreement. Sandstein 11:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your conclusion of course Stifle, but I think the parties to the dispute are also entitled to know what precisely they are being convicted of, and on what evidence. "I remain convinced that each side is at fault" is not exactly forthcoming. Gatoclass (talk) 11:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring, tendentious editing, and using reverts rather than discussion on a disputed article. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The individual articles link to Israeli settlement, which contains an overview of the legal situation. To what extent any of this needs to be summarized in the articles is obviously an editorial decision, however edit warring over whether there should be a mention in the lead is disruptive, and therefore can result in sanctions being imposed. I agree that Stifle's proposed sanctions are reasonable. PhilKnight (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above discussions and pursuant to Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions, Shuki and Nableezy are both topic-banned until 23:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC) from articles about towns, cities, settlements, and other places or locations in Israel and neighbouring countries. Violation of the topic ban shall result in a block of appropriate duration and the topic-ban being reset to run for five weeks from the end of the block. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As things stand, (1) is included, (2) is included (as a park or attraction is a place), and (3) is not included. Disruption on talk pages will however be viewed dimly. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia

Circus closed because of bad reviews, all clowns whacked. Stale as no admin is willing to take action.

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

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

Request concerning Russavia

User requesting enforcement: Colchicum (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys#Russavia_restricted

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

[55] Russavia reverted an edit by Biophys within hours (and the reason given for this revert was bogus, by the way). Russavia is under interaction ban (Biophys being "an editor from the EEML case"), and this revert most certainly not only violates it but is also a violation of WP:STALK. This is not an accident, neither is it a case of necessary dispute resolution, there was no dispute in the first place, Russavia had never edited the article or its talk page before this revert. Seriously, how many times should he be allowed to test the limits of the restriction?

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

N/A, officially warned as a party to the case and blocked before

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Response to Russavia:

Biophys is not topic banned from pre-Soviet Union Russia-related articles, as Shell Kinney, a co-drafter of the decision, made perfectly clear: [56]. Thus you were not reverting an edit made "by a topic banned editor in violation of their topic ban" (which you wouldn't be entitled to do anyway given your restriction). You are banned from interacting with Biophys, and you have violated this ban. That was a famous quote known to everybody even remotely familiar with the subject of the article, right from the very first of Chaadayev's Philosophical Letters, which predated the formation of the Soviet Union by nearly a century, there was absolutely no sound reason to summarily remove it. Now, as you effectively admit that you don't give a damn about the subject, and it is easily verifiable that you had never edited the article before, your revert (let alone the comments here) is a clear-cut attempt to make a point and a violation of the interaction ban. Oh, and there is absolutely no reason to prohibit me from reporting your violations. Reporting your violations is by itself not a violation of any existing rules or restrictions. There is no omertà on Wikipedia. Other than that, I don't fancy interacting with you and limit our communication to the bare minimum, such as mandatory notifications.

Now, bottom line: Biophys peacefully edits within the limits of his topic ban, facing no objections from others, when Russavia jumps in to revert him in an egregious violation of his own interaction ban. When I report him for that, which is not prohibited by any rule or restriction, Igny and Russavia start attacking me. Very nice. Colchicum (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. It has just occurred to me that the story Russavia tells us here is completely untrue unless he can travel in time.

On 22 August, this edit appeared on my watch list. I took a peak because the edit summary caught my eye. The nature of the comment (and link) led me to glance over Biophys' contributions (which I had not done for 3-4 weeks previous in any great way), and that led to Pyotr Chaadayev leaping out in front me.

The first edit Russavia is referring to was made at 14:49, seven hours after he reverted Biophys (7:56). Russavia, if you don't want to be reported, don't violate your interaction ban. Nobody but you is to blame for your name "being a permanent feature on this board". Colchicum (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Russavia, a direct revert is not just "editing the same articles", and you have made it very clear below that it wasn't an accident and that you targeted Biophys on purpose [57]. If a revert is not interaction, I don't know what is. Your comments on Biophys right here are also for the most part completely unnecessary for dispute resolution and thus fall under the ban. I can only repeat, if you don't wan't to be reported, don't violate your restrictions. It is a PA in itself to paint this report as harassment. Quite obviously I didn't make you violate your restriction, that was your free choice, so be a man and take responsibility. You may appeal your interaction ban to the Committee, though it looks highly unlikely to me that you will succeed given the pattern of your behavior, but for now the restriction is in effect and must be obeyed. I can show dozens of diffs where Colchicum continually engages in such behaviour – so go ahead. They are few in number, though, and many years and arbcoms old, unlike yours. Colchicum (talk) 11:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[58] So here we go again. Russavia, personal attacks won't help your cause. And this is how you were willing to collaborate, right. QED. Where is my revert on Vitaliy Mutko? this? Adding interwikis and a minor correction to a new article publicly announced on User:AlexNewArtBot/RussiaSearchResult now amounts to stalking you? Oh my... Sourcing and expanding the Sandoz chemical spill [59], another new article, where you were by far not the most interesting editor who had edited it? This is all rhetorical, of course. Get real. Certainly I won't accuse you of stalking me because of this edit, restoring a borderline hoax, or should I? Colchicum (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [60]

Statement by Russavia

Response to accusation

The accusation of stalking by Colchicum is, in my opinion given history, furtherance of battleground behaviour in this area by himself.

As always, I will be upfront and open, whilst other try to paint an untrue picture. I have the talk pages of EEML-sanctioned editors (inc. Biophys) on my watch list. As it is possible that these editors will return to editing in this area, from time to time I make a point of having a quick glance over their contribs. I don't generally look into the specifics of the contribs unless they read like edit warring, but rather I observe their interactions on talk pages and other areas of the project, to see how they are interacting with other editors, and whether this area will see improvement upon their return. There is nothing wrong with this. I do not interject myself unnecessarily into any conversations, or otherwise engage them unnecessarily.

On 22 August, this edit appeared on my watch list. I took a peak because the edit summary caught my eye. The nature of the comment (and link) led me to glance over Biophys' contributions (which I had not done for 3-4 weeks previous in any great way), and that led to Pyotr Chaadayev leaping out in front me. As editors are well aware, Biophys is currently under a topic ban as per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys#Biophys_topic_banned which states:

Biophys (talk · contribs) is banned from editing articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles, broadly construed, for a period of no less than 1 year. At the end of 1 year, Biophys may apply to have the ban reviewed by the Arbitration Committee.

As we know from my own topic ban, and topic bans handed out at WP:EEML, in effect this means that Biophys is banned from editing articles relating to the Soviet Union, Russia, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, or any of the other former constituents of the USSR. It is a complete removal of Biophys from this area. Other topic banned editors chose political topics from outside Europe; I chose airline articles. Given that "All animals are equal (unless editors want to argue that "some animals are more equal than others"), this means a complete removal of Biophys from this topic area - he can go edit Pokemon or Sudanese rugby players, just nothing within this area which it is deemed he has been disruptive. As someone who has been involved in the dispute resolution of all these EEMLer's topic bans, inc. my own, surely Biophys is not able to plead ignorance.

As Biophys is a topic banned editor making edits within the ban area, I would have been within my discretion as an editor with no article editing restrictions to do a wholesale revert. But instead, I made this edit. Note it is not a pure revert, but the removal of an unreferenced quote, which as mentioned in my edit summary, it's purpose in the article is not clear - formatting changes are kept. For clear reference, this is what was removed:

"We are an exception among people. We belong to those who are not an integral part of humanity but exist only to teach the world some type of great lesson".

It needs to be noted that Chaadayev is a controversial figure, as were some of his views. This is another flag that Biophys should not be editing that article. After Colchicum posted this AE report, Biophys posted this on the talk page. Yes, the quote is from a book by Satter, who as we all know is one of those fantastic authors who is nothing but critical of Putin. In fact, his book Age of Delirium: the Decline and Fall of the Soviet Union opens with what was removed by myself. This is not Wikiquote. What exactly does the quote say, what is the context of what Chaadayev originally said, and what academic opinion does Satter put forward about this quote. And why was this one quote inserted (unreferenced mind you)? He surely said many things over his time, but why was this given prominence. That question as it stands is moot, because I am not under topic bans, and I removed unreferenced material from the article as is my right per WP:V. I did not report Biophys' topic ban violation, as that would be a clear violation of my interaction restrictions. Biophys can thank Colchicum for bringing his breach of topic ban to the fore (not the first time he's breached it if one cares to look).

Response to other comments

Biophys mentioned this posting on his talk page, and his resultant post to my talk page. My posting to his talk page was automatically done as a result of nominating Category:Post-Soviet Russia for renaming by way of using Twinkle; it is setup to automatically advise all creators of nominated content of the discussion. It was good to see Biophys took it in his stride, thinking nothing of it. "No complaints from me, however.", even as he may have been unaware of the automated nature of the notification. No harm, no foul there.
However, it pains me to see Biophys now using this AE request, about an alleged interaction violation by myself, as a platform to spark unrelated manufactured disputes about topics which he is topic banned from at the moment.(i.e. Medvedev, Gulag, etc) I dare not say more as I hope the admins will investigate themselves so I dont need to get involved, or at least recognise that they are offtopic to this AE request and ignore them. Please review his comments here and consider how much of them are a necessary part of dispute resolution regarding the alleged interaction violation by myself.
Given that this request is on my removal of an unreferenced, zero context quote from an article after it was placed by a topic banned editor in violation of their topic ban, I am concerned by the appearance of Vecrumba in this request, given Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted. Should I be expecting an appearance by the rest of the EEML in due course? It will be like a big reunion - i'm not laughing! It would be appreciated if an admin could enquire as to why involvement was deemed necessary in something one is not directly involved in.
I am growing tired of my name being a permanent feature on this board by way of battlegrounds being manufactured by editors, which then takes me away from editing to respond to what I regard as continued harrassment and vexatious reporting on the part of these editors. It is like a flashback to last year when I was being completely ignored by the very admins who were supposed to be able to help put a stop to the battleground. As Igny, who is a neutral editor (given he has defended on many occasions those who we will call my "opponents"), is regarding behaviour of editors in this request as harrassment on myself, I sincerely hope that admins will not ignore it when I say that I too am regarding this entire request, and further accusations which have been thrown my way, as continued harrassment of myself.
In addition to striking down the vexatious complaints by a couple of editors in this request, I ask that the following be considered..
- Under provisions outlined at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions, Colchicum is prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia, except in the case of necessary dispute resolution.
- Under provisions outlined at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions, Biophys is prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia, except in the case of necessary dispute resolution. - this I believe is warranted due to the unsubstantiated allegations that have been made here, and which other editors have been warned against making. Additionally, it would appear from Biophys' own comments that only I am restricted from commenting on him, that he used the fact the same is not true of him to engage in unnecessary speculation, which I regard as harrassment.
- Other sanctions/blocks as are deemed necessary by reviewing and enforcing admins.

If admins require any further information from me, please let me know and I will gladly respond. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 09:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General comments on broadly construed topic bans

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys#Biophys_topic_banned, Biophys:

is banned from editing articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles, broadly construed, for a period of no less than 1 year. At the end of 1 year, Biophys may apply to have the ban reviewed by the Arbitration Committee.

Last year when I was topic banned, I was banned from:

all articles, other pages or discussions having to do with the Soviet Union or its successor states (including Russia and the baltic states). In other words, you are banned from anything that involves Russians or Russia.

If one looks at these topic bans, they are exactly the same. Both topic bans cover both the Soviet Union and the states that made it up. I won't list all 17 now independent countries that made it up, for we know what they are. The only difference is that the "country" part is worded different. Mine was worded as "successor states" and Biophys' was worded as "former Soviet Republics.....broadly construed". Everyone knows that I was unable to edit anything relating to ANY of those countries. So much so, I was unable to place in Air Botswana information on a potential buy out by a Russian businessman.

Both bans "effectively remove you from a topic area in which you have been exhibiting unacceptable battleground-like behavior." That is the purpose of a topic ban.

My topic ban was done under a remedy at an Arbcom in which I was not involved and coverd anyone who may be editing in the EE topic area. The remedy was passed by the committee, and was able to be enforced by admins as they saw fit. Biophys' topic ban was done under a remedy at an Arbcom in which he was involved in and was directly on himself. The Arbcom passed the Biophys topic ban, and it now up to admins at AE how they interpret it, and how it will be enforced.

An uninvolved person would have good faith reason that both bans cover all eras, and all iterations of those states, due to being broadly construed. And the purpose of "broadly construed" is to stop potential wikilawyering.

This is not an official Arbcom clarification on the issue, it is merely the exchange of opinions of two editors on one of those editor's talk pages, but it happens that one of those editors is an arbitrator. Requests for clarification are supposed to take place at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests_for_clarification so that any involved editors are able to provide input and engage in discussion, and arbs can do likewise.

Until such time as that occurs, it is up to individual admins who work AE to interpret and enforce the topic ban as they see fit. It is up to an admin to decide whether a Russian philosopher from the 1800s (who held controversial views, and which are still controversial today) is covered by the topic ban. Or more specifically, is the Russian Empire related to the Soviet Union to the Russian Federation? I know the answer to that as a result of my own long expired topic ban. And it is a fair assumption that an uninvolved editor would say that the history of Russia directly includes the Russian Empire, and I know this as I have run it by a couple of totally uninvolved people, and they hold the same opinion.

And a friendly suggestion, whilst this is still active at AE, and yet to receive any statement from an admin, it might advisable for certain editors to stop editing the article talk page, until such time as comment is provided in this (correct) forum by an admin. I certainly wouldn't continue to edit the article based upon the opinion of the person who started this request. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 07:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction ban requested

It was only a few days ago that another editor came to this forum claiming that I broke an interaction ban. It was clearly mentioned that editing of same articles is not an interaction ban. Colchicum would have been aware of this, and decided to bring this here. I see this as harrassment by Colchicum and I sincerely request that he receive, at the very least, an interaction ban on commenting on or interacting with myself.

I have made it very clear in the past that I am willing to collaborate with ALL editors. And that includes Colchicum. He has made it quite clear that he has no intention of doing this. It's sad that he feels like this, but that is his choice.

However, it is obvious that where I am concerned Colchicum only uses WP as a battleground. For example. Last year, I asked a supposed content opponent for assistance - encouraging collaboration. After the editor offered to help, Colchicum posts:

"I stronly suggest you not collaborate with Ruavia. Probably decent people shouldn't communicate with such dishonest outcasts at all [61]. Mature people should assume responsibility for what they are doing. From now on, let's let him absolutely alone. Something like Я не ~~еду в~~ разговариваю с Ruavia. He will get banned eventually anyway. Petri Krohn may be well worth reconciliation, this one is not."

Not only is this inexcusable for the personal attack, it is also promoting battleground mentality by encouraging other editors to engage in battleground conditions. He was warned and made no apology. Since then I have not had anything to do with Colchicum, apart from filing a 3RR report, which it turns out was not 3RR, and for which I apologised. However, the only thing that Colchicum has had to do with me is attacking my mere presence on this project, attacking my contributions (which if I were to show, people would say they are constructive), and part of this is acting in a totally partisan way and only ever attacking everything that I do, in an attempt to have me sanctioned and/or driven away from the project. I can show dozens of diffs where Colchicum continually engages in such behaviour.

Colchicum will say that his last AE request was acted upon,[62] however given his history I let my comments to him on my talk page stand as my only comments at the AE report.

As Colchicum has absolutely no intention of acting collaboratively, and continues to engage in battleground behaviour in relation to myself, and files vexatious reports about me -- all of which when put together seems like his only intent is to harrass myself and drive me away from the project, there is no need for Colchicum to interact or comment on me. His actions also promote battleground behaviour - the public suggestion for editors not to collaborate is the one that sticks in my head. But even this very request has invited one editor to engage in speculation about myself (and whom I have also requested an interaction ban on), and another editor who has been blocked 3 times for breaking a still current interaction ban joins the thread as well.

Hence, I do ask that an interaction ban be placed on Colchicum as asked for above, so that those who want to act collaboratively together can, and then we can all disengage from battleground conditions, especially manufactured ones like this very report.

I do make a general apology for this section, in that it deals with the editor, rather than the content, but this history is not likely known in this AE forum. These are my very last words in this report, as I will not be validating any further the harrassment and this battle shit. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 11:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, these will be my last words. I should have mentioned that I am more than happy to be placed under a similar interaction ban with Colchicum if it deemed necessary in the interests of fairness. It shouldn't be necessary for interaction bans in the first place, if we could all forget the negativity and hostility and step back from the conflicts in this area, editing would be so much more enjoyable, and beneficial. I have already made clear my willingness to do this with most editors, however, it has to be reciprocated. I have yet to see this happen, only time will tell I guess. Until such time as that occurs, if two-sided interaction bans are required, then it will have to be that way unfortunately. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 13:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to admins

Jehochman, I can assure you that I have not stalked Biophys or any other editor. I stand by my reasons for perusing editors contributions. It would be stalking if I followed editors and did nothing but revert and get involved in disputes. Kind of like [63],[64],[65] and of course this very request. At least I have been upfront on what I have done. My stalker says nothing and his stalking is totally ignored.

Anyway, even though I am not stalking them, if you see it as such, without admitting any guilt in that, I will agree to not to look at their contributions in anyway meaningful way in future, unless it is necessary for DR. My reasons for doing so are pretty much moot now, as I am now certain that there is no way one can collaborate with those editors in a healthy way either now or in the future. And I will not let their anti-Russian baiting to catch me again. So I will withdraw from the battleground that has been manufactured here, but I do ask that the interaction bans be placed as I have requested above, and for which reasoning is pretty clear.

And in relation to topic bans and the like, please ensure that some animals are not more equal than others. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 21:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Russavia

Statement by Biophys

After receiving my topic ban, I edited in different subject areas [66], made exactly zero reverts (beyond fixing a few obvious vandalism problems), and completely disengaged from all other participants of my case. I did not report any of them to AE even when they openly violated their bans, for example by coming to my talk page to start political debates in the topic ban area [67], or tell me about removing my contributions [68] and knowing that I can not respond. I thought the guys would appreciate my non-involvement and removal from the subject area. But what do I have in response? Russavia wikistalks my edits in a different area, Offliner complains about me to an arbitrator next day after coming from his block [69], [70], and Igny attacks me with ridiculous accusations right on this page (see below). I believe this is a serious tag-team because all three editors in question have been already blocked (two of them indefinitely) for precisely that kind of things. Biophys (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC) [Please note that I commented here only in response to accusations by Russavia at this noticeboard: [71]. I did not tell a single critical word about him before and can keep it this way after this incident].Biophys (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just would like to notice that Offliner came uninvited to my talk page to suggest that we are in a state of war and need an official "peace treaty" [72]. I do not know if he is in the "state of war", but I am certainly not. I am very open to collaborating with anyone, including Offliner, as I explained to him. Offliner responded by complaining again to the same arbitrator [73]. Hey man, if you want to collaborate with me (as you said), you do not need Arbcom. However you should not make such edits right after me. This is not a collaboration, but to the contrary, making articles off-limits for me by creating conjectures to modern-day Russia (remember my topic ban?). Biophys (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re to general comment by Russavia about topic bans [74]. Russia ≠ Soviet Union, and we both know it.Biophys (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re to Petri Krohn. You tell that Russavia reverted my edit because "he could not report Biophys to WP:AE" (and Russavia tells the same). Is it true? This is my edit. It tells nothing about Soviet Union, Satter, or the "Age of delirium". Of course I prefer translations by an American journalist because he knows English better than me. There was absolutely no reason for Russavia, Offliner and you to blame me of violating my ban. You all did this only to support Russavia (exactly as you tell). Can you guys just leave me alone? Thanks. Biophys (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re to Jehochman. No, I quite obviously did not violate my topic ban. In addition to statement by Shell who said it was within my limits, I also asked Carcharoth previously [75]. Furthermore, I placed this question at AE talk page [76], just in case, but I did not receive any response. I would therefore appreciate if a couple of unvinovled [77][78] [79] administrators officially decided if I can or can not edit Russian history of 18th and 19th centuries. If they decide I can not, I certainly will not edit such articles. There is no need for blocks.Biophys (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC). I asked Jehochman but received no explanation. Once again, I have no problem with not editing anything on Russian history if it helps to reduce battlegrounds, although this AE request is obviously not my fault.Biophys (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Petri Krohn

First I must apologize to Biophys for making these accusations. However, as Russavia is accused here, he deserves a proper defense. Also I apologize for the puny nature of the accusation, but as the accusation against Russavia has even less weight, this must be said. I wish we could all just forget about this episode and go do something useful.

Even considering the narrowing of the topic ban by Shell Kinney, It seems clear to me that Biophys broke his topic ban. He copy-pasted deleted content from his last version of the article David Satter and inserted it into Pyotr Chaadayev. David Satter, an article created by Biophys and edit warred over by him and his EEML opponents is at ground zero of the Russian / Soviet dispute and clearly within his topic ban. Satter is arguing that Putin was behind the Russian apartment bombings. The quote, attributed to Pyotr Chaadayev, but interpreted by Satter seems to be part of the argument.

I have elaborated on the issue at the talk page here: Talk:Pyotr Chaadayev#Quote taken from book by David Satter?

Russavia is not under any ban, so he should be free to edit articles on Russia. Editing the same article, even edit warring is not sanctioned in the interaction ban. He could revert, but he could not report Biophys to WP:AE. However, as he is under an interaction ban, I would suggest to him that he removes Biophys from his watchlist. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Russavia

I occasionally edit Russian history of 18th and 19th centuries. I hope that's not a problem? No judgment about Russavia or any other participants of my case, although there was this recent post by Russavia at my talk page (and my response). I have one general comment however. Since me and others were topic banned, the situation in the area did not improve a bit, as everyone can see here, here and right on this noticeboard. I am not here to judge, but political battles rage [80] [81], an email coordination to get rid of "undesirable editors" continues unabated [82], just as during my case [83], and people are leaving. Biophys (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colchicum, could you clarify how you obtained this diff? Did you edit the article before? Do you have it in your watchlist? Or you are stalking Russavia yourself? Or, which is even worse, you are participating in continuing harassment of Russavia and coordinating it with someone who is stalking his edits? Oh wait, I drop the last accusation. If you actually followed the AE requests against Russavia, you would notice that the previous attempt to file a frivolous request against Russavia ended poorly for the person who filed it. Oh wait, did Biophys ask you to file this request in order to circumvent his interaction ban?(Igny (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Re to Igny. Your statement support my words that situation in this area was not improved. As about emails, I did not received them and did not sent them to anyone for many months. Why? Because people are afraid to communicate with me. Fine, I am going to disconnect my email right now. It's useless anyway.Biophys (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Igny, are these personal attacks really required? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 04:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to notice, I do not have interaction ban with Russavia (he has). It does not mean that I am going to interact with him or comment about him. Quite the opposite. I responded here only because the post was about me.Biophys (talk) 04:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, that's something! Just for your pleasure, it is not meant to say that you are somehow entitled to demand answers to such questions. Biophys' page is on my watchlist, I saw his changes there and wondered about the reasons. Then I looked at the list of his recent contributions, and one of the very recent edits stood out as not "top". Et voilà! Of course I won't ask you what you are doing here. The idea that I am somehow responsible for Russavia's own misdeeds is preposterous, and, frankly, should be humiliating for him. Now please mind you own business. You were blocked before precisely for this kind of "protracted assumption of bad faith and unfounded suggestions of backstage collusion", weren't you? Well, it is impossible for the suggestions to be more unfounded, but the assumption of bad faith is now more protracted than ever, well worth another forced wikivacation. So please stay away from me. Colchicum (talk) 10:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is all a matter of interpretation. Just as a single revert (not even an edit war) "within hours" became "testing the boundaries of an interaction ban" and instead of following WP:BRD, one decides to escalate the issue to an AE, so can your request easily become "part of continuing harassment of Russavia". If someone were collecting evidence of the harassment campaign, your request would be in the center of it. I could show you how that evidence in a slightly different interpretation might look on the next AE request.

Colchicum filed(link) another frivolous AE request, possibly on behalf of Biophys, to further harass Russavia

So can you please stop this campaign? (Igny (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

ArbCom can decide who is harassing whom here. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can not provide diffs about Russavia reverting all my old edits in the Post-Soviet Russia-related articles, because that would be a violation of topic ban on my part. But my last wikipedia email was dated May 27, and it was from Boghog2. I sent him a couple of wikified files about proteins. Biophys (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys, Vecrumba, could you please stop this off-topic discussion. Your participation here is not exactly helpful, sorry. These guys look eloquent enough as they are. Colchicum (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear admins who will hopefully be reviewing this, could you please look into the behavior of Igny on this page and take appropriate measures. I am fed up with his unfounded (and unfoundable) accusations. Are such blatant personal attacks to be tolerated on the AE noticeboard? Unbelievable. More on this here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive62#Igny. This is a recurrent problem, indeed, a campaign of sorts, as you can see, albeit somewhat unrelated to this request. Colchicum (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short of a leak of the relevant private correspondence, there will be never direct evidence for off-wiki collusion. However wikibehavior demonstrated by Colchicum here could be used as circumstantial evidence of something going on. I could picture the following interpretation of Colchicum's actions here

Colchicum contributed to the battlefield mentality by filing a frivolous AE request. That is also a circumstantial evidence that he either stalked Russavia himself or was contacted by Russavia's stalker to file that request.

See how twisted and escalated interpretations of events may be? (Igny (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Just amazing how eager you are to get into trouble. This is word-for-word the personal attack you was blocked for on May 19.

The request is not frivolous (neither was the first one). Russavia is banned from interacting with Biophys, which is what he did (the fact that he did it via a revert and edit summary is hardly an excuse). It is not open to interpretation, the violation took place independently of the existence of this report and is a full responsibility of Russavia, I have very little to do with anything substantial here. Happy anniversary of the MRP! Colchicum (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Colchicum, no need for the uninvolved to get further involved. :-) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right above me is the most ironic statement on WP. Is any admin aware that this user is under an interaction ban with myself? And have been blocked 3 times for breaking it so far? And yet, here they are yet again, breaking it, and most ironically in something that has absolutely NOTHING to do with them? What about this harrassment? Is nothing going to be done about that? So no, the statement should read "no need for the uninvolved to get involved at all, considering to do so is to break interaction ban for the 4th time". Of course, I know what will happen. I will be blocked for it. Go figure. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 20:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was indeed quite pointless for him to comment here, but at least he didn't comment on you and didn't interact with you. You are under an interaction ban with him too, btw. Colchicum (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't interacted with me? Are you serious Colchicum. You call my removing unsourced information from an article an interaction, but you don't call an appearance at an AE enforcement thread entitled RUSSAVIA an interaction? It should be clearly obvious what is going on here. And please tell us, how you found the so-called interaction with Biophys at the article. Are you going to admit to stalking my edits? --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 05:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am perfectly serious. You followed Biophys' edits, as you openly admitted above and as is clear anyway, and you reverted his edit, not just a random piece of unsourced information (and that piece would be a common knowledge for anybody familiar with the subject, so at most it a "citation needed" tag would be warranted there, though IMO even that should still be off your limits due to the interaction ban). This is an interaction with Biophys. Vecrumba, as much as I agree that he shouldn't comment here at all, commented on Igny, not on you, and didn't respond to any of your comments. This is not an interaction with you. I am indeed worried that "some animals are more equal than others" and that Arbitration remedies are enforced selectively. If the ban of Vecrumba is normally enforced, so should be yours. I mean, we all see now how easy it is to derail AE with a lot of off-topic drama. Nothing unusual, of course. And no, it is not stale, as it has lasted for months (for years, in fact, it is just that the last arbitration was three months ago). Oh, regarding "how I found the so-called interaction", I have already explained this [84], enough is enough, I am not going to repeat this twice, if you have missed this you definitely need a rest. Colchicum (talk) 11:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Russavia

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

The usual partisans appear to be lining up for another battle. Perhaps we should apply lengthy bans to stop this long term disruption. Thoughts by the uninvolved? Jehochman ^Talk 05:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Russavia admits to stalking Biophys' edits. This is most unhealthy. Biophys has apparently violated their topic ban. Both editors have been warned and sanctioned before. ArbCom specified short blocks, escalating up to 1 year. Russavia has already had 48 hours, so my inclination is 96 hours, and we start Biophys with 48 hours. Regrettably, we don't seem to have authority to place longer blocks at this time. I personally hate placing editors under short blocks. In the alternative, could I get Russavia to agree to stop stalking Biophys (and any other disputants), and would Biophys please agree not to push the limits of their topic ban? Am I being too optimistic here? Jehochman ^Talk 05:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Until ArbCom gets their stuff together, I'm not going to do any more enforcement work. Somebody else should feel free to take this over, but it's probably stale by now. Jehochman ^Talk 03:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing and archiving

I am closing and archiving this as its continued presence here is only creating WP:BATTLEground mentality. No admin is willing to take enforcement action. For more information see User talk:Jehochman#EE circus.

Russavia and Vecrumba whacked for testing the limits of their interaction bans.
Biophys whacked for testing the limits of his topic ban.
Colchicum awarded for sponsoring a lousy show.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Momento

Momento (talk · contribs) banned from Prem Rawat and all related articles and discussions for one year.

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

Request concerning Momento

User requesting enforcement: Will Beback talk 23:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat#Article probation

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

[85] These are five reverts in three days. The edit summaries are not accurate.
[86]
[87]
[88]
[89]

Here he makes uncivil or non-AGF comments:

[90] But if enough of you want to ignore Wiki policies, guidelines and practices and revise history to suit your POV, how can I stop you?
[91] Wrong as usual Will.
[92] It may suit you Will to have this article treat readers like idiots but it is unacceptable to me

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

[93] I specifically asked him to not revert again.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): I request that Momento's topic ban be reinstated for another year.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Momento was topic banned for one year, ending April 2010, as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2#Momento topic banned. He returned to the topic immediately after the ban expired, and started up arguing the same point he'd been arguing when the ban started. He has been making edits without consensus despite the objections of others, and has been engaged in tendentious argument on the talk page. This goes back to April, but the most recent talk page thread is an excellent example.[94] He was blocked again for edit warring on a talk page on August 2. Most recently, he has repeatedly deleted neutral, sourced material that had been in the article since April 2009, and reverted an edit to which that others agreed. He has used misleading or inaccurate edit summaries for the changes. He has indicated on the talk page that he continues to think he's right, according to a unique interpretation of Wikipedia policies, and I presume he would continue to revert to his preferred version. It does not appear that Momento has learned anything from his previous bans and blocks. He does not appear to be genuinely interested in seeking consensus for article improvements. Instead, he seems interested only in pushing his POV into the article and engaging in endless arguments on the talk page.

Momento has now forum-shopped a complaint about this request to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#One year ban.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [95]

Discussion concerning Momento

Statement by Momento

Firstly, I claim that according to WP:BLP "the three-revert rule does not apply to removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material". And I further claim that the material I removed was "unsourced". Will Beback thinks the sentence is question is fine and keeps putting it and variations in. I think some of it should be removed because it isn't sourced. The sentence is - "At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru to millions of Indian followers". The sources given, Lewis and Downton, both say the position he succeeded to is "Perfect Master". Lewis says "he was recognized as the new Perfect Master and assumed the title, Maharaj Ji" and Downton says "he was elevated to his father's position as Perfect Master at the age of eight". Neither source mentions "Satguru", nor does it appear in the article and therefore "Satguru" is not sourced. But instead of replacing the unsourced "Satguru" with the doubly sourced "Perfect Master" Will Beback responded with endless arguments and ended by constantly re-insert it, providing five false sources to support it and adding an absurdly incorrect translation that was contradicted by the source supplied by Will that was supposed to support it, all without consensus and all against objections. And all designed to exert ownership of this article.

Will Beback claims I "repeatedly deleted neutral, sourced material that had been in the article since April 2009". In fact, as is clear from above the material I kept deleting, "Satguru", was not sourced. Will says I haven't learned from my previous blocks and bans but on the contrary I have discussed every edit a great length, edited strictly by the book and nine out of 14 of my edits to this article have been accepted by all as good edits, despite endless objections from Will Beback. Will himself was admonished for his conduct and goes to great lengths to object to every edit I make. But please have a look at the previous ARB/COM material, a one week ban would have been sufficient for these indiscretions.[96]

In short, judge by this. Five edits which all conform to "material about living persons that is unsourced should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". Three for the unsourced "Satguru" and two for an absurd translation that is contradicted by the source provided to support it. All inserted or re-inserted by Will without consensus and in spite of policy based objections.

Here is my recent editing history:

I have made 14 edits to the article in three months, hardly an edit war.[97] And every edit has been to correct factual errors and all edits have been accepted by all editors.

The first was to remove material that other editors considered too vague and was accepted by all.[98]

The second was to correct grammar at the request of another editor and was accepted by all.[99]

The third was to remove material that I pointed out appeared in the lead but not in the article.[100] It was immediately reverted but all agreed it shouldn't be in the lead and it was removed a.s per my proposal

The fourth was to insert material that should have been in the lead, as per my proposal, and it was agreed by everyone. At the same time I corrected an incorrect date.[101] It was immediately reverted but my edit was reinstated as being correct and was accepted by all.[102] Note that the edit summary used here was automatically appended to a later edit as pointed out by Will.

The fifth was to improve grammar and accepted by all.[103]

The sixth and seventh were to remove material that I pointed out was incorrect.[104]. It was immediately reverted but later reinstated as being a correct edit and was accepted by all.

The eighth was to remove material that I pointed out was incorrect.[105] And was accepted by all.

The ninth was to improve chronology and sources and was accepted by all.[106]

Now we arrive at the current issue, a month since my last article edit. The sentence in dispute is - "At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru to millions of Indian followers". The sources given, Lewis and Downton, both say the position he succeeded to is "Perfect Master". Lewis says "he was recognized as the new Perfect Master and assumed the title, Maharaj Ji" and Downton says "he was elevated to his father's position as Perfect Master at the age of eight". Neither mention "Satguru" and therefore "Satguru" is not sourced.

Despite pointing out to Will Beback that "Satguru" is unsourced and should be replaced by "Perfect Master" and despite ongoing discussion WB inserted "and Perfect Master" into the sentence.[107] This edit a) retained the unsourced "Satguru" and b) gives the impression that Rawat succeeded to TWO positions when there is only ONE.

The tenth edit was to remove "Satguru" since it was unsourced.[108] WB immediately reverted saying "pending consensus" when in fact his previous edit had no consensus and was still being objected to and discussed.

The eleventh edit was to revert back to the original long standing incorrect version because it didn't include the confusion of suggesting Rawat succeeded to TWO positions.[109] Will BeBack's next edit was to insert five false sources to try and legitimise "Satguru", again without consensus. And to reinsert the misleading material that Rawat succeeded to TWO positions.[110]

The twelfth edit was to again remove "Satguru" to accurately reflect the major sources and remove the misleading material that Rawat succeeded to TWO positions.[111] Will Beback then inserted without consensus and despite objections a new version which gave an absurd and incorrect translation of "Satguru".[112]

My thirteenth edit was to remove "Satguru" and it's incorrect translation because it was contradicted by the source that was supposed to support it.[113] This was reverted.

My final edit was to revert back to the version that is faithful to the major sources, doesn't contain the minor description "Satguru" and doesn't contain the objected to incorrect translation.[114]

In short, 14 edits in three months, of which nine have been accepted by all as good and correct edits. And three edits to stop Will Beback from inserting unsourced material into the lead without consensus and despite objections, and two to remove an incorrect translation inserted into the lead without consensus and despite objections. Ignore if you can that I belong to a minority religion. I welcome any questions.Momento (talk) 05:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New response - I see that the admins are obviously unaware of WP:BLP policy which says- "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material". Thus ignoring that Will Beback and PatW "added and restored" unsourced material 5 times in three days and are instead focusing on my removal of the unsourced material which WP:BLP says "should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.Momento (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Momento

Momento is the exact kind of zealous partisan editor who makes Wikipedia impossible for more reasonable people to enjoin. As an ardent follower of the subject with an obvious and highly aggressive 'mission' to clean up the article with regard only for publicity and at the expense of proper encyclopaedic content he constantly mocks the intelligence of others with insubstantial bluster and filibustering, aggressively chases off people with less time or will to oppose his plans. etc. etc. All exactly the kind of unwelcome partisanship that Wikipedians are now struggling to find an effective way to combat. It will be a full-time job stopping Momento turning the article into a revisionist lie I'm afraid.
In response to GWH's comments below -Momento's adventures into the Lede of the article are clearly just the start of his plans to revise the entire article. Momento's apparently limited concerns are just the thin end of the wedge. He has indicated his commitment to a more complete revision on several occasions. It is hard to remain civil in the face of such consistent nastiness but there you go - I often fail as it's hard not to call 'a spade a spade' sometimes. (Can't go on further as am on holiday and internet access keeps cutting out). PatW (talk) 07:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Momento's personal agenda appears to be to try to create a portrayal of his "master" (Prem Rawat) which is subjective and often at odds with the source material. I would say that, on current form, his 'vexatious editing' (to coin a phrase) is not helping to improve the article. Far from it, in fact, and if allowed to continue, his increasingly rude and aggressive attitude is likely to lead to some other editors, myself included - who aren't endowed with the remarkable perseverence that Will Beback displays - simply moving on and leaving the likes of Will with the unenviable and time-consuming task of expending even more energy on battling with this particular proponent of what is evidently partisan editing. Revera (talk) 11:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Momento was topic banned starting on April 20, 2009 from editing any of the Prem Rawat related articles. All articles remained stable during that year. Momento provokes others by making snarky, demeaning, and uncivil remarks to them. He has been doing this consistently to Will Bebeck and I have to praise Will for his patience. Momento constantly refuses to engage in simple, reasonable conversations about his proposals and he obfuscates discussion by denying simple facts. A good example of this was his refusal to acknowledge that the term "Satguru," which has been in the lede since 2009, is in the body of the article. He kept saying the term was not in the article when in fact it is, and all he had to do was a simple word search of the article. This is time-wasting and obnoxious behavior. I think Momento should be permanently topic-banned from all of the Prem Rawat articles because I see no evidence from his behavior since April 2010 that he has learned anything from his year-long ban. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Momento

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

On first impression, I agree with Will's assessment. This is clearly a single-purpose account at this point, it's the area they previously were sanctioned multiple times by Arbcom over, and though they're being polite about it the end effect is pretty disruptive. They do not seem to be helping the Wikipedia topic area coverage, on the whole. This much edit warring and a flip-flop on the title - over only the title - in the lede paragraph? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Gwh and would be minded to reapply the topic ban with a side order of WP:LAME. Or if you're infected with too much good faith, a revert restriction of 1 revert per week with a requirement to explain reverts might work. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I must concur with both of my colleagues towards reapplying the topic ban. Momento does fulfil all the classic signs of a single purpose account, and with nearly 8,000 edits has only edited 194 distinct pages. If Momento wishes to productively contribute outside the Prem Rawat article and related pages, so be it, but the disruption to the area needs to be put to a stop. Courcelles 09:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I received an email from Momento earlier today; it echoed comments made in his response to Will above.

Three admins concurring is usually enough for taking an action here, but it won't hurt anyone if we wait another few hours until tonight to see if anyone else has input. If we don't get dissenting admin opinions I will reimpose the one-year article ban tonight. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with above comments in this subsection by admins Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs), Stifle (talk · contribs), and Courcelles (talk · contribs). A topic ban of duration one year would be an appropriate remedy to apply with respect to the user in question. -- Cirt (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a consensus to me. Per the discussion above, and under the authority of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat#Article probation, Momento (talk · contribs) is banned from Prem Rawat and all related articles and discussions, for one year. Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by MarshallBagramyan

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: MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, beginning from July 23, topic-banned for three months from pages or edits related to Armenia or Azerbaijan.

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

Notification of that administrator

[115]

Statement by MarshallBagramyan

Just over a month ago, I was imposed with a three month topic ban by administrator Sandstein. The topic ban followed on the heels of a counter-complaint by a user named Tuscumbia, whom I had previously filed an arbitration complaint for edit warring. The result was that both of us were topic banned from editing articles relating to Armenia and Azerbaijan for three months (our exchange on the article in question can be found in whole here: [116]).

I initially did not contest the ban because I, paradoxically enough, viewed it as a refreshing way of backing away from the acrimonious debates and arguments I had been involved in. My ban, however, was not imposed because of edit-warring, as Tuscumbia's was. Rather, it was partially due to comments perceived to be incivil. I had used the word "stinky" to describe an argument used by Tuscumbia on an article talk page, and as I reflect upon it now, it does seem to be a rather poor choice of wording (the word "poor" would probably have worked instead) and I'm now at odds at how that even came about. The other reason the ban was imposed was because of my contention that a certain line of reasoning was consistently being used by the editors from Azerbaijan. However, I want to stress, in no uncertain terms, that this argument was simply intended as an observation of a pattern I found troubling on Wikipedia - far from, as Sandstein believed, me attempting to turn Wikipedia into a battleground between two or more ethnic groups. Perhaps in this case, too, my word selection could have been improved, but I wish the reviewers here to clearly understand that no malice was intended on my part.

I also came to the belated realization that Tuscumbia and I were literally not understanding each other on the article we were editing. He continued to press me to provide him with "extra details" of a book I had cited, without realizing that I was employing the Chicago Manual of Style, which, after citing a source in full more than once, does not necessarily require that the publication information, publication date, etc. be reproduced in following citations. Apparently, he was not familiar with the CMS and did not understand that the following citations were all coming from the same book (a problem compounded by the fact that there are 4 volumes with the same title but different subtitles). Gallons of ink, so to speak, were spilled in the reverts that followed, with neither one of us actually realizing the gist of the problem (or lack thereof)

I did not bother challenging the block because, as I said, I viewed it as a sort of mixed-blessing. In the month since I have been banned, I've been allowed to go on temporary wiki-breaks and edit other articles which I have had an interest in. Be that as it may, I feel that the block was imposed on a misunderstanding or two and I wish that my three month block simply be commuted to the amount of time that I have been editing under restrictions (1 month, plus change). For good measure, perhaps the imposition of a 1 week revert parole for the next 2-3 weeks can also be added on the same articles in question.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. It is wrong to misinterpret my comment and dismiss it as simply another case of someone trying to incite ethnic antagonism on Wikipedia. My intention was not at all as you described it. While I do not wish to dwell on the validity of my argument, I do freely admit that it was poorly formulated and that I could have exerted a greater effort to elucidate it with more proper wording. In regards to my lack of editing activity: my contributions prior to my ban may have focused on articles relating to Armenia but they also included numerous articles on films, video games, Byzantium, the Middle Ages, the Middle East, the Soviet Union/Russia, among other topics. It is also, after all, summer and hence vacation time, and over the past few weeks I have been away from the computer for long spells, and have had sporadic, if any, access to the internet, preventing me from carrying out edits which I otherwise would have done.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that NovaSkola's comments below are inappropriately intrusive so I will simply address Stifle's comments for the moment. I'm not quite sure what sort of "convincing" would be satisfactory but I can only reiterate that I am not asking for a full lifting of the ban. I have suggested that, in exchange for it, that I be placed in revert parole for a period of time. I can in the meantime promise to try edit more articles outside of my "niche" as Sandstein has termed it but my limited access to the internet currently prevents me from doing so. I think the comments which landed me the ban in the first place were misconstrued, and given the generally intense atmosphere found on any article or talk page relating to Armenia or Azerbaijan, I can understand why it was imposed so rapidly in the first place. Like I said above, I didn't bother contesting it for a number of reasons, but I feel that the 3 month ban period does not at all correspond to the infraction that I committed. For lack of proper confidence-building measures, would the administrators instead be more amenable to commuting the ban from 3 months down to 2, and imposing 1-RR restrictions for the remainder of the period?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

The discussion leading to that ban can be found here. This appeal by MarshallBagramyan does not convince me that his comment at issue, "Falsely alleging POV is ... a stinky argument and one which has been vainly used by the Azerbaijanis time and time again", should not be understood as exactly the sort of nationalist battleground behavior that the remedy was intended to address, conceiving of Wikipedia as a contest between nationalities rather than a collaboration between individuals. I am also concerned that MarshallBagramyan's editing until the ban on July 23 seemed to be entirely focused on issues related to the area of conflict (ethno-national conflicts in the area in and around Armenia) and that he has since made very few content contributions. It is seldom helpful to the encyclopedia to focus one's editing entirely on a contested area, see WP:ARBR&I#Single purpose accounts. The topic ban will help MarshallBagramyan demonstrate that he is indeed capable of editing neutrally outside his niche topic, which happens to be a particular focus of contention. Accordingly, I recommend that this appeal be declined. Sandstein 05:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment concerning NovaSkola (talk · contribs)'s contribution below: Although I agree on the merits, I don't think that a user whose user page reads "God Bless Azerbaijan and My People!!!!" should post in the section designated for discussion among uninvolved editors. Sandstein 11:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by MarshallBagramyan

Bearing in mind MarshallBagramyan has been sanctioned three times under A-A before, I am not sure if further leniency is merited here. I remain open to being convinced otherwise. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this user has been warned too many times to given second chance. It is time put end to this gameplay.--NovaSkola (talk) 08:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by MarshallBagramyan

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

Captain Occam

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

Request concerning Captain Occam

User requesting enforcement: Wapondaponda (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Proposed decision#Captain_Occam_topic-banned

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

[117] Using a proxy account Ferahgo the Assassin to canvass another user, Victor Chmara to revert a specific edit. Victor Chmara went on to revert as per request [118]
[119] Ferahgo the Assassin canvasses for more help. Ferahgo the Assassin does not want to do the job by themselves for "fear of being labeled a meatpuppet".
Wikipedia:Meat#Meatpuppetry states "For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has decided that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity"

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

See additional comments

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Extension of topic ban to include proxy accounts.

Two weeks have passed since arbcom votes were finalized that led to Captain Occam's editing restrictions. During these two weeks, Captain Occam has gamed his editing restrictions, firstly by claiming that the race (classification of human) was not within the scope of his ban, and secondly by using a proxy account. Almathea, an uninvolved administrator who closed the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Captain Occam case, has suggested based on the investigation that Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin should be considered as one entity. According to the proposed enforcement,

Should any user subject to a topic ban in this case violate that ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of each block.

Topic bans are a relatively mild editing restriction, as the IP below has mentioned, the topic ban still leaves an editor with more than 99.99 % of Wikipedia available for editing. Furthermore, the topic ban is only a temporary measure, in this case six months, meant to deescalate the dispute. Captain Occam will get an opportunity to work on race and intelligence articles again. But seeing that Captain Occam has not appreciated the opportunity given to him to prove that he has the overall interest of the project at heart, it is worth considering applying a temporary software restriction. Captain Occam is a high maintenance editor, and a software restriction might give some relief to the community. It would also give Captain Occam a chance to go cold turkey on race and intelligence matters as a preparation for the topic ban. As an involved editor, I have my biases, but I believe this suggestion will help deescalate the situation. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: There are previous discussions concerning this matter at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Proposed decision#Meat and at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. In both these discussions Captain Occam and or Ferahgo the Assassin are advised to avoid the appearance of Meatpuppetry.

Responses

@Ferahgo the Assassin/Captain Occam. The whole purpose of using proxy accounts is to create as much ambiguity concerning the independence of the proxy account because proxy accounts will in some aspects be independent since they are a separate individuals from the main account. Ferahgo the Assassin states "Suppose for a second that I really am not a sock of Occam, and that I'm not a meatpuppet either". Yes I have been prepared to consider this, but unfortunately your editing pattern tells a different story. As of today you have made about 150 edits to wikipedia since 2006 [120], most of these are unrelated to race and intelligence (dinosaurs etc which is great). However all of your edits to race and intelligence related material were to support Captain Occam or his POV. Therefore your editing record on race and intelligence issues has not demonstrated any independence.

Given the ambiguity of proxy accounts, I consider it a perfect loophole ready for exploitation. Furthermore, it is in our human nature to have a soft spot for wiki-romances, so I believe this is going to be a difficult case to handle. But given the recent history of the dispute I think this is serious issue as once again, the community is being sidetracked from addressing content issues.

Though not essential, if Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Captain Occam is accepted, the report may provide some useful information for this case.

Clarification

Captain Occam states "Ferahgo has also been registered at Wikipedia since 2008". Maybe that was the first edit, but according to Captain Occam's log, he registered his account on 11 November 2006 at 05:18. According to Ferhago the Assassin's log, the user registered their account on 11 November 2006 at 06:01.

Notifications

[121] Captain Occam notified

[122] Ferahgo the Assassin notified

[123] Victor Chmara notified

Discussion concerning Captain Occam

Statement by Captain Occam

This report seems to be an example of a recurring problem that exists at Wikipedia. The problem is that when one user expresses support for another’s viewpoint, many users seem to assume that this in itself is evidence of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. I’ve been loosely following the Climate Change case that’s currently in progress, so I’m aware of how often that problem has arisen in this article: that when editors show up who have opinions similar to those of Scibaby, a known sockpuppeteer, this is taken as them being evidence of them being Scibaby sockpuppets even though in some cases they aren’t. One of the proposed remedies is specifically intended to address this problem: “An editor who brings forward the same or similar view as a blocked or banned user should not automatically be assumed to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet in the absence of other evidence.”

There is evidence that Ferahgo the Assassin and I know one another off-wiki, but is there evidence that they’re actually a meatpuppet—that is, a user who joined Wikipedia specifically in order to support me? Unlike Scibaby, I have no past history of sockpuppetry. Ferahgo has also been registered at Wikipedia since 2008, which was well before they or I were involved in these articles, and during the time since then at least nine-tenths of their edits have had nothing to do with supporting me or my viewpoint. If arbitrators are going to apply the same standards of evidence for sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry here they intend to apply to the climate change article, I think it’s pretty obvious that this user’s having a viewpoint similar to mine and knowing me off-wiki are not enough to qualify.

For that matter, I don’t think Ferahgo has said enough about their viewpoint on this topic for anyone to know how similar their viewpoint is to mine. Muntuwandi writes, “However all of your edits to race and intelligence related material were to support Captain Occam or his POV.” Ferahgo has never edited any race and intelligence related articles themselves, and during the two years they’ve been registered they’ve probably left no more than 15 comments on talk pages related to this. Based on those 15 talk page comments, is it justified to state that this user “has not demonstrated any independence”? On the basis of the small amount they’ve revealed about their viewpoint on this topic, their viewpoint could also be considered consistent with the viewpoints expressed by David.Kane, Varoon Arya, DistributiveJustice, Bpesta22, or Rvcx, the last four of whom have neither been sanctioned nor accused of being socks. In the absence of any evidence other than this that Ferahgo the Assassin is a “proxy account” of mine, this request for them to be topic banned is about conduct not covered by the arbitration ruling, which according to the notice at the top of the page does not belong here.

If the community is being sidetracked from addressing content issues, it’s because of these constant accusations of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. I’m confident that if Ferahgo could be treated the same way on these articles as any other user, nobody would notice anything non-neutral or disruptive about their editing patterns. But instead, they’ve been treated with such hostility that it’s apparently made them afraid to participate in the articles at all, except by bringing up possible issues with other editors in their user talk. This hostility was initiated by Mathsci, who’s now topic banned for his history of personal attacks against other users, and his repeatedly cutting off Ferahgo’s attempts to participate in discussions about these articles with these accusations of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry was one example of the behavior for which Mathsci was sanctioned. Topic banning Mathsci was one step towards restoring normalcy to the editing environment on these articles, but if administrators want to stop the community from being sidetracked like this, they also need to stop this same behavior from being repeated by other users.--Captain Occam (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Captain Occam

The concern is legitimate, as Captain Occam regularly asked other editors via their talk pages to help edit according to his point of view on various articles, as confirmed by the findings of fact in the recent ArbCom case. On Victor's behalf, I will say that I think he makes independent decisions about what to edit in articles and what to leave as is. Victor and I definitely don't think alike about how to edit the articles we both edit—which is why I expect to learn a lot from him—and I would hate to see him be put in a position of being blamed if other editors ask him to do edits that they are unwilling to do in their own names. Thus, if this is seen as sanctionable conduct, one issue to think about in framing the sanction would be to ensure that Victor is left by himself to make his own decisions that he discusses with unsanctioned editors on his or their talk pages, or on article talk pages. I currently see Victor's conduct on the articles that are within the scope of the recent case as challenging in the best sense of that word: he puts other editors to their proof to ensure that articles are properly sourced. I don't see his conduct as currently violative of any Wikipedia principles or guidelines. On my part, I will probably take extra care to make my communications with other editors about articles in this category appear on the article talk pages (or category or WikiProject talk pages) to avoid any possibility of secret canvassing, which I hear is quite disfavored on Wikipedia. But other editors of all points of view are welcome to visit my talk page if they have something to say to me directly. I think the atmosphere since the decision in the ArbCom case has been constructive and civil and has helped several editors have more time for looking up sources because of less time spent on wikidrama. I look forward to that new atmosphere continuing. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ferahgo the Assassin wrote on my talk page about questionable content in The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy, asking me to take a look at it. I reviewed the content, and removed it after finding it to be original research unsupported by the claimed sources (one of which seemed to be a personal webpage). At this point, I didn't think there was anything suspicious about Ferahgo's request, because I didn't think he had been involved in R&I disputes and he seemed to have an edit history largely unrelated to R&I, and because The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy is an article I have been generally involved with anyway.

However, Ferahgo's follow-up post[124] on my talk page raised my suspicions, and I would have questioned him about why he does not do the edits himself if this Arbitration enforcement case had not come up. If Ferahgo is indeed a meatpuppet or sockpuppet of Occam or some other topic-banned user, I naturally don't want to abet them in their policy violations.--Victor Chmara (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that Ferahgo should fall under the topic ban, even though she knows Captain Occam in real life. However, if she wants to participate I think it should be done above board on the articles talk pages, preferably by doing the research and reading herself instead of lobbying other users to intervene on her behalf. aprock (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feragho was warned twice that, given her real life relationship with Captain Occam, sudden entry into the topic area just after his topic ban was unlikely to go over well. It may also be interesting to note that within 20 edits of starting her account which still has less than 200 edits in the year it's been open, Feragho popped in to defend Captain Occam [125], has continued to do so throughout this dispute [126], [127] and has a strikingly similar opinion on the dispute[128]. There's a wide world of Wikipedia out there that wouldn't be a concern. Shell ^babelfish 23:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see from her latest post that Feragho shares another characteristic with Captain Occam: an inability to accept responsibility for their own actions. Roger Davies ^talk 10:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advice to Ferahgo for how to edit these articles without upset. a) Wait until after Captain Occam's article restrictions are up. b) Reflect on the messages that arb comm has given Captain Occam, which were Loud and Clear. In order to learn, you have to listen when you're being told not to do something. c) Gain considerably more experience editing elsewhere. d) Avoid temptation-stay completely away from the articles and their talk pages, don't even read them, during your sabatical. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Occam is indefinitely topic banned, so waiting until his restriction is up might mean never getting to edit them at all. I know that's probably the safest thing to do, but it's hardly fair: I've never done anything sanctionable on these articles. What I'd like advice on is how I can participate in them without offending people.

I've seen the message arbcom has given Occam, and I've seen what he's done wrong. I won't make the same mistakes if given the opportunity to participate. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The decision lays out the course of action which would allow that the ban might be lifted. You've already made two of the same mistakes. You've resorted to talk page recruitment to circumvent fallout from editing there directly, acknowledging as you did so that direct involvement on your part would likely invoke charges of meat puppetry. Don't canvass, don't use other editors to execute edits for you. Second, you're pushing back rather than learning from advice and warnings when they're given you. Your editing of these articles has every appearance of meat puppetry, you've been warned not to do it: that's usually all it takes, no polygraph tests or truth serums required. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Occam was banned for edit warring and false claims of consensus. His finding of fact doesn't mention contacting other users on their talk pages, and I honestly did not know that contacting a single user for their input on an issue would be a problem. Trust me, I've definitely learned from my mistake and I won't be doing that again. I thought that reverting an edit would be regarded as more combative than pointing out that I disagree with them on a user's talk page, and asking them for their opinion, but it's clear that I was wrong.

That said, I think it's obvious that I won't be able to convince you of anything here. I already explained why I think that my behavior and my pattern of contributions are not consistent with what constitutes meatpuppetry. If this isn't enough to make a difference to anyone, then it looks like maybe Vecrumba is right: that the only way I can possibly get people to assume good faith about me is to pretend that Occam's topic ban applies to me, despite my having violated nothing.

The amount of hostility that's shown to newcomers on these articles - if they have unpopular opinions, anyway - is truly astounding. And not just in regards to myself, either. While I've been watching these articles, I've seen several others being given basically the same treatment, despite having violated as little as I have. If this hostility extends to topic banning me from these articles despite having never edited them, then this is going to show me something about Wikipedia that I find pretty distasteful. I'd like to contribute positively to these articles, but at this point it's a matter of principle for me also. I would like to be treated fairly here. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an "anyone can edit" encyclopedia which extends tremendous faith in its editors, without even knowing their names, without background checks, without credentials, recommendations or any other of the bona fides demanded in most such spheres. But there's only so much AGF that can be extended without becoming such an overt invitation for abuse that its most civic minded, time invested volunteers are ashamed their involvement helped lend the project "legitimacy". Don't take it personally. But they have to draw the line somewhere. When an editor walks like a duck, squawks like one, swims with the duck, lives and migrates with 'em, edits from the same IPs, vacations with 'em, coordinates on blogs and websites together, and commiserates like one, probably daily, over how unfair and unwelcoming wikipedia is together.....well, wikipedia has to draw a line someplace. And drawing it just about here doesn't seem so outrageous to me. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ferahgo the Assassin

I've never actually edited these articles before, but I've always been interested in them and in this topic. Up until recently I've been reluctant to get involved because of the way the editing atmosphere has historically been, and I didn't want to get in the middle of mudslinging. However, with the addition of the recent discretionary sanctions on the article, I was hoping that would change. I also thought that now that fewer people are participating in these articles, they needed a new set of eyes on them.

Ever since before the arbcom case closed, whenever I've posted anything on any of these articles I've gotten accusations of being a meatpuppet or a sockpuppet, even though I'm (obviously, in my own view) not. In order to be considered a meatpuppet, I would need to be "A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose." You can see [129] that there is no way that this could be the "sole purpose" I'm editing Wikipedia. My comments on Victor's userpage are the result of this dilemma. On one hand I want to participate in these articles, and I feel like they need more attention now in general. But on the other hand I'm afraid of how I'll be treated if I started editing them. An arbitrator even suggested that I wait a while before getting involved, which made me even more reluctant to start editing the articles, but now it looks like my caution has worked to my disadvantage.

My comments on Victor's userpage are definitely not for the same reason as Occam's have been in the past. Unlike him, I'm not trying to canvass or tag-team. In my case, it's just that I've been afraid to edit these articles because of how it's gone in the past, but I also felt like these issues needed someone's attention. I also wanted Victor's opinion on them, since I know he's a much more experienced editor than I am. Even though these articles have discretionary sanctions now, it looks like administrators aren't paying attention to instances of original synth and POV-pushing. I had asked an admin earlier here what to do to bring this to an admin's attention, but received no response. I don’t know very much about how to get answers to questions like these, and I really wanted some advice about this.

I find it really disheartening that these accusations are being leveled at me before I've even gotten involved in any actual editing. As far as I know, I've never done anything wrong on any of these articles, and I would at least like to be given the chance to participate here neutrally. If it's not appropriate for me to comment on others' userpages in order to point out problematic material to them, then I can stop doing that, and can instead begin making the edits myself as Aprock suggested.

Suppose for a second that I really am not a sock of Occam, and that I'm not a meatpuppet either. That despite an off-Wiki connection to Occam, I have my own ideas, opinions and style of editing that are separate and distinct from his, and that I'd like to contribute to this part of Wikipedia now that I feel like it's finally "safe" for me to edit here. What, then, should I do? How is it fair to prevent me from editing these articles due to something I can't control? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for seemingly being unable to do anything right here. I am genuinely trying, but everything I do is the wrong thing. If someone can suggest a way for me to participate in these articles like any other user without offending anyone, I'd follow it.-Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a suggestion at the moment, however, any such suggestion requires an assumption of good faith that your opinion and expression thereof is yours and yours alone. Right now it appears that doing anything (other than editing Peas and Carrots) is the wrong thing. You might stick to discussions at articles for a while until editors can form their own opinions of your editorial viewpoint and conduct independent of other factors. (I myself showed up at an inopportune time and was accused of having shown up for reasons other than my interest in the subject matter area.) This is the best I can offer at the moment. We will only put the arbitration behind us and move forward if we stop going back to it. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. Unfortunately, though, I've already tried sticking to commenting on talk pages - that's what I was trying to do by commenting on Victor Chmara's page. Evidently that's a problem too, since it's why Muntuwandi raised this concern. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Declaring you guilty a priori I think is a bit premature and a continuation of the R&I drama. See WeijiBaikeBianji's offer below to start. I would venture that WeijiBaikeBianji's talk page would also be a neutral venue. Perhaps Muntuwandi would agree to that? I've got very little spare time at the moment and unfortunately this sort of stuff is taking what little attention I can devote at the moment instead of thinking about improving content. I suspect I'm not alone. The arbitration was supposed to close all this drama so editors could get back to content, not to be a launching point for continuation of the conflict. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by 67.119.3.248

[Note: I wasn't part of the dispute and stayed away from the arb case, but I commented in some of the prior ANI threads that failed to resolve the dispute.]

Ferahgo, being locked out of editing 0.01% of Wikipedia without direct cause, while remaining free to edit in the other 99.99%, is indeed not 100% fair. However, in some reasonable sense of the word, it's 99.99% fair, or anyway better than 90% fair. That's more fairness than anyone can hope for in a heck of a lot of areas of life in general, so it's best to just accept it as part of the cards you've been dealt. Remember that arbcom's job is to do what's best for the project as a whole, even when that involves dealing out tiny doses of unfairness to individual editors. Massive unfairness is bad for the project, but this doesn't anywhere near qualify.

Being intensely desirous to edit in one contentious subject area is itself a sign of over-investment in that subject. It's better to disengage from such areas and stay in areas you can maintain more detachment. You're making nice contributions about dinosaurs and it's obvious from your illustration skills that you know a lot about art. So those are immediately obvious areas where you can help out. The more contentious subjects in WP are generally pretty disreputable anyway, as well as being unpleasant to work in. I gave up on them a long time ago. What good reputation Wikipedia has in the world, comes mostly from subject areas (like art and science and literature) that are comparatively conflict-free on-wiki. You'll help the project a lot more by contributing to its high-quality coverage of reputable and uncontentious topics, than by crawling down to its "slums" and participating in its gang wars.

I, as an unregistered user, am locked out of 1000's of articles that are semi-protected due to vandalism, even though I've never vandalized anything. Some of those articles are on topics I'd quite like to contribute to. What do I do about it? Shrug my shoulders and edit other articles instead. There are plenty, so many that I could never get to them all no matter what. It's no big deal. You can do the same.

Regards, 67.119.3.248 (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "I, as an unregistered user, am locked out of 1000's of articles" This is your choice, so I fail to see how you are "locked" out of anything. What do you do about it? If you were sufficiently motivated, you'd register and not kvetch about it. "I have chosen to remain an unregistered user and to not participate in 1000's of articles" would be the appropriate statement in your case. You will pardon my cynicism (or is it idealism?) but if every contentious topic were abandoned to gang wars as you seem to propose, WP wouldn't be much of an encyclopedia. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Amalthea

Per WP:SHARE: "Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives." I accept that Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam were created by two distinct persons. However, per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Captain Occam, they are closely related, and Ferahgo is thus essentially topic-banned from "race and intelligence related articles, broadly construed" along with Captain Occam.
I do not see need for any action at this point beyond making this clear. Amalthea 10:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the "editing with the same objectives" that won't apply in my own case. I'm aware that I expressed some content opinions that were similar to Occam's before his topic ban; there was nothing wrong with doing so at that point. When we were both allowed to participate, we only needed to be careful to not violate 3RR and other stuff that would be a violation if done by a single user. But because of Occam's ban, I intend for my future participation in this article to be very different from his. I don't even intend to make edits that would make it clear what my viewpoint is if it weren't already public knowledge.

What I think would be a fair decision from this thread is for an admin to tell me that I'm allowed to participate in these articles, but that I need be absolutely independent, neutral, and non-contentious. If someone wants to scrutinize my edits to make sure I'm behaving, that would be fine. But before having ever edited them all, I think I deserve some amount of rope here. You'll never know if I can edit these articles differently from Occam without being given a chance. If I screw up, then it would be extremely easy to topic ban me after the fact, and I doubt I'd even raise an objection. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 12:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly consider it only friendly and helpful, a contribution to Wikipedia, if you made suggestions in my user space about sources. If you know of sources that other Wikipedians don't know about, share the knowledge. If you have thoughts about which sources are most valuable, please let everyone know. Wikipedia is all about verifiability through reliable sources, and my biggest concern as I surf around Wikipedia is how many more and better sources most articles need. Anyone who is well familiar with an academic library, especially an academic library with medically reliable sources, can help the project greatly by telling other editors about those sources. I'll do the work of verifying the bibliographic data for each source and typing up those data in citation tag format. You and other users can help by thinking out loud on the suggestions page of the bibliography about how the sources differ and what signs of reliability each source has. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Captain Occam

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

There does not appear to me to be anything that could be done to resolve this matter that is intra vires this noticeboard. We can't give declaratory relief; either Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin are meatpuppets or they are not, but that is a finding of fact which we will not make. But if they are, then there is a topic-ban violation which any admin can sanction without further ado, and if they are not, then the matter should be referred back to ArbCom by way of a request for amendment. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani

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

Request concerning Nishidani

User requesting enforcement: Broccoli (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: [130]

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

[131] Commenting on I/P related topic
[132] Commenting on I/P related topic
[133] Commenting on I/P related topic

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

Not applicable.

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Nishidani violated his topic ban, and it is not first time already. Please enforse the sunctions.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: diff link

Discussion concerning Nishidani

Statement by Nishidani

Comments by others about the request concerning Nishidani

The second diff does not work. The other two do not relate to editing in the IP area, but to defending an editor facing apparently racially-motivated abuse. This complaint is without foundation. RolandR (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except for a reference to Masada2000's S.H.I.T. List ("Self-Hating and/or Israel-Threatening"), I don't see anything that could be interpreted as related to Israel or Palestine. Agree with Roland that there's no basis for this complaint. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The timestamp of the second diff seems to indicate this edit is the one being referred to. The relevant sanction says, and I quote directly, "He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles." If the sanction was intended to ensure that the individual refrain from even discussing matters at ANI, which all three links are to, then perhaps enforcement is justified. Having said that, I am not myself convinced that it is necessarily a good idea to sanction someone for discussing a community ban, which seems to be what all three posts related to. I believe it would send a very bad message to the community. John Carter (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if the sanction did preclude Nishidani from commenting on ANI community ban Discussions (and I don't believe it does), his edits referred to above would not be covered. They have absolutely nothing to do with Israel or Palestine, and everything to do with defending a Jewish editor from racially-motivated hostility. RolandR (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, user:Mbz1 was blocked for 48 hours for this edit. The edit was made on AE, and had absolutely nothing to do with I/P conflict area. Not to block user:Nishidani for a much worse topic ban violation would be unjustifiable. Broccoli (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Nishidani

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

174.112.83.21

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

Request concerning 174.112.83.21

User requesting enforcement: Dailycare (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: 174.112.83.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions

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

diff removal of sourced content, without explanation
diff Removal of sourced content after discontinuing contributing on the talkpage
diff Again
diff Explicit refusal to co-operate and also refusal to provide sources he/she has invoked e.g. here and here.
diff On another talkpage, IP is again withholding what his/her "objections" are and a user is asking for them
diff Another one
diff IP perhaps responds to the two preceding ones

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

diff Warning by WGFinley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
diff Warning by Dailycare (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Topic ban/block (what's appropriate for an IP?)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: This IP has been acting tendentiously in more than one article by opposing edits without articulating reasons for doing so (see diffs mentioned above) and removing sourced, even multiply sourced, material. For example in the Gilo article IP has continued (after discontinuing offering any input on Talk) removing a mention that Gilo is in East Jerusalem, despite the fact that in Talk, seven sources (BBC, New York Times, LA Times, Le Monde, The Guardian, the British Foreign Office and Jerusalem Post) had been presented saying this. IP also failed to provide articulated reasons why "East Jerusalem" shouldn't be in the article, except this but continued to remove the text from the article. IP has been cautioned against inappropriate behaviour e.g. here.

As an additional point, the editing history of this IP looks a bit interesting with very sporadic (and apparently minor) edits in 2009 followed by a surge of activity, in Israeli-Palestine articles, beginning August 13, 2010.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: diff

Discussion concerning 174.112.83.21

Statement by 174.112.83.21

Comments by others about the request concerning 174.112.83.21

Result concerning 174.112.83.21

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 893: / Line 893: @@
 *The timestamp of the second diff seems to indicate [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=381566602 this edit] is the one being referred to. The relevant sanction says, and I quote directly, "He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles." If the sanction was intended to ensure that the individual refrain from even discussing matters at ANI, which all three links are to, then perhaps enforcement is justified. Having said that, I am not myself convinced that it is necessarily a good idea to sanction someone for discussing a community ban, which seems to be what all three posts related to. I believe it would send a very bad message to the community. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 20:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 **Even if the sanction did preclude Nishidani from commenting on ANI community ban Discussions (and I don't believe it does), his edits referred to above would not be covered. They have absolutely nothing to do with Israel or Palestine, and everything to do with defending a Jewish editor from racially-motivated hostility. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">[[User:RolandR|RolandR]] ([[User talk:RolandR|talk]])</span> 20:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
+***Well, [[:user:Mbz1]]  was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mbz1/archive#AE_block  blocked for 48 hours] for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=354641444 this edit]. The edit was made on AE, and had absolutely nothing to do with I/P conflict area. Not to block [[:user:Nishidani ]] for a much worse topic ban violation would be unjustifiable. [[User:ברוקולי|Broccoli]] ([[User talk:ברוקולי|talk]]) 22:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 ===Result concerning Nishidani===

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