Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:57, 10 November 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

Epeefleche

Closed without action

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

Request concerning Epeefleche

User requesting enforcement: nableezy - 20:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Epeefleche (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 tag discussed extensively on talk page without making any comments on talk page
[2] Again

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

[3] Notified of case

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Restriction on reverts, or removing tags, or a topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: I think Epeefleche is being purposefully antagonistic with his removal of the tag, knowing that I am under a 1RR. The tag and the cause for its placement is discussed extensively on the talk page. Epeefleche twice removes a tag that explicitly says to not remove absent consensus for doing so, and he does so without making any comment on the talk page. Such editor behavior makes it impossible to assume good faith and when an editor even denies that there is a dispute it is impossible to have a good faith discussion about how to solve the dispute.

This may seem like a minor, trivial thing, but I am really sick and tired of dealing with bullshit like this. Epeefleche claims that whether or not OR is present in the article is discussed in the AfD and that there is consensus that there is no OR. That is a manifestly absurd statement that any person who reads the AfD can see. He then also claims that I am the only person on the talk page who feels that there is OR in the article. I am also one of only 2 editors who had made any comments at all on the talk page, so 1/2 isnt exactly a small percentage. The removal of a tag that is discussed on the talk page was done in bad faith and the second quick revert of a tag that says not to remove absent consensus is further evidence of the bad faith practice and gaming that Ep regularly engages in. I dont know whether or not an admin will see this in the same way, but I for one am sick of dealing with such editing behavior. nableezy - 21:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt, your response does not make any sense to me. What about Ep's involvement with the AFD entitles him to repeatedly remove a tag placed on an article and discussed on the talk page? Should I take from this that editors may remove any tag they wish without discussion or addressing the cause of the tag and make multiple reverts within minutes to do so? If that is the lesson here I can learn it, no problem. But I dont think that is the lesson here. The user has not been engaged on the talk page, despite what you write below (this is the only edit the user has made to the talk page, and he did that after removing the tag twice), and the user has not addressed any of the issues raised. Why exactly should an editor be entitled to repeatedly remove a tag placed in good faith and discussed on the talk page? Both removals by Ep were manifestly done in bad faith, if that is not sanctionable then so be it. But Ill keep that lesson in mind going forward. nableezy - 21:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Che, in case you havent noticed, I havent brought AE cases every time I have been reverted. If Ep had been reverting content or something similar I would not have brought this here. But I cant even place a tag on an article, a tag that is valid and discussed on the talk page, without certain users repeatedly removing it? I have already given up trying to fix the actual content, I realize that there is a set of users that will revert almost any content change I make. But even a frickin tag is removed? The reason I brought this here is I am tired of dealing with such bad faith actions and bad faith editors. What other recourse is available to me? nableezy - 21:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [4]

Discussion concerning Epeefleche

Statement by Epeefleche

Nableezy fails to reflect the following:

Nableezy, I, and others had extensive conversation at the article's AfD as to whether the article is OR or not. Nableezy argued repeatedly that it is. In comment after comment at the AfD. For example: "To combine sources using the analogy into an article on an analogy is synthesis of primary sources. In other words, original research." and "OR based on syntheisis", and "You invented a topic", and "that is just a facade that if wiped away reveals serious problems with this article regarding original research." Not only was Nableezy's position revealed not to be the consensus position. It was revealed to be a fringe, tiny minority position. As I and others pointed out to him. In fact, of the 12 !voters, only 1 other agreed with him.
When I first deleted, I left a note in the edit summary that the tag was inapplicable, Nableezy reverted me pointing me to the talk page. And making the curious statement—at distinct odds with the AfD discussion of a dozen editors— that "it is quite clear this tag is applicable and consensus is needed to remove it".
When I reverted, I in turn indicated in my edit summary "see the AfD -- it is quite clear that your view is a minority view, and not the consensus view", and within 2 minutes (and before this was opened)
I wrote at the talk page "As reflected in the AfD, Nableezy's view that this is OR is a fringe, tiny minority view. Consensus is at odds with his view."
The talk page that Nableezy referred me to, curiously, was one where he was the only editor to express his view of OR.

To be transparent, I have in the past triggered a sanction of Nableezy myself with a complaint. But I'm not sure precisely why Nableezy is under 1RR at the moment, or what the scope of his restriction is. Frankly, whenever I run into him, he seems to repeat himself a lot and not respect consensus, as at the AfD, so I'm not interested in conversations that involve him for the most part.

But this sort of bad faith behavior and blatant attempt to intimidate on his part is just the sort of thing that should qualify an editor for sanctions.

I made a good faith appropriate revert of the tag. Completely in line with the AfD rejection of his notion that there is an OR problem at the article. He is of the somewhat peculiar (IMHO) view that because he is under 1RR, I should not have reverted. He appears to believe that because he is under a 1RR restriction, presumably for disruptive editing, all other non-disruptive editors editing articles that he edits are under 1RR as well ... or else they are editing in bad faith, if they disagree with him. I'm not quite sure that is the intent of 1RR.

In the immediately preceding string, Nableezy's sanctions for his disruptive behavior over the past six months are detailed. Though I weighed in there, I did not weigh in against Nableezy. Making his suggestion that I am "being purposefully antagonistic" towards him somewhat odd. If I were, surely I could have joined those in the above string calling for further sanctions against him.

Just yesterday, Nableezy at the AfD accused others, without apparent basis, of "half-assed questioning of motives". And yet here he himself accuses me without any honest/legitimate basis whatsoever of "being purposefully antagonistic", "regularly" engaging in "bad faith practice and gaming", "manifest" bad faith, "bad faith actions", and being a "bad faith editor". Nableezy's incivility here, and the defamatory nature of his incivility, is disturbing to me.

I urge an admin to take appropriate action against Nableezy. He surely was aware that his view was a severely fringe minority view in the AfD. And that it was not supported by anyone else on the talk page. And I had in fact responded on the talkpage before he brought this. He has rebutted the assumption of good faith, and should be appropriately sanctioned for bringing this in bad faith, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And — as to the continued thumbing of his nose by Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at core Wikipedia policies, and continued disruption, at the same AfD — see this, where he knowingly violates Wikipedia policy while saying he does not care if he gets blocked.

Rarely have I seen a 7-times-blocked editor so blatantly tell admins to go F... themselves, and so clearly admit his lack of interest in abiding by core Wikipedia policies. We really need the admins here to step up to the plate, and sanction Nableezy for his continued willful disruption. To do otherwise is to encourage continued disruption and a complete lack of respect for WP's policies and the admins who apply them (by him and others), to the detriment of the Project.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Epeefleche

[5].--brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by ElComandanteChe: I only wounder if filling AE complaint every time being reverted is a honest attempt to build a consensus, a refusal to get a point or a creative attempt to relegate own 1RR restriction? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it belongs to this page, but I'll still replay to this comment here instead of user talk page: Nableezy, you did а great job alienating many editors (perfectly able to edit productively otherwise) with impatience, arrogance and disrespect. No surprise AGF is applied to you no more. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Greg L: Complainant writes Epeefleche twice removes a tag that explicitly says to not remove absent consensus for doing so, and he does so without making any comment on the talk page. I can’t see that this bit has a factual basis. The differences provided by complainant ([6] and [7]) resolve to the removal of {{Original research}} tags wherein the rendered tag on the page has no proviso about not removing the tag nor does the rendered code for the tag. I see there was an AfD tag there too, which states in the rendered banner that the tag is supposed to be removed only by an administrator. However, no differences were provided regarding respondent’s removal of AfD tag.

Too often, these {{I DON'T LIKE IT}} tags are used as sort of ransom note to force continued and protracted debate over a complainant’s concerns after others have concluded that the complainant’s views are not shared by the community consensus and that the complainant is merely being tendentious. I wasn’t there, and I haven’t seen the talk pages, but I have no doubt that the matters were being discussed and there was an honest difference of opinion as to the factual need for having the tag the respondent removed. Greg L (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You werent there, you havent read the talk page, but you know, to the extent of having no doubt, what happened. That is amazing. nableezy - 22:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I wrong? Was there no discussion on the talk pages? And please explain your allegation that the tags supposedly say they aren’t supposed to be removed; I can see no such thing. Hold that thought; let me go look at the page now; one moment…

Well, I wasn’t surprised. Your name is cybersquated all over that talk page twelve times and Epeefleche’s name is there once, where he wrote as follows: As reflected in the AfD, Nableezy's view that this is OR is a fringe, tiny minority view. Consensus is at odds with his view. I don’t have to go look at the AfD discussions blow-by-blow to have a pretty good idea as to what occurred there and there is no requirement that the entire wikipedian community drop what it’s doing and get swept up in wikidrama of your making. If you really want me to don my fishing waders and jump into that article chest deep to understand the blow-by-blow of this wikidrama, I think I might be willing to oblige you. And perhaps I might spend some time there to really understand the atomic-level details of the dispute and (hopefully) add another voice of reason to the community consensus. But you just might do better to let things settle out, take a break, and catch your breath. Greg L (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was standard operating procedure for tags that you only remove them if there's no ongoing discussion. And for the OR tag, it is. In the AFD I voted for keeping it on the grounds that there is enough material here for an article but with the reservation that the article in it's current form was largely SYNTH. And Epeefleche seconded my opinion so it looks like he's removing an OR tag for something he'd already agreed was OR. Which is bizarre. Either way the article is still largely OR and the tag needs to stay up until it's resolved. Sol (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The art, here, is in trying to ensure that one’s actions are a true reflection of the community consensus. If the number of editors active on that article discuss an issue and arrive at a general consensus that the article content is deficient, then the article content is to be fixed. If the general consensus is that there is no problem, then the tag is removed. It is not be be used as an {{I DON'T LIKE IT}} tag by a party that didn’t get his or her way so as to force continued discussion; that would be tendentious. I don’t know what the true situation is here since honest editors can have honest differences of opinion. But the phenomenon I am describing here—of a tendentious editor using tags as a tool to force the community to continue to deal with issues that have already been addressed—is exceedingly common on Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Epeefleche

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

Comment: Will defer to judgment of other admins on this one, but it does not seem that action is warranted with regards to Epeefleche (talk · contribs), due to the user's engagement with Wikipedia processes, including talk page discussion and an AFD consensus determination. Whether anything should be done with regards to Nableezy (talk · contribs), is also another matter responding admins may wish to evaluate. -- Cirt (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As it regards Epeefleche, my opinion is that this complaint should be dismissed without action. Both parties have been previously notified of the case, and I'm not seeing enough to justify sanctioning either. Courcelles 23:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, RolandR tag-team and obfuscation

Closed without 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 Nableezy, RolandR

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User requesting enforcement: Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: [8] 1RR restriction, [9] gaming the system (see explanation) Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions

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

[10] Blind, reactionary "garbage" revert (after I disagreed with his promotion of fabricated material on Psagot).
[11] tag-team blind revert, calling the removal of picturesque wordings, and further edits "introduce POV assessment"
[12] The only response I received was from RolandR's handler following my request that he clarifies the blind revert. I say blind revert because, for example, he reinserted the false claim that Levy's parents were holocaust survivors - which was not in the supplied source and, best I'm aware, isn't true. Anyways, I posted a request for clarification [13] and this was my reward.
Side comment: Ravpapa also made a single quirky claim and vanished from the talkpage. I find it disturbing when editors game the system in this fashion but to his defense, he made no reverts.

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

In the past 6 months or so, Nableezy has been [14]

banned from editing articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict for two months on 16 April
topic-banned until end of August from articles about towns, cities, settlements, and other places or locations in Israel and neighbouring countries on 27 July
topic-banned from Gaza War, and all related articles, discussions, and other content, for six weeks on 15 August
restricted to 1RR until December 31 for all articles which relate to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Golan Heights on 16 September
blocked 24 hours for reverting without discussion contrary to 1RR probation on Golan Heights article on 9 October
blocked one day for violation of 1RR restriction on 19 October
restricted to 1RR per day for the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, until the end of December 2010 on 21 October

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): To the discretion of admins who are not suggesting to respond to bad editing with obfuscation and worse editing.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: My concern is very great. Nableezy is not only playing games but still (after being banned 4 months for it) pushing "colonial" type descriptives towards Israeli localities,[15] completely ignores the input of fellow editors about bad sources and what is factual content [16] while making such commentaries as calling others "certain ultra right-wing nationalists"[17]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: both editors notified on their respective talk-pages.

is

Discussion concerning Nableezy, RolandR

Statement by Nableezy

I would invite any admin to take a thorough look at Jaakobou's editing of BLPs of people he finds to hold objectionable views. I invite them to look at his involvement in the articles on Saeb Erekat, Gideon Levy, and Rashid Khalidi and contrast his editing behavior there with his editing of the articles on people whose views more closely align with is such as Avigdor Lieberman. After doing that I would like that admin to consider if Jaakobou should be allowed anywhere near the BLPs of those people who hold views antithetical to his own.

To the current dispute. Jaak raises two articles, but focuses on Gideon Levy. Jaak made an edit the article that reinserted Jaakobou's favored phrasing in the lead, phrasing that had been discussed in the past and rejected by more than a majority of editors. I reverted that edit on 16:46, 1 November 2010. Two minutes later I opened a section on the talk page explaining why I did so. Ravpapa commented agreeing that Jaak's edit was inappropriate. Jaak did not respond to the comments there, instead choosing to revert in a BLP the very next day, ignoring the fact that a section had been opened and so far had unanimous agreement that Jaak's favored phrasing and edit was inappropriate. To sum this up, Jaak is upset that after I reverted his edit and explained why, another editor agreed that his edit was wrong and that when he re-reverted, ignoring the open section on the talk page, another separate editor agreed that his edit was wrong and reverted.

Now, Jaak's complaint about Psagot. I supplied a source published by a university press, another written by well-known journalist, and on the talk page supplied another one by a mainstream news source calling this specific settlement a colony. I dont think providing such high quality sources to an article is a bad thing.

Finally, Jaak's complaint about my calling certain people "ultra-right wing nationalists". Im sorry Jaak, I wont do that again. Ill forget the veiled insinuations of antisemitism regularly bandied about by your good self and not make such comments in the future. nableezy - 03:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RolandR

I have not the faintest idea why I have been included in this request, and there is no indication of what sanction or remedy I am supposed to have violated. I have made just one revert on this article; and I am not subject to any sort of restriction. My revert was of an undue and poorly-sourced POV addition, which had been extensively discussed several months ago, when Jaakobou was last edit-warring to include this. Perhaps it was thought that adding a second party to this latest attack on Nableezy would make it appear better-founded than recent frivolous attempts to sanction and silence him.

I object most strongly to the characterisation of Nableezy as "my handler", and I request that this comment be struck. This implies an untrue accusation of meatpuppetry, and suggests that I am incapable of editing on my own. It is a serious breach of many Wikipedia guidelines, and should not be permitted.

There is not even the flimsiest case here for me to answer, and Jaakobou should be warned against any further unfounded harassment.RolandR (talk) 08:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further, despite Jaakobou's statement above, my one edit did not "reinsert the false claim that Levy's parents were holocaust survivors". This was the sole evidence for Jaakobou's characterisation of my edit as a "blind revert", so this charge too can be seen to be false. RolandR (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezy, RolandR

Using my own definition for identifying agenda-driven editors, I suggest that Nableezy, RolandR, and Jaakobou might all be candidates for forced extended vacations away from this topic area unless they start collaborating, cooperating, and compromising with each other a little better. Cla68 (talk) 06:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by VsevolodKrolikov I fail to see what RolandR has done wrong except disagree with Jaakobou. Referring to Nableezy as RolandR's handler is making an accusation of meatpuppetry, which should be redacted or backed up. Jaakobou's notice to RolandR about this discussion seems rather dramatic for one revert: "you two have left me with little choice". Ravpapa is insinuated as doing drive-by editing and being "quirky". Ravpapa's actual comment was to tell Jaakobou that he was editing against long established consensus of which he was aware, and was phrased in a civil and articulate manner. Nableezy's previous behaviour, for which he was penalised, is aggravating, but cannot form the basis of a complaint. Apart from incivility, which he has got to stop, I think Nableezy hasn't done anything wrong in this instance. He's used the talkpage, not broken 1RR etc. If anything, Jaakobou is edit warring on Gideon Levy. This complaint seems frivolous, particularly against RolandR. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Ravpapa: I almost never comment on matters like these, but, since my name has been mentioned, I feel it behooves me to say a word. The article in question, Gideon Levy, was the subject of a long and very vitriolic edit war nine months ago, in which Jaakobou and Setraset were very active. After some time, Jaakobou stepped away from the fray, and Setraset carried on. After some pretty intensive negotiations, I managed to reach agreement with Setraset on the content of the article. Setraset's comment on the last section to be negotiated was "Fashionably late, I am adding a response: I am content with the reception section as it stands."

The result of that negotiation was a version of the article which survived without edit wars for eight months, and which has garnered praise from some disinvolved editors as an example of BLPs on controversial people. Since I was heavily involved in the writing and editing of this version, I feel proud of my work.

The attempt by Jaakobou to reopen the edit war at this time, by reintroducing a version of the lead that had been rejected by agreement of all the warring parties was a surprise to me, and also a disappointment.

I realize that this is not the place to argue the merits of Jaakabou's edits, but I do want to note that, in addition to attempting to introduce inaccuracies and a rather blatant bias into the lead, Jaakabou's version is (as it was originally) full of mistakes of English grammar and syntax. In the past he has vociferously defended these errors on the grounds that they introduced impartiality. Well, so be it.

Finally, I would like to note that Nableezy and RolandR, like Jaakabou, have clear POVs which are as legitimate as Jaakabou's. It is surprising and pleasing to me that this article has survived as long as it has without an edit war; it suggests that, perhaps, Wikipedia's policies on neutrality have a remote chance of prevailing in a world so riven as ours. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... and yet another comment by Ravpapa: I would also like to say that, in the heat of the moment, I called Jaakabou a nasty name in Yiddish in an edit summary, for which I apologize. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gatoclass

Jaakobou has been blocked and/or sanctioned a number of times, and been the subject of numerous AN/I threads for tendentious editing or other misconduct related to the I/P conflict. The original ARBPIA case itself featured J. as a prominent participant. In short, J. has been making a nuisance of himself on I/P related pages for a long period of time. I note that in relation to this current case, J. has once again been editing against consensus, something he has been accused of doing as I recall on numerous previous occasions. This also appears to be another case of J. returning to an old battleground to try and restore a version that has previously failed to achieve consensus.

J.'s case against Nableezy and RolandR here is entirely frivolous as he accuses Nableezy of violating his 1RR ban by posting a diff from RolandR! He then violates WP:AGF by referring to Nableezy as RolandR's "handler". The entire "case" appears to rest on an unstated accusation of sockpuppetry. I trust therefore that this case will be given the treatment it deserves.

I would only add that users have been warned in the past for bringing frivolous cases to AE, and as this appears to be yet another example, as well as another example of a "tit-for-tat" case, the closing admin may want to consider imposing a sanction against Jaakobou in light of his long history of problematic behavior at I/P and as a deterrent to future misuse of dispute resolution processes. Gatoclass (talk) 05:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Nableezy, RolandR

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

This request is frivolous. Nableezy and RolandR apparently have similar positions in a content dispute and made similar edits -- one apiece; no long-term problem. What exactly is the issue here? -- tariqabjotu 05:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy (civility)

Wookieinheat blocked 48 hrs for the baiting attack, and Nableezy 3 hrs for his response

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

Request concerning Nableezy

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),

User requesting enforcement: Cptnono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles (Decorum which expressly mentions Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility)

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

"I dont care if I get blocked for this, the line nableezy displays his affinity for the palestinian cause, and by association hamas demonstrates that you are an idiot." (emphasis mine)
I am not going to bother with the diffs right up above where he calls another editor's comments retarded and idiotic.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Speaking of idiots (me), I feel bad for bringing this here since anyone wanting to look at it from a contrary point of view can easily see the ongoing conflict and assume the worst. So just to make it simple: Calling someone an idiot is not OK. There has been ongoing civility issues and it cannot continue. I've already expressed that I believe Nableezy should be topic banned. This issue has nothing to do with potential POV, edit warring, gaming, or any other true or false accusations. Can Nableezy call editors idiots?

Realistically, there should not be this many AEs open here. I should't be putting this up for review. But in the midst of ongoing discussion here Nablezy made the comment and an admin closed the discussion without seeing it.[18] So add me to the list of editors about to get a topic ban. I feel that I have a good case for appeal if it comes to that. And if not, maybe a break is something that should be considered.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[19]

Discussion concerning Nableezy

Statement by Nableezy

Ugh. See Sean's first statement. nableezy - 12:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezy

Statement by Epeefleche

Disturbing behavior. Especially in light of his other behavior re: the same AfD and associated article, discussed above. My comments are noted in the last two paragraphs of my entry here. While Nableezy seems undisturbed by the prospect of being blocked, I concur that one is in order.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sean.hoyland - An baseless accusation that an American citizen supports a designated terrorist org on a public website and it's Nableezy response that's the problem. Marvelous. He should have told him to go fuck himself. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy's support for a designated terrorist org is not really a matter of dispute. See the nice yellow userbox at the bottom of his page. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're confusing Hezbollah with Hamas. "But George," you say, "aren't all groups that have been labelled terrorists the same?" Why, no, they're not. For instance, Hezbollah, a Shi'a group, would hate al-Qaeda, a Sunni group. I don't know Nableezy, but if their name has any relationship to Nablus, the city in the West Bank, and they were to have a preferred political party among the Palestinian groups, it would probably be Fatah. Fatah and Hamas are mortal enemies as of late, so telling someone from Nablus that they support Hamas just might come across as insulting and uninformed. ← George^talk 10:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nab is from Egypt, and although all those terrorists groups fight each other once in a while, they will make up to fight Israel. Trust me on that.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently WookieInHeat's statement was a matter of dispute as far as Nableezy was concerned. I think it's safe to assume that Nableezy read the comment, understood it and responded in a way that reflected his views on the deductive reasoning employed. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by George - Clearly an uncivil comment, though somewhat understandable. Apparently Nableezy was responding to WookieInHeat's accusation that Nableezy had an affinity for a certain terrorist group. WookieInHeat's comment came after a third editor asked them to "avoid such pointless personal attacks", and the comment itself is rather... naive and insulting, to put it nicely. Even if one believes that Nableezy has an "affinity for the Palestinian cause" as WookieInHeat suggests, Hamas is one of many political groups in the Palestinian territories, and members of those various groups often hate each other. It would be like telling someone "you're proud to be an American, so you must be a socialist" because the current President of the United States is a Democrat and has been accused of being a socialist by his critics. However, while the reason behind it is understandable, I wonder if the incivility by both Nableezy and WookieInHeat wouldn't be better resolved with some apologies and striking of statements. ← George^talk 10:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Shell Kinney - I'm a wee bit concerned that we have multiple editors making a report on the same person at the same time, especially if the best evidence they have is getting called an idiot after bad faith remarks that included claiming an editor was supportive of terrorism. That looks a lot like poking someone with a stick until they pop and then running here because you got them to say "idiot". Boggles the mind a bit. Shell ^babelfish 10:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shell Kinney, I've seen people get temporarily banned for calling others stinky, and you dismiss the incivilities here because you claim he has been provoked? That certainly boggles the mind. --Shuki (talk) 12:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a joke? I always respect George's opinion (not only for the Sounders but because he is usually right) and Sean typically also has some good insight. But then Shell Kinney disregards the issue completely while only mentioning the obvious concern of multiple AEs (which I mentioned already was a red flag). If an editor can call someone an idiot, duchebag, wikilawyer (in the most derogatory way), stupid (yeah, there is a diff for that if you want), or whatever else then so be it. I have no problem with it if everyone can do it but I am pretty sure that smacks in the face of both the guidelines and the related arbitration. Cptnono (talk) 10:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy

@T. Canens & Shell: Perhaps I can shed some light on the latest "flurry" of AE reports. Nableezy creates a hostile editing environment for people he doesn't agree with. He is deliberately uncivil. He bullies and provokes. He regularly calls people idiots and their opinions retarded. He tells them to fuck off. Most of us just try to stay away from him when possible. But when he reports someone like Gilabrand, who is an asset to this project, who has improved countless articles not only by copyediting but by adding huge amounts of content that makes this look like a real encyclopedia, for the sole reason that she didn't want to talk to him (which I personally find perfectly understandable considering his behavior) it just sticks in my craw. That is what caused me to file my first ever AE report. I now understand my report was not as clear cut as I thought (although not completely without basis I must add) and I would have not filed it had I known that was the case, but at some point people just say enough is enough and let's get rid of this nuisance. Nableezy's "colorful" block and restriction log is just the tip of the iceberg. Those are just the things that stuck. He has wikilawyered his way out of numerous complaints that would have probably got other users removed from the topic area. I still don't understand how he went from a complete two month topic ban in April, to a tailor-made one month ban on all locations in June, to a 1RR only on settlements in September. Aren't sanctions supposed to get harsher not more lenient? I think Looie496 in an above case gave us some insight into why that happens.[20] Is this really how things are supposed to work around here?
Enough. I don't know how many people Nableezy has chased off this project, but it is high time someone did something about this continuing disruption. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's some merit to what you're saying, but the approach is wrong. If Nableezy is being uncivil to the point of being disruptive, say so, and provide the diffs that back it up. When editors come here and try to get a user banned for other, minor infractions, it clouds the picture. I mean, you just said that the reason you filed the case above accusing Nableezy of violating 1RR was because Nableezy filed a case against Gilabrand ("But when he reports someone like Gilabrand... it just sticks in my craw. That is what caused me to file my first ever AE report."). I understand that you felt the infraction was real, but the motive behind your reporting it was wrong. When editors use AE as a weapon—when the infractions being reported are secondary to an underlying goal to get an editor banned—it gums up the works and the system breaks down. At best, these cases that harp on minor infractions will get Nableezy a slap on the wrist, and create more animosity between editors. If you really think that Nableezy is being uncivil to the point of disruptive, make that case, and make it clear. Trying to find a chink in the armor via minor infractions won't prove fruitful longterm, and might be viewed as disruptive itself. ← George^talk 12:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George, when the 'minor infractions' are recurring, there is a problem. --Shuki (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I completely agree. But the case for incivility to the level of disruption hasn't been laid out by anyone filing on this page. Editors keep reporting the minor infractions instead of organizing all the evidence to try and paint the bigger picture of disruption. I'm not saying I agree or disagree regarding the infractions or the disruption, I'm just saying the approach could certainly be better; clearer. ← George^talk 12:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The motive behind my filing the complaint was to create a more hospitable editing environment. As it happens, I came across a 1RR violation (or what I thought was a violation). This is not a "minor infraction". What's the purpose of these restrictions if violating them is considered something minor? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think George has a point. However I disagree that calling a fellow editor an idiot is a minor infraction. I think it is a direct violation of WP:NPA and I advocate a zero-tolerance approach to this. I know others may have different opionions on this. Some editors are content with this kind of language but others will be driven away. If we adopt a zero-tolerance approach to WP:NPA, and apply it equitably to all sides of this and other disputes, we may create a better climate for all cocerned. In my experience elsewhere on the internet, it is quite possible to have a robust debate on extremely contentious matters without personal attacks. However it is very easy to descent into mudslinging if all boundaries are removed or ignored. - BorisG (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It really comes down to a matter of letter of the law versus spirit of the law for me. Everyone seems to be trying to show that Nableezy is violating the letter of the law, which he is often quite careful to not do, while nobody seems to be trying to show that Nableezy is violating the spirit of that law. From reading editor comments, it sounds like they think he's violating the spirit of those sanctions, but they're trying to prove it by citing minor instances of him breaking the letter of those sanctions. And by minor, I mean for instance this case. How long do editors think Nableezy will be topic banned for using the word "idiot"? I don't think it will be very long, and rightly so to some extent, as I think it's a relatively minor personal attack (relative to what one could say to another if they wanted to personally attack them). ← George^talk 12:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George, you're missing the point.It does not matter for how long Nab is going to be blocked or topic banned. Even, if he's blocked for a day, he will be more polite the next time.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor is given a punitive block for making a personal attack, the editors who baited and provoked him/her should receive blocks that are half as long. Cla68 (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "I don't care if I get blocked for this... you are an idiot" is a minor personal attack that shows he was only violating the letter of the law? To me it seems like something quite deliberate, the potential consequences of which were obvious to Nableezy when he made the statement.

But seriously, if an administrator explains why he thinks something is a revert, and Nableezy replies with "That is truly retarded" [21] right on the arbitration enforcement board, and nobody says a word, I honestly no longer have any expectations that this problem will be solved anytime soon. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by VsevolodKrolikov With all these editors protesting about the importance of civility and nableezy's poisoning of the atmosphere, I'm very surprised that not a single one of them has made any attempt to warn or upbraid user:WookieInHeat for what was far worse than calling someone an "idiot", despite Wookieinheat being aware of the ARBCOM decision, and being asked by other editors to cease with such attacks before s/he made his/her insinuations fully clear. Indeed, some editors have gone on to repeat the attacks for good measure (and if you don't understand why they are attacks, you should question your ability to edit in this area). For communal editing to work, policing of disruptive editors should not be a matter of taking sides. Those who share your point of view should be subject to the same standards of civility. This is clearly not happening here. Captnono is surprised at the reaction of some editors - I'd like to know why he chose not to talk much about the provocation nableezy received. If you want a reputation for being a fair and balanced editor, you need to be, well, fair and balanced. I'd say that accusing people of being supporters of quasi-theocratic terrorist groups also "smacks in the face of both the guidelines and the related arbitration." nableezy shouldn't have responded, and I would have no problems with a short block - but only if that block is extended to all the people who have made or repeated the personal attack, which he made very clear was offensive, and which other editors have made clear is an attack. Everyone is responsible for keeping the editing atmosphere civil, not just nableezy. Perhaps a block for all concerned would make them realise they're not as exemplary as they seem to believe, and come back with a little more, well, maturity.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we need to apply the same standard to all sides. I also agree that WookieInHeat's statement was not nice, and his reference to WP:COI was ridiculous. However neither was personal attack. - BorisG (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)u[reply]

Boris, WP:NPA says these are personal attacks:

Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream.
Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor.
Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence.

Could you explain how telling an editor they support an Islamist terrorist group and as such their judgement is clouded is not a personal attack? It seems very clear cut to me. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how you look at it. For you, Hamas is an Islamist terrorist group. Many, including, as I recall, Nableezy, won't agree with this characterisation. There are some who consider Hamas as legitimate freedom fighters. I don't know what's Nableezy's view of Hamas, but it is not inconceavable or uncommon for a suppporter of the Palestinian cause to be sympathetic to Hamas. It may not apply to Nableezy and his reaction may be understandable, but it is not necessarily a personal attack. That said, I do not support such statements as they can upset people. - BorisG (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it really matters what Nableezy thinks of Hamas, characterizing an editor as a terrorist supporter based on . . .I have no idea what it's based on. But Hamas issues aside, the COI invocation was another frivolous attempt to try and get Nableezy out of the "Hamas and Taliban analogy" discussion. Which I find troubling in light of the recent spate of system gaming, sock puppetry and merit-less requests for bans, all focused on harassing a very select group of editors. This request at least has a bit of merit, although the provocation and minor nature mitigate the infraction, at least as I/P editing goes (where adding terrorism cats gets you accused of Antisemitism). So could we please go back to wasting each others time on talk pages? That at least produces the occasional result :P Sol (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that COI reference was ridiculous in the extreme. By this logic, if people are Americans (or interested in America), they can't write about America because of COI. - BorisG (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ravpapa: Please see my comment in the previous section, which is relevant to this discussion. Thank you, --Ravpapa (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tijfo098. The problem with WookieInHeat's assertion is that one can use similar lines of thinking to label anyone a terrorist supporter or worse. For example: "You are an American, therefore a Zionist terrorist supporter because neocons in your country support Zionism." "You are an European, therefore a supporter of Islamic terrorism because the EU parliament endorsed the Goldstone report." "You are a Kosovar, therefore a supporter of terrorist movements." "You are a Serb, therefore a supporter of crimes against humanity." Etc. Now Nableezy replied to something like this with a statement about the intelligence of the person making the argument, instead of keeping his comments on the argument itself. I believe neither of these actions were conductive to a rational or civil atmosphere. Had Nableezy called WookieInHeat's argument a logical fallacy instead, would we have seen this WP:AE report? Tijfo098 (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are people really discussing when it is OK to call another editor an idiot in the topic area? Cptnono (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, calling another editor an idiot is never okay. However, WookieInHeat's comment that elicited the response—saying that Nableezy had an "affinity" for Hamas—is, in my opinion, the more uncivil of the two infractions. Two wrongs don't make a right, and Nableezy is guilty of taking the bait and making a personal attack. Whether making a personal attack after being baited warrants the same punishment as an unprovoked personal attack is something for administrators to weigh. ← George^talk 20:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Says you (and I do agree) but several comments up above and the lack of action by administrators contradicts that sentiment. I think a centralized discussion on the issues is fine but that should have no bearing on if Nableezy can continue to be uncivil.Cptnono (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that administrators are weighing larger scale action than just a few days block for Nableezy for using the word "idiot"... probably against multiple users and for longer periods of time. What I haven't looked in to is if Nableezy has a documented history of incivility. If so, it seems clear to me that there should be some escalating action for each infraction, just as there would be for chronic edit warriors. Eventually, the message that incivility, no matter the reason, is not a viable course of action will get through. ← George^talk 20:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What bait prompted this kind of response? --Mbz1 (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that accusing someone of intellectual dishonesty is any different than saying they're POV-pushing. ← George^talk 20:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thnk you, GWH. Think it is a little short but some enforcement is better than none.Cptnono (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Nableezy

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

I'm seriously disturbed by the recent flurry of ARBPIA requests. Thinking it over. T. Canens (talk) 07:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there are serious concerns with recent flurry of ARBPIA requests. I've set up a page for centralized discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Independently of the wider discussion - I have (on my initiative without wider discussion here) blocked Wookieinheat for 48 hrs for the baiting attack that started this section, and Nableezy for 3 hrs for their response. Differentiating factors in block length include who started that particular incident, the severity of the insults on each side, and one side having been baited. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. PhilKnight (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by WookieInHeat

Closed without action

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

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

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

Appealing user: WookieInHeat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – WookieInHeat (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: - Blocked for 48 hours for: "Personal attacks or harassment: NPA and ARBPIA violation - accused editor of supporting terrorism" [22]
- Discussion of sanctions at WP:AE

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

Notification of that administrator: [23]

Statement by WookieInHeat

Georgewilliamherbert's reason for blocking me relied solely upon the idea that i personally attacked Nableezy by accusing him of "supporting terrorism". from an absolutist POV, nowhere in any edit was the word "terrorism" even mentioned. my observation that nableezy's political POV on wikipedia aligns with the political goals of hamas was by no means meant as a personal attack, nor to insinuate the more abstract idea of nableezy's support for terrorism. my primary intention was to highlight nableezy's possible WP:COI with the subject while he was pushing to have negative information about it removed. my main point here is that i find george's reasoning for my block to have been rather arbitrary and ambiguous.
also, the duration of the blocks handed out seems somewhat irrational. nableezy, a user with a lengthy history of often thinly veiled and sometimes outright personal attacks not to mention numerous complaints about their civility, was given only a token block of three hours for a direct personal attack [24]. whereas i have no significant or pertinent history of incivility and was blocked for 16 times that length (48 hours) for what some have misconstrued as a personal attack based on the wholly fabricated idea that i called someone a "terrorism supporter". not to mention nableezy plainly knew that his blatant personal attack would result in a ban, where i went to some length to clarify that my comment was not a personal attack. also, i did not respond when nableezy attacked me directly, and i was the first user to drop the argument and bring the discussion back to the topic at hand [25].
i really cannot stress enought the fact that i never accused nableezy of "supporting terrorism", not only did i never directly say this, it was never even implied by my comments. thus it would seem my block was based entirely on a misconception of what was meant when i said "nableezy displays his affinity for the palestinian cause, and by association hamas" [26] implying this was actually instead intended to say "nableezy displays his affinity for the palestinian cause, and by association terrorism". this is simply not the case, and frankly i am somewhat offended myself at george's insinuation that i would arbitrarily classify someone as a "terrorism supporter"; i have better ways of proving my point than making baseless accusations about other users. and i must say, i am slightly dismayed that my block log has been tarnished by an admin with such a fallacious and subjective view of my actions. george didn't bother to clarify his misunderstanding of my comments with me before coming down with a heavy admin hand and sullying my block log forever.

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Should be unblocked immediately. There was no PA in the difference provided to block the editor.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by WookieInHeat

It does look a bit like they were "looking for an excuse". If what he says fall under the definition of a personal attack, it's quite a technical one. HalfShadow 20:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking in at the report that prompted this sanction, Nableezy never said he thought WIH was calling him a "terrorism supporter", that idea was brought up by other editors. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - So are you saying, WookieInHeat, that you do not consider Hamas a terrorist organization? As an aside, might I ask if you have ever edited under another account here on Wikipedia? ← George^talk 21:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@PhilKnight: That statement is insulting to the large number of actual (not just "pro") Palestinians who voted for Hamas. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by PhilKnight's recent comment. I have always assumed some editors here do support Hamas. Not everyone believes it is a terrorist group and they are a socio-political organization that is in charge over in the Faza. So even if I or someone else does not like them it doesn't mean that oterhs feel the same way. If we trust what Wookie is saying then maybe a reversal is appropriate. Of course, we could assume the worst that Wookie is not being completely open and was trying to say that Nableezy supports terrorism. Cptnono (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I'm concerned the comment by WookieInHeat was completely unnecessary, and making this sort of remark should be strongly discouraged. PhilKnight (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you are blocking him for commenting on the contributor and not content then you should have said that instead of saying it was a personal attack.Cptnono (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough. PhilKnight (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The way I see it, there are three possibilities: (a) WIH thinks that Hamas is a terrorist organization, and was intentionally insulting Nableezy, (b) WIH does not think that Hamas is a terrorist organization, but is aware that other people do, and should have realized that the comment might be insulting, or (c) WIH does not think Hamas is a terrorist organization, and is not aware that others consider them such, and was therefore oblivious of the potential insult. It's really up to WIH to tell us which is the case. ← George^talk 21:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment: It's troubling that WookieInHeat appears to be completely indifferent to the fact that his/her comments could cause offence, despite not only this block but other users (including myself) advising him/her it was a personal attack and nableezy's now well-documented reaction; in his/her appeal Wookie repeats the baseless claim of COI (if s/he means it per policy rather than a determinedly odd misreading, s/he's making the claim that nableezy works for the Taliban or Hamas - which makes matters worse), s/he claims that this purported affinity clouded nableezy's judgement - which is a clear violation of WP:NPA as I detailed in the discussion - and not just a "technical" one. What's wrong with being associated with Hamas? We can argue all day the meaning of "terrorist" (and it's very interesting to know that WookieInHeat doesn't think Hamas is terrorist), but they also have a nice line in anti-semitism and the suppression of human rights of Palestinians - as documented by other Palestinians. Some editors appear to think "well, maybe that is what nableezy believes" is a defence - he clearly doesn't, and such speculation is irrelevant. The lack of contrition or any sense that Wookie thinks anything he or she has done could possibly have upset anyone unnecessarily (and the comments were clearly about an editor, not the topic in hand) suggest that shortening the ban would undermine the desired effect of any block, which is altering editing behaviour. If Wookie pleads ignorance of Hamas' nature, then an apology is still needed before any block is shortened.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't commenting on whether or not Nableezy supports Hamas. I was saying that the idea that WIH was calling Nableezy a supporter of terrorism and this was the "bait" that prompted Nableezy to call him an idiot, didn't originate from Nableezy. Perhaps Nableezy called him an idiot because he didn't appreciate his reasoning in general? Keep in mind WIH was not the person who was reported. The report was about Nableezy calling him an idiot. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After discussing the issue with WookieInHeat on their talk page, I think they've learned that this sort of comment should be avoided in the future, meaning the block served its purpose and is now unnecessary. I think they should be unblocked. ← George^talk 22:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmmm. He doesn't appear as contrite talking to me. If he apologises to nableezy, I'd support an unblock.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't consider it absolutely necessary, I think apologies both ways would go a long way in burying the hatchet on this (which is something I suggested before the editors were blocked). ← George^talk 23:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, George, I don't think he means what he says to you, and I think he's gaming. See this section, particularly his last reply ("semantics") to see his refusal to engage in the nature of the comments he made, and refuses to acknowledge, let alone take reponsibility for the possible implications of his comments, or the specific point that NPA forbids claims that political affiliation prevents an editor from editing with NPOV. He also will not back down despite several editors telling him, that his COI accusations involve an incorrect understanding of COI. It seems typical of problems in this area - a blank refusal to see the other side, and a refusal ever to admit fault. Everyone on both "sides" seems agreed that admins and arbcom have to become a stricter than they have been in regulating behaviour even with current tools, and I can't see why we don't just start from here. Applying policy doesn't need any extra agreement from users.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like WookieInHeat cannot comment here. Questions posed to them should be raised at their talk page. ← George^talk 22:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Note to PhilKnight: Nableezy's page refers to support of those who "violently resist" (blatant euphemism for terrorism) and that he's aware that he is "disallowed from naming" those he supports. The COI query is of poor taste, but nothing to merit more than a warning, IMHO, for an editor of a clean slate. If anything, presenting other editors in bad light on your personal page -- e.g. this diff -- seems a tad more objectionable. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC) c 02:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given that WookieInHeat was notified of the WP:ARBPIA restrictions, in my honest opinion, 48 hours is well within admin discretion. However I agree with you in regard to the Brewcrewer quote, which has now been removed. PhilKnight (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nableezy has queried my removal, so I've opened a thread at WP:ANI. PhilKnight (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summing up, WookieInHeat's comment and reference to WP:COI was misplaced but it is a matter of interpretation (of the comment, not policy) whether it was a personal attack. However even if it was, the sanction was disproportionate both with respect to common standards for first-time violations, and with respect to the sanction on Nableezy (16 times longer). - BorisG (talk) 14:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think 16 times longer was about right. As I've said above, the comment by WookieInHeat was completely unnecessary, and making this sort of remark should be strongly discouraged. PhilKnight (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stop using those meaningless ratios. If I block one side of an edit war for 3 hours and give the other side a warning, that's a ∞ ratio, but it's very different from blocking the first side for a week - also a ∞ ratio. T. Canens (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by WookieInHeat

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

I can't find an NPA violation in that diff, especially not one worth a 48-hour block on an editor that has never before been blocked. I'd say overturn this one. Courcelles 21:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that another editor is pro-Palestine, and therefore supports Hamas is unacceptable. I endorse this block. PhilKnight (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I don't consider that saying another editor, by association, supports Hamas, is a personal attack. Such accusations could be part of a general course of conduct warranting sanctions, but it is not a stand-alone NPA violation. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really want to overturn this because 48 hours for a first offense seems excessive, but WookieInHeat's Talk page messages indicate that she/he still doesn't understand why saying that another editor has a COI with respect to Hamas is a personal attack. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Jo0doe

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: Jo0doe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed: Arbitration enforcement: WP:DIGWUREN: 1 year block and concurrent indef. block [27]

Administrator imposing the sanction: Looie496 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: [28] T. Canens (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jo0doe

I’ve not involved into editing of the “all pages relating to Holodomor, broadly construed since 2008”- thus I can not physically violate the WP:DIGWUREN discretionary sanctions imposed over my account in 2008 [29]. I also strictly followed suggested policy - "to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability - [30] - [31] [32] - [33] –

Non-English source text – [34] intended for graduated in history scholars cannot be judged by the determination based on Google translation [35] . Exact citations given here [36] – please clarify does text cited contradict with [37] - given at WP:AE [38] as falsified/mistranslated example. I hope admin which review my request also can easily read typed in 1941 -1942 texts [39] [40] (which provide similar facts as in text in question]–to fairly judge my request.
If there no admin which able read Ukrainian and got a suggested by book scholar degree – I can recommend to check available English scholar works on topic –[41] - pages 292, 349-55

[42] page 59 [43] page 8 [44] which suggest similar to facts added [45] which mentioned at WP:AE as an example of the as falsified/mistranslated text.

I kindly ask to clarify the sanction applied – if I actually falsify/misrepresent the facts (i.e. OUN Ukrainian militia actually does not took part in round-ups of Jews for mass executions and not participate in it, not escorted Jews to their forced labor sites ... etc,) (as added to WP and suggested by sources mentioned above) – I agreed with sanction applied – If the sources support the texts added – please withdraw the sanctions applied.

If there were any other instances of the “falsified/mistranslated examples” which can be also arisen and need to be clarified with sources– I can provide on request a copies of books pages (if there no online book available) and also primary sources (like [46]or [47] ThanksJo0doe (talk) 13:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further statement

- Initially [48] There was a consensus about “misrepresenting sources” “that others describe as falsifying the sources”

[49] [50]

Now [51] it was a consensus about “lacking the necessary English language communication skills”

[52][53][54] – So the reason of 1 year block extended indefinite under WP:DIGWURREN remains unexplained - and I kindly ask to clarify – does the request [55] was filled /and block applied because of “lacking the necessary English language” or because diffs [56] [57] [58] were judged “misrepresenting sources” and “that others describe as falsifying the sources” (i.e. English scholar texts mentioned above and the text

In late June and July 1941 OUN militias and “Sich” organizations went on a rampage
in Galicia, Northern Bukovina, and Volhynia, killing Jews primarily, but also some Poles and communists. Sometimes these militias did not do the killing themselves,
but rounded up the victims for Germans and Romanians to execute by firing squad.

[59] is falsifying ? In other words - the someone from the participants depicted at p.307 [60] were engaged in“misrepresenting sources” “that others describe as falsifying the sources”. Clarification for the block reason would nice.Jo0doe (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Moved from user talk. T. Canens (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Looie496

For reference, the original AE action is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive71#Jo0doe. This appeal does not seem to me to address the issues that led to the block, which are a combination of poor English skills and tendentious editing based on interpretations of Ukrainian sources that other Ukrainian speakers say are incorrect. Looie496 (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by --Paweł5586 (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I dont find any controversial and wrong interpretated edits made by Jo0doe. I find many this facts in books which I can provide. --Paweł5586 (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Jo0doe

Note: Moved from User talk:Jo0doe, see [61]. Malformed request fixed. Looie496 notified. T. Canens (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Jo0doe

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

This appeal is self defeating. The user has been blocked for a number of reasons, which include lacking the necessary English language communication skills to edit in this topic area, and this appeal is astonishingly unclear. For example, the first sentence is hard to fathom, yes I understand that he was banned from articles relating to Holodomor, but is he seriously suggesting he was unaware of the existence of WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions? The second sentence is supported by 4 diffs, none of which inspire confidence, especially if intended to showcase his best work. The third sentence includes 'intended for graduated in history scholars cannot be judged', before arguing that those of us who don't understand Ukrainian shouldn't attempt to ascertain whether he was misusing sources by using google translate or similar. Anyway, decline appeal on the grounds of lacking the necessary English language communication skills. PhilKnight (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of the admins who supported the original action here at AE, which is being appealed now. It would be helpful if Jo0doe could provide new information or a very clear explanation of why we misjudged the first time. Since the present appeal is quite baffling, it illustrates the difficulty that others have had in understanding him. I can't support undoing the original action if that's all we have to work with here. EdJohnston (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user appears to be trying to speak English by proxy using Google or some other machine translator. If you are unable to communicate in English you shouldn't be editing the English language Wikipedia. The fact that they cannot see how badly garbled their English is speaks volumes. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brews ohare

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

Request concerning Brews ohare

User requesting enforcement: Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Motions (Motion 6) "Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed, for twelve months."

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

[62] Discussion of Euclidean vs Einsteinian (i.e. relativistic) nature of space (flat or curved). Which is of course intimately related to the character of the speed of light and free space, etc... which has been the locus of the Brewhaha since time immemorial.

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

How about the last zillion AE against Brews?

2

+zillions of ANI threads, talk page messages, etc, etc, etc., ad nauseam.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Blocked for the rest of his topic ban, since he cannot abide by it for even a week.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Hopefully this time he'll more than a slap on the fingers as he too often-received. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, and Brews ran out of AGF-juice a long time ago. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:EdJohnston, expressed doubts on my talk page on whether there was a violation of the ban, and asked me to withdraw the request. So I'll be a bit more explicit.
The violation is both a crystal crystal and a blatant. Discussion of the nature of space, and whether it is Euclidean or Einsteinian is not only physics-related, it's directly-related the area where Brews has been most disruptive (speed of light, electromagnetism, relativity topics, and anything related to it). Maybe this isn't immediately clear if you aren't a physicist, but this is equivalent of someone being banned from a topic such as geology editing the article on tectonics. Brews has been testing his ban, violating it left and right, and has wasted countless hours of productive editor's time over the last 16 months or so now. He has been warned plenty of times. Hell, he's been banned not even two weeks ago for this stuff, and he still keeps at it.
So no, I will not withdraw the request. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [63]

Discussion concerning Brews ohare

Statement by Brews ohare

I regret any appearance of violating the ban against physics-related topics. It was my intention simply to transfer a geometry-related discussion rejected at Pythagorean theorem because it pertained to Euclidean geometry in general, not specifically to Pythagoras' theorem, and so properly should be brought up in Euclidean geometry instead.

The offending text I transferred to Euclidean geometry reads:

"Euclid's proofs depend upon assumptions perhaps not obvious in Euclid's fundamental axioms,^[1] in particular that certain movements of figures do not change their geometrical properties such as the lengths of sides and interior angles, the so-called Euclidean motions, which include translations and rotations of figures.^[2]"

References

Richard J. Trudeau (2008). "Euclid's axioms". The Non-Euclidean Revolution. Birkhäuser. pp. 39 'ff. ISBN 0817647821.
See, for example: Luciano da Fontoura Costa, Roberto Marcondes Cesar (2001). Shape analysis and classification: theory and practice. CRC Press. p. 314. ISBN 0849334934. and Helmut Pottmann, Johannes Wallner (2010). Computational Line Geometry. Springer. p. 60. ISBN 3642040179. The group of motions underlie the metric notions of geometry. See Félix Klein (2004). Elementary Mathematics from an Advanced Standpoint: Geometry (Reprint of 1939 Macmillan Company ed.). Courier Dover. p. 167. ISBN 0486434818.

These remarks concerning the logical underpinnings of Euclid's geometry are, of course, all geometrical in nature as are all the sources cited. The term "space" in this geometrical context refers to matters such as Euclidean space, non-Euclidean space, vector space, Hilbert space and so forth and while having application to physics, is not itself physics or physics related.

I believe Headbomb was misled into seeing the above insertion of mine as a physics-related violation because a few sentences later in Euclidean geometry a sentence occurs alerting the reader to a later discussion (text not added by myself, but pre-existing);

"As discussed in more detail below, Einstein's theory of relativity significantly modifies this view."

I have no part in raising this point advertising a later discussion about relativity, nor in contributing to it, nor to the later discussion it refers to, in any way.

I hope that my addition to the math article Euclidean geometry will be seen for what it is, a mathematical contribution to a math article, and not a violation of my sanctions. Brews ohare (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Dougweller: It is not correct to say my inserted text refers to Penrose. The sources cited in my text are only those listed above. The Penrose source was cited by the original author to support his immediately preceding remarks that Euclid's axioms implied some characteristics of Euclidean space that are not too obvious from his axioms, but can be taken by implication. These are again mathematical implications of the axioms, not physics. Brews ohare (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Brews ohare

Dr. Brews continues to be unable to come to terms with how wikipedia works. On non-physics topics like Pythagorean theorem, he repeats his usual style of bloating an article with every "ramification" he can think of, and wastes enormous amounts of time of other editors who attempt to moderate his impact. As I've already said, the problem is not physics. He needs a serious break from wikipedia, and should only be allowed to come back if he shows some sign of hearing the input that he keeps getting. So far, he rejects it all, wastes more time trying to change the rules, appealing all decisions, blogging on Jimmy Wales's talk page, and saying WP is doomed if they don't do it his way. He even takes his physics lobbying off-wiki to direct email; it's tedious. On the other hand, as he states above, he may not have actually violated the terms of his topic ban at this time. Dicklyon (talk) 04:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself in agreement with this statement. Brews may not have violated the ban in this instance, but it seems to me that he is not capable of correcting the underlying problem that led to the ban in the first place regardless of what area he edits in. Unfortunately the extreme verbosity and wiki-lawyering that often accompanies his posts tends to frustrate other users to the point where they get exhausted from talking to him and simply walk away. I'm sure Brews will recall that I have lobbied in the past to have both him and David Tombe banned altogether. I can only imagine how much time and effort would have been saved if I had been successful in persuading the community at that time, now two years or so in the past. However, I am forced to agree that if the line was crossed in this particular instance it seems to have been done without malice or a deliberate intent to circumvent the ban. The wider issues involved are not relevant to that point, but perhaps it is time to re-open that discussion elsewhere... Beeblebrox (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in general with the two statements above, but disagree that the edit currently under discussion does not violate the topic ban. It could easily have been kept as a edit totally about geometry, but Brewohare brought it into the realm of physics when he moved into the realm of "a physical description of space", which is physics, and not geometry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely very closely related to physics. - BorisG (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geometry is a part of Mathematics (including Euclidean motions), not Physics, plain and simple. A part of this geometry article includes one phrase about special relativity, which is obviously a part of Physics. However, Brews did not. modify this phrase if I correctly read the diff. There was no violation of topic ban on his part I believe. Is it somehow related to Physics? Yes, it is, since the math is used in Physics. In the same manner, one could argue that many subjects in Chemistry and Biology are related to Physics. If it falls under the definition of the ban, someone should explain to Brews that he can not edit anything about Mathematics. Biophys (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last time, it was clear that Brews violated his physics topic ban and I said so here at AE, but this time I'm of the opinion that he did not. One has to consider the proper context in which the edits are made. This time the edit in question fits in his editing of geometry articles as can be distilled from his editing history. Of course, while the letter of the topic ban clearly allows for such edits, that can sometimes be too narrow a way to look at this. One has consider whether Brews was "dancing around the topic ban", and that requires looking at the edit in question in the context of his general editing pattern. If you do that, you see that the edits he made were relevant to the math topic in question; he was not "hiding at a math topic" to violate his physics topic ban (like fighting an old battle about the speed of light on a math talk page or anything like that). Count Iblis (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he has clearly broken his topic ban. His edit discusses space and references The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, written by physicist (albeit mathematical physicist) Roger Penrose, a winner of the Wolf Prize for Physics (jointly with Stephen Hawking). Dougweller (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, everything in natural sciences is somehow related to Physics. Does it mean he can not edit anything from natural sciences in general? If so, that should be clarified. Biophys (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure this is a violation of his physics ban, but what it is again (i.e. since our last visit here) is a continuation of the behaviour that got him banned from physics. He first reverted another editor's change he disagreed with, in itself a harmless revert in the spirit of BRD. I disagreed with this and reverted it, explained myself on the talk page, and was supported in my reasoning by User:EmilJ, so a consensus against Brews ohare's reversion.

But he refused to accept this. He again reinserted the contested material, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again. He varied the wording and placement, attempting to source it but from sources nothing to do with Pythagoras's theorem, but each time it was the same material which there was clear consensus to remove.

At the same time on the talk page, unhappy with the clear consensus against his changes he continued to argue the point. He introduced no new arguments or relevant sources, attracted one more editor who tried to persuade him to stop, then deciding there wasn't enough drama on the talk page opened an RfC, bringing yet more editors who pushed him to stop his by now disruptive and POV-pushing behaviour. At last he stopped, though only to take his arguments to another article, except in completely the wrong place and out of context as it's already covered in the axioms section, as if he never even read the article before adding to it. How much he has violated his physics ban is unclear, but that he has continued editing in the way that got him banned from physics is without doubt.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Brews ohare

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

Am I the only one who thinks that someone topic banned from physics should not be editing a paragraph that contains the phrase "theory of relativity", whether or not it is technically within the scope of the ban? T. Canens (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ Richard J. Trudeau (2008). "Euclid's axioms". The Non-Euclidean Revolution. Birkhäuser. pp. 39 'ff. ISBN 0817647821.
^ See, for example: Luciano da Fontoura Costa, Roberto Marcondes Cesar (2001). Shape analysis and classification: theory and practice. CRC Press. p. 314. ISBN 0849334934. and Helmut Pottmann, Johannes Wallner (2010). Computational Line Geometry. Springer. p. 60. ISBN 3642040179. The group of motions underlie the metric notions of geometry. See Félix Klein (2004). Elementary Mathematics from an Advanced Standpoint: Geometry (Reprint of 1939 Macmillan Company ed.). Courier Dover. p. 167. ISBN 0486434818.

[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.

[Trudeau-3] Richard J. Trudeau (2008). "Euclid's axioms". The Non-Euclidean Revolution. Birkhäuser. pp. 39 'ff. ISBN 0817647821.

[Euclidean_Motion-4] See, for example: Luciano da Fontoura Costa, Roberto Marcondes Cesar (2001). Shape analysis and classification: theory and practice. CRC Press. p. 314. ISBN 0849334934. and Helmut Pottmann, Johannes Wallner (2010). Computational Line Geometry. Springer. p. 60. ISBN 3642040179. The group of motions underlie the metric notions of geometry. See Félix Klein (2004). Elementary Mathematics from an Advanced Standpoint: Geometry (Reprint of 1939 Macmillan Company ed.). Courier Dover. p. 167. ISBN 0486434818.

[a]

[b]

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 459: / Line 459: @@
 :I believe he has clearly broken his topic ban. His edit discusses space and references ''The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe'', written by physicist (albeit mathematical physicist) [[Roger Penrose]], a winner of the Wolf Prize for Physics (jointly with Stephen Hawking). [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 16:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 ::Generally speaking, everything in [[natural sciences]] is somehow ''related'' to Physics. Does it mean he can not edit anything from [[natural sciences]] in general? If so, that should be clarified. [[User:Biophys|Biophys]] ([[User talk:Biophys|talk]]) 16:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
+I am not sure this is a violation of his physics ban, but what it is again (i.e. since [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive71#Brews ohare|our last visit here]]) is a continuation of the behaviour that got him banned from physics. He [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pythagorean_theorem&diff=394612111&oldid=394261215 first] reverted another editor's change he disagreed with, in itself a harmless revert in the spirit of BRD. I disagreed with this and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pythagorean_theorem&diff=394619781&oldid=394612111 reverted it], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pythagorean_theorem&diff=394629210&oldid=394626238 explained myself] on the talk page, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pythagorean_theorem&diff=394631049&oldid=394629210 was supported] in my reasoning by [[User:EmilJ]], so a consensus against Brews ohare's reversion.
+But he refused to accept this. He again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pythagorean_theorem&diff=394631884&oldid=394630236 reinserted] the contested material, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pythagorean_theorem&diff=394772874&oldid=394729623 and again], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pythagorean_theorem&diff=394775639&oldid=394774043 and again], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pythagorean_theorem&diff=395382598&oldid=395348080 and again], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pythagorean_theorem&diff=395571406&oldid=395567806 and again], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pythagorean_theorem&diff=395577200&oldid=395573559 and again]. He varied the wording and placement, attempting to source it but from sources nothing to do with Pythagoras's theorem, but each time it was the same material which there was clear consensus to remove.
+At the same time on the talk page, unhappy with the clear consensus against his changes he continued to argue the point. He introduced no new arguments or relevant sources, attracted one more editor who tried to persuade him to stop, then deciding there wasn't enough drama on the talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pythagorean_theorem&diff=394783221&oldid=394783015 opened an RfC], bringing yet more editors who pushed him to stop his by now disruptive and POV-pushing behaviour. At last he stopped, though only to take his arguments to another article, except in completely the wrong place and out of context as it's already covered in the [[Euclidean geometry#Axioms|axioms]] section, as if he never even read the article before adding to it. How much he has violated his physics ban is unclear, but that he has continued editing in the way that got him banned from physics is without doubt.--<small>[[User:JohnBlackburne|JohnBlackburne]]</small><sup>[[User_talk:JohnBlackburne|words]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/JohnBlackburne|deeds]]</sub> 16:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 ===Result concerning Brews ohare===

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