Requests for enforcement

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

Cptnono

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Six-month prohibition on violating NPA (by commenting on contributors and not on content alone) issued. General caution issued. AGK 00:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Cptnono

User requesting enforcement:
Tiamut^talk 14:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Cptnono (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#Discretionary sanctions

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

[1] Commenting on editors not content
[2] Ditto
[3] Ditto
[4] Request from me that he stop commenting on editors and stick to discussing content
[5] Cptnono continues to comment on editors (more generally) rather than content
[6] Request from me (again) to stop speculating/commenting on editors' motivations
[7] Cptnono continues to comments on editors. Excerpt: If you have Palestinian stuff on your user page you shouldn't be editing here.
[8] User:Sean.hoyland defending User:Nableezy and calling for people to begin filing reports at WP:AE about problematic behaviour
[9] Another request from me to Cptnono that he stop discussing users
[10] Cptnono continues to justfy his discussion of other editors' motivations.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

from me, from me again, from Nableezy. For the extended discussion relating to all of these warnings, see here.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Official warning be issued regarding I-P arbcomm case that notes that commenting on editors rather than content is unacceptable. It just sidetracks discussion on the talk page, wastes time, and impedes progress in achieving consensus. Cptnono's edits do fall under the purview of this case, as is indicated by the template at the top of Talk:Gaza War, but he is not taking heed of the special restrictions. A specific warning referencing the Arb comm decision may help him to understand that commenting on editors rather than content is unacceptable (Perhaps a reminder that WP:AGF and WP:NPA do apply to him too?) Requests to stop from the editors he is commenting about have not seemed to help. Maybe hearing it from an admin will.
Additional comments by Tiamut^talk:

Tznaki, regarding your comment below, I did not ask for a sanction to be placed Cptnono for the diffs cited above. I made a very simple request that he be notified of the Arbcomm case formally and perhaps reminded that commenting on editors rather than content does nothing to foster a collaborative environment that is essential for article improvement. The lack of administrative response to what are clearly inappropriate comments is disappointing. (Please replace "Palestinian" with "Jewish" or "Israeli" to get an idea of how these ethnic references can be offensive and alienating.) After seeing these double standards on how such commentary is treated time and again however, I can't say that I am surprised. Tiamut^talk 14:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [11]

Discussion concerning Cptnono

Seeing as Cptnono says I stand behind my comments, it would be good to have an admin clarify if commenting on editors and their motivations is okay at I-P pages. If it is, I sure have a lot more to say. I've kept such thoughts (mostly) to myself, since my understanding is that by focusing on content and not contributors, we have a better chance of improving articles and a lower chance of pissing people off. Also, do admins agree with Ctpnono's statement that: If you have Palestinian stuff on your user page you shouldn't be editing here? Can I tell editors with Israeli symbols on their pages to take a hike from now on? Would I be immediately blocked for such a statement? Probably. Tiamut^talk 09:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it came across harsh but certain editors have not been responsible. Saying all was to far and I am happy to clarify that to some. I also do not believe there are any editors with Stars of Davids on the page. As a reminder, part of the reason that came up was another editor's assertion that Wikipeida is pro-israel. Furthermore, I wouldn't take offence if you said that editors who were editing in a biased manner should not be editing. We have to be neutral. I did not present the crticism with the intent to be malicious. I did it since we were discussing how to get the lock caused by other editors' edit warring lifted. I hope you understand that it was for the betterment of the article and not to attack anyone. I thought I made that clear so please understand that now if you didn't then.Cptnono (talk) 10:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Cptnono, but twice now you have used article talk pages to accuse first me, and then Nableezy of POV editing. In my case, you didn't cite any article edits I made, but instead focused on my user page content. In Nableezy's case, you harped on his lack of POV for taking a position opposed to yours on the issue of "the Gaza massacre". In both cases, you discussed (at length) our so-called motivations on the talk page, even after being asked to stop mutliple times. This is poisonous to the editing atmosphere and does nothing to help in the forging on consensus. Instead of discussing article content, the discussion falls into mutual recriminations or useless repetition (You are POV editing - No I'm not, please stop saying so - Yes you are - No I'm not stop it, etc., etc.) If you have a valid reason to suspet editors are engaged in POV editing, you can amass diffs and open an WP:AE case. Using article talk pages to issue unsubstantiated accusations is distracting and disruptive. And defending your right to do so after people ask you to stop is tendentious. Tiamut^talk 10:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I stand by the accusations. I was overly crass with you which I apologized for but that doesn't change the fact that certain editors are only editing the page for a sole purpose. Many times this has lead to the railroading of content, skewing consensus to present information with a POV, and unnecessary reverts. You obviously did not deserve such a hard time but Nableezy clearly does deserve negative feedback (or constructive criticism as I said) from his history in my opinion and this is verified by several others criticizing him on related pages. I also think that I showed an obvious attempt to not attack him as a person but his editing. I was not attacking him personally like I did to you. In that situation I took a Wikibreak to chill out and apologized a day or so later. If you want this arbitration to be based off of that then say so but Nableezy should be able to discuss criticism about his editing. I presented links to another discussion bringing up the same charge. In this situation, you can ask me to stop all you want but it was a discussion that editors needed to be involved in and aware of. In regards to being disruptive, I was also making comments on how to get the lock lifted. I opened a few discussions. In two of issues I agree with what could easily come across against Israel. I wrote a draft. No one else was even trying. It is the exact opposite of being disruptive.Cptnono (talk) 11:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion ended awhile ago. I said what I thought needed to be said and went to bed before your request was even made here. I am not going to apologize since I was bringing up something in an attempt to better the article. Nableezy was showing that he was not willing to consider other options even though a few of us tried accommodating using the word "massacre" in the lead. He has still failed to show that it was used enough to deserve prominence over other terms but MrUnsignedAnon's new proposal could take care of that. So what is the point? Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users so I assume that is out of the question. I have no problem with an admin saying not do it again if it is considered disruptive. I'll bring it up in a different venue (a notice board or case like this) if I feel it should be discussed. I did mention this but thought your request that I stop and Nableezy's comment warranted a response. I should also have my name added to the people made aware of the sanctions on the topic. If an admin is going to admonish me that is OK. I would request that several editors on that page who's edit warring led to the lock along with anyone campaigning gets the same treatment. This discussion is about stopping my disruptive editing (which stopped over 24 hours ago) though and no one else's so that other stuff shouldn't be discussed in detail here. If an admin wants to tell me if I was wrong or not then I am willing to accept their judgment. Cptnono (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to "Comments by other editors" seciton.

SK: Thank you, Stellarkid. I think that is a perfect summary besides the gender. I also think it should be clear that I was a jerk a few weeks ago and felt my apology was in order.
NAB: I have also clarified my statement to "some" editors. I see it as the same concern of when as editor accused Stellarkid of "advocacy" (Romac) on Oct 5 and you asserted that I (or other editors) were making "strawman' arguments and engaging in "strongarming" which didn't raise eyebrows. I told you after you made those comments that you were coming across poorly (I used "poopey") which was surprising to me since we typically have a good rapport. I didn't expect those allegations from you.

If we need to bring up a discussion for arbitration enforcement regarding our differences we should do it. I see you were just almost blocked again for edit warring today and I think it would be a shame for either of us to not be involved in the consensus finding for the lead but if you want to keep it going we should do it in the proper venue. This discussion, however, was Tiamut jumping into a discussion and assuming I was attacking you when I was clearly trying to give you needed criticism. I have clarified the single comment that was out of line and stopped discussing it on the page. This discussion is also not about what would happen if someone said it about Israeli's, leprechauns, or anything else so any concerns with Israeli bias on Wikipeida should be brought up somewhere else. And like I said, I don't care what blood flows through your veins since editing neutrally is my concern.Cptnono (talk) 05:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NNMNG: Thanks NMMNG. I loled at "WP:be-passive-aggressive" and liked your phrasing in the first paragraph as a much better summary than mine. In Tiamut's defense, I flat-out called her a liar a few weeks ago. I have since apologized but that would be upsetting to anyone so if that is part of it that is understandable. Alternatively, I'm not going to speculate if other editors are gaming the system with this arbitration for enforcement since I can't be sure that is what is going on and if anything this is a reminder to not rock the boat so hard!Cptnono (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NAB: ~~You~~ just accused Stellarkid of advocacy a few days ago. If you believe edits have been done solely to promote Israel you should tell me. That is my bad

And don't change the subject (me!) since I haven't shown up randomly to edit other articles in the topic. I also even explained to you the problem. I laid out perfectly clear that it appeared you were trying to WP:WIN and were given proposal that should have met all of your requests but you needed to have it asserted as a title which is incorrect (At least in a couple of our opinions). In regards to other editors with the colors, one who had never edited the article came out of nowhere and supported you and that has happened before. I agree with something that came from this enforcement: I should not have asserted that all editors with Palestinian, Hezbollah, or other colors should not be editing. I should have stopped at my previous comment of suggesting that they take a step back and reassess if they can edit or worded it similar to SK or NNMNG. I gave you a valid reason and I made it clear that it was not to hurt your feelings. I also did not launch into a tirade until it appeared that you were not willing to use administrative oversight. Yes you clarified it but initially that looked pretty bad. I don't see why we should not let other editors know when they are being viewed as editing with bias or gaming the system especially when there have been several cases of edit warring and such behavior. The concern was not to do it on the talk page and I stopped. I thought everyone should know since it was the charges impacted the specific article. If there is a next time I will seek administrative oversight instead of giving what I view as constructive criticism.Cptnono (talk) 00:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ah crap... RomaC said it a line below you. That is my bad. However your comments were about strawman arguments, strongarming, and questioning if I had a POV concern [12]. I don't mind if you feel that way. You can call me out at anytime and I should answer. As you suggest that can be continued on a user talk page if you want.Cptnono (talk) 02:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SK and Nab: I'm not offended and no striking out is needed. Nableezy can imply or make those charges if he wants. I deny it and will continue to say that people flying either flag need to watch out for bias. That isn't what this enforcement process is about so I'm find waiting and seeing how an admin feels and dropping it for now.Cptnono (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamut: I did not see your additional comment earlier. Just a quick follow-up: I did tell Nableezy why I thought he was being biased. Stellarkid also gave an excellent summary of why he feels your user page is not constructive to the project. These are not attacks to be mean. It is constructive criticism since editors feel you need to hear it. Per the whole principle of the arbitration concern: Do you want to discuss this in another more appropriate venue (particular user page, arbitraiton enforcement, whatever)? This is supposed to be my party.Cptnono (talk) 07:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cptnono

I stand behind my comments. The three sections below are a proper summary of any statement I could make (bold emphisis on a few lines not in original text)

"I will not agree with BashBrannigan's suggestion since it asserts as a title and it is against the manual of style (Title's need to be bolded in the lead). My solution was dumbing down the lead to the point that there is no mention of Israel's operational name and to be frank it makes them look pretty bad (which they deserve to some extent of course). Even with this, I still including the term massacre since people did describe it as a massacre. Some people have even used it as a title but it was relativity rare when comparing it to the multiple other titles out there. If Nableezy requires it to be asserted as a title then there is a huge roadblock and we will have to add several others (which is like BashBrannigan suggestion only we will do it per MOS).''Also, regardless of the two of us agreeing or not (since it isn't required to not edit war and it isn't either of our's decision anyways), there was another series of edit warring that caused the page to get locked. It was over another editor's cleanup of someone else's cleanup of someone else's cleanup of a poorly laid out lead and a few other portions of the article. (please see the handful recently added discussions to this talk page and the reverts with several editor's names mentioned in the edit history).Cptnono (talk) 09:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)"

"Ok, this is out of proportions. Bring it to Arbritation and let them decide after we made our points heard. Then we lock part by part arbritated. For eternal time untuched my editors. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 10:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not how it works. nableezy - 07:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with any administrative action or oversight. Nableezy is fresh off of charges of gaming the system and winning by shear staying power with allegations of campaigning. ( here and here I like him but agree with the concern. Nableezy's priorities are Palestine and not Wikipedia. I know those look like horrible charges to make but he was presented with a perfectly fine option and disregarded any "compromise" (we shouldn't be compromising facts). I would like to think that he is an alright guy (I really do like him) but his edits show that there is a sole purpose and that is Palestine not Wikipedia.[13] Cptnono (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)"*[reply]

"You made it clear that the discussion of edit waring did not involve me. You edit war on more than one Gaza-Israeli based pages. I full-on expect a negative response from you. I am doing it for constructive criticism since no one else has (including admins) when you need it. We can move this to a talk page if you want but I'm not calling you out to be a dick. I'm doing it since other editors perceive you as gaming the system.Cptnono (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)"[reply]

*since inserting these comments from the talk page Nableezy has raised concerns that I was misrepresenting him. Nableezy clarified his "not how it works" comment with a comment about the process. This is an overview of my actions not his and the intent of using the statement was to show that I was happy to use other available methods to resolve the dispute.Cptnono (talk) 04:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors

I have to support Cptnono here. although I have only recently become involved in this article (and in WP) this accusation strikes me as terribly unfair. Cptnono has been trying to advance this article and maintain a NPOV. He has expressed his opinions on the talk page and never edit warred. I thought his opinions were carefully and deliberately spelled out and that they were dismissed, as were mine, and all others with a different viewpoint, out-of-hand. I noticed right away that editors who were in favor of removing "massacre" from the lede were reverted almost instantaneously by those who wished to include "massacre" in the lede. Warnings were put on the talk pages of the anti- folks. Requests to self-revert, ostensibly to achieve the same end as reverting, without the threat of 3RR noticeboard.

I see this action, and the one directly below it, against Shuki, as part of an attempt by certain editors to silence certain other editors. It begins when a small group of singleminded individuals come into an article and begin editwarring. They insist that consensus be achieved on the talk page, and then other like-minded individuals come in and refuse to cooperate on the article although they give a superficial appearance of doing so. Unwelcome, pov edits are made and insisted on, due to "lack of consensus" or other reasons. Then small things are blown up and an editor who was unhappy with a change is taken to some enforcement board or another, for lack of etiquette, too many reverts, or this board.

Can truth be a defense? In other words, is Cptnono correct when he claims bias? Take Tiamut for example. Tiamut has never been rude to me, though he has (in my opinion) a clear and demonstrated bias that effects his judgment.

These quotes prominently placed on his talk page, consider:

"I am a Palestinian. Hath not a Palestinian eyes? Hath not a Palestinian hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Jew is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that -- the villainy you teach me, I will execute; and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction." Tariq Ali's take on Shakespeare in the Khaleej Times
"It is not enough for the settler to delimit physically, that is to say with the help of the army and the police force, the place of the native. As if to show the totalitarian character of colonial exploitation the settler paints the native as a sort of quintessence of evil ... The native knows all this ... he knows that he is not an animal, and it is precisely at the moment he realizes his humanity that he begins to sharpen the weapons with which he will secure his victory. --From Frantz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth

First paragraph is a Palestinian's "take" on Shylock. In Shakespeare, the Jew is the victim of the gentile. In Tiamut's world, the Palestinian is the victim of the Jew. He talks of being wronged, and of taking revenge. "The villany you teach me", he says he will execute, and do one better. The Jews have taught the Palestinian villainy and the Palestinians, according to this, will be even more villainous in return.

Taking a look at the second quote, we understand that the "settler" of which he speaks is a Jewish settler (an Israeli). Referring to the settler as demonstrating "the totalitarian character of colonial exploitation," he claims that (all) settlers paint the "natives" as evil, suggesting that they are animals. Palestinians, knowing that they are not animals, "begin to sharpen their weapons..."

This is the epitome of a battlefield mentality and I believe that editing I-P articles with such a mindset is not going to contribute to collaborative editing, but instead lead to editing warring and disruption such as this enforcement action and the similar one below. Stellarkid (talk) 04:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many things wrong with the above. To begin with the simple things, Tiamut is a she, Tariq Ali is not a Palestinian, and Franz Fanon was not writing about Israel, though some may feel his words apply to the situation. But the biggest problem with the above, and with Cptnono's comments about having Palestinian flags on userpages disqualifying somebody from editing, is that it is strictly an argument directed at the person and not the substance of that person's argument. People should not be making such comments, and any user making comments that any user with an Israeli flag on their user page should be disqualified from editing would be swiftly subject to at least a topic ban, and rightly so. nableezy - 04:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Cptnono was doing a bit of hyperbole about the flags. He did not limit himself to the flag of one side or the other. His argument was meant more abstractly as pointed out in the post below, by NoMoreMrNiceGuy. That Tiamut is a she, or that Tariq Ali is not a Palestinian ,or that Ferdinand's comments were not directed to Israel makes no difference. I was talking on a more abstract level. Tiamut expresses her bias very clearly on her user page, what she considers to be "settled" opinion, no pun intended. The trouble is in the area of I-P conflict, one has to be sensitive to the other side's view if there is to be collaboration. When one considers the other side "the enemy," there is little doubt that one will act upon it, whether in his editing, or in the manner in which he handles his "enemies," that is, by trying to get the "authorities" involved on his "side." Stellarkid (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He actually did limit himself to one "sides" flag. But we dont judge editors based on their political leanings or what they put on their user page, we judge them based on their article edits and their interactions with others. If you, or anybody else, has a problem with what is on Tiamut's user talk page dont look at it. Do you think it is easy for "the other side" to work with those who have boxes expressing support for Yisrael Beiteinu, a party that has called for forced expulsions of Arabs and has been called variously fascist, racist, and ultra-racist? Or users who have user boxes proclaiming that independence for Palestinians "has been achieved with the establishment of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan"? What do you think the reaction would be if I were to say "X user has an Israeli flag on their user page, that user should not be allowed to edit in areas dealing with Israel"? But this misses the point. Do not focus your attention on the user, focus it on the argument. If there are behavioral issues, focus on the actual behavior. Not "she has some words on her user page I dont like". nableezy - 16:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He did say something to that effect, see [14]. He specifically referred to the Star of David being on a user's page. It was a metaphor for activism on either side. It is unfair to paint him as Arabphobic or supportive of far-right in Israel as you are implying. I would think you would strike the above comment as inappropriate. Stellarkid (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You, again, miss the point. And I did not imply that he "Arabphobic" or "supportive of far-right in Israel". But, again, that is besides the point. To repeat the missed point, you should not be making comments on what you think are other editors motivations but on the edits that user makes. As much as I dislike those who continuously repeat the following phrase, I will write it down once. Focus on content, not on editors. We get it this time or will there be another response that completely misses the point? nableezy - 06:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is you who misses the point. It appears that content has been discussed for some 57(?) archived pages in less than a year. As has been demonstrated, the "massacre" question has been discussed almost that long. There comes a time when it is appropriate to ask if there are some editors who are purposefully impeding collaboration due to bias and POV. Stellarkid (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Cptnono meant when talking about Palestinian flags on userpages is that there are unabashed activists for Palestinian nationalism (or other political agendas), who care more about their political leanings than improving Wikipedia, and that if your activism is so important to you that you cover your userpage with your politics, maybe it would be better if you involved yourself in other areas of this encyclopedia.

Cptnono's main mistake was that he forgot about WP:be-passive-aggressive and said what he thought in no uncertain terms, which resulted in Tiamut filing this request (not on her own behalf but for someone with similar political leanings, funnily enough).

There's little doubt in my mind that this request (and the one following it) weren't filed because someone said something not so nice on a couple of occasions (as if the requester herself doesn't do that on occasion - proof to be supplied on request), but to silence active editors of perceived opposing political views. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NMMNG, Your post is a series of personal attacks based on my user page content rather than the content of my edits. I understand that my pride in my identity is offensive to you, but like Nableezy said, you are not forced to look at my user or talk pages. For someone so irritated by my political leanings, you do seem to go out of your way to interact with me. Perhaps it is not I seeking a WP:BATTLE?

The reason I filed this complaint is simple: Cptnono was discussing contributors and not content at Talk:Gaza War. He has done it before too. He was asked by more than one editor to stop. He did not. He continued to defend his right to speculate about the motivations of his fellow editors, even here.

You have done that too. Providing no diffs of disruptive activity (even when requested to previously mutliple times), he (and you) feel free to cast aspersions upon me and Nableezy because we have flags on our pages? Should every editor who has a flag on his page be banned from editing in related topic areas? Or is it just Arab ones that are verboten? Please point to disruptive editing patterns (filing a case here with diffs and everything). Otherwise, I would ask that you stop distracting people with unsupported accusations. Tiamut^talk 17:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My post was about user pages in general, not specifically about yours. I don't understand why you think everything I do revolves around you and frankly I probably lack the professional expertise to find out. I do not care about your identity nor your political leanings other than when they negatively influence the edits you make in this encyclopedia. I wish you'd stop repeately accusing me of an interest in you I don't even remotely have. Seriously.

I'd also appreciate it if you'd stop implying I am racist against Arabs like you did above or here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She said you were exploiting "people's latent racism against Arabs". And you, as well as Cptnono, specifically said "Palestinian flags" and you said "unabashed activists for Palestinian nationalism", though you did throw in "(or other political agendas)" though I have yet to see you raise an issue with users promoting extreme right-wing Israeli agendas or any other supposed political agenda. And it can be easily demonstrated that you have "an interest" in Tiamut's edits, randomly showing up in the most obscure articles shortly after she had edited a page. No matter though, the point here is that people should not be commenting on what they think an editor's motivations are. If there is something objectionable in her, or mine or anybody elses, edits then explain the problem with the edits. It is not that difficult to understand. Many of us have made personal attacks, though this unabashed and tireless defense of those attacks is worrisome. I think all sorts of things about many users, such as you or Stellarkid or a number of others, regarding their motivations or "professional" nature of their time here, but I keep it to myself. nableezy - 18:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono, where did I accuse him of "advocacy". I made comments about his edits. And I really dont care that you said that to me. You should not have said it where you said it and you are wrong and so many other things could be said about your comments, but me caring is not one of them. The rest of my response to NMMNG was about his comments that were directed at Tiamut. If you want to have a reasoned conversation about my editing my talk page would be a good place to start (mind the banner at the top though). This has been much ado over nothing, though it was exacerbated by some of your comments. Could somebody please close this out? Nothing is going to be accomplished here. nableezy - 02:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that this case should end with no action taken? Personally, I'm inclined to agree= I vehemently disagree with Cptnono's commentary but I don't believe that administrative actions here would really contribute to making things better. The Squicks (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Notification of the ARBPIA case would be fine (that is all Tiamut requested) and I think any editor who is edits in the area should receive that notification (I actually asked an admin to notify me) but it would not be the end of the world if that did not happen. nableezy - 20:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is much too lengthy. I hope not one of you expect the administrator who reviews the complaint to read this discussion in its entirety. AGK 00:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This board doesn't seem to be very effective at all. If an admin popped in five days ago to simply say "On article talk pages, comment on content not contributors please," proceeding to give Cptnono notification of the Arbcomm case (something even he agreed should happen above), there wouldn't be a magnum opus to read here. Instead, the thread was left to languish for five days, people were allowed to make all sorts of wild speculations, and then the first admin to comment says he hopes we don't expect other to read all this. I don't like reading it either. Much of the "discussion" is a series of unsubstantiated accusations. Commenting on editors at AE without providing diffs substantiating commentary is also strangely tolerated here. What is this place? A kangeroo court? Tiamut^talk 01:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case anyone missed it

Please, read this. And, in response to Tznkai below, you tried the "clean sweep" strategy before. All you did was remove any relatively objective European and American editors from the pages in question, and left them open to the next group of obsessive partisans from America and Israel itself. Who are now ganging up on the two apparently Arab editors who regularly dare to get involved in these articles (do the maths). This is all very unpleasant. --Nickhh (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't tried the clean sweep before to my memory, and one of the serious problems I'm having here is that reading one of these threads gives me only a lopsided tl;dr version of whats going on. It gives me zero useful information and its pretty hard to figure out the best solution. As you have pointed out, there are real dangers in sanctioning the misbehavior of some but not all.--Tznkai (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, not you personally of course, but I refer to the Judea and Samaria decision, where everyone whose name came up was simply topic-banned regardless by ArbCom. Including English/British editors who'd made about four edits on the pages at issue (ie me), as well as a Swiss resident Uruguayan and a New Yorker among others, as if they were all crazed PFLP members bent on disrupting an otherwise serious encyclopedia. And if anyone on ArbCom can't be bothered to read stuff, and work out what matters content-wise - as opposed to what is partisan obfuscation - they shouldn't put themselves up for the post, frankly. --Nickhh (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ps: and please don't misunderstand me - I'm all in favour of sanctioning some, but not all. As I say, do the maths in terms of who edits I-P articles. And work out where the real misbehaviour lies, and who is actually using this place as a political advocacy site. --Nickhh (talk) 01:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case it wasn't adequately clear, I'm not a member of ArbCom.--Tznkai (talk) 03:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gatoclass

No-one expects behaviour to be perfect in a topic area as contentious as the I-P conflict, and most users are inclined to express their frustration with other editors from time to time. My concern here, as Tiamut suggests above, is that Cptnono simply doesn't appear to be getting the point that commenting on contributors is not an acceptable practice per WP:NPA. Had he said he realizes he made a mistake, and will try not to repeat it, I don't think there would be any need for action, but the fact that he still appears to be trying to justify his comments, or at least dismiss concerns about them, is itself a cause for concern. Perhaps in this circumstance a formal warning may indeed be helpful. If he continues in the same vein, I would suggest an initial response of short blocks to bring his attention to the problem rather than say, a topic ban per ARBPIA, because no evidence has been presented to suggest that he is misbehaving in other ways. Gatoclass (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Cptnono

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

This entire area may require a clean sweep and the removal of many editors. This particular case does not have diffs that are t particularly illustrative of a behavioral problem that can be eliminated via sanction, and I do not have time to carefully read through the extended comments above. I do note that the diffs suggest that this is an interpersonal conflict between two editors apparently on different "sides" of a real world political dispute. As incredulous as it sounds we both expect better behavior here, and have become resigned to worse.--Tznkai (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs illustrate a persistent refusal by Cptnono to direct his comments at Talk:Gaza War only at the content of that article. Interjecting criticism of the conduct of other editors into consensus-building discussions is a wholly unhelpful practice. To ensure that it does not happen again, I am actioning as follows:

Cptnono is prohibited for a period of 6 months from making a comment on article talk pages that addresses the conduct of a contributor. If he does make such a comment, he will be blocked for disruption without further warning. In the event that he experiences a problem with the conduct of a contributor, he should take his grievances up with that editor, and thereafter pursue appropriate methods of dispute resolution (by filing an wikiettiquette alert, a ANI complaint, or similar). (One comment per grievance in a content discussion, noting that the grievance has been taken to dispute resolution, is permitted.)
All participants in discussions on the talk pages of articles that are within the scope of the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case are reminded that user conduct is not an appropriate topic to be discussed in the article talk space; and that doing so is disruptive and is grounds for being blocked and for being topic banned.

As the incident in question took place more than two weeks ago, I do not think it would be helpful to apply retrospective blocks in response to this complaint; but note that the seriousness of the misconduct that took place here would ordinarily warrant a block of three or four days.

Talk page discussions are exclusively for discussion of the content of an article and for building an editorial consensus on disputed content matters. Any editors who do not abide by this ethos in their contributions to article talk pages are, in the first case, damaging genuine attempts to build consensus, and in the second, liable to be blocked or sanctioned.

AGK 23:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The Troubles

This is not a specific enforcement request, but a notification of an AE-related thread. At ANI, there is discussion about the community consensus from October 2008[15] that expanded the remedies from the October 2007 Troubles case. Specifically, how to define "1RR", and the level of warning required before an editor can be blocked under the expanded remedies. Interested editors are invited to participate at the ANI thread. --El on ka 19:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacurek

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

Request concerning Jacurek

User requesting enforcement:
Skäpperöd (talk) 08:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions: "impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process"

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Jacurek does not adhere to the purpose of wikipedia and normal editorial process:

At History of Pomerania (1945–present), he deletes sourced information or replaces sourced information leaving the ref in place, so as if his comments were attributed to this ref. He has neither presented a source of his own, nor has he engaged in discussion. It was several times pointed out to him that the information he deletes/alters is sourced.

For what it matters, the source he primarily deletes or replaces with his comments is a book cooperatively written by Polish and German historians, all experts on Pomeranian history, published in Polish and German in 1999.

Background

User:Jacurek is a member of the "EEML" currently subject to Arbcom investigation [16]
User:Jacurek has been edit warring repeatedly during the EEML case, and had avoided sanctions by agreeing to voluntary 1rr at least twice this month [17].

Prelude

08:31, 23 October: User:Xx236 rants on WP:Poland [18]. User:Xx236 is topic banned from issues concerning the expulsions of Germans after World War II, this at least partially includes the history of Pomerania in/after 1945. Xx236 has dropped Jacurek a note similar to the WP:Poland note on 22 October [19].
14:04, 23 October: User:Xx236 canvasses to History of Pomerania (1945–present) on WP:Poland [20]
14:06, 23 October: User:Loosmark deletes the category "History of Pomerania" and the "Pomeranian history" navbox from the article, no edit summary [21]

Timeline

15:38 - 15:43, 23 October: User:Jacurek alters sourced content making a Communist propaganda term appear like a normal one, no edit summary [22]
16:23, 23 October: I restore the sourced phrase, the cat and the navbox [23]
18:58 - 18:59, 23 October: User:Jacurek introduces a strange attribution ("according to two sources") and fact tags to a sourced paragraph [24]
19:22 - 19:24, 23 October: I remove the attribution and replace the fact tags with the respective reference already given at the paragraph's end [25] and point out in the edit summary that the ref at the paragraph's end sources the whole paragraph [26]
20:43 - 21:07, 23 October: User:Jacurek deletes and alters several sourced paragraphs [27]. As in the previous cases, the sources were left in place giving the new version an appearance of reflecting these sources.
21:57, 23 October: I restore the sourced paragraphs [28] and left Jacurek a note on his talk [29]
22:24, 23 October: User:Jacurek reverts [30]. While Jacurek's edits generally lack an edit summary, he left one here accusing me of doing "mass reverts" and telling me to discuss my edits first. A similar message was left on my talk [31].
22:24, 23 October - 06:15, 24 October: Jacurek makes 71 edits, placing fact tags into sourced paragraphs, altering and deleting sourced information while leaving the ref in place, and Polonizing all placenames regardless of Gdanzig vote/naming conventions [32]. Not all of these edits are disruptive, but since he does not use edit summaries, it is hard to single out the actual disruptive revisions in the general diff above.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
[33]

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
topic ban or conditional block (except for ongoing arbcom case)

Additional comments by Skäpperöd (talk):

This is not a content dispute as it is sources vs no sources.
Since this is related to the ongoing EEML arbcom, I linked this thread on those pages [34]. However, the removal/rephrasing of sourced material is an issue requiring relatively prompt response, and can not await the outcome of arbcom (which atm tends to amnesty anyway).
Another user left a note on my talk page pointing to similar problems with Jacurek at another article [35] - probably, this needs to be investigated too.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[36]

Re:Loosmark

Please outline how repeatedly removing sourced content, replacing sourced content with own oppinions leaving the refs in place, not presenting any source themselves, leaving no edit summaries, and covering that up with 71 minor edits can be described as "valid", "content dispute" and "NPOV".
Regardian Varsovian: I welcome everyone with a redlinked talk page, with the exception of obvious SPAs. Varsovian is unknown to me, and your assessment may or may not be true, I can not comment on that.

Re:Jacurek

regarding "mass revert to his preferred version" - I even took the trouble to manually restore the sourced information you deleted and multiply the sources at the end of the respective paragraphs to show behind each of the paragraph's sentences, also I applied the Gdanzig rule to multiple placenames you replaced. Your slogan "mass revert" is only that - a slogan.

Discussion concerning Jacurek

Statement by Jacurek

I did nothing else but editing the article in a total good faith. In my opinion user Skäpperöd unfortunately "claims ownerships" of this article since until my latest edits he was the main contributor of the article[[37]] and now he does not wish to see any changes that are not in line with his view on the subject.--Jacurek (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that user Skäpperöd was placed on sanctions himself[[38]] after filing similar unfounded complaints against other Polish editors in the past (note Mattheads comments supporting Skäpperöd) and he was warned week later after filing ONCE AGAIN unfounded complaint here[[39]] The warning was very clear not to do that in the future:

This looks like a misuse of WP:AE in order to win the upper hand in a content dispute. The edits cited in the request are not objectionable; rather, they reflect routine disagreements about content. In particular, it is not disruptive to state one's opinion that "Removing a large chunk of text without discussing it first is generally seen as "disruptive"". Unless other administrators disagree, I will close this thread with a warning to Skäpperöd that AE is not a substitute for, or part of, proper dispute resolution, and that he may face sanctions if he files more unfounded enforcement requests. Sandstein 18:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC) I am in complete agreement with your reading of the situation Sandstein. Shell babelfish 11:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC) * No action. Skäpperöd is warned not to file more unfounded requests. Sandstein 16:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

More information can be found here[[40]]--Jacurek (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe (but this is my personal opinion of course) that this new but very experienced user Varsovian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) whom user Skäpperöd welcomed here[41] (Skäpperöd claims that Varsovian is unknown to him. See his statement.) is somehow connected to Skäpperöd. Yesterday user Varsovian left me this threatening note[42] ...Say hello to a complete ban ... and today Skäpperöd files this complaint while Varsovian keeps quiet not even requesting his account to be unblocked[[43]]. I don't want to suggest socking at this point but somebody who knows more about socking etc. should perhaps look closer at this. Both editors edit from the same time zone etc., etc. but again I'm not an expert and these are just my thoughts.--Jacurek (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE:

Here[[44]] as we speak user Skäpperöd just mass reverted most of my work back to his preferred version without any discussion whatsoever. He did not even wait for the resoults of this complaint. Is anybody still under illusion that all this is not about the content dispute? I don't. How log such behaviour can be tolerated?? --Jacurek (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left this note on his talk page[45] since my work was reverted. It was rude I feel totally disrespected.--Jacurek (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Matthead (comment that was deleted by him[[46]]?!?)

Rich history of conflicts even with administrators[[47]] and very impressive block log of user Matthead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) or what is happening as we speak[[48]] makes such an attack very easy to rebuff, however I'm choosing not to comment on Mattheads comment since it is irrelevant to this particular case. However since user Matthead already arrived here I would like to point out that he also comes to mind of many[[49]][[50]][[51]] as a possible owner/cooperator of the new strange account of user Varsovian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).--Jacurek (talk) 05:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC

Here you go... [[52]]--Jacurek (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors

As a heads up: I will be looking into the evidence cited in this complaint at some point tomorrow. I will at that point indicate whether I think the conduct of any editor involved in the situation warrants sanctioning. Other administrators are welcome to duplicate my efforts and draw their own conclusions. AGK 23:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AGK, please remember that this complaint is about Jacurek/Skäpperöd and not about user Varsovian and if he is a sock puppet of Matthead or not. I'm just afraid that reviewing administrators may focus now on Matthead/Varsovian which is a completely different issue dealt with here[[53]]. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reflection, I would prefer to not involve myself in this particular enforcement thread. AGK 21:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Totally understand. Regards--Jacurek (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Loosmark

Regarding the diffs Skapperod presents above, most of them are perfectly valid and represent a step towards improving the NPOV of article. The very few that can be seen as problematic, Skapperod could and should have discussed on the talk page. There are of course the usual steps for content disputes resolution such as third opinion and request for comment and mediation, none of which were tried by Skaperrod. IMO he should be adviced to stop using this board for winning content disputes, it's really growing old. Loosmark (talk) 10:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "another user" which left a note on Skapperod's talk page is non other than Varsovian, an account created with the sole purpose of provoking Polish editors. For now I will only note that the welcome message to Varsovian's entrace to wikipedia was given to Varsovian by Skapperod as can be seen on top of his talk page [54] and that Varsovian, the "new user" as he claims, was aware of the existance of Scurinae [55] who is long time buddy of Skapperod with whom they wrote complains against Polish editors in past. Loosmark (talk) 11:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Skapperod If a sentence is sourced it doesn't neccesarily mean that it should be in the article as the article needs balance and plus have to give proper weight to things. The problem is you didn't even attempt to discuss things with Jacurek on the article's talk page before comming here. Loosmark (talk) 12:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Radeksz

Please note the related discussion her [56]. This isn't "no sources" vs. "sources" as Skapperod tries to portray it. Rather the sources themselves are in question as non-RS.radek (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Molobo

(contribution removed by clerk)

Clerk note - I inappropriately gave permission to Molobo to post here. I had assumed his enquiry was about whether or not duplicating material from the EEML case was acceptable, and at the time completely failed to remember that Molobo was operating under an editing restriction. (In hindsight his enquiry makes sense now). I have contacted Arbcom for their opinion and they may reinstate Molobo's material at their discretion. Molobo will not be penalised for this breach of his editing restriction as he acted in good faith. Manning (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by HerkusMonte

The (main) problem here is not wether Jacurek's edits did improve the article or not. The main problem is that topic-banned User:xx236 made a rather cryptic statement at the WikiProject Poland and within 2 (!) minutes User:Loosmark started to edit an article he has never edited before[57]. User:Jacurek appeared after another 90 minutes and made dozens of changes like replacing a perfectly working link to the Oder river with a link to a disambiguation page Odra [58]. This might be a remarkable coincidence or the attempt to bypass a topic ban. HerkusMonte (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not exactly edited the article in the sense of content, I have only removed that abominably huge template "history of Pomerania" which Skaperod made and which he keeps sticking to articles. I did note the article after xx236 posted it on Project Poland however his statement is cryptic for me too, I don't understand what he meant and I don't care either. But since we talk about coincidences, amazingly after I removed the template within a couple of minutes an anon IP came to my talk page saying he reverted me. Since unregistered users don't have a watchlist, that was a bit interesting, but I don't really care about that. Loosmark (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not understand either what he meant[[59]] and I saw that post this morning actually, not yesterday, therefore this is totally unrelated. The reason he posted this[[60]] on my talk page was in response to the e-mail I have sent him reminding him of the topic ban. (Can you confirm that User:xx236 if you read this? Maybe you kept a copy of the warning e-mail I have sent you?) I thought that he is banned from all EE related topics not just German related and xx236 was commenting on the Jedwabne Pogrom I thought he not suppose to do.--Jacurek (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way HerkusMonte, these are not the main problems what have you pointed out. The main problem is that Skäpperöd have filed unfounded complaint once again after specific warning not to do that (..Skäpperöd is warned not to file more unfounded requests... Sandstein 16:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC) I understand that as a German editor you may defend him but please be honest about it and do not use attack as a defence tool. Thanks --Jacurek (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Matthead

Jacurek is not a problem free editor, having been blocked several times for several months for proven sockpuppeteering (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jacurek). He has recently wikistalked me, reverting me several times, also at articles he had never edited before, for example an university, this biography of a German, or that biography of a Polish historian, who had stated in 1625 that the German astronomer Regiomontanus was a fellow countryman of Copernicus, thus proclaiming Copernicus a German astronomer, while more recent Poles try to portray him as Polish. As these words did not suit Jacurek's Polish POV, he removed them a second time. I don't even mention Jacurek's edit warring at the astronomer's bio and its talk, but have to point out that he followed me to the article West Germany, which he had never edited before reverting me, and reverting two more times [61] [62] before the article got editprotected. When I asked two editors, who also participated in the edit war without having edited the article before, it was Jacurek who showed up at their talk pages [63] [64], creating more battlegrounds. By two admins, Jacurek was warned [65] [66], and stated he thinks he will stick to voluntary 1RR. While he had 3 reverts, compared to two of mine, with a misinformation about 1RR issued to at least two admins [67] [68], Jacurek even managed to get me blocked based on a mistaken assumption by Rjanag (who is currently subject to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Rjanag), according to the statement of the admin who unblocked me. It was also stated that Jacurek would have had deserved a block more, and that he was evidently hounding Matthead and wanted to get him blocked. -- Matthead Discuß 01:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted misplaced statement by Jacurek which violated the advise given at the top of this page. -- Matthead Discuß 15:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was not my statement Matthead, it was my response to you and I'm quite sure that you should not have just delete it. Well.. this is how you quite often behave unfortunately. P.S. I restored what you have deleted here[69].--Jacurek (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, Jacurek, can't you read what is written on the top of the edit window, marked in red? "Advice for editing Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration 1. Comment only in your own section please. If you wish to respond to a statement or remark by another editor, add to the bottom of your own section ...". Well, thank you for once again illustrating your ignorance even after you have been informed, your disrespect for advise and rules of Wikipedia, and your willingness to provoke others. -- Matthead Discuß 18:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Varsovian

I fully support Jacurek's request for a socking expert to investigate my account. I have already said at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Matthead "I hereby state my support for each and every checkuser request made any time anybody accuses me of being a sock puppet, a meatpuppet, a banned user avoiding a ban, whatever." I apologise for not requesting my block be removed but it expired before I wanted to post (yesterday was spent watching football and the boxing, and drinking Krolewski and Perla): I will be appealing the block even though it has expired.

I was planning to forgive and forget but as Jacurek seems to wish to repeatedly drag my name into a dispute he has with another poster, perhaps somebody would like to check this edit of his [70]? He cut a 684 word article down to 81 words, removed all of the 638 words which I had written and removed all sixteen of the 28 sources which do not agree with his version of history (all but one of those 16 were inserted by me). I have requested that he moderate his behaviour towards me [71] but he promptly followed me into No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron: he had edited that article just once before, on 13 Feb 2009, but within one hour of me posting there he had reverted my edit[72]. He had previously followed me into Anti-Polish sentiment and reverted my edit [73] I can provide numerous examples of his incivil behaviour, assuming bad faith and repeated accusations against me if this would be an appropriate place for such. Please advise.Varsovian (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacurek: before you comment here about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Matthead you may wish to note that both Matthead and I have agreed to the checkuser. You might also note that I have politely requested both there and on your talk page that you comment there about any other accounts which you think I might be a puppet of.

BTW: I believe from my reading of Matthead's comments he deleted you comment because it was in his section and not your own. I hope that clarifies the situation for you.Varsovian (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody reading this cares, even while this request is being discussed user Jacurek is behaving in precisely the way he thinks is "rude" and should not be tolerated (when others do it). Here [74] he cut all of the 638 words which I had written and removed all sixteen of the 28 sources which do not agree with his version of history (all but one of those 16 were inserted by me). Here [75] he does precisely the same thing again. It is becoming increasingly difficult to believe that such massive deletions of sources and text is good faith editing. I would also like it to be noted that 8 of the 12 sources he leaves ([76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83]) do not support his statement that almost all Poles were excluded: they all state that all Poles were excluded. I have repeatedly pointed out on the discussion page [84][85][86] [87] and in edit summaries [88][89] [90] [91] [92] that Jacurek is attributing information to sources which simply do not state what he claims but Jacurek continues to claim that they support his version of history.Varsovian (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coments by Xx236

How many percent of all accusations in this Wikipedia comes from Skaperod? How many would be too much?Xx236 (talk) 11:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As anyone can check Skaperod doesn't write the truth when writes: "Xx236 has dropped Jacurek a note similar to the WP:Poland note on 22 October [56]". The two notes are different. Is it standard here to write unfounded accusations and still be a respected editor? Xx236 (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Jacurek

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

Kurtilein

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

Request concerning Kurtilein

User requesting enforcement:
Cirt (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Editors_instructed (Note that the prior Scientology case remedy, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Article_probation, may also be applicable here.)

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

23:12, 25 October 2009 - Kurtilein adds unsourced info to the article. I removed it, with an edit summary saying it is unsourced info.
12:12, 26 October 2009 - Kurtilein adds the info back, claiming it is sourced to a primary source document - however I don't see how the text "Another passage that has been cited by critics of the organisation, especially in relation to cases of death where critics see connections to the organisation" is sourced to that document, and regardless the primary source document usage strays towards WP:NOR violation. I removed it a 2nd time, noting in the edit summary this specific portion that is definitely unsourced.
- In a post to his user talk page, I asked Kurtilein for independent reliable secondary sources, and noted the WP:NOR issue: [93].
- I then also specifically noted the portion of the text that he re-added that was wholly unsourced: [94].
13:17, 26 October 2009 - Kurtilein adds the material back, again, this time with a disturbing edit summary: undo it again, and i will not come back and redo this edit... i will call others to this article to redo it. many others.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
[95], [96]

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Block, at discretion of reviewing admin.

Additional comments by Cirt (talk):
It is unfortunate that unsourced material remains in the article - but I am taking a step back from the article in order for this evaluation here to proceed, and to avoid disruption at the article itself. As I am involved with cleanup at this article, and have contributed quality content on the topic, I will defer review and admin action to another administrator. Thank you for your time. Cirt (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

(user notified) 13:42, 26 October 2009. Cirt (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Kurtilein

Statement by Kurtilein

The information i added to the article is NOT unsourced. I quoted from the document called "Keeping Scientology working", it is referenced. He reverted my edit repeatedly without giving any proper reasons to do so, and he reverted my edit while there would have been other options. he could have added one of those little "citation needed"-things if there really would be a citation missing. I consider it to be very rude when you just remove information that someone else added to the article, without having real reasons to do so, and without considering alternatives. Kurtilein (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is how i experienced it: I stubled upon the article, read it, and then i read the whole original document "keeping scientology working". There i discovered the quote, and a part of the quote, the sentence about "We'd rather have you dead than incapable" is well known and often cited by critics. Now people keep removing it when i try to add it, INSTEAD OF trying to add the missing citations, INSTEAD OF adding one of those little "citation needed"things, INSTEAD OF doing something else (i am sure there would be other options). The option that has been chosen was to remove the quote from public view, to destroy the work that i have done. And now i know about this quote, i know that it should be in the article, i know that it would be easy to find sources, i know that Scientology would love to NOT have this quote in the article. This is one of the biggest differences between Citizendium and Wikipedia: on citizendium, deleting something someone else has written is not allowed unless good reasons are given, and while i now agree that the sentence i added to the quote would need a "citation needed"-tag or that deleting it would be justified, i see no justification for deleting the quote itself. it is much more difficult to get your account blocked on citizendium than it is on wikipedia, but repeatedly deleting the contributions of others leads to a lifetime ban really quickly. Because actions like this make people that care about freedom of speech, like me, so angry that all rational arguments fail and that the presence of this quote in the article is now the only thing i care about. instead of working together to find a way to use this quote for the article and to expand the article, this has instantly turned into a fight, because deleting what someone else has written contains in itself a big and loud "fuck you" together with a silent "what you do is not welcome here", which can be heared and understood by people that hate censorship on the internet, like i do. Kurtilein (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the following for Jayen466, but while writing it it turned into another statement that i would like to add here:

THANKS!!! hooray :) your recent edit to Keeping Scientology Working is great. Now it looks like the disputed quote can stay in the article. Actually i learned a lot from this. After my edit got removed for the first time, i should have reintroduced the edit either with sources or with a "citation needed"-tag, should have opened a discussion on the articles talk page, and should have pointed out that nothing in wikipedias policies says that sources and citations cannot be added a few days later. Tagging apparently does the same job that deleting does in cases like this, except when the person that got his stuff deleted does not come back, or doesnt want to start an edit war, in that case deleting has the effect of censorship. I admit that i really am quite inexperienced on wikipedia. I still think that just deleting edits that could be turned into something useful is unnecessary because there are alternatives, and that it is rude because it is unnecessary and somehow still tied to censorship. Maybe i also overreacted, i could have reacted in a much better way, but if i would not have continued to fight the deletion of my edit then the quote might never have ended up in the article. For me, it was about content all along. I think i will also add this to my statement on the arbitration request for enforcement against me. I hope im not the only one that learned something from this, many people had to waste time because of this, and none of this would have happened if someone would have considered using of those little "citation needed"-tags at the right place and time. Kurtilein (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors

Comments by Jayen466

I have taken the unsourced material out; User:Kurtilein failed to note that he way he framed the quote was unsourced, and failed to understand it even when Cirt pointed it out to him. Suggest warning User:Kurtilein per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Discretionary_topic_ban, explaining the arbitration remedies to him, and placing a topic ban if there is a repeat. --JN466 18:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[97], [98], [99], [100]. --JN466 22:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was a case of inexperience and excess enthusiasm, and Kurtilein seems to have recognised this now. --JN466 00:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Kurtilein

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

Nableezy

Request concerning Nableezy

User requesting enforcement:
Stellarkid (talk) 05:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[101]

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions

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

Nableezy has been involved in a systematic and longstanding attempt to insert POV material into the lead of a controversial I-P article in a non-collaborative way and without consensus, and gaming the system.

Numerous archives speak specifically to the conflict and lack of consensus for this edit, and other archives to the issue of POV, as does the current Talk:Gaza War page, particularly here and more than that to the lead itself. These earlier archives show that no consensus has been achieved for this edit. [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110]

The following reverts are to his preferred version and were made in the last four weeks. The article was edit-protected [111],
and the last four reverts made after edit protection was removed. (with partial edit summaries)

[112] "you need to show consensus has changed, no consensus for removal of long standing text" 9/26
[113] "no consensus" 9/27
[114] "rvt using popups" 9/28
[115] other editor's beliefs "don't matter" 9/28
[116] "consensus" 9/29
[117] "amply sourced" 10/3
[118] adds dubious source claiming "this should end this" 10/4
[119] rvtd compromise solution with "nonsense, the text is directly supported by the citations" 10/6
[120]"move up, bold and capitalize per source" (reverted to the most contentious edit despite continuing argument WP policy re lede, re consensus, re Reliability) 10/15
[121] "removal of reliably cited and there is no consensus to completely remove gaza massacre" 10/15
[122] "no consensus" (for removal) 10/15
[123] "verifiable statement reliably sourced with no consensus for removal" 10/20

Here is a second set of diffs over a longer period of time for same article demonstrating POV or Battlefield mentality:

[124] maybe the Truth is antisemitic
[125] Believes Hamas over Israel
[[126] Hamas has a 'legal right to resist occupation
[127] The idea that Israel wants peace is proved incorrect
[128] "Because somebody is worried that international press will become pro-gazan upon seeing civilians rotting in the street is reason to endorse censorship?"
[129] After reverting to his preferred version, says "This was simple vandalism, and thus reverted. You changed well sourced information and added things to change the balance so that the Israeli side is represented in a disproportional manner."

Disparaging comments (violating WP:NPA) to other users' arguments in relation to this edit.

[130] Other editors refuse to acknowledge simple facts, editors who challenge are "disruptive."
[131] Doesn't matter what a fellow editor thinks
[132] Caps are irrelevant in Arabic
[133] "Beyond ridiculous"
[134] "Bullshit" argument
[135] Controversy is "Bullshit argument" & attempt to WP:CENSOR despite most of the editors' agreement that the material does belong in the article, just not in the lead
[136] "moronic"

Diffs from (some) other (established) editors demonstrating that there was "no consensus" for this insertion. They run from January -September.

[137] "Appalled" by massacre terminolgiy -- nothing short of racism
[138] "But I'm not sure any more that it is fair to say this is the usual name for these events in Arabic" based on a search that showed that "the term "massacre exsists in just eight percent of the articles."
[139] concerned about the effect on the naïve reader, encountering "'The Gaza Massacre”' in boldface in the opening line" will "potentially [create] an undue bias, before even reading the facts" [140] [141] not an official name
[142]" emotive and judgemental, irrelevant of its use throughout the world, the article should note this useage but not term itself the "Gaza Massacre"
[143] "highly emotive" "inflammatory language" and "These highly emotive terms have sources, but so do many other things that wouldn't be appropriate."
[144] notes that it would be grammatically correct as a description but not as a proper name. He supports disembolding and would allow "The conflict has been described as a "massacre" in parts of the Arab world."
[145] "there is no reason to capitalize "massacre" since the English sources don't." He also notes that reliable sources in the Arab world do not refer to it that way.
[146] If "massacre is indeed the most widely used term, provide proof and it will go without qualification" "the sources provided so far do not back the assertion, though they back the statement that in parts of the ARab world the event is described as a massacre, at least by some and occasionally." "following WP:common sense and the assumption that (most) Arabs are not flamers yelling martyrdom and massacre." [147]
[148] "no reason for the massacre title anymore" since 'evidence that common name in Al Jazeera, Syria, & for Palestinians is "Gaza War"'.

more recently:

[149]concerned about RS that made the claim of "massacre"
[150] "massacre" not used frequently. [151] RS show that Al Jazeera and Hamas chief use "Gaza War" and suggests moving "Gaza Massacre" to another place in the article. [152] Clearly propose to leave lead with Operation and War and move Massacre to Propaganda [153] Clearly propose to leave lead with Operation and War and move Massacre to Propaganda
[154] thinks "use of the word "massacre" here is inappropriate, non-neutral, and used only as a political tactic." based on his Google search. "The lead paragraph is too important to include something so contentious and unclear as the "Gaza Massacre."
[155] there is a "lack of consensus" and that it is in violation of WP:NPOV. Also warned on reverting " I'd like to note that using Twinkle in content disputes is frowned upon as are blind reverts and ignoring the perspectives and notes (as well as reliable sources) of fellow editors." [156] " Otherwise, we're giving an undue level of prestige of sorts to a fragment of one side's propaganda since it's clearly not "just a name""
[157] "The archives indicates that there's no consensus or "rough consensus" for its inclusion. Nor has the article been stable. See User:AgadaUrbanit's talk page, which is replete with your warnings that he nor remove the term again. I'm advocating for a clear consensus before controversial and defamatory material is placed in the lede of an article." [158] "Including 'massacre' in the lede is encyclopedic, NPOV-violative, and WP:N-violative. [159]' Mainstream sources do not say in their own words that "Hamas calls this war the Gaza Massacre"' [160] No RS available thus "use of the term apparently violates wp:or/wp:synth, if not wp:n" [161] offers a compromise to achieve consensus.
[162] "guess seeing the word "massacre" in boldface in the first line is what concerns me just a bit. It's a highly charged term, and do we really need that so prominently in the article?"

Links suggesting that Nableezy is gaming the system by bringing others up for charges,

[163] - Wikifan12345
[164] - NoCal100
[165] - Boatduty177177
[166]- RichPoynder
[167]- AgadaUrbanit
[168] -Rm125
[169] asking me to self -revert so that he will not violate 3RR]
[170] clearly demonstrating he understands the system and warning against adding material against consensus
[171]"discussed does not mean agreed. You need to stop warring in material over the objections of others." This is a direct warning to another user for the very same thing he is doing here.
[172] An editor has put forth an ArbCon request on behalf of Nableezy for sanctions on User:Cptnono one of the editors directly involved in this dispute- one who has not edit-warred the article. 10/10
[173] Though filed by another editor, Nableezy is also the principal in this ArbCon request re editwarring as well, for a different article. ([174]) 10/11

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

[175] I warned (or at least explained my concerns) response here [176]
[177] concerns also here; citing WP:CCC
[178] Nja247 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) "Final warning" "Essentially at this point you should be using a personal 1RR rule except for blatant vandalism" 4/28
[179] PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) warned of ArbCom sanctions 6/30
[180] Recent edit warring report 10/6
[181] warning by Tedder (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 10/15
[182] Block log

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

I am asking for a topic ban for some period of time. Considering that he has been warned a number of times in the past and has not seemed to be able to honor these warnings with the appropriate editing behaving, and considering that this behavior is tending to move further afield as is perhaps illustrated here: [183], to ignore it would give it permission to continue and thrive. Perhaps what troubles me most is the lack of respect I see for colleagues that take a different view from him. Some time off might allow Nableezy review his objectives here at WP. He is an intelligent and thoughtful editor in my view, and well liked on both sides of the aisle. I think he would be a great editor in areas that are not so personal for him.

I believe it necessary to send a clear message that this kind of behavior is unacceptable that it may discourage it in others as well, hopefully cutting down on reportage of incidents, and generally helping to foster a better WP editing environment in the sensitive area of I-P.

Comments by Nableezy

Stellarkid has been on a month-long mission to expunge from the article a common Arabic name for the conflict, a name that has been in the article for over ten months (and for which there was consensus for including), something that both has countless sources of actual use as well as two sources that flat out say that the name for the conflict in the Arab world is the "gaza massacre". He has made opposing arguments for including names that he likes (such as "war on hamas") as he has to remove this name (and he does so in the very same section as he makes the opposing argument). When this is pointed out to him his response is what I have to say is one of the all-time classic lines of a POV pusher when confronted with the fact that he is engaging in intellectual dishonesty; otherstuffexists. That said, I'm not touching that page again, there is no point in even trying to work with such people. People who say that even if it were true that the whole world except Israel called it "The Gaza Massacre" it would still represent the opinion or "point of view" of just one side and would not belong in the lead as the name used by one of the parties. I completely wash my hands of that article (I took it off my watchlist a couple days ago) as I think that trying to reason with Stellarkid is a mission in futility and I would much rather do something more useful with my time, like take a shit.

As for Stellarkid's half-baked proof I am "gaming" the system, reporting editors for 5+ reverts is not gaming. And picking quotes (and going back 10 months) completely out of context is what Stellarkid does best (please actually read the complete diffs and what they were in response to). Earlier he presented "sources" for "war on hamas". Not a single one of the sourcse he originally cited used anything approaching that as the name of the conflict, he simply googled "war on hamas" and added a bunch of links. Also, please look at Stellarkids removals, you will see he has also been edit-warring consistently. I am the only one to try any dispute resolution on this issue, I opened an RfC, went to the RS noticeboard and the NPOV noticeboard. Stellarkid's actions have consisted of nothing but making specious arguments and edit-warring something out that is a verifiable statement supported by a reliable source with another 10 sources presented on the talk page. nableezy - 06:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put diffs illustrating lack of consensus into the body of my request just now. Of course memory lane would include a trip to the archives, which is what I did. Stellarkid (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first one that you again quote out of context also includes the user saying "Yet, I can't see how we can ignore the fact that most of the Arab world does call it that way." JGGardiner has since changed his opinion on the issue, the third one also includes the user saying the would include it in the lead but without boldface, something that you agreed to and then decided you did not agree any longer. But I dont feel like dealing with you any longer, you have no idea what WP:NPOV means. It does not mean that we do not include what a significant POV because what they say is "inflammatory". We are obligated under WP:NPOV to include all significant POVs. You have repeatedly made dishonest arguments that shift depending on the POV. That is why I refuse to carry on talking with you, I have no respect for those who cannot be consistent with their arguments. That is the only thing I expect from an editor, that they apply arguments consistently. You do not do that. You consistently argue for a POV, and when that requires an inconsistent argument you take no hesitation to make such arguments. In the very same section you were arguing that the sources for "Gaza Massacre" were not enough you argue that the exact same type of sources are sufficient for a name you want to include. You have edit-warred over this term as much as anybody else. Here is a list of every non-minor edit you have made to the article:

[184] completely removes "gaza massacre" with source
[185] completely removes with source
[186] exactly the same as below, though you dishonestly call it "another" attempt at a compromise instead of a simple revert to the same edit you had made earlier
[187] changes to "known as a 'massacre'" when every source calls it "the gaza massacre"
[188] completely removes
[189] other
[190] removes from lead and places in media as "a 'massacre'" (none of the sources cited were of the media calling it that)
[191] completely removes
[192] completely removes
[193] other names you insert using the exact opposite reasoning as you used to remove gaza massacre

You have added nothing of substance to the article and have only added fallacious arguments to the talk page. You continually cite policies when it is clear you have not read them as they often say the exact opposite thing as you say they do. But again, I do not wish to continue arguing with you, there is no point. You have demonstrated a tendency to lie about the sources, to lie about policies, and to repeatedly lie by omission in your presentation of diffs. I have no use for such time-wasting tactics by somebody here to do one and only one thing. To removed what one "side" says while pushing what the other "side" says. I will engage with those who I have even the slightest bit of respect for, but for you and a few others at that page I am done pretending that you are acting in good faith. And as WP:AGF is a policy I will instead of saying that repeatedly simply stop engaging with you. You are not worth my time. nableezy - 18:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the cited diffs was a nice trip down memory lane, I had completely forgot about some of those gems. I have indeed soapboxed early on in my entrance in this area, but stopped, for the most part at least, some time ago. But they are for the most part taken completely out of context. Par for the course though, nableezy - 07:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono, the diff you cited of me using 3rr as a tool was by User:LoverOfTheRussianQueen, a sockpuppet of the indefinitely banned User:NoCal100 (in which NoCal100 as LOTRQ cited a 3RR report against NoCal100 as proof of my using it as a weapon, good times). On Brewcrewer's report I had made 2 reverts, the exact same number as Shuki. About it having to be "my way", BS. I made several "compromise" edits, including changing it to "described by Hamas as" unbolded. That still was not good enough for yall so I found 2 sources that explicitly say it is the name used in the Arab world. Still not enough. Why you keep saying these things even though they are plainly bogus and that they are bogus has been pointed out to you a number of times. You presented a source using "War on Hamas". And you say that is enough. But many, many sources using "Gaza M/massacre" was not enough. Regarding the email from another editor, if that editor does not wish to actually say that to me then the only thing I can say would be incredibly vulgar. And "refusal to seek resolution in the Massacre title dispute"? Who opened the RfC? Who went to RS/N? Who went to NPOV/N? And for you to continue to say that I am POV pushing for wanting to include what sources show is a common Arabic name for the conflict, the irony speaks for itself. But I dont want to argue with you or Stellarkid anymore, its useless. No matter how many sources I provide (it was 10 using the phrase just by Hamas officials at last count and 2 explicitly saying it is the common Arabic name) it wont be enough. I have no energy for such foolish arguments, it is completely pointless. Nearly every article in this area is crap, one more wont hurt. Have fun making it happen. nableezy - 07:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My diff list does not include any banned or sockpuppet editors. Regarding the name "Israel's war on Hamas" Google news hits showed it being commonly used, much more so than "Gaza massacre," (with small letters). In fact, aside from unverifiable Arab sources (which violated WP:NONENG and thus did not belong in the lede -) your only source for "known in the Arab world as 'the Gaza Massacre' was one source by a reporter in a (reliable source) South African newspaper who writes and was writing about a current and local event. Even if this source was finally accepted as a RS for your insertion, WP does not require us to use any and every source, and asks for further sources if the edit is controversial, as it clearly was. All this was brought up innumerable times on the talk pages, but you continued to edit-war in your preferred version. Stellarkid (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, you cite NoCal100, the same banned editor. And Arabic sources are verifiable and they do not "violate" WP:NONENG, they are explicitly allowed by WP:NONENG. And only a few of the 10 sources provided were even in Arabic, but, again, an honest argument is not expected from you. Just one more example of lying about what a policy says. The other "Gaza massacre" ref from the SA Sunday Times (which a consensus of uninvolved editors at RS/N said was a reliable source) was in a report on an interview with Goldstone. But again, I have stopped expecting you to actually provide a truthful and accurate argument. The fact that you think your edit-warring out something that is supported by reliable, verifiable sources is acceptable but think I should be punished for edit-warring it back in is laughable. The fact that you present a collection of sources from google without even reading any of the sources which in fact do not support what you said they did is likewise laughable. But an honest argument is not expected from you, so a laughable one will just have to suffice. nableezy - 18:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Hicks, if you wish to interject here it would be wise of you to understand what it is you are writing. Turkish nationalists changing the Saladin article to say that he was a Turk and not a Kurd goes against countless reliable sources (in fact, every single scholarly work on the topic) that Saladin was a Kurd. Changing that, and on occasion vandalizing the references by changing the quotes within them, is vandalism, not a content dispute. Also, in your history list there are not 3 reverts in some of those. And looking through your contributions it is clear that nearly all of your edits are in fact reverts of other peoples. I have certainly edit-warred in the past, I dont deny that. But you and Stellarkid both only raise one "side" of reverts when it is clear on the settlement pages that Shuki continually reverted across a range of articles making us have the same discussion in a number of places, each time concluding with the undeniable fact that these places are called "Israeli settlements" before any other description, and often to the exclusion of any other description, in the vast majority of English sources. But then again, edit-warring is only bad when the "other side" is doing it, right? That said, I wont edit war anymore. It is difficult though to not click undo when a group of editors demand on imposing a fringe-sized minority POV (for instance that "Area C", a subdivision of the West Bank created under the Oslo Accords, is in Israel) before what nearly all reliable sources say. nableezy - 20:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Nableezy

Comments by Sean.hoyland

Or simply provide mentoring for Stellarkid until such time that he is a) able to understand what NPOV means and b) formally agrees to abide by the discretionary sanctions specifically the parts that say

"What Wikipedia can do is aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict".
"Editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counseled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area".

That way Nableezy and other editors who understand that we are trying to build a neutral encyclopedia wouldn't have to waste quite so much time dealing with partisan nonsense which ever direction it is coming from. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cptnono

My primary concern is the continuous getting away with it. Here are some recent examples of edit warring that jumped out at me:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive112#User:Nableezy reported by User:Brewcrewer (Result: Stale, warnings, cautions etc.) - Brewcrewer made several allegations (including concerns with the "massacre" edit war) but the administrator saw that it was stale. Please note Shuki's comment at the bottom of the section regarding his disbelief and reporting more reverts. OCtober 5-7
[194] A diff showing frustration by an admin regarding edit warring between Nableezy and Shuki on October 11
User talk:nableezy#October 2009 An admin giving a caution for another edit war on October 15.

He also uses the system. Sometimes it is for the betterment of the article. Other times it has been questioned. Along with the Brewcrewer one on October 6 mentioned above:

An editor accused him of using 3rr against opponents in this edit
I actually received an email from another editor after a case was brought against me here for saying that he edits for the Palestine and not Wikipedia. Those were some harsh comments but I tried to give him constructive criticism. The email included the line "Incredibly said. Too bad it will probably get lost in the banter. I made a similar comment to him(?) a few weeks ago, about him not contributing anything but rather just around to police articles...". There is nothing wrong with policing articles. There is something wrong with the constant struggle when other options are available (being nice is something I need to learn, too!). There is also an acknowledgment that things do continue to get lost in a flurry of new subsections and incident reports and an editor sending an email like this smacks of an environment that is not collaborative and is full of battling.

We all screw up (I have for sure) but it looks like this behavior is being enabled since there have been zero consequences. I originally thought that a reminder from an administrator would be a good start but he has been warned more than once and their is so much concern that he has not addressed.

I provided a source some time ago discussing how "war on Hamas" was used by the media. Unfortunately, Nableezy has been a habit of asserting his arguments until challenges dry up. With "massacre", compromises were eventually offered which should have made almost everyone happy. It had to be Nableezy's way, though. Both Stellar and I have already expressed the reasoning behind our criticism of pushing a POV yet editors ignore it and claim that we have not. Stellar's comments during my AE case is one example. Another was when my allegations that he edits only contentious Arab based articles along with my concerns that he refused to seek resolution in the Massacre title dispute. Stellar has also attempted to do it right at the the talk page and has tried to improve the article. Was his view of consensus incorrect? Maybe, but his view that there was not consensus either way definitely was correct. I'm surprised and disappointed that Nableezy's response was an attempt to discredit Stellar.Cptnono (talk) 07:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loosely related but doesn't address primary edit warring concerns
Follow-up, Tiamut unarchived two discussions and inserted them below. The reasoning given in the edit summary is that they were not officially closed. I thought that was what the "results"section was but am open to further scrutiny. I have moved them up so the chronology of events is kept. I wanted to mention that this could be viewed as an attempt to influence the system in covert in a manner that is disruptive and sly. It obviously was done in a brash manner when a simple wikilink would have sufficed. I also hope that this wasn't an attempt to justify for edit warring.Cptnono (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
more hidden content

Response to Cptnono's

In the hidden note above, Cptnono accuses me of trying to, "influence the system in covert in a manner that is disruptive and sly." Why? Because I restored two threads that were archived by Mizsabot: one that asked for help in dealing with Cptnono's tendency to comment on contributors rather than content, and one that asked for help in dealing with Shuki's tendency to edit war across multiple pages (a thread that has already been re-archived by the bot again - does someone want to re-check those settings?).

Cptnono's insistence on making bad faith assumptions about the actions of his fellow editors is disheartening and disturbing. I hope someone will finally issue him a warning about this, as originally requested in the thread on him restored.

Regarding the request made here that Nableezy be topic-banned (?!?) for his edits at Gaza War, I would note that Nableezy has been passionate about defending NPOV in the face of single-minded opposition to the NPOV on the part of Cptnono and Stellarkid, among others. Stellarkid - whose only edits to Gaza War have been to remove sourced material he does not like, while it is being discussed - has succeeded in chasing away one of the foremost content contributors to that page. As Nableezy has admitted to edit-warring and has stated he has taken Gaza War off his watchlist, I see no reason for him to be topic-banned. Someone may want to look further into what exactly Stellarkid's purposes are here though. Tiamut^talk 14:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mr. Hicks The III

It seems quite undisputable that Nableezy has engaged, and continues to engage, in edit warring. Some of those edit wars have resulted in his being blocked, others in his being warned, and still others have had other undesriable effects (pages protected, drama on various boards). Let's start with the uncontested facts:

Nableezy has been blocked twice this year for edit warring:[195].
He has been warned by administrators to stop edit warring, as recently as two weeks ago: [196].

A quick glance through his contribution history to article space shows it consists almost exclusively of reverts of other people's edits - sometimes justifiably, but often as part of a content dispute, and sometimes misleadingly labeling other people's edits that he's reverting as "vandalism", when in reality it is a content dispute:[197]. There are many, many cases of his reverting exactly 3 times, as if 3R was an entitlement:

[198] 3 reverts October 22
[199] 3 reverts October 5
[200] 3 reverts October 5
[201] 3 reverts Sep 25

There are countless such examples, the above are from the last 30 days alone, and are not an exhaustive list.
I believe it is time for some sanction, as previous blocks and warnings have not had the desired effect. Perhaps a topic ban from I-P articles, as those seem to be an area where he can't seem to restrqain himslef, or a mandatory 1RR restriction. Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mr Unsigned Anon

Nableezy did argue about the 'Gaza Massacre' out from policy and was more pedagogical than needed. See [202] and the split in subsections according to different policys. He also raised the question on RS on WP:RSN [203]. There is a majority leaning on policys supporting Nableezy on this.

WP:NPOV is not someting taken lightly and Stellarkid should himself closly study it before editing "in the sensitive area of I-P." [204]. Editwarring and at the same time complaining on admins talkside does not make the user requesting enforcement case stronger [205] [206] [207] Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dailycare

It's true that there was an edit war concerning the "massacre" term in the Gaza War article, however a key point is that Nableezy was the editor in favour of including the properly sourced term, and the other involved editor was responsible for removing the properly sourced material, and s/he could be a better candidate for enforcement action than Nableezy. --Dailycare (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2009 (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.

David Tombe

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

Request concerning David Tombe

User requesting enforcement:
Beeblebrox (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:

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

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editing_scientific_articles This thread is yet another attempt by David to play the victim at ANI, it is disruptive and appears to violate his topic ban as it was stated to be "broadly construed" and he clearly has not put enough distance between himself and "physics related articles and topics." Will list specific diffs below as case may be moved off ANI soon.
[208] The long winded post that started the thread
[209] These are David's replies to his critics
[210]
[211]
[212]

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#David_Tombe_warned I'm going on the assumption that it is understood he has been warned many many times already, including by this committee in it's ruling.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
David be either blocked for disruption and violating his ban, or be topic banned from initiating ANI threads

Additional comments by Beeblebrox (talk):
I am reporting this as opposed to taking admin action myself as I have had previous involvement with David and have asked that he be blocked or banned in the past. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that David somehow knew about this remark despite the fact that he does not appear to have ever edited the talk page in question, and there are no notices on his talk page mentioning it. There are some rather long postings from an ip address, but nothing attributed to David. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[213]

Discussion concerning David Tombe

Statement by David Tombe

There is no call here for a warning against making posts on physics articles. You are merely parroting the already existing topic ban which has not been breached. You have no basis whatsoever for extending ARBCOM's topic ban to other science articles in general. You have no right to tell an editor not to make a complaint against another editor. And you have no basis whatsoever for extending ARBCOM's sanctions to "discussion of proposed or actual essay, guideline, or policy concerning editing science articles" because until now, I have never involved myself in those discussions. Such a ban would only ever become warranted if I did get involved in such discussions and behaved improperly. And you have no call to make the warning "not to do any silly behavior at the margins of this warning". What is that supposed to mean anyway?

And this is made all the worse by the fact that the administrator Tznkai has been made fully aware of his initial misjudgement of the matter, and that in response to having been made aware, he merely repeats his warning. This administrative action is a deplorable act of opportunistic bullying on a recently sanctioned editor, and it has no justifiable basis whatsoever. David Tombe (talk) 05:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tzntai, You have made a big mistake and you are now trying to dig in and justify yourself. Reading out the terms of the probation is not going to make your actions correct. You need to show where the terms of the probabtion were breached. Nothing in the topic ban said anything regarding "a page you shouldn't even be looking at". You are now taking things a bit too far if you think that there are pages that I have been banned from looking at. Are you seriously trying to justify your actions on the grounds that I was reading a page that you think I wasn't allowed to be reading? David Tombe (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors

I don't believe anyone has been more critical of Tombe's behavior than I have, and my proposed remedy for him was a project ban. Nevertheless, I don't see how Tombe's post at AN/I violated his topic ban: "David Tombe (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages and topics, broadly construed, for twelve months." AN/I isn't a physics-related page, and his post there isn't a discussion of physics. Tombe complained at AN/I about this remark by Michael C Price at Wikipedia talk:Editing scientific articles. "Look at the recent David Tombe/Speed of Light fiasco. When challenged to debate the physics, he resorted to Nazi insults and was banned." Tombe wasn't involved in the conversation, and Price's statement was out of the blue. It is also factually false: Tombe "resorted to Nazi insults" to describe the arbitration process and participants, and he was sanctioned for it twice when he kept doing it after specific warnings. Tombe never "resorted to Nazi insults" in, or to avoid, a physics debate. Price has also been goading Brews ohare since the arbitration decision on Brews' talk page. Tombe was justified in complaining. —Finell (Talk) 21:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Equating other editors to Nazis [214] [215] is unacceptable under any circumstances. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is. Tombe did that during the arbitration. He was blocked for 48 hours, and then he was banned from further participation in the arbitration when he did it again. But that has nothing to do with this incident. —Finell (Talk) 21:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that he continues to deny he characterized anyone as a Nazi. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, there has been so much drama around this guy, that it is inevitable that the case is going to be mentioned around Wikipedia. A user writes one sentence about it on a talk page, and David starts up yet another looooong posting at ANI, without any attempt to discuss the situation with the user first, and throws in some bashing of particular members of arbcom just for extra flavor. He goes on to detail why arbcom was wrong to ban him, and asserts as he has all along that the rest of us are too stupid to understand him and that is why he has all these problems. What I don't see in his initial posting is what specific policy he feels has been breached, and what he would like an administrator to do about it. I don't think he is getting the point that less drama is the desired outcome. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only charge is that Tombe violated his physics topic ban. He went to AN/I to complain of Price's gratuitous, and factually false, dig. Was that good judgment by Tombe? No. Was Price's remark good judgment? No. Was it baiting Tombe to violate his topic ban? It looks like it, but who knows? I don't see how any of this is a violation of Tombe's topic ban. Further, the arbitration decision does not prohibit Tombe from whining. It does prohibit disruptive editing, but this does not look like disruptive editing (and, in any event, that is not the violation charged). Beeblebrox: Please consider withdrawing this request for enforcement. It is not well grounded and is just adding to the "drama around this guy". Thank you. —Finell (Talk) 23:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finell, please explain your view of Price's alleged misconduct?--Tznkai (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in the section above marked "Sanction or remedy that this user violated" I linked both the topic ban and the general probation, which states that David may not engage in behavior which "fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum". Seeing as this ruling was issued very recently and the same committee that made it is still sitting, I think they are in the best position to decide whether David violated either the letter or the spirit of that ruling. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) I am not saying that Price's conduct is sanctionable, and the question here is Tombe's conduct (I didn't not initiate or support Tombe's AN/I against Price). However, Price's remark about Tombe was unnecessarily provocative and was made in a context where Tombe's conduct was not in issue; that is, it was gratuitous. Further, while Tombe did make hateful Nazi slurs during the arbitration (and was sanctioned for it; his 1 year probation is based in part on that misconduct), Tombe did so in describing the conduct of others in the arbitration (specifically including me). Tombe did not do so in response to a challenge "to debate the physics", which is what Price accused Tombe of. (To the contrary, Tombe is only to happy to debate his fringe ideas about physics. That he has done so, disruptively and tendentiously, is what has gotten Tombe into most of his considerable trouble on Wikipedia.) So Price's statement was factually incorrect. Further, I cited above where Price taunted Brews ohare on Brews' talk page; Jehochman warned Price to stop. Regardless of Price's intentions, he does appear to be baiting the two editors who were sanctioned in this arbitration. But the subject here is whether Tombe violated his topic ban. I don't see that he did. —Finell (Talk) 00:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finell, David Tombe does not always debate the physics; this was a complaint raised by more than just me. Had he stuck to debating the physics he wouldn't have had to resort to Nazi allusions -- that was what I meant by my comment, which was used to illustrate a point on the guidelines' talk page. The point was intended as a general point, not as I challanged David and he responded to me with Nazi insults, but rather he was challenged by the general community and responded to the general community with Nazi slurs. I'm sorry that you portray that as goading David. I DID goad Brews, although no more than other editors had, but that was to get him to respond a physics question that he found convenient to dismiss, NOT to get his ban extended, as everybody, including you, seems to think. --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editing guideline on scientific articles is physics related, by no more than a single step of inference. Writing about what someone wrote bout on such a guideline is still related, although by easily two or more inferential steps, so I can see why this may seem an odd application of a topic ban. It is not however, as you noted a good idea, Tombe is on notice, having been both under a topic ban and a general probation, that he needs to give the entire area a wide berth.

If Tombe was baited, that is important and relevant, and needs to be dealt with. As a personal matter of style and as a general rule, sanctioning only one party when there are multiple acts of poor conduct is a bad idea.--Tznkai (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat confused here about the timings of the postings above and below, and how to interpret the results in relation to those timings. But I have to say that I am very grateful to Finell for having intervened on this occasion. Finell was my arch opponent at the arbitration hearing, and now he has come here and bombarded the arena with sheer truth. I must thank Finell for doing what he has just done, particularly since he didn't have to do so. It is a credit to Finell that he has chosen to take this action, bearing in mind the wider circumstances, and the fact that it would have been to his advantage to have remained silent. Instead, Finell, obviously sensing an imminent gross miscarriage of justice, even against his arch opponent, has decided to come forth and state the simple facts that no breach of the topic ban took place, and that there is no basis for this case. That demonstrates an inherently honourable streak in Finell's character.

Anyhow, nobody asked me what I was expecting to achieve from the AN/I thread. I was expecting that an administrator would request Michael C Price to withdraw his comment since it was factually incorrect and it amounted to a bait about the fact that I had been topic banned. I was trying to nip in the bud what could have been the seeds of future myths. I was not requesting any sanctions to be imposed on Michael Price, and it ill becomes Beeblebrox to suggest that in the circumstances I would have been suitably placed to have tackled Michael Price directly about this matter at the article in question. But the result of my perfectly legitimate complaint at AN/I has been a warning not to complain, and an upgrading of the topic ban to all science articles.

But having said that, am I now to assume that Tznkai has actually taken note of what Finell has said, and that the decision below is now under review? I'd be grateful if this matter could be clarified. David Tombe (talk) 02:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David, I wonder if I could ask you you to briefly explain (without the grandiose hyperbole of your above remarks please) what brought this remark to your attention, since you have never edited the page in question, and I was not able to find any evidence of another user notifying you of it. Also, if all you were looking for was a request that the comment be redacted, that does not require an administrator. Mild incivilty should be reported at WP:WQA. ANI is for matters that may require administrative tools to resolve. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David, at this point, I stand by my action below. I highly suggest unwatch listing everything related to physics or meta pages that involve physics. Baiting is not an excuse, but it is conduct that will be dealt if at all possible.--Tznkai (talk) 03:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tznkai, This is a total abuse of the administrative tool. You have imposed a sanction ostensibly for breach of topic ban where no breach of topic ban has taken place. Finell has told you the truth. You have been shown where you have misjudged the situation, but you have still nevertheless decided to dig in. You saw a perfectly legitimate complaint at AN/I. You now know that it was a legitimate complaint, but instead of acting on that complaint, you have chosen to punish the person making the complaint, and you are now attempting to justify your actions on the grounds that a breach of topic ban has occurred. Everybody knows that no breach of topic ban has occurred. Your actions are blatantly biased, they are in breach of wikipedia's rules, and they are reprehensible. David Tombe (talk) 03:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tznkai: The comments by D Tombe for which this action was brought are an attempt to correct a misstatement by Michael Price, and D Tombe has accurately described the issues. In no way does his defense border in any way upon the remedies against D Tombe, and the action brought by Beeblebrox has no basis whatsoever, and the links he brings as evidence do not establish his points at all. Brews ohare (talk) 04:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The diff cited here by Tznkai has no relevance. A simple question was asked, to point out a logical distinction, and simply because the word Nazi appears in the question, the object of the diff is completely overlooked. That is very poor analysis. Brews ohare (talk) 04:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And furthermore, the diff in question was in response to issues raised in the AN/I thread, whereas Tzntai has implied below that the diff in question was something in addition to the AN/I thread. And yes, Tzntai holds the diff up as if it is evidence of wrongdoing, when anybody can read it and see that it was merely a question designed to highlight a logical distinction. David Tombe (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Price's misstatements, if misstatements they are, were done on a page you shouldn't even be looking at. The diff I cited below is a none too clever variation on the "but its true" defense (Don't call people nazi's - but its true!). David Tombe is under a general restriction, and I quote "6.2) David Tombe (talk · contribs) is placed under a general probation indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, David Tombe repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum. David Tombe may not appeal this restriction for one year and is limited to an appeal once every six months thereafter." The behavior expected is for David Tombe to steer clear of areas he is topic banned in, avoid the margins of his topic ban, not engage other editors in personal disputes (see WP:NOT)), avoid sloppy rhetoric, avoid stirring drama, among other things. Someone else making a misstatement or even baiting is not an excuse, nor is it an invitation for any sort of behavior.

If you've managed to get yourself placed on a general probation, you've been placed on notice that you need to show good behavior - better behavior than is tolerated else where.--Tznkai (talk) 04:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further: "Your actions are blatantly biased, they are in breach of wikipedia's rules, and they are reprehensible. David Tombe (talk) 03:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)" - where exactly did that get dragged up from? What exactly is my bias? What "rules" have I breached. Is it really so onesided that my actions are reprehensible? Is it possible that responding to an uninvolved administrator in this way is in and of itself indicative of a problematic behavioral pattern? --Tznkai (talk) 05:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(reply to David Tombe's statement) I'll make this simpler, and as explicit as possible. 1. You are under general probation 2. You are misusing Wikipedia as a battleground. 3. The misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground falls under "seriously fail[ing] to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia,". 4. You have raised no legitimate defenses for your behavior 5. I have given you repeated warning how to avoid this 6. You have been forewarned to shape up, and now explicitly warned by me 7. If you don't like it, find another admin or ArbCom itself to intercede.--Tznkai (talk) 05:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tznkai, If there is any good at all to have come out of this, it is the fact that I have learned something that I wouldn't have known otherwise. And that is that my arch opponent at the arbitration hearing has limits beyond which he will not step. He came here and he pointed out the truth, and you chose to ignore the truth. Finell knew that I didn't breach the topic ban, and Finell also knew that Michael Price's statement was wrong and provocative. If my arch opponent can state that in such clear terms, I hardly need any friends here to repeat it.

Finell got his topic ban, but Finell knew when to stop. But you know no limits. You don't know when to stop. You have willfully refused to see that Michael Price's statement was wrong, and you have turned a legitimate complaint around one hundred and eighty degrees into a wrongdoing. No honest person would ever attempt to claim that the ARBCOM probation order involved a denial of the right to complain. And you have the audacity to claim that I raised no legitimate defenses for my behaviour. What a monumental and reprehensible lie. Your seven points above are beneath contempt.

You have brought wikipedia to a new all time low. It seems now that you have given everybody a free licence to go and tell as many lies as they like about me. If I dare to complain, I will be blocked.

But it shouldn't have taken the intervention of Finell in order for the truth to have been exposed. Any administrator that was half a man should have been able to examine Beeblebrox's complaint and see that it was malicious. David Tombe (talk) 07:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned User:Michael C Price not to goad User:Brews ohare [216] as has User:Finell.[217] I can believe that some goading has occurred. Please look into it too. Jehochman ^Talk 07:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So are we just going to sit here and pretend that this warning has accomplished anything when David is still making statements like that? Now Tznkai is "half a man" and has "brought Wikipedia to a new low" and for some reason I am "malicious." Beeblebrox (talk) 07:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- David Tombe is a classic disruptive editor. He should be blocked indefinitely. Here's another example of his stirring the pot for no good reason, just a few minutes ago.[218] Assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks are much too frequent with this account. Jehochman ^Talk 07:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, Apart from the fact that this is not the right page, how was that edit in any way disruptive? The only basis for you thinking it was disruptive is because you sanctioned Likebox and you are annoyed that I stated my disapproval of your actions. David Tombe (talk) 08:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that you have tendentiously defended many editors who've been making trouble. Why do you feel the need to poke your nose into so many different matters and lay personal attacks on administrators who are trying to do their jobs in good faith? Jehochman ^Talk 08:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, I saw Likebox's case when I went to AN/I about that other matter, and I looked into it. The allegations against him didn't tie up, because I know from first hand experience that if a group of editors want to keep a single editor off a particular article's mainspace, then it can be done easily and effectively. I was not however sympathetic to Likebox's stance on Tasmania, and so I thought that I would advise him on how to avoid trouble surrounding that topic. Sometimes people overlook the reality that wikipedia is a major propaganda machine which has repercussions in the real world. This is not entirely a virtual computer game. It is the first hit for many google searches. I also happen to be a British Empire historian and I got curious about what Likebox was saying about Tasmania. So I checked out the Encyclopaedia Britannica in the library. Based on what I found out, and based on what I read in wikipedia about the history wars, I could see that Likebox was getting himself involved in a hornet's nest. Sometimes people need to be told by an outside neutral observer why their views are causing trouble. I think that wikipedia administrators should make more of an effort to reason with editors who are pushing a particular point of view. If you had read my edit carefully, you would have seen that I was basically advising Likebox to abide by wikipedia's rules on sources, and even better still to simply avoid the topic altogether. It's better that a person can be persuaded to voluntarily leave a topic, having seen good sense and reasons for doing so, rather than to have to be forced off with a feeling that a gross injustice has been done. David Tombe (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since my name has been bandied about I thought I should set a few things straight. The statement I made about David Tombe in the proposed guideline

was entirely relevant to the ongoing discussion. I picked David as an example because most of other participants were familar with his case.
was made in the expectation that David would not read it, so it can't be considered goading.
was technically inaccurate and I have offered up a revised version (which still makes the same substantive point) to which there has been no response.

It seems to me that David's crime is merely one of time wasting. Why did he run to AN/I and not settle the matter on the article's talk page? That said, I don't believe he was in violation of his topic ban.--Michael C. Price ^talk 11:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, Your statement was inaccurate because I don't generally refuse a challenge to debate physics, and your revised statement did not alter the situation. Having said all that, I appreciate your coming here to confirm that I didn't breach the topic ban. My objective was merely to get you to retract the statement, but the result of my complaint has turned out to be alot more educating. Irrespective of any arguments in physics, I'm sure that we are all agreed that it is fascinating to see how a complaint has been twisted around one hundred and eighty degrees and treated as a wrongdoing and then punished. The punishment is interesting in that it merely adds an extension to my existing topic ban that will never have any practical effect. I don't generally get involved in procedural discussions, but I was having a look at what was going. There seems to be a belief that I shouldn't have been looking at those pages, and Beeblebrox has remarked on how strange is that I was in fact looking at those pages. It seems that I have been punished for actually having noticed the very thing that I was complaining about. I now feel like somebody who has absolutely no interest in clay pigeon shooting, but who has been banned from clay pigeon shooting for reporting a noise nuisance to the police. Would such a person campaign for the right to engage in clay pigeon shooting as a matter of principle, even though they had no desire to ever exercise that right? Or would they forget about it? On this occasion, I don't think that I'll be losing too much sleep over it. David Tombe (talk) 11:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David, here is the point that you are not getting: You are under an indefinite probation barring you from any disruptive editing in addition to the topic ban. Editors who know how to take a hint usually realize that this means they should concentrate on actual article work and not stir up drama for no good purpose, whether they were specifically told that or not. And since you are so concerned that every word written here be 100% accurate, I did not dot say you shouldn't have been looking at the page, I asked you a question about how the remark came to your attention, a question you never did answer. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning David Tombe

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

Partial action. Due to edits like this as well as making a thread on ANI complaining about another editor, an a science related proposed guideline, shortly after being placed on general probation I'm electing to warn David Tombe.

David Tombe is warned to cease making continued edits on the ANI thread, and making any post on any Wikipedia space, concerning Michael C. Price or physics articles, scientific articles in general. For example, any discussion of proposed or actual essay, guideline, or policy concerning editing science articles. Tombe is also warned not to do any silly behavior at the margins of this warning. Actions in conflict with this warning will be considered violations of general probation and/or the topic ban.

Further action may be taken if need be.

--Tznkai (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement action It is my interpretation (and within my discretion to interpret) that the topic ban which bans David Tombe from "all physics-related pages and topics, broadly construed" (emphasis added) also includes all beginning or commenting on threads on all administrative boards which involve or derive from disputes stemming from physics-related content, or meta-discussion (policy, guidelines, essays, polls, RfCs and the like) concerning the editing of scientific topics in general, or physics in particular. As always, there a specific exception for Arbitration proceedings concerning the party (up to the discretion of the Arbitration Committee and appropriate clerks), as well as as the natural exception for responding to administrative threads seeking sanction against the party. This does not include being talked about in general. Furthermore, barring objection from another uninvolved administrator, I am applying the above interpretation as an additional topic ban under the general probation provision due to the misuse of Wikipedia to pursue disagreements of a personal nature. --Tznkai (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Jdorney

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User requesting enforcement: BigDunc 18:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: Jdorney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: Revert #1 Revert #2
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: 2 reverts in less than 24 hours, which is a violation of 1RR
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Unsure
Additional comments: Previously blocked under same by Black Kite. Also have been informed at ANI to bring breaches here by User:Elonka.

Discussion regarding this request

Left open for discussion.

Result regarding this request

I do agree that this was a violation of the 1RR rule allowed by the community's article probation. I will leave this open for further discussion, or further evidence, but I have decided on the following:

Enforcement action I gave a final warning, and if it continues, a block will be the next step, as well as being placed specifically on the terms of probation allowed by The Troubles ArbCom. SirFozzie (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At Dunc's request, I will not be the one closing this request, so another administrator can review my action and determine if stronger sanctions such as the article probation and/or block are necessary. SirFozzie (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with you closing this Fozz. BigDunc 22:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The actions taken by SirFozzie seem appropriate to me. I shall archive the case. NW (Talk) 23:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]