Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/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

I have been banned for WP:BLP

I've been given a ban, without warning, and apparenlty it's indefinite. The reason was that I've said something that was in my opinion, and explained it in a talk page about an Israeli college in the west bank. I have no idea why this was WP:BLP but if an administrator would have told me why, I would have removed it. The justification of this ban seems to be 3RR that I've done years ago, and an accusation of a case of sockpupptery done a long time ago, which I didn't really do - and the outcome was "likely" not certain, but I was still banned for it even though I was innocent. Anyway, apparently this ban is indefinite without warning.

20 minutes before the ban, another adminstrator warned me on my talk page. I would have complied with that. Since this was already dealt with by the 1st adminstrator, why did a 2nd adminstator weigh in and ban me? [1] Again, I would have complied with it, but apparently the 2nd adminstator was asked by an involved user to come, and I find that offensive.. I didn't have a chance to comply with the first adminstrator, which again I would have done gladly.

No 1R restriction, no asking me to delete the alleged WP:BLP, no anything... banned indefinitely. I don't really mind that much, but this will be an excuse for users to revert a lot of work that I've done. They've been doing this every time I was away. I would gladly accept a 1R revert rule per day or per week or month, or anything reasonable, like I've seen users engaged in these articles... but indefinie for alleged WP:BLP that I don't even understand why, and explained why it wasn't... without an administrator telling me that it's WP:BLP first... is unbelievable... Amoruso (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Sandstein is clearly out of line. 11 hours to judge - jury - and decision handed down on a freakin Sunday. --Shuki (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the discussion here, I believe that the ban is appropriate. Keep in mind that indefinite does not mean infinite. This was not a decision made on a whim, and you did violate previous sanctions. –Turian (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This diff indicates there are very serious behavioral problems, so I support Sandstein's ban. PhilKnight (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to me to be an admin being an admin. Please remember that discussion is not required. Discussion usually ensues here, when another editor reports someone here for violation of an ArbCom decision - but this page is recent compared to ArbCom, and it is not a required step to enforce ArbCom decisions. You would have to show some reason why Sandstein's action was in error - for example, some other editor was the one who violated the ArbCom decision, not you, or the ArbCom sanctions (and any sanctions previously enacted against you) were not violated - to have any argument for appeal. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realize I was wrong. I didn't know the scope of WP:BLP. I would have never kept the information if an administrator would have told me about it. But I don't see how a ban is justified. It does feel like it was made on a whim. How did I violate previous sanctions? What do you mean? I was guilty of 2 3RR incidents years ago, and this happened in contentious subjects. Then I was suspected of sockpupptery once and I was innocent but a determination was that it was likely that it was a sockpuppet... I realize that it doesn't matter what I say about that, but well, you can take it anyway you'd like it.. that was too a long time ago anyway. I think this is extremely harsh. I was never in an ArbCom decision issue - I don't think I was active at the time, and I'm still not active, I was only editing a few articles that I was heavily involved with, and returning portions that were deleted to some articles, and I made this WP:BLP mistake about a non issue really.. it was an off-comment and a mistake in a heated debate where two users were heavily edit-warring and reverting an article about an Israeli college to say it's occupied palestinian land again and again.... I was familiar with this article from years ago, and the attack on it was relentless [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] This user Nableezy does nothing but edit war on articles - he's assisted by user:Unomi and a couple of other users, and then Nableezy goes to an administrator's talk page and complains about my WP:BLP to ban me? while there's an open case at BLP noticeboard? Why?

And I realize that there is a problem - I'm editing articles that sometimes get heated and this happens to all users... but an indefinite ban is too much. A 1RR per a time period restriction is more appropriate and this is what other users have. Amoruso (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt go on Sandstein's page, I only opened the BLP/N section. nableezy - 22:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency is not necessarily required when handling different users. Like I said, this is only indefinite. If you prove to other users that you are able to cooperate and behave, then down the road you can make an appeal do the topic block. You realize you are wrong; now go fix it. –Turian (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how in the middle of a discussion someone can come and ban me when an inolved user goes and notify him. This is wrong.

Here are replies to the thread I never had a chance to read:

"free speech" does not apply to talk pages per WP:FORUM. Editors opinions about the subjects of WP:BLPs on talk pages are unwelcomed, unneeded, and against policy. Please use the talk page to discuss how the article can be improved. Thank you, --Tom (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

[copied from user's talk page] Amoruso, you do not appear to be listening, and to an extent people are pussyfooting around, so let's be really clear here. WP:BLP applies everywhere, and the most important thing you need to know about it is that if you insist on engaging in commentary that is identified as violating the policy, that is, is polemical commentary about living individuals, then you may be blocked from editing. There are a whole raft of essays and guidelines covering this area including WP:TRUTH, but the most important is WP:BLP and also WP:NOT, which describes what Wikipedia is not for, including being a forum for discussion or an experiment in free speech. You have two choices: you can understand and dial it back about ten notches, or you can carry on and I will block you. This is not because of what you believe, it's because of what you are saying and about whom. If you want to blog that stuff then you're welcome, just please don't bring it here, OK? Guy (Help!) 19:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, these are administrators.... why on Earth would another administrator come and ban me? They said THANK YOU, and OK? How can this be appropriate? Nableezy (or is it UNOMI in fact... he reported it wrong?) goes behind my back and complains to ANOTHER administrator to be more harsh? Amoruso (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because they might have done something wrong, which I don't believe the did, that does not minimize what you have done. –Turian (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I initially asked for Sandsteins opinion after I reverted the fairly blatant BLP violation you introduced on the talkpage. I did this as I simply wasn't sure how much I should make of it, when Sandstein indicated that in his opinion it was problematic enough to warrant a warning I found that BLPN had been taken in use and I posted there. You then start arguing with uninvolved editor off2riorob, rather than actually reading the policies which you had been given links to. I don't think anyone tried to get harsher punishment for you or any of that sort. Unomi (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sympathetic to you Amoruso and notice how it is always the same people getting involved in these discussions, screaming for blood. Pro-Israel editors are getting banned and blocked left and right. (see above and below) I put up a couple of ANI's about Vexorg and others' rudeness and accusing everyone of being part of a lobby, and all I get are people screaming for my blood! I can't even get a uninvolved administrator to take a look. You on the other hand get walking papers without warning ?! I for one think it highly unfair. I imagine that will get me banned shortly as well for being disruptive and battlefield etc. With respect to Unomi, he made the following edits to people who showed support for Mbz1, in a clear effort to influence them to change their !vote or view. [7],[8],[9][10][11] Stellarkid (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even read those diffs? Unomi (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stellarkid!!! PLEASE STOP using arbitration reports that have nothing to do with me as an excuse to fuel your obvious ongoing personal agenda against me. Thankyou. Vexorg (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After viewing the six diffs provided here, I am at a loss to see why Amoruso deserves anything stronger than a warning, and a reasonable time in which to withdraw anything in violation of the rules, if, in fact, rules were broken. Everyone stumbles at times. Prior discussion and an opportunity to remedy a problem may not be required, but would be considerate. A sudden, indefinitely long ban seems grossly excessive and an overreaction. The administrator apparently had to bring long-past incidents and suspicions into the picture to inflate what otherwise would be too weak a case for a ban. If expressing opinions in non-article space is a crime, we are all in trouble. In my opinion, it would be healthier for WP to look into whether the opinions expressed might be justified, than to automatically rule them off limits. The ban should be rescinded. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Amoruso was a new editor who needed some educating, I'd argue that Sandstein's action was excessive and should be replaced by a short block. However, Amoruso is in fact a very experienced edit-warrior who has disrupted the I/P section of WP for years with endless POV-pushing, endless tendentious debate, and worse sins like lying about sources (repeatedly, proof provided on request) and sock-puppetry. On the positive side, ...er...er...er... my memory must be defective. Zero^talk 12:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zero, we were involved in many content disputes over the years, and you also wiki-stalked me on numerous occasions. You were banned yourself, even banned yourself, and I don't think your comment is in good faith. I can provide many incriminating diffs concerning you, but I don't do that. I want to move on amicably. Any discretions were long time ago anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Topic_ban#Types_of_topic_bans "Note that topic bans are meant to be preventative and not punitive. That is to say those users subject :to topic bans are not being punished for bad behavior but instead the removal of the user from that topic area where they repeatedly violate policy" ... talking about 3RR that you did yourself years ago, and that case of isolated sockpuppetry (which I deny. it was never confirmed, I was blocked for "likely") is abit too much. I'm not guilty for life for those things, it didn't happen recently, and I resent your unfounded accusations.

For the record, I await Sandtein's response but here's my apology to user:Sandstein and an explanation that my mistake was based on an WP:RS who used the same word prominently. That WP:RS was in the Jerusalem Post and referenced in an article in Florida Law Review.Amoruso (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case is over, but I just want to record that the Jerusalem Post article Amoruso claims was the source for his libel against the Egyptian judge does not mention the judge at all. Furthermore the Florida Law Review article which cites JP (thereby supporting a charge that JP didn't even make?) only goes so far as to quote an Israeli statement that the judge should recuse himself since in a previous diplomatic role he had been "actively engaged in opposition to Israel" (footnote 218). This is a completely typical example of how Amoruso has always operated. Zero^talk 04:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000 is lying.. again. The JP article claimed that the ENTIRE ICJ case was anti s (using much harsher words than I did), and the most extreme one was the Egyptian (because he had a special 'dissent' - he also made a big deal not accepting a self defense argument because of the situation, which is what Singer was talking about). Furthermore, The Florida Law review uses the reference of Singer to show the anti-Israel approach (it's not footnote 218, it's footnote 317 to page 13 of the article... Zero didn't even read it, which is also typical). This is a typical case of user:zero0000 trying to disrupt and distort, even when cases are over. Amoruso (talk) 12:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You libeled an individual, and then you claimed that you were merely citing a reliable source, but that source does not even mention the individual you libeled . If you are unblocked, this lie of yours will feature in your next case. As for the Florida Law Review, it cites Singer at footnote 357 (not 317), but doesn't mention Judge Elaraby there. The only relevant mention of that individual is where I said it is. I'm willing to send copies of both these sources to any admin who wishes to check. Zero^talk 14:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000, why are you still lying? The source mentioned the ENTIRE COURT and he was one of the judges (and the harshest) one. It's A fortiori argument, everybody understood it except you, and Amoruso did not misrepresent anything... You should cease your continued harrassment immediately. --Shuki (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? So the Jewish judge on the court is an antisemite too? I didn't know that, thanks for your lesson in a fortiori logic! Zero^talk 07:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Shuki. You're correct. He was talking about the decision and the judges that rendered it, and it was made perfectly clear. I have the articles right here if anyone wants them. I learnt that it's a waste of time though to deal with Zero0000.... this latest harassment will feature in his eventual block from wikipedia. Amoruso (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

another RS was brought to my attention here. However, this is not the core of the argument - I think it was too contentious and came up in the heat of the debate, and it will not be repeated. At the time it did not even occur to me how this could be a violation of WP:BLP. Another user commented on how it's common within many circles including in Israel to equate anti Israel with anti-semitism. I could not see how such accusation could be a violation of WP:BLP and I misunderstood or rather did not know the scope of BLP. These RS's show that it wasn't out of the blue or crazy, but I still won't ever introduce such a thing into a talk page, any talk page. On a related note, I ran across this statement from user:nableezy on Avigdor Liberman talk page "It is SYNTH for you to cite unrelated sources to support the phrasing in this context in that you seek to give the leader of this racist and fascist party (to soapbox in your manner) an excuse for such language". I think the use of the word fascist is largely similar to the use of the word antisemitic and can be found in numerous sources that reflect opinions, not facts. Why was user:nableezy bothered about antisemite but not racist or fascist. all of them are wrong by WP:BLP and all parties should avoid them from now. Amoruso (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That it is being claimed that the sources being presented are reliable indicates, I think, a misconception of what reliable sources are. ← ZScarpia 22:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein: This is also in reply to various issues raised at my talk page and at WP:BLPN. Insofar as this unstructured mess of an appeal is made to me, I decline it, and insofar as it is made to the community, I recommend that they do likewise, for the following reasons:; As explained in my original rationale, this ban is not principally because of the BLP violations at issue, but because Amoruso was essentially given a last chance by being blocked for only two months in response to the abusive sockpuppetry documented in his block log. By his continued disruption in the same topic area he has failed to use that chance. I was about to block him indefinitely, as suggested by Moreschi in his block log entry, but decided to use the lesser sanction of a topic ban instead.; The ban is also necessary because Amoruso does not understand WP:BLP, as he has admitted subsequent to the ban; his later statements to the contrary are not credible. As documented in my rationale, the BLP violation consisted in his repeatedly voicing his opinion that a certain judge is "antisemitic", "an utter loon" and "legally daft and biased". On appeal, Amoruso argues, in substance, that his statements were supported by a source that refers to a decision in which that judge took part as "joining the parade of anti-Semitic infamy". Nothing Amoruso has said so far makes me believe that he understands that this source does not justify him stating his own opinion, without attribution to any source, that the judge is an antisemitic loon etc.; at most, the source (if reliable) might have been used as a reference to support a statement that "so-and-so has said that such-and-such decision is antisemitic".; Amoruso's statements that he would have complied with an administrator instruction to cease his BLP violations are also not credible: As documented in my rationale, he has up to the moment of the ban ignored the advice of the multiple editors who told him to stop. Instead he has made long, spurious arguments why he should be allowed to voice his opinion, and has reverted other editors who removed his violations. There is no reason to believe he would have changed his conduct had it not been for the ban.; I advise Amoruso to spend a significant amount of time, about six months, editing actively in less sensitive areas to prove that he does understand WP:BLP now. If he can do so without causing any problems, I will review his ban upon appeal at that time.; Many correctly point out that editors should work on articles or resolve their differences amicably instead of engaging in drama. But administrators cannot make them do so; our only power is to remove from the game those who become too disruptive.; Apologies are irrelevant: policy requires compliance, not contrition. So are any good contributions by Amoruso: we are all expected to make only good contributions and may not use them as excuses for bad ones. Finally, it's indeed likely that many other participants in this dramafest also deserve sanctions, but that is no reason not to sanction Amoruso. It is, however, a reason for admins to start work at WP:WPAE (which I intend to do now) and bring those others, too, into compliance. Sandstein 17:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi was obviously only talking about the sockpuppeting charge - if I repeat THAT, not that you can use WP:BLP violation years later as an excuse to say that it warrants a penalty. I emailed him and asked him if there's any evidence to be presented that can exonerate me over that old charge. I immediately erased those other comments you're accusing me of. The "likely and not certain" sockpuppeting of ages past (that I always denied) have no relation to this issue. It's whether I'm disruptive now. And of course I would have complied with an administrator telling me what to do other than users who kept insulting me. This is a mistake but actually a favor. User:Nableezy can go on and call people "fascists" and "racists" and that will not be WP:BLP violation, but I say one time "anti-semitic" and get banned indefinitely in a period of less than 12 hours on a Sunday (for other users to comment and talk to me) and a remembrance day eve in Israel. I DIDN'T EVEN HAVE TIME TO ADD SOURCES OR CHANGE THE PHRASING BECAUSE I WAS BANNED SO QUICKLY. Thank you. I hope other administrators can see how wrong and counter-productive this ban is. Amoruso (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for information, I have been canvassed via e-mail by Amoruso, in which he states "could you have a look at yom kippur war article and perhaps alert wikiproject israel? i'm concerned that it seems that egypt was victorious in the war, both by picture in the lead, caption and actual statement of who won the war "strategically" based on one misreading of one source... this is in contrast to reality where israel won decisively. don't mention me, i'm currently topic banned". пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted you specifically as a neutral administrator, not pro-Israeli, to take a look at what I saw was a disturbing situation just before my ban. One other administrator told me that I can still make edits at project Israel to alert others of the problem, but on the safe side, I thought I'll ask an administrator to do it, and yes, not involve me directly so I won't be dragged in (if someone asks me a question etc). Sorry if you thought this was inappropriate, but it's not 'canvassing' at all. I merely asked you to have a quick look, not to do anything. Cheers, Amoruso (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!?! Unomi (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He who laughs last, laughs best.. Amoruso (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe this led to a ban... there are many cases in which certain editors say how can you defend such and such Israeli racist? If diffs are presented in that regard, is that also enough to lead to a ban? Anti-semitism is just another form of racism. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about Avigdor Lieberman? ... If it's someone who's the Israeli equivalent of David Duke or Jean Marie Le Pen, where there would be a huge number of sources referring to that person as a racist, it's hard to see that anyone would run a risk of being sanctioned for a WP:BLP violation. ← ZScarpia 02:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no difference. you can find sources of opinions that will label him as a racist just like you can find opinions that will think of others as antisemites. It's exactly the same thing. Plot Spoiler is correct. Amoruso (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no difference? Really? Doesn't it depend on who is doing the labelling and how common the point of view is? (The two parts of my comment above are not connected, by the way. I'm not suggesting that Avigdor Lieberman is the type of person mentioned in the second sentence.) ← ZScarpia 14:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some people acknowledge that they're doing something out of racism. Some people would say they have completely different motivations. People belonging in the second group are the same thing with regards to this issue. Anyway, I'm signing off here. Amoruso (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. It is the same thing ZScarpia. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've missed my point, I think. I'm not arguing about whether racism and antisemitism (or calling somebody a racist or an antisemite) are the same or different things, but about source justification for stating that somebody is a racist or an antisemite (and therefore whether WP:BP violations have been committed). ← ZScarpia 15:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is explained at Wikipedia:Words to avoid, in particular the WP:LABEL section. PhilKnight (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drork

Drork (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area.

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

Request concerning Drork

User requesting enforcement: Nableezy 21:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

[12] Repeatedly accuses others of of hijacking articles, intimidating users, and introducing propaganda into articles
[13] Accuses others of an "anti-Israeli agenda"
[14] Accuses others of acting together in a "campaign" to push a POV
[15] accuses others of "hijacking" articles
[16] accuses others or pushing propaganda and "manipulating websites"
[17] Accuses others of engaging in an "ongoing political campaign" and "intimidating" others.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): Notification of ARBPIA
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Since receiving a 1RR restriction in late February, Drork left Wikipedia until a few days ago. Since he has come back he has done nothing but repeatedly accuse others of "hijacking" articles and pushing "anti-Israeli propaganda". Nearly every single edit Drork has made since coming back to Wikipedia has been filled with personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. He doesn't even try to discuss the content, focusing solely on attacking other editors. It seems clear to me that Drork is incapable of discussing the content and not attacking others, and I would like to either give a proper response, which would likely lead to me being blocked, or have him stop with the attacks. nableezy - 21:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Shuki, my 1rr restriction has nothing to do with Drork repeatedly personally attacking me and others. I know you would like to make everything about me, but the problem here is simple. Drork has done nothing but attack others since returning. Also, while I realize you are in the habit of making unfounded accusations, please either provide a single diff of me "canvassing admins" or strike the comment. nableezy - 23:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]; Re Angus McLellan, could you list the number of times I have filed a frivolous complaint against anybody? nableezy - 10:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [18]

Discussion concerning Drork

Statement by Drork

Nableezy is intoxicated with power. He currently acts a sniper who shoots anyone who dare to stand against his despicable conduct for which he has been condemned in the past. I am the next in his target list, and I won't be surprised if he manage to successfully target me too. He knows how to do it. He learned how to game the system. I just hope someone on the Wikipedian community will finally come to his senses and stop this bulliness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drork (talk • contribs) 22:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Kuiper was blocked on Wikimedia Commons for asking to make an antisemitic cartoon a featured image. Naturally he teams up with Nableezy for his campaign against Israeli editors. Pieter Kuiper also did his best to hinder a free content commons-related initiative of Wikimedia Israel for political anti-Israeli motives. I wonder how long en-wp is going to allow these campaigners to bully around here. Pieter Kuiper almost managed to destroy Wikimedia Commons. His next target is en-wp. DrorK (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Drork

I also noticed "mafia-like threats" in Drork's edit comment; his recent contributions on talk pages are mostly attacks on opponents. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DrorK's comments here are not helping his case. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SD: What I find the most disturbing is this comment: Of course, your tag team partner is here to massage your back while you fight the "infidels". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by unomi

Just about every single edit by Drork since at least the 28th of February has either been alluding to meatpuppets, organized editing or plainer forms of personal attacks.

I think that the problem stems from the fundamental untenability of the argument that Drork subscribes to; discussions necessarily devolve into less than constructive exercises.

For my part I don't care if Drork is banned at this point in time, as long as we can keep further disruption to a minimum. A discussion regarding the the applicability of Israeli-occupied territory was opened at WP:IPCOLL, but so far no one have been presenting arguments against it. Unomi (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a poor symptom that you dont care and peculiar that you had nothing to do with I-P and now virtually only edit here. Anyway, it is hard to AGF when we see that that assumed discussion on poorly trafficked page WP:IPCOLL, turn into a battlecry to go push this POV on other articles and create and add POV cats and then take the discussion to those areas wasting everyone's time. Amoruso actually put up a short-lived good side to the debate but then he was brought down quickly with no mercy. So that does not build any good faith from the 'other side'. Did you take the time to pull in many editors from all sides to build visibility? No. The same thing happens on noticeboard discussions and AE's. Frankly, that is disruptive. --Shuki (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that IPCOLL seems a bit disused, but why is that? Am I to blame for you not watch listing what should be our shared project for centralized discussion? And actually.. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel#General_discussion_on_Israeli-occupied_territories. I notified all the WikiProjects I could think of a week ago. No one forced Amoruso to fall back on stating that 1 out of the 14 judges who agreed that that it was occupied Palestinian territory was an antisemite, thats just silly. Unomi (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Shuki In fact, Nableezy is an aggressor on the warpath. Limited with this 1R sanction, what he cannot achieve on the discussion pages, he will prod and bait other editors until he can build a case to bring here and canvass admins too. Amoruso and drork are significant threats to Nableezy's POV. Better to not have to deal with them. --Shuki (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy is a single purpose account. All his editing is either

contributions to the P side of the I/P dispute articles, or
attempts to get editors on the I side blocked.

It appears that the editing situation in the I/P articles has worsened in recent months, which I did not think possible. I could understand if topic bans were handed out all around, en masse, to both sides, in the hope that a new set of editors will get involved and be more neutral. That might help improve the articles, which is what all else on WP is supposed to be about. But allowing the campaign, by one side to eliminate the editors on the other side by wiki lawering, to succeed will accomplish nothing but remove even the hope of WP:NPOV. 173.52.124.223 (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cptnono It is a shame that Drork did not keep his cool. Regarding Nableezy, another AE request or a noticeboard would be counter productive but another reminder on civility is in order regarding his parting short ("Grow the fuck up") at Drork.[19] Cptnono (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Factomancer

A major problem with the I/P field in Wikipedia is the extremely combative and non-collegiate atmosphere that has developed. The result of this is that uninvolved editors who might otherwise provide much needed neutrality and an outsider's perspective are driven off leaving only the battle-hardened POV warriors who thrive on insulting each other. The best way to change this state of affairs is to remove the unapologetic repeat personal attackers like Drork from the topic area because they poison the debate for everyone else by making insults the norm.

Question to AngusMcClellan below: If Nableezy's behaviour is truly equally problematic can you produce a comparable set of diffs to that of Drork's above? Factomancer (talk) 11:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at Talk:Golan Heights, shows that Nableezy and Drork have been in a protracted and acrimonious editing dispute there. Nableezy may have done some baiting of Drork, which is problematic even if Drork should not have taken the bait. For instance, at the top of the talk page Nableezy calls Drork a liar [20].This diff is old, but still shows that he has done some baiting of Drork, and shows that the problem is not all on one side. 173.52.124.223 (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy didn't call Drork a liar in that diff. He said that intentional factual errors are lies, which is true by definition. And truthfulness is an absolute defence against claims of a personal attack. If that is the worst comment you can come up with, Nableezy is probably more civil than most Wikipedians. Factomancer (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The implication, rather obliquely put, is that Dorork was a liar. That appears to be baiting, at best. PA at worst. 173.52.124.223 (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by ZScarpia Angus, with respect to your comment in the Result section regarding banning Nableezy from AE, I would agree that it would be a good idea to try to reduce some of the trivial or vexatious issues being raised on the Incidents and Enforcement pages. But, does your comment mean that you think that the current request is one of them or do you just think that Nableezy appears on this page too often? To a certain extent, the problem of trivial or vexatious requests is already being dealt with, I think. Editors who have raised such requests have themselves been sanctioned. Presumably, an editor would have to be raising a large number requests of which a high proportion was low merit or meritless before being given a blanket ban? ← ZScarpia 11:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy

Someone should write a tool that shows how often certain groups of editors are involved as a group on the administrative boards. It didn't take much time at all between Nableezy filing this report and a certain group of very familiar faces showing up to support him, some of whom had no interaction whatsoever with Drork since he resumed editing. It's all quite intriguing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's only about four people that this could be referring to and has appeared just below a comment by me, I'm figuring that there's a pretty good chance that I'm one of the people who the comment is aimed at. We could take it up as a topic for conversation elsewhere if you like. ← ZScarpia 13:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Huldra

Comment to No More Mr Nice Guy: I am sure such a tool would show a group of "very familiar faces" turning up and with a 100% predictability-rate: oppose whatever Nableezy supports. It's not very intriguing really; I´ve seen the same since I arrived on wp nearly 5 years ago... The day, say, you, or Shuki support anything Nab proposes: I swear: I´m going to faint.... ;) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from the admin section

I think you are quite wrong. What is going on, in this complaint against Drork, is the wiki-equivalent of SLAPP. It is an attempt to intimidate opposing editors by making the investment in time, effort and stress so high that the opposing editors will give up the fight...or perhaps be pressured into behaving foolishly enough to get sanctioned. Administrators should not allow this noticeboard to be misused as an instrument of pressure and intimidation. 173.52.124.223 (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Drork

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

I see clear battleground behavior from Drork, which is unacceptable in any topic area, but particularly problematic in this one. With the history of three edit warring blocks - all resulting from editing on Israel-Palestine related topics - and a 1RR restriction that failed to curb the disruption, I think an extended break from this topic area is in order. Unless another uninvolved admin objects, I'm inclined to impose an indefinite topic ban on Israel-Palestine related topics, including discussions, broadly construed. Tim Song (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I rest my case. You've proven my point. The clique worked again. Another Israeli is off the list, time to snipe the next one. DrorK (talk) 03:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Tim Song's assessment. (I'm not removing the preceding comment because it has a certain illustrative value.) Sandstein 17:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree regarding Drork, but I'm finding Nableezy's behaviour here to be equally problematic. Is there a precedent for banning editors from AE? If not, we can set one in Nableezy's case. Just as in other problem areas areas, I/P editors need to spend very much less time trying to get their "enemies" banned, topic banned, or blocked, and more on writing an encyclopedia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No precedent I'm aware of for filing actionable reports. I understand your concerns, but don't entirely share them. I'll ask Nableezy whether there are any more reports in the pipeline. PhilKnight (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, if this needs to be addressed, it should be done in a separate thread, to avoid sidetracking this one and allow for fuller examination of the circumstances. Second, it is AFAIK unprecedented and IMO inadvisable to sanction user for filing meritorious reports. Frivolous reports are definitely sanctionable, but I don't see how filing meritorious reports could possibly amount to misconduct in the absence of improper motives (e.g., threatening to file a report unless user agree with him). Tim Song (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If Nableezy's conduct is of concern, it should be made the subject of a separate request. But making AE requests is only a problem if the requests are frivolous or otherwise disruptive, or are mostly non-actionable. Sandstein 17:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See now also Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/IP/Users#Nableezy as a test case; eventually I envisage us having similar sections dedicated to logging potentially problematic conduct by all prominent parties to the ongoing I/P drama. Sandstein 19:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's helpful, thanks. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion above, Drork (talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from editing all articles in the Arab/Israel conflict topic area, as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict, and all related discussions and other content (including talk pages and process discussions, except only for legitimate and necessary dispute resolution involving themselves). This sanction may be appealed as provided in WP:ARBPIA#Appeal of discretionary sanctions. Tim Song (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy

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

Request concerning Nableezy

User requesting enforcement: Shuki (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

[21] [22] Accuses users of lying and making stuff up about them without provocation.
[23] Inciting violence on his user page and refusing to remove pictures and hateful text when asked. [24] [25]
[26][27][28] Repeatedly removes categories and templates or changes them to meet his narrow WP:POV.
[29] Removing images
[30] Removing Hebrew language
[31] Changing order of sentence so that "settlement" appears before "village" and not vice-versa. very productive.
[32] Change NPOV leads to POV leads
[33] [34] [35] using popups when users nominate cateogories for deletion
[36] saying that today it is modern day "Jordan and Palestine", denying Israel's very existence. but everything he says "not in israel" [37]
[38] threatens users to just be happy with current version or he'll write something worse
[39] Lies about naming conventions to revert-massively
[40] Violating civility by telling editors what to do - "Grow the __ck up"
[41] [42] Violating 1RR restriction applied on recently here [43]
[44] [45] Violating 1RR restriction again on different article
[46] Instead of welcoming new editor, WP:BITE and makes sockpuppet claims to editor who he cannot collaborate with and refuses to join discussion on talk page by deleting it [47]

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

[48] Notification of ARBPIA sanctions
[49] previous two month topic ban
[50] Civility warning by Malik Shabazz

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Extended topic ban and/or other timeoff

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: I find it absurd that Nableezy is filing repeated AEs while he himself continues his disruptive behaviour of being uncivil, failing AGF, and violating his own recent 1RR restriction, twice in one day (three times actually, but to his credit, he self-reverted on Jerusalem). The editor finds it hard to mend his ways and lose the battleground mentality. He has improved, thank goodness to the warnings and restrictions, but apparently needs more and/or much more time to think. --Shuki (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[51]

Discussion concerning Nableezy

Statement by Nableezy

Ill just say that whatever Shuki thinks is "POV" generally means that it is not an extreme right-wing Israeli POV. So his accusations about "POV" really dont mean anything to me. The only thing that might matter here is numbers 13 and 14. On 13, the second edit was not a revert. On 14, pan-Arabism is not a part of the A/I conflict topic area. I'll also say that number 9 is a complete lie. In no way do I "deny Israel's very existence", the article that we have covering the "geographical area" for both Israel and the occupied territories is Palestine. And my edit summary makes this clear. Just one more in a long line of unfounded attacks by Shuki. I'll also say that what Shuki has accused me of doing, skirting a 1RR, is exactly what Shuki has done on the Ariel University page. Each of these are reverts made just outside of 24 hours:

20:42, 10 April 2010 (edit summary: "yes, and all could not give a crap about the quality of the lead. Perhaps Peter Cohen can comment again.")
21:04, 11 April 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 355260994 by Nableezy (talk) rv, the context is apparently needed unless you can totally cut down the lead to NPOV")
21:24, 12 April 2010 (edit summary: "reduce even more confusion to concise, what it is and where")

nableezy - 01:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, George, for your last question, no. But this is the second frivolous AE request Shuki has filed against me. nableezy - 01:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, yes some of the pan-Arabism article discusses Israel, but if you look at what I have actually removed the only references to Israel are from a quote from an Egyptian at a bus stop saying that he would prefer an alliance with Israel as opposed to one with the Arab states. How does that fall in the scope of the A/I conflict? nableezy - 22:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if the sanction is to be based on my violating a 1RR rule I would rather just be blocked. nableezy - 22:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANd for number 13, combining the two versions (as I did in the second diff, keeping the armistice lines and the internationally recognized line) is a revert? nableezy - 22:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezy

Comments by George

Going through Shuki's diffs in order:

Hmm, you neglected to mention that Nableezy apologized and struck out his accusation.
I can't read Arabic, so I don't know what those song lyrics say. What about them "incites violence"? And what pictures are you talking about?
These diffs look like a move toward neutrality, so I'm not sure how you interpret them as POV pushing. Labeling the Golan Heights as part of Israel is a particular POV; removing any label from them (not saying they are in Israel, and not saying they are in Syria) is hardly POV pushing.
It looks like there was some consensus for their removal on the talk page a month ago. Nableezy discussed the issue; you don't appear to have been a part of that discussion?
That's a highly selective description. Editors should note that he removed both the Hebrew and the Arabic.
This looks like a content dispute between yourself, Nableezy, and Supreme Deliciousness. It's unclear to me why your version or Nableezy's is better, but this isn't the place to decide that.
This is a diff of Nableezy re-writing a lead that was unsourced by citing sources. Are there counter sources? This diff alone doesn't seem to indicate anything of POV pushing (in contrast to if Nableezy was replacing certain sources with other sources).
I don't know what this diff is supposed to show. What's wrong with using popups?
The first diff should say Israel, not Palestine. I see nothing wrong with the second (an Israeli settlement in the West Bank isn't considered to be in Israel, as far as I know).
This is a repeat of an earlier diff, and I hardly see it as a threat... seems more like an encouragement to accept compromise.
I don't understand what Nableezy meant (maybe he was referring to the term Judea?), but you should watch the personal attacks labeling his statement a lie. In general, his version is a bit more readable, but it's unclear if this is anything more than a content dispute. And really, you're going to describe his changing one sentence as reverting "massively"?
Yup, it was uncivil.
Looks like two different, but similar, versions of this sentence, not a revert. Note that in the second diff Nableezy isn't removing or replacing material (as in the first diff), only expanding.
Why would Nableezy be on 1RR on this article? How is Pan-Arabism related to the the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Asking a new editor if they've had a previous account isn't a WP:BITE, though Nableezy seemed quite terse with them in the back and forth.

Going over all your diffs, #12 and #15 seemed like minor incivility, and probably should have been taken to WP:WQA or put to Nableezy directly. However, this seems like yet another monstrously large AE report, filled with meaningless diffs and exaggerated summaries, and it's getting old. As I've stated before, throwing a pile of crap on the wall to see what sticks isn't the way to handle these cases. ← George^talk 23:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that the number of AE reports Nableezy has filed in recent days is concerning. Is there any evidence that any of these, or his past reports, have been frivolous? ← George^talk 23:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reply to george The apology (#1) was later rescinded. [52] --Shuki (talk) 08:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific Shuki? That's a very long discussion, but skimming over it, it looks liked Amoruso asks for an apology, Nableezy explains how they were confused & apologizes, Amoruso accepts, it turns into a discussion on what the map means, then Breein1007 chimes in with a minor personal attack towards the end, and says that Nableezy didn't apologize. Where in your diff did Nableezy rescind his apology (a quote would be nice)? ← George^talk 09:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cptnono Much of the stuff mentioned may not be a problem but there are two obvious concerns:

His reverts at Pan Arabism included removing a source discussing it as racist partially based on Israel. This is removed from the bulk of the text being reverted so it should have been easy enough to leave alone the second time. The source might be problematic but that is for discussion on the talk page not breaking 1rr.
He told another editor to "grow the fuck up". He has continued to not be civil to editors despite repeated warnings.Cptnono (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone (George?) mentioned throwing poo against the wall to see if it sticks somewhere else. LOL and agreed that people need to watch out for that since it does nothing but detract from the transgressions that should be worried about. It also comes across as a low blow.Cptnono (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Vexorg

Yet another ( as competently demonstrated by George above ) highly petty and exaggerated AE report designed to attack another editor rather than for the good of Wikipedia. My advice to you Shuki and anyone else in the I-P conflict to stop these reports (and withdraw this one). The admins are fed up with it. All that will happen here is that a bunch of partisan editors will turn up and attack each other again. Vexorg (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying to turn a blind eye to disruptive behaviour and / or just when it is involving someone you identify with. Please deal with the content of the report, and discuss the idea in another forum. --Shuki (talk) 08:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should actually try reading the posts BEFORE commenting ... I repeat "...and anyone else in the I-P conflict..." "anyone else" means anyone involved. Got it? thanks. Vexorg (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

' Gatoclass says - "We have to stop penalizing users for occasional venting. We cannot expect people to behave like saints" - I couldn't agree more. What I noticed, and I myself have been guilty of this on occasion, is that editors on either side of this Zionists v. Opposition war here have been shouting 'BLOCK! BLOCK! BLOCK!' at the slightest misdemeanor by one of the other side. It's gotten ridiculous and has become a schoolyard. It's quite clear that people on both sides are trying to get people on the other side topic banned to alter the balance of POV editing certain articles. People are compiling huge lists of diffs, 99% of which are innocuous and even worthy of a second look. Well said Gatoclass -- Vexorg (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by 173.52.124.223

I think #15 alone may be grounds for some sort of ban against Nableezy. It is clearly an attempt to intimidate a new editor who is on the opposing editing team. Of course the whole process on this noticeboard has become absurd, and its bans are, at this point, probably more disruptive to the editing process than the user violations that are the grounds for the bans. I really dislike the idea of having Nableezy topic banned. The problem is that he has initiated so many reports here (in my view attempts at intimidation, and attempts to make editing I/P articles ever more difficult and stressful for editors with opposing views) that it is difficult to argue that he should be exempt from what he so frequently wants for opposing editors. The I/P dispute situation on this noticeboard seems to be spinning out of control, and may harming the editing of articles, making balanced content and NPOV ever less likely. 173.52.124.223 (talk) 11:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with #15. Nableezy did not accuse Rocalisi of anything but merely asked a simple question. Given the high incidence of socking in the i/p area (certainly much more than is uncovered) it wouldn't hurt to ask all new users that question. Zero^talk 12:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That question is always an accusation, and you would think so too if I asked you that in the context of an editing dispute. And the accusation is more than just an assumption of bad faith, it is a tool in WP:Battle. The perpetual filing of reports on this noticeboard, CU fishing expeditions, etc, is a way of wearing down the opposing team, and may indicate that some users are spending as much, or more, time wiki-lawering (which is disruptive) as editing articles. The entire process appears to be used as "a mere continuation of controlling content by other means," to paraphrase Carl von Clausewitz. 173.52.124.223 (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A question isn't an accusation, that's oxymoronic. If you think that way you must find dealing with immigration officers at airports quite painful at times. The question Nableezy asked needs to be seen within the context of the Pan-Arabism article, an article and talk page that has been subjected to extensive and blatant policy violations by multiple editors and associated sockpuppets. Blatant policy violations aren't 'an editing dispute'. I often wonder, when it comes to the nationalist nonsense that goes on here, why these things are dignified with terms like 'content dispute'. It's not an 'editing dispute' to say that the planet is 6000 years old, evolution has never been observed etc etc, it's vandalism and it's dealt with immediately by editors with no drama and no admin involvement. Those editors are not participating in a battle, they are simply implementing policy. And yet, when it comes other topics, blatant and absurd policy violations and attempts to insert fringe nonsense become a 'content dispute'. If you are concerned about content editing and editor behavior at the Pan-Arabism article I suggest you volunteer your time to help keep things under control over there so that both the content and editor behavior comply with mandatory policy using the means available to do so in the interests of the project. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reply:

I have already explained that a question can be an accusation, and in this case it certainly was an accusation.
Your edit is filled with terms that prejudge the dispute, such as blatant policy violations, and multiple editors and associated sockpuppets, and nationalist nonsense, and it's vandalism, and blatant and absurd policy violations, and attempts to insert fringe nonsense, all of which statements suggest that you are very far from being a neutral player in this dispute.
I understand that you may feel strongly about the issues, and certainly your point of view needs to be represented in I/P articles for balance. But your implication in your edit above, that truth and good faith editing exist on your side only, seems not to be particularly constructive.

173.52.124.223 (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No you haven't explained that a question can be an accusation. Just saying so doesn't make it so. I see no problem whatsoever with #15. All the person has to do is answer. Vexorg (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your claiming that a question can not be an accusation is silly because that claim is so obviously false. See, for instance [53] or [54] or [55]. As I have said already, I consider Nableezy's question an accusation, and a rather disruptive accusation, so in the context of arbcom enforcement articles that probably justifies sort of sanction. 173.52.124.223 (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No the question is not an accusation, it's a question. An accusation is a statement not a question. note: I think IPs shouldn't be allowed to edit wikipedia. People should open an account. Vexorg (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been amusing, but nevertheless a waste of my time. Again, many times what appears to be a question is not a question at all, and such instances are often disguised accusations. Even a complete fool would know that asking a sock if he/she is a sock is not going to get an honest reply. And Nableezy is not a fool. He was apparently accusing a new user of being a sock in an attempt to intimidate. 173.52.124.223 (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you explained that a question can be an accusation to you and that you believe you can apply your model of self to others. You are welcome to that view but there is no reason to believe you.
There aren't any terms that prejudge anything in my statement. The events I described have already happened, the terms I used are consistent with the events, I witnessed them along with others including an admin that locked the article and admin that blocked the sockpuppets. Like I said, you can go and have a look for yourself, make your own mind up about policy compliance rather than make statements based on your understanding of what language might suggest about events for which you have no knowledge and help out at the article to deal with the train wreck disruptive editors have caused and continue to cause.
Your response and the way you understand information illustrates the problem here and why these battles persist. For example, you think I 'feel', care about 'truth', have a 'point of view' that 'needs to be represented' in articles, that I am on 'a side' etc etc. In fact, none of those things are the case. I just want everyone to follow policy, use reliable sources and keep their personal opinions to themselves. I'm not alone in this view by any means. These errors in the way people model and interpret other editor's statements, actions and motivations are far more irrational, damaging and policy non-compliant than asking someone who is edit warring on an article over the same information as blocked sockpuppets whether they have had an account before. I've lost count of the times someone has called me anti-Israeli or something similar for doing or saying something that is intended to increase policy compliance based on reliable sources. It's funny the first couple of times. So, yes, in that sense, just like many other editors, I'm not neutral at all on policy non-compliance and find editors who won't simply follow the rules irritating, frustrating and time consuming.
Regarding constructive editing, this is another root cause of the persistent problem. It seems to me that many editors simply cannot recognise constructive, policy compliant editing. Case in point, Shuki's point #3 listed above. Shuki cannot recognise that these edits correct errors and increase policy compliance. Why can't Shuki recognise that these are constructive edits when it's entirely obvious that they are ? Who knows and it's a question I personally have no interest in whatsoever. I would just like the disruption to stop. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think item 12 is the most concerning; I don't consider item 15 to be a problem. I think it would have been nicer to leave a welcome template, and then ask the question, but that sort of thing is hardly worthy of sanctions. PhilKnight (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I call upon Nableezy to keep on editing ME-related articles despite any "ruling" by admins. The spirit of Wikipedia rejects any such ruling and render it invalid. I just hope his next edits and arguments will be fair and less politically-motivated. DrorK (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree with this more. Of all editors, Nableezy and Drork are not the people who should be receiving topic bans here. The ludicrousness of this is actually mind boggling for me. Nableezy and Drork are two editors who actually bring positive contribution to this encyclopedia. Yes, I disagree with most things Nableezy edits. Yes, he often inserts things and makes comments on discussion pages that show his extreme POV on the issue. Yes, his user page promotes what I believe is a despicable message. However, with that said, and even with the fair number of disagreements I have had with him, he is still able to bring something good to the table and work issues out with other editors to come to some sort of collaboration and improvement to the article. Meanwhile, there are other editors who shall remain unnamed who bring absolutely NOTHING positive to Wikipedia, who have been blocked upwards of 10 times for the same infractions, who show NO signs of willingness to compromise and work together with editors who disagree with their POV, who make their WP:BATTLE mentality no secret and in fact seem proud of the fact that they are using Wikipedia to disseminate inaccurate information to demonize a certain side in the I-P conflict. It is these people who should be not only topic banned but fully blocked from Wikipedia because they are harming the project and making it impossible for other editors to work together. The last few months have seen things get much much worse because of a few mysteriously "new" editors who have turned the atmosphere between the two "sides" into the worst that I have ever seen it. And it is a real shame that they are allowed to reign on and succeed in their goal to cause conflict. If there is any good part of this all, it is that it reflects the real life I-P conflict. It is the minority of radical extremists who manage to get their way and hold onto power to ruin things for the rest of us, who are actually interested in working together towards a solution. What a shame. I guess that's the end of my rant... I guess that went pretty off topic but it needed to be said. Who knows, maybe I'll get blocked again now with the explanation that it was in line with arbitration enforcement. What a joke... Breein1007 (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To quote WP's main page: Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. - 173.52.124.223 (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Huldra

Regarding #12: it should be noted that that comment (and yes; it is not very civil), is made by Nableezy on his own talk-page, in response to User:Drork posting there and accusing Nableezy of "mafia-like behavior" (and that is not very civil, either, IMO!). However, as anyone who has posted on Nableezy´s talk-page know, you see this sign, encircled in red, on top of the page before you post anything: "Notice: Civility does not exist on this page. If you feel the need to say something uncivil to me feel free to do so. Personal attacks too, though if you say something be prepared to either back it up or have a large collection of insults hurled at you. Be forewarned that I give as good as I get, though not quite as good as this" In other words; to me it looks as if two guys are just fighting it out between themselves, and both doing so quite willingly, and rest of us should just leave them alone. Or am I missing something? Of course, the whole idea that you can have a "civility-free zone", is another matter. But if Nableezy is going to be sanctioned on this, then at least make it clear that in the future no one can declare their own talk-page a "civility-free" zone. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 05:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gatoclass

We have to stop penalizing users for occasional venting. We cannot expect people to behave like saints, telling someone to "grow the fuck up" is a commonplace phrase and at most a mild incivility. Note also that this comment was made to a user since indef topic banned for constant bad faith assumptions - provocation being an obvious ameliorating factor.

I also find it highly problematic that this "case", such as it is, has been initiated by Shuki, a user who has clearly been pushing a WP:FRINGE POV for quite some time now with his many edits stating that the Golan Heights and other such occupied territories are in Israel, the case against whom was recently dismissed as a "content dispute". I think there is something very wrong with this process when users can escape a ban for such tendentious editing, when those who are attempting to uphold policy end up with bans for occasional technical breaches. This is the very opposite of a desirable outcome for the project, and clearly contradictory to the aim of AE. Gatoclass (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

' Gatoclass says - "We have to stop penalizing users for occasional venting. We cannot expect people to behave like saints" - I couldn't agree more. What I noticed, and I myself have been guilty of this on occasion, is that editors on either side of this Zionists v. Opposition war here have been shouting 'BLOCK! BLOCK! BLOCK!' at the slightest misdemeanor by one of the other side. It's gotten ridiculous and has become a schoolyard. It's quite clear that people on both sides are trying to get people on the other side topic banned to alter the balance of POV editing certain articles. People are compiling huge lists of diffs, 99% of which are innocuous and even worthy of a second look. Well said Gatoclass -- Vexorg (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC) [restoring removed comment :( ] Vexorg (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, editors who edit in this area are expected to behave like saints. See WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions. If they don't feel they're up to that, they are free to leave the topic area, or may be made to. Sandstein 18:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tiamut

I don't believe there is evidence here of Nableezy having been a disruptive editor. He is one of the most well liked editors in the I-P domain by editors from both sides, because of his generally fair approach to editing (and perhaps for his sense of humour).

If he did violate his 1RR restriction, he could be blocked for edit warring and given that his last block for edit warring was for 24 hours, a 48 hour block would be sufficient. However, as he is no longer edit warring, and he has recognized that it is possible that he did violate 1RR and suggested himself that he be blocked for that, this report should be treated as stale and be closed. Sanctions are preventative, not punitive.

Finally, Shuki should be prohibited from filing any further AE reports against Nableezy, as he has filed a number of them, mostly made up of imaginary infractions of NPOV, which Shuki himself has difficulty understanding. Tiamut^talk 09:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sanctions are preventative, and in this case, a topic ban will prevent further violations of arbitral restrictions. Any personal merits that Nableezy may have are not relevant; arbitration enforcement is not a popularity contest. Sandstein 18:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Nableezy

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

In general I agree with George. This report is largely frivolous. The template instructs users to provide diffs and to explain how these diffs violate the remedy at issue; an entry like "Removing images" is no explanation at all and a waste of time and space; and "lies about naming conventions" is merely insulting. I'm inclined to close this with a warning for Shuki that they will be sanctioned if they continue to file abusive AE reports.

That said, there are three entries that are of concern:

12 is incivil.
13 is a 1RR violation. At 02:45, 11 April 2010 Nableezy removes the text "that marks the armistice lines" etc. that was previously added here, and at 23:54, 11 April 2010 Nableezy adds the text "which is internationally recognized" etc. that was previously removed here. These are two actions that "reverse the actions of other editors, in whole or in part", i.e., reverts as defined at WP:3RR.
14 is also a 1RR violation. The restriction applies to the area of conflict, which is the Arab-Israeli conflict. The article Pan-Arabism talks about that conflict a lot (just search for "Israel" in the current version of the article) and is therefore covered by the restriction.

So, unless other admins disagree, and taking into consideration Nableezy's problematic record, I will sanction Nableezy with a time-limited topic ban. Sandstein 21:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Sandstein's assessment. Tim Song (talk) 05:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Sandstein's assessment, but would strongly suggest Shuki avoid throwing enough mud at the wall in the hope that some will stick and focus on specific infringements. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Shuki is warned that they may be made subject to sanctions if they file more largely inactionable enforcement requests. Nableezy is, in application of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, banned from editing articles which (or whose edited parts) are broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict for the duration of two months. Reverts of vandalism and BLP violations are not excluded from this ban, and may be reported to the appropriate noticeboard instead. — Explanation: The ban covers only articles because the principal infringements occurred in article space; this allows Nableezy, per Unomi's suggestion, to contribute (in a hopefully constructive manner) to discussions. I note that the incivility was preceded by an equally inacceptable allegation of "threats" and "mafia-like behavior" on the part of Nableezy; while this does not excuse the incivility, it reduces its significance. As to Shuki, I agree with Stifle. Sandstein 19:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gilabrand

Gilabrand (talk · contribs) blocked for a month and topic ban extended to six months.

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

Request concerning Gilabrand

User requesting enforcement: Factomancer (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: ban from the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Log_of_blocks_and_bans - "Consequently, to prevent continued disruption of this sort, under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, I am hereby banning Gilabrand from the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the duration of three months. (For the avoidance of doubts, this includes all pages or discussions related to the topic, broadly construed.) This ban may be enforced with blocks or additional sanctions as necessary."

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

Removed a section that includes material about the film Munich which is about the Mossad assassinating Palestinian militants - [56]. The removed section explicitly mentions "Black Tuesday"/the Munich massacre which is definitely a subject in the scope of the I-P topic.
Edited an article entitled "Religious Zionism" -[57] [58]. Zionism is a major part of the I-P conflict. The criticism section in particular contains lots of material about the I-P conflict ([59])
Added a link to an Israeli pundit talking about Gaza - [60]
Added material about a person's daughter being killed by Jordanian shelling during the 1948 war; which is a major part of the Arab-Israeli and Israel-Palestinian conflicts. [61]
Added links to "Notable religious Zionist figures" on the Religious Zionism page ([62]) which includes a link to the biography of She'ar Yashuv Cohen that contains a large section about his views on Israel's disengagement plan from Gaza.
Edited a section that includes material about the partition plan, a major point of contention in the i-P conflict - "The area of Eilat was designated as part of the Jewish state in the 1947 UN Partition Plan" - [63] Factomancer (talk) 7:42 am, Yesterday (UTC−7)}}

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

[64] Warning by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
[65] Warning by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
...

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): indefinite topic ban on I-P issues and a 2 week block.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Gilabrand has already violated her IP topic ban many times and she seems to have no respect for the community-imposed topic ban. How many second chances is she going to get? It's time for an indefinite topic ban from I-P.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [66]

Discussion concerning Gilabrand

Statement by Gilabrand

Comments by others about the request concerning Gilabrand

Seems to me that this is a completely frivolous request, that should be sanctioned. Popular culture sections, dress-code for Religious Zionists, information about Eilat, which has never been in contention. No violations here. 91.135.102.197 (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this request should be sanctioned. I couldn't agree more. Factomancer (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tariqabjotu

Thankfully, arbitration requests are handled by human beings, rather than computers, for if this request were handled in a robotic fashion -- similar to how Factomancer did -- the algorithm would have asked similar questions (Does this section mention the year 1948? Yes.) and immediately blocked Gilabrand. But if one were, as humans can, to look at the nature of the edits (removing useless trivia sections from an article about an intelligence agency, simply changing the name of a section in a manner that says absolutely nothing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict), one would see that Gilabrand has done absolutely nothing wrong in this case. Gilabrand's previous violations of her topic ban, and the actions leading up to that ban, should not prejudice users into expanding the topic ban beyond its original, intended scope. Gilabrand is not, especially insofar as I interpret it, banned from any and all articles related to Israel or Judaism, and there is no reason to waste time and hassle Gilabrand over actions that have been met with no controversy except from those traditional adversaries who use AE or admin talk pages as courts of first resort. -- tariqabjotu 15:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Zero0000

The original sanction reads "(For the avoidance of doubts, this includes all pages or discussions related to the topic, broadly construed.)", my emphasis. It doesn't say the individual edits have to relate to I/P. Is the page religious Zionism related to the I/P conflict? Zero^talk 15:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy

Wow. 40 minutes between the time this was filed and a six month ban? Way to reward the people who use the admin boards as a BATTLEground. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Eilat article is not an I/P conflict sanctioned article...as far as I know. So there is only one item: the removal of a trivia section. I could understand a block of a few days for that, but this decision gives a very long block for a very minor infraction. Why so long a block and ban? 173.52.124.223 (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Gilabrand

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

Frankly, this is getting ridiculous. A ban is a ban is a ban, no matter how many times you try to circumvent it. Whatever the merits of the other edits, [67] and [68] are clear violations of the topic ban. Gilabrand needs to take a break from this area - indeed, it is probably to their benefit to take a break from editing anything remotely connected to Israel altogether. Blocked for one month, topic ban extended to six months, to begin to run after the block expires or is lifted. Tim Song (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Tariqabjotu - I saw your comment after I posted the comment above. To respond: yes, a topic ban is a blunt instrument. The fact that it has been imposed means that the issuing admin determined that this user's good edits in this topic area do not outweigh the problematic ones, and allowing them to continue is a net negative. Once topic-banned, it is unacceptable to attempt to test the limits of the ban by making "good" edits. That is gaming the system. The proper thing to do is to take a break, edit in other areas, and demonstrate the ability to edit nondisruptively. This user has been blocked numerous times for topic-ban violation, and that history is relevant in determining if the act is an innocuous vio or a gaming attempt. I'm convinced it's the latter. Tim Song (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that assessment. Sandstein 16:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree; Good call by Song. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, now at ANI. -- tariqabjotu

Shuki

Request withdrawn/denied.

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

Request concerning Shuki

User requesting enforcement: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: Shuki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: [69]

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

first rv as can be seen here that its a rev:[70]
second rv as can be seen here that its a rev:[71]

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): Not needed.

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

He made two reverts to the same article within one day, his restriction is that he is only allowed to one rv per day.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [72]

Discussion concerning Shuki

Statement by Shuki

Comments by others about the request concerning Shuki

Comment—Seems like forum shopping to me. It is clear that the two edits were made one after the other, and they are not two separate reverts; not to mention, they are not even the same edit. I suggest that Supreme Deliciousness should receive a warning for unnecessary drama similar to the case that Mbz1 introduced just a short while ago. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because they were made after each other doesn't mean its not two reverts, And they don't have to be the same edits, each one is a revert on its own. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Consecutive reverts by one user with no intervening edits by another user count as one revert." Is part of the definition at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. You could argue that he modified two of your edits so the principle of him disrupting your work could apply. It would not be edit warring since there was no back and forth though. The lack of crossing a bright line makes this one a challenge.Cptnono (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I believe that SD believes that this is not frivolous. He probably shouldn't be restricted himself for a frivolous report even though the timing is suspect.Cptnono (talk) 05:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that sequential reverts count at one, as Cptnono noted above, making this not a violation of 1RR. ← George^talk 00:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly a single revert per WP:3RR. Supreme Deliciousness, please don't create unnecessary drama by bringing frivolous matters here. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry, I didn't know. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing this request. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Always astonished that editors are so well aware of any restrictions particular editors on the other side have, but for whatever reasons are not aware of 3RR/1RR. Now I am only curious which side of the I/P conflict will file the next enforcement request. Pantherskin (talk) 10:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Shuki

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

Frivolous report, as it is well-established that consecutive reverts count as one for 3RR/1RR purposes. Tim Song (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have reverted Supreme Deliciousness's removal of this thread and advised him that any withdrawal should be noted as a comment. Editors are not entitled to remove threads in which other editors have commented. Sandstein 08:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tuscumbia

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

Request concerning Tuscumbia

User requesting enforcement: Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: # [73], first blanket revert

[74] second blanket revert
[75] third blanket revert

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): # Not applicable
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Formally place user under 1RR/week as stipulated and/or the proceedings concluded by ArbCom Armenian-Azerbaijan 2.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: I still am uncertain if this is the correct venue to file this complaint but I hope the administrators will indulge me for just a moment. Tuscumbia has most recently violated the 3RR rule on the Zheleznovodsk Communiqué. Rather than discuss the POV problems that I outlined in the article's talk page, he simply reverted each edit I made and showed no general interest to discuss their validity. He has already been blocked for edit warring on the Black January article but I feel that formally placing him under the restrictions of the ArbCom Armenian-Azerbaijan 2 will generally improve the editing environment by encouraging editors to participate on the talk page, rather than head straight to click on the revert button. Thank you.

In reply to the comments made by editors Grandmaster and Brand: the BBC, however notable it is, is written by a single identifiable author (Thomas de Waal, a journalist) and he is simply presenting his personal interpretation of the event, which he more or less elaborated in his 2003 book, Black Garden. Considering that virtually no one else has been able to corroborate Mr de Waal's findings, and taking into account that virtually all sources indicate that the conflict began in February 1988, we have to treat his position as a fringe opinion. And contrary to what Brand contends, I more than amply expressed my desire on the article's talk page to discuss the issue and repeatedly called on Tuscumbia to provide more sources (see here [76]). And please do not mischaracteristize my editing habits in such a misleading, dishonest and one-sided manner again, Brand.

To Grandmaster: the last time I checked, three reverts counts as a violation of the 3RR either way. You yourself were once on 1RR parole and you have since been involved in a number of edit wars over the past few months so your suggestion that the administrators should now take advantage of this opportunity to punish me as well shocks me in its frankness. I'm almost too shocked for words. For that matter, I have been comfortably in compliance of Wikipedia's revert rules and have virtually abdided by my 1RR ever since it expired, with the mere exceptions to revert in obvious cases of vandalism or out-of-control edit wars.

On the matter at hand, I genuinely believe that the BBC article represents a fringe opinion and should not be presented on an otherwise mundane article on Nagorno-Karabakh, especially without any qualification. The dozens of other articles on Nagorno-Karabakh, to say nothing about all the books and articles that have been published on the matter, make no mention or dismiss any notion of the expulsion of Azerbaijani refugees. The version I inserted has been universally accepted elsewhere and so Brand's contention that the section is "disputed" is plain false when only a fringe minority, however weakly, argue against it.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing, Stifle - I'm asking that he be formally placed under the restrictions of the ArbCom. As I noted above earlier, I'm unsure if this was the correct place to bring it up but he reverted an article 3 times within a period of 24 hours and showed no interest to commit himself to discuss the issue on the talk page. I believe that if such restrictions are in place, it will more than encourage him to discuss his edits rather than just simply revert each edit that he disagrees with. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [77]

Discussion concerning Tuscumbia

Statement by Tuscumbia

I created the article Zheleznovodsk Communiqué based on valid sources. The text that MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) changed and kept reverting does not refer to the sources of the actual declaration. In other words, the very Declaration/Communiqué the article is about claims (in 1991 when it was signed) the conflict started "4 years ago", i.e. in 1987, clearly referring to first petitions collected by Armenians of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh and subsequent mutual hostilities committed in Karabakh and Armenia (specifically mentioned in BBC article [78]). Of course, Marshall Bagramyan denounces the linked article right away as invalid, compiled by one journalist, etc while this is the journalist (Thomas de Waal) on whose writings a considerable part of Karabakh conflict articles are quoted and based on. In other words, the user is being selective just because this particular quote from BBC approved text does not suit his edits and reverts. Moreover, I asked him and directed him to discuss his edits on the talk page ([79], [80], [81]) and reach consensus before making the intended changes. As can be seen from this article about the helicopter shootdown related to Zheleznovodsk Communiqué, I reviewed his changes and came to consensus [82]. As for the Black January page, all changes made by unknown IPs were POV and I attempted to get them reach consensus on the talk page too before making those edits (if needed I'll provide all diffs to show the attempts). Tuscumbia (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a response to MarshallBagramyan and to attention of Stifle:

It's obvious that MarshallBagramyan is doing his best to draw me into the ArbCom restrictions for no reason whatsoever. During the reverts, he was urged to discuss the intended text on the talk page before reverting the text to his version, but he kept on going until I reverted the third time, at what he suddenly stopped and reported me. It's pretty obvious that this was done to try to pull me into the restrictions. I am aware of the editing rules including one WP:3RR which clearly indicates no more than 3 reverts on the same page within 24 hr period. I feel this request is not based on anything less that getting me blocked, banned or placed on restrictions MarshallBagramyan is himself a party to Tuscumbia (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Tuscumbia

From what I see, in this diff, which was the first revert, Tuscumbia urged MarshallBagramyan to discuss, but he proceeded further, ignoring subsequent invitation to talk. For me the basic problem is that Marshal pushes a disputable background section, sourced with BBC News instead of more specific book, offered by Tuscumbia. Brandmeister[t] 17:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that Tuscumbia violated the 3RR rule on Zheleznovodsk Communiqué. Tuscumbia made 3 rvs, so he remained within the limit. At the same time MarshallBagramyan reverted the article twice, obviously without consensus with the other party. So if Tuscumbia is to be placed on restriction, so is MarshallBagramyan, considering that his previous 1 year parole [83] only expired in January this year, and he again is involved in an edit war. Grandmaster 18:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MarshallBagramyan, I suggest you check WP:3RR. Making 3rvs is not a violation, however the admins may consider the reverting to be excessive, even if the 3RR was not formally violated. In this case I don't see that Tuscumbia was the one to be blamed, because your reverting was not justified either. It was clearly a content dispute, and you should have tried to resolve the dispute by WP:DR before repeatedly reverting. Grandmaster 06:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tuscumbia cannot be placed on notice right away, according to the arbcom ruling:

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. [84]

Was Tuscumbia given a warning with a link to the arbcom page? Grandmaster 16:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Tuscumbia

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

Please provide a link to where Tuscumbia was put on notice of the restrictions before committing the alleged violations. Stifle (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[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]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards