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	332

Martintg

No admin action taken. Martin has agreed to abstain from unblock discussions in the area of his ban. Other matters were mentioned in the comments that would need better quality data to investigate any further. EdJohnston (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Martintg

User requesting enforcement: User:The Four Deuces TFD (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: Martintg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: ~~Block.~~ Topic ban.[1]

~~User:Martintg is topic-banned from topics related to Eastern Europe.~~ "Martintg (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about these topics...."[2] A request for clarification explained that this included "Communist terrorism". Although Martintg challenged whether this decision related to him, he abandoned it. A recent decision involving User:Marknutley shows that becoming involved in procedures involving other editors is the same as editing proscribed articles. Martintg has chosen to defend User:Justus Maximus who has been blocked for offensive comments about other editors at Communist terrorism. Therefore Martintg has violated his topic ban. TFD (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask the arbitrators to look at their recent decision considering mark nutley who has a CC topic ban: "I really don't know how much clearer the message can be to the topic-banned users: Please go away. If the discussion is on-wiki and even tangentially related to climate change, and is not directly discussing you, then leave it alone".[3] Martintg was topic-banned from "Communist terrorism", asked for clarification and then abandoned it.[4] TFD (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Sandersaede, there was a request for clarification that decided this topic was part of Eastern Europe and Martintg raised then abandoned a request concerning whether it still applied. Martintg's definition of terrorism as including government actions allows for the inclusion of Soviet terror against other nationalities inside the former Soviet Union which were "national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe". TFD (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to AGK, re: "Constitution of Estonia"

From 1940 to 1990 the Soviet Union considered Estonia to be one of its republics, although the legality was disputed. Therefore the legitimate constitution during this period is a matter of dispute, which the article resolves by referring to the Third Constitution as de jure, although the Soviets considered the Soviet constitution to be de jure. TFD (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Martintg

I thought I was talking about Justus Maximus' unblock request for a block he received for comments he made on ANI, where he implied some editors were Marxist apologists who promoted terrorism, which is clearly offensive. He did remove those comments but was blocked in any case. I've been discussing JM's unblock for several days on ANI[5],[6],[7],[8], on his talk page[9], on an admin's page[10] and nobody (let alone The Four Deuces who was also involved in that discussion too) had any issue in regard to my involvement until now. I thought talking about issues of WP:BITE and how we treat newbies is sufficiently abstracted from any underlying content, in this case whether or not Karl Marx promoted terrorism . I would have participated just the same as if the original issue was related to Right-wing terrorism or Apple pies.

FWIW, the original topic ban "topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed" was narrowed to topic banned from articles about national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about these topics, until December 22, 2010 (one year from the closing of the original case) by motion, dropping "widely construed". Note that the Climate Change topic ban under which Mark Nutley was blocked incorporates the term "broadly construed". The importance of the presence of "broadly construed" in the remedy was higlighted in a clarification related to the original topic ban, most of the Arbitrators concurred with the viewpoint of Steve Smith when he stated: "But there is also a case that they are eastern Europe-related, in light of the "broadly construed" portion of the remedy". This "broadly construed" portion of my topic ban was removed when it was narrowed in September.

I drafted a recent clarification request in good faith about whether the narrowed topic ban was still applicable to the article Communist terrorism [11], but soon abandoned it since it seemed to be a waste of the Committee's time (and mine) over something that I can easily avoid (and have avoided since) in deference to User:The Four Deuces (despite a couple of other editors welcoming my involvement[12][13]), since the issue would be moot anyway in a couple of months time as my topic ban will expire anyway. But construing my good faith discussion of a user's unblock request due to his block over comments on ANI in light of WP:BITE as a violation is stretching things a bit too far.

So it is not clear to me how discussion of JM's unblock request, which was related to his block related to his use of phrases deemed offensive during a discussion on the ANI page, which in turn was due to his perception of some editors and his view of their conduct, which in turn was related to a discussion of whether or not Karl Marx (a German national, by the way) promoted terrorism in his 19th century writings, which in turn was related to Communist terrorism which is an article about terrorism in Western Europe, Asia and South America (and no mention of Eastern Europe) and its proported relationship to Marxist doctrine, is related to my topic ban on East European national, cultural or ethnic disputes.

I was only trying to help diffuse the situation and help JM understand how things work on Wikipedia. He seems to be widely read on Marxist writings and seems to have great potential to contribute. However given the climate of the increasingly broad and elastic interpretation of topic bans, I'm quite prepared to strike all my comments on JM's talk page and take no further part in trying to assist. --Martin (talk) 03:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Petri Krohn's involvement below appears to be an issue of WP:ACTIVIST, Arbitrator Shell Kinney is familiar with Petri's affiliation with a certain fringe political group, please contact her for the details. --Martin (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to AGK and others

My edits of Constitution of Estonia are fully sourced [14] from Estonica, Estonia's reference encyclopaedia similar to Britannica. Text accurately reflects the content from Estonica[15]. There never has been any connection with the article Constitution of Estonia and ethnic, cultural and national disputes. Nobody objected to my edits until it appeared that the original AE report wasn't going to get the result desired by Petri Krohn[16]

I must say this is the first time I've seen Bronze Night interpreted as a struggle over "opposing constitutional views", I thought it was about people protesting about the appropriateness of moving a war grave, but then I've only edited that article twice[17][18]. After scanning through the article Bronze Night, the only reference to the Constitution of Estonia is in the section Bronze Night#Proposed Law on Forbidden Structures, where the constitution is actually used in support of the minority to veto more extreme legislation in regard to the Bronze soldier monument. No mention in that article that the disturbance was a result of conflict between two "opposing constitutional views".

Now Petri has said[19] he has just now created a redirect from Constitution of the Estonian SSR to Constitution of Estonia [20] to apparently bolster his case, which begs the question on why Constitution of the Estonian SSR hadn't existed as a redirect before this AE report if there truly was a dispute over "opposing constitutional views". My reaction to this is that constitutions are specific legal documents related to a specific legal state order. Constitution of Estonia discusses the evolution of a series of specific constitutional legal act(s) related to a specific state order of the Republic of Estonia. Our opinions of a republic's notion of itself, based upon a specific legal POVs and assumptions as presented in the text of the constitution and commentary from sources like Estonica, is irrelevant and cannot be subject to dispute over POV, only verifiability. Redirecting Constitution of the Estonian SSR to Constitution of Estonia makes no sense. Constitution of the Estonian SSR should be expanded to discuss the specific constitutional legal act(s) as they pertain to the Soviet system and in the mean time be redirected to either Constitution of the Soviet Union or Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, I have no problem with that.

I'm not sure Petri Krohn's POV of "opposing constitutional views" is actually based upon any published source or is it likely he just made this up. I've done some digging around and all I could find is manifesto published by SAFKA here, apparently signed by a person named "Petri Krohn" which Petri has linked himself to here. Whether Offliner has some sort of affiliation with SAFKA too, who knows. Are Petri Krohn's and Offliner's disagreement with my good faith edits to Constitution of Estonia an issue of WP:ACTIVIST? That needs to be determined elsewhere.

Given the way Petri Krohn and Offliner have piled on to this AE report, in conjunction with the creation of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Martintg, there appears to be a larger issue than that what was originally reported. This AE report ought to be referred to the Arbitration committee, admins patrolling AE have done that in the past.

The battleground is where you want it to be. I was minding my own business editing what I thought was uncontroversial topic based upon reliable sources and now this is be painted as wrong doing by two apparent activists. Afterall, the article isn't called Estonian constitutional dispute or something. If the admins here think my good faithed edits to Constitution of Estonia backed by a reliable source[21] is also covered by my topic ban, then I will no longer edit that article either. --Martin (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Petri Krohn's continued agitation

I don't know how long this report will remain open and be continued to be used as a platform for apparent WP:ACTIVIST WP:SOAPBOXING by Petri Krohn[22]. But his latest unsourced (and unsourcable under WP:RS) assertions are just plain factually incorrect, one only has to read the original text in wikisource[23] to see there is no ethnic element to the Constitution of Estonia, Article 9 states:

"The rights, liberties, and duties of everyone and all persons, as listed in the Constitution, shall be equal for Estonian citizens as well as for citizens of foreign states and stateless persons who are present in Estonia."

These rights that Article 9 refers to include Article 49:

"Everyone shall have the right to preserve his or her ethnic identity"

and Article 50:

"Ethnic minorities shall have the right, in the interests of their national culture, to establish institutions of self-government in accordance with conditions and procedures determined by the Law on Cultural Autonomy for Ethnic Minorities".

There are no issues with the constitution, that I am aware of, ethnicity does not play a part at all. There may be issues with regard to some laws passed by the parliament in the past, but as I have shown above, the constitution has been used to veto those laws. Edward Lucas is presumably referring to internet sites like those russophone sites run by SAFKA and their supporters.

I've been thinking the other day about what I find so objectionable about Petri Krohn's SAFKA organisation, it is that they seek to turn an issue of the rule of law that applies equally to all into an ethnic issue through misrepresentation, agitation and soapboxing. To my mind that is incitement to ethnic hatred which has no place in Wikipedia. --Martin (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Petri Krohn

I have made every effort not to cross paths on or off Wikipedia with Martintg or his Eastern European supporters. I do not follow his edits or interfere with his editing and try not to edit articles in his limited scope of interest. Yet Martintg is exhibiting a pattern of following my edit history and editing the same or related pages, or coming to the defense of my opponents in disputes where I am a party. (The most innocent case of this is editing Operation Catherine after I added a link to it in two articles.) This has to stop! I will also be filing a related sock puppet investigation on him in a case where I believe he broke his topic ban by editing an article I had pointed him to.

In the previous arbitration enforcement case against Martintg I posted a long comment explaining the dispute Martintg is involved in.

"The central and core issue in the Eastern European disputes – as it relates to Estonia and other Baltic republics – is the claimed state continuity of the Baltic states in exile..." '

It is of relevance only for the record, as due to conflicting edits, I made my edit two minutes after Jehochman had issued a one week ban. I could have been more terse. A minimal topic ban that would keep Martintg out of the dispute could be worded as follows:

"Any content, (edit, section or article) that describes or tries to describe Soviet rule in the Baltics or Eastern Europe as illegal or oppressive or communism as immoral or criminal."

This week Martintg started rewriting the article on the Constitution of Estonia. (history) The article is now yet another POV-clone of the claimed state continuity of the Baltic states in exile, as it only reflects the legal fantasy on the unrecognized government-in-exile. Already his first edit falls under his topic ban on “disputes”, as it introduced the disputed claim that the Soviet Union "occupied" Estonia in 1940.

Martintg's only other contribution to article space, after his last topic ban ended, is to the article on Mart Laar. (history) Laar is the former prime minister of Estonia a, but also a controversial revisionist historian, who's books have been... (Claimed BLP violation removed by Martintg, will restore with source – or, why should I care. If Martintg cannot even allow this statement to exist, then clearly Laar is part of a dispute, and he should not be editing the article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)) – and a primary source for Martintg's disputed POV. Although the edits were innocent, I would consider the article to be under his topic ban. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. – I have made request for a sock puppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Martintg. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to AGK and EdJohnston

One side in the ethnic conflict in Estonia, including the right-wing nationalist parties, the former “Estonian Government in Exile” and most notably, former prime minister and historian Mart Laar will argue that the underground “National Committee” formed by Kaarel Liidak in 1944, and the government in exile declared by August Rei, in Oslo, Norway in 1953 represent a de jure continuation of the Republic of Estonia – as it existed before June 1940. They also argue that constitutional rule was only established in Estonia in 1992, when the government in exile ceased operations and handed “power” over to president Lennart Meri and then prime minister Mart Laar. According to this view Estionia was under military occupation from 1940 to 1991 or 1992. and any action taken by local Estonian authorities, including implementing its workforce-hungry immigration policy, were actions of occupation authorities and thus without legitimacy. This is the point-of-view the article on the constitution of Estonia – as created by Matrintg – exist to promote. This interpretation of history is relevant, as it forms the legal basis of the denaturalization (loss of citizenship) of the ethnically non-Estonian population carried out under Mart Laar's rule in 1992. At the time the share of Estonian speakers in Estonia was a little over 50%.

The opposing view, shared by Estonia's Russophone minority as well as modern Russian historiography is that the non-violent anti-authoritarian revolution in Estonia in June 1940 (known as Juunipööre) preserved the legal continuity of the Estonian state, and thus the petition of the Riigikogu to join the Soviet Union on July 22 as the Estonian SSR was constitutional. This view also holds, that the renamed Republic of Estonia of 1990, under prime minister Edgar Savisaar, and the succeeding independent member state of the United Nations of 1991 – all the way to modern Estonia – represent a legal continuation of the Estonian SSR (and thus its Soviet constitution.) Some on this side would argue, that the rise to power of Mart Laar and the constitutional changes that followed were a coup d'etat, carried out to pursue a racist national policy. People holding these views will argue that Estonia practices an apartheid policy by disenfranchising and discriminating against its minorities.

The conflict between these two opposing constitutional views reached a climax in April 2007, with violent civil disturbance. The events also brought in a large number of new editors to Wikipedia, initially to edit war over the article Bronze Soldier, with some of them continuing in disputes that eventually resulted in the EEML arbcom case. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. – I have redirected Constitution of the Estonian SSR to Constitution of Estonia. However, I cannot see how the article could accurately reflect the needs of this redirect with Martintg anywhere near the article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update – Apart from the historical dispute of the continuity of the Constitution of Estonia and its reflection on present-day ethnic violence, there is the question if the undisputed post-1992 constitution is in fact a tool of oppression used by an apartheid government. I am not going to provide reliable sources as I will only show that a dispute exists. Here is one that came up from the on-line forum on Pravda with an English translation of Russian sources. UN report- Estonia is a racist, apartheid state – Quote: UNITED NATIONS again reminds about its apprehension those that in article 48 of constitutions of Estonia the participation in the political party is permitted only to the citizens of the country. The underlying claim seems to be that Estonia is a racist, apartheid state and the 1992 constitution of Estonia is instrumental in creating this system of apartheid. There is thus no need to go into the history to show that the constitution is part of an ethnic dispute in Eastern Europe. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...some more on the 1992 constitution.

The lead section of the article Constitution of Estonia should in fact contain text on the following lines.

The purpose of the new constitution adapted in 1992 is to transform Estonia into a mono-lingually Estophone monocultural entity. Opponents of the constitution argue, that it is a racist tool of oppression targeted at Estonia's Russophone population, and the foundation of Estonia's policy of "apartheid".

I will not be providing any sources, as I have no intention of editing the article. A quick Google search in English provides some interesting results, including this opinion by Edward Lucas: eSStonia. I am not endorsing anything that Lucas is saying, but he is making a strong argument that a ethnic dispute exists – and that, any dispute about Estonia, be it about the constitution or whatever, will follow ethnic lines. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Biophys – You are in fact arguing, that Martintg should be allowed to edit the Bronze Soldier, as it is about a statue, but not the Bronze Nights as it about an ethnic dispute. I cannot agree with you. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Collect

This appears to be "topic ban extension shopping" at best. The comments did not address Eastern Europe as a topic, and the extension of Digwuren has reached the level of putting a size 20 foot into a sixe 9 shoe. The nature of each editor's personal biases is irrelevant - there is no case to be made for stretching Digwuren even further. Note: I am banned from editing the London Victory Parade article which I have never even read, as a result of the spandex topic bans. Collect (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Offliner

A few weeks ago Martintg was blocked for a week for a massive violation of his topic ban. Additionally, former arbitrator FloNight urged Martintg to step back from pov contributions in the Eastern European topic area.[24] Based on the current AE report, and especially this edit one has to question whether Martintg has learned anything from his latest block. The edit inserts text when the Soviet Union occupied Estonia, which clearly is a POV contribution about the topic of Occupation of the Baltic states, one of the main EE disputes and battlegrounds. The edit is similar to what Martintg was already blocked for. It seems that—contrary to ArbCom's demands—Martintg has failed to disengange from the battleground, and is continuing to violate his topic ban. Offliner (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to AGK. This edit relates to the national dispute about the occupation of Estonia, with the other side claiming that Estonia being joined to the Soviet Union constitutes an occupation, while the other claims that it does not. The topic is the same for which Martintg was already blocked for (mainly this edit.) Please see this thread for details. Offliner (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Martintg

In my opinion, this is too broad understanding of the topic ban. Although User:Justus Maximus edited only two articles, both of which had a relation to Communism, he is a newbie, so it would be premature to speak about him as about an anti-Communist SPA. In his posts Martin has been focused only on the way User:Justus Maximus was being treated, not on the content of his edits. He carefully avoided any content disputes. In my opinion, it would be hardly correct to speak about violation of the topic ban. In any event, even if it is the case, this violation is rather tangential, so a warning would be quite sufficient.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I concur with Paul Siebert here. It seems unduly harsh and possibly counterproductive to interpret a topic ban as extending into discussions about other users, merely because said users have been themselves banned in relation to a somewhat-distantly-related topic. I think the MartinG's arguments on Justus Maximus's behalf may actually help JM to understand that the action taken against him wasn't due to his viewpoint, but to his behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martintg is not topic-banned from articles about Eastern Europe, see here. I guess that is the reason why TFD was unable to link the appropriate ArbCom decision, as required for enforcement. In any case, I hope that this time a deeply involved administrator will not abuse his administrative rights and quickly enforce a highly dubious extremely harsh block without support from other administrators, like it happened before (why does he even have admin right after such major violation is beyond my understanding). --Sander Säde 08:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could we stop with this nonsense now? There is nothing controversial in articles about Mart Laar and Constitution of Estonia - this can easily be seen from the fact that there are not even unreliable sources claiming any controversies. This is just an attempt to silence or drive Martin away from Wikipedia. Martin has agreed to stay away from further attempts to defuse issues peacefully, I recommend an official ArbCom warning for both TFD and Petri Krohn (perhaps an interaction ban - or ban from ArbCom and AN/I pages?) for repeated attempts to misuse arbitration enforcement to resolve personal and content issues. --Sander Säde 21:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re to AGK. I suggest to quote accurately this According to Arbcom motion, Martintg "is topic banned from articles about national, cultural, or ethnic disputes...". This article is about constitution. Of course any political or historical subject is related to numerous conflicts (consider US constitution, for example). Such an extended interpretation would prohibit Martintg from editing any historic/political subjects in Eastern Europe. If that was Arbcom intention, this should be explained to Martintg and other users who have similar sanctions.Biophys (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People, how about helping your colleague to resume productive editing, instead of looking for every excuse to report him to AE? This battleground must stop.Biophys (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly second that last comment, Biophys. AGK 20:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is obvious. The modified editing restriction by Arbcom is well-intended and can work in a friendly atmosphere. If one thinks that "Estonian constitution" might be a violation of ban, why would not one discuss this with Martintg? In fact, I left Martintg a notice a couple of weeks ago that he should not edit "Communist terrorism" article (violation or not) because that will bring him and Marlnutley a trouble. But Estonian constitution looks a legitimate subject to me, so I would not even bother... Biophys (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rsp to AGK - no, there is nothing controversial about Mart Laar and Constitution of Estonia, which can clearly be seen from lack of any kind of sources in Offliner's and Petri's claims, not to mention, solid, peer-reviewed sources in major scientific journals. The claim that Mart Laar's book was banned in Germany is simply an untruth.
As for Martintg's previous block, it was a clear-cut case of administrative abuse. At the time when the only non-involved administrator expressed worries about quality of evidence against Martin and suggested him to stop editing those articles or he might get a warning, an admin deeply involved in WP:EEML case (who also was against partial lifting of the Martin's topic ban) blocked Martin in what must be a record time in closing arbitration enforcement case. And since it was Martin's first offense, a standard procedure would have been a warning, especially considering the weak evidence. Second offense would get 12 or 24h ban. But the admin blocked Martin immediately for a week. Like I've said before, I do not know why his administrative rights were not immediately removed after such blatant misuse.

--Sander Säde 08:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sander: What do you say to User:TFD at #Reply to AGK, re: "Constitution of Estonia" and to User:Offliner at #Statement by Offliner, after "Response to AGK"? AGK 20:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case of TFD, note "Soviet Union considered Estonia..." and "Soviets considered the Soviet constitution to be de jure ...". There are no modern scholars in the Western world who support this view, only couple of local-importance Soviet apologists. Hence there is really no dispute. I would recommend creating a separate article about the constitution of the Estonian Soviet Republic, in case someone thinks it is needed - I don't think it is, as the constitutions of Soviet republics were pretty much copy-paste material.

As for Offliner... I would recommend to stop this battleground mentality immediately. Again, there are no modern Western scholars of law or history who dispute the occupation - quite the opposite, the case is often used as a textbook example of a military occupation. This has been discussed in-depth in the talk page of Occupation of the Baltic States - and at best so far there are some sources who fail to use "occupation", no scholarly sources whatsoever which claim there was no occupation. Of course, Russia's official view is that Baltic states joined Soviet Union voluntarily, but even historians in Russia (e.g. Roy Medvedev, the grand old man of history) do not support that view.

I heartily recommend reading the link to the Pravda.ru web forum that Petri gave. I don't think I've never seen the level of racism as in that forum before (actually, lying here - I remember seeing a Russian forum which called to kill all people in Baltic states as they are "nazis") - and this is the best source for Estonia being a "racist, apartheid state", a web forum mentioning UN report which according to a post in the thread actually doesn't exist... I don't think further comments are necessary.
--Sander Säde 21:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I heartily recommend reading Petri's latest link, a blog post by Edward Lucas, which concludes:

“ Fifteen years on, Estonia's policy may be too tough, or just right, or even too lax. Compared to most European countries’ citizenship laws, it is quite generous. In any event, calling it “apartheid” is not only nonsensical, but stupidly insulting, to a country that has responded with intelligence and restraint to a devastating historical injury. ”

Of course, Lucas doesn't mention the constitution at all, he discusses the citizenship law. I think that Petri's arguments would only win if he would read the sources he links to, perhaps then he would also stop using Holocaust denialist web pages as sources for Wikipedia, as it has happened a couple of times recently.
--Sander Säde 21:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to Petri Krohn's "I have made every effort not to cross paths on or off Wikipedia with Martintg or his Eastern European supporters," Petri made it a point to stalk me and level accusations of bad faith at Sandstein's talk and Shell Kinney's talk—where I was pursuing options for putting conflict in the past—culminating in Petri leveling blatantly false allegations of outing attempting to get me blocked, followed by his attempts to cover up his own self-outing on-Wiki edits. Diffs have been provided prior. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you will note I have not filed an AE or AN/I over Petri's [I'll leave you to fill in the blank, I'd rather not be rude] behavior, but as I have noted elsewhere, even my personal commitment to moving forward from conflict can tolerate only so much abuse. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Martintg

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

See User talk:Martintg#WP:AE.23Request concerning Martintg. Martintg has agreed to concede the point, at least as regards to his actions during the remainder of his topic ban. The ban expires on 22 December. I asked him to "voluntarily agree to absent yourself from any unblock review proceedings (or in ANI discussions or on any admin talk pages) where the person involved has recently edited any article or subject matter on your banned list." Based on his agreeing to this, I recommend that the enforcement request should be closed with no further action. EdJohnston (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, Petri Krohn may be expanding his statement. He has more issues besides Martintg's participation in the unblock discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Petri Krohn and others

Can you create a list of articles from which you think Martintg should be restricted during the remainder of his topic ban, that would avoid the problems you identify? Do you think he should avoid editing anything to do with Estonia during WW II? In your opinion does this prevent him from writing about the Constitution of Estonia? EdJohnston (talk) 06:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive70#Result concerning Martintg, which closed on 3 October with a 1-week block of Martintg. I find myself agreeing with the admins who closed that one that Martintg's editing of State continuity of the Baltic states was improper. I am not quite convinced by the people bringing this case that he can't edit Constitution of Estonia, though I could be persuaded otherwise. The admins in the 3 October case seemed unhappy with Martintg's general behavior at that time, and I see their concern. However, I'm not seeing enough problems for a new block of Martintg at this point or for any additional restrictions. So I would be willing to close this case with no further action. Per my comment at the top of this section, he's already agreed to behave as though his topic ban covers unblock discussions, which was the original reason for bringing this case. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marting has edited the article Constitution of Estonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article which it is claimed relates to "national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe" (as prohibited by Arbitration motion). For the benefit of me and other administrators not intimately familiar with the subject matter of the conflicts of Eastern Europe, an explanation is required as to how that article does relate to the specified disputes.
If it is demonstrated that the article does relate to the historical disputes in question and so for Marting to edit the article would constitute a violation of his topic ban, I would be minded to propose a two-week block for the infringement (with the absence of leniency in the length of that block being owned to the fact that Marting was blocked for violating his topic ban not even one month ago). AGK 21:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Biophys' 22:08, 1 November 2010 comment: Um, yes, I see that, and that's what I quoted. Unless I'm missing something, you just said "you quoted that wrong, the arbitration motion says this: …", then quoted precisely what I said.
On a general note: Thanks for the responses from everybody. I'll read through them all, then comment further. If any other uninvolved sysops have a comment to make, now would be an ideal time to jump in. AGK 20:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys: Thanks, that makes more sense. AGK 20:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure whether AGK is planning to make a further comment. My own inclination at this point, if I am the one who closes, is to say that the original complaint that Martin unwisely participated in an unblock discussion has been addressed by his voluntary agreement to the wider interpretation of his ban. The allegation about Constitution of Estonia is a new issue raised by Petri. This may reflect unclarity in the editing restriction, since I don't know whether Constitution of Estonia is about a dispute. I am inclined to close this with no action, not ruling out a new filing about Constitution of Estonia. If there is a new filing, I'd expect more data as to whether the current restriction is adequately holding down disputes in this topic area. I don't see any actual edit war at Constitution of Estonia. I note that WP:AE does not lose jurisdiction to consider Martin's editing on 22 December, when the official Arbcom ban expires, since AE could impose a new restriction if it is shown to be necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

Most recent IP blocked. This is not the place to request "high-level contacts" from WMF.

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

Request concerning Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

User requesting enforcement: Pfagerburg (talk) 03:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey#Jeffrey Vernon Merkey banned

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

The IP's listed in the most recent sockpuppet investigation have been making baseless accusations of sockpuppetry against me. Due to the articles which the IP's have edited, their obsession with tagging an IP in Canada as being me (though the sockmaster knows full well I live in Colorado), and the geolocation corresponding with the sockmaster's recently self-reported location, these are ban-evading sockpuppets of banned user Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs), and should be blocked.

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

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Block IP's listed in the SPI. High-level contact from Wikimedia Foundation to the ISP to inform them of the abuse originating from one of their subscribers.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: As also noted in the SPI, I am under an interaction ban with socks of banned user Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs), but the terms of the ban explicitly allow me to report socks to administrative boards.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35] Pfagerburg (talk) 03:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

Statement by Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

Comments by others about the request concerning Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

Result concerning Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

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

Most recent IP blocked. If you want "high-level" contact from WMF you are at the wrong page. T. Canens (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oclupak

Oclupak is banned indefinitely from the topic of the September 11 attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Oclupak

User requesting enforcement: Acroterion _(talk) 13:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: At Talk:September 11 attacks, # [36], in support of recent IP vandalism [37], [38] and [39]. It is clear that Oclupak supports disruption of the article talkpage (edit summary a kind of vandalism that can be justified, as all other avenues to bring about a NPOV have been tried), and that he is not able to edit 9/11-related topics without promoting his view that "it is a kind of vandalism that can be justified" and "this article promotes exclusively the official propaganda of the U.S. government."
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

[40] Warning by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Minimum 3-month topic ban from 9/11-related topics, broadly construed, enforceable by blocking. Given the opinion expressed in the diff, I see little hope that this editor can ever edit on 9/11 related topics.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: @ T. Canens, this is just the most recent occurrence in a pattern of behavior that indicates that Oclupak is not able to respect community norms in this matter. He otherwise seems to be a productive editor, so I have to believe that he understands the likely consequences of his support for outright vandalism. Acroterion _(talk) 13:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [41]

Discussion concerning Oclupak

Statement by Oclupak

I have nothing to add to what I already said. It will all come down to this: if the administrators who will pass judgement on this incident are of the same clique as Tarage, MONGO and Acroterion, they will blindly follow their suggestion and ban me from all 9/11-related articles. If, on the other hand, they are genuinely impartial, and if they investigate the matter, even superficially, they will come to realize that this article has been hijacked a long time ago by editors who tolerate no other POV but their own and that the claimed consensus for their approach only exists because, one by one, all opposing views have either been banned or have quit Wikipedia in disgust. The result is the vandalism we are witnessing right now which is apparently the only way available to express a dissenting view to this extremely biased article. If the responsible administrators do not find a reasonable and equitable solution to this situation, what can they expect if not even more vandalism in the future? I'm sure IP 174.89.59.40 would have had something worthwhile to contribute to the 9/11 article and that his acts of vandalism are the result of being blocked systematically with weasel arguments at every attempt before he resorted to this. Oclupak (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Oclupak

If, on the other hand, they are genuinely impartial, and if they investigate the matter, even superficially, they will come to realize that this article has been hijacked a long time ago by editors who tolerate no other POV but their own and that the claimed consensus for their approach only exists because, one by one, all opposing views have either been banned or have quit Wikipedia in disgust. Editor seems to fail to realize that wikipedia is not here for him to spread the truth, but to report what mainstream, scientific concensus. 9/11 conspiracy theories have been universally debunked and are fringe. Soxwon (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting this kind of vandalism is simply unacceptable. On Wikipedia, subjects such as Evolution, the Holocaust, Climate Change, Barack Obama's religion and birthplace, Alien abduction etc. all have in real life substantial numbers of people who believe, often fervently and with the greatest conviction, that the "official version" is not correct, and that moreover, there is a conspiracy to stop the truth coming out, and that most key "official" evidence has been doctored somehow. 9/11 conspiracy theorists may find it difficult to accept that as far as Wikipedia policy on fringe ideas goes, they are in much the same company as these people (although some clearly cross over into a couple of the other areas quite happily). Such discomfort is not a reason to change Wikipedia policy regarding the use of the best reliable sources. I feel particularly strongly about this because the current vandalism has led necessarily to the talkpage being semi-protected, which is always a regrettable event. Encouraging such behaviour shows contempt for Wikipedia processes rather than a desire to make them better, and, as suggested by Soxwon above, an open attempt to abuse Wikipedia for political ends. Oclupak has been on Wikipedia for a while now; he should by now have learnt that encouraging vandalism (and no one questions that it is vandalism) is thoroughly out of order. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say? I knew he would be back to his old tricks. I would have been one one to make this request had Acroterion not done it first. This user simply does not understand, will never understand, and will continue this inappropriate behavior. Wikipedia loses nothing with his removal. --Tarage (talk) 09:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Oclupak

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

Since the editor seems unlikely to follow Wikipedia policies concerning conspiracy theories, especially 9/11, I recommend that he be topic banned from articles and talk pages concerning the September 11 attacks, and from any discussion of that topic on other pages. The ban would be indefinite. EdJohnston (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite hesitant to impose any sanction, let alone an indefinite topic ban, for a single comment that, as far as I can tell, caused no disruption by itself. We are not (or at least should not be) in the business of banning people solely for expressing unpopular viewpoints on the talk page. But this is clear disruption, and on the basis of that diff, I concur with the proposal for an indefinite topic ban. Indefinite is not infinite, and in the unlikely event this user can demonstrate their ability to edit in accordance with our guidelines, they can always appeal the ban. T. Canens (talk) 04:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing a pattern of consistent tendentious editing that has not ceased since I gave my warning. I think that Ed's idea is a good one. NW (Talk) 04:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the additional data. After hearing the views of the other admins I'm imposing an indefinite ban of User:Oclupak from articles and talk pages concerning the September 11 attacks, and from any discussion of that topic on other pages. The ban will be logged at WP:ARB911. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gilabrand

Gilabrand restricted to 1RR until the end of January

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

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

Request concerning Gilabrand

User requesting enforcement: Nableezy 15:03, 2 November 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: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

[42] Removes material that is the subject of intense discussion on the talk page. The user has not made a single comment on the talk page
[43] Removes tag that is the subject of discussion on the talk page. The user has not made a single comment on the talk page.
[44] Removes tag that is the subject of discussion on the talk page, discussion that even includes discussion of why the tags should not be removed. The user has not made a single comment on the talk page.
Reverts an edit discussed extensively on the talk page. No reason given in the edit summary and the user has not made a single comment on the talk page.

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

[45] notified of case

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Gilabrand has repeatedly reverted without discussion on a number of pages. Trying to get this user to explain their reverts is more difficult than getting a baby to explain relativity. It is not possible to engage in a good faith discussion about a dispute when users refuse to discuss the dispute and when they deny that a dispute even exists, as seen in the repeated removal of tags placed and discussed on talk pages.

I think the self-rv was enough and request that this be considered withdrawn. nableezy - 07:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [46]

Discussion concerning Gilabrand

Statement by Gilabrand

Nableezy has again succeeded in throwing a wrench into the works. After the tags were reverted by other editors, I copyedited the article to remove all sources of dispute. After this cleanup, I removed the tags believing that contentious statements on both sides were no longer there and the tags were no longer necessary. Instead, Shuki reinserted a poorly worded POV section that I deleted, and Nableezy popped an artery because he wanted all the SYNTH and OR put back so that he could fight some more. He then added not two, but three tags, for spite. I reverted them with an edit summary explaining my actions. It may have been impolite, I agree, but nothing compared to the rude, threatening and vulgar comments that Nableezy spouts non-stop, as he snoops around for opportunities to wreak havoc in this project. Just seeing his name on a page is enough to scare people away. I am sorry for leaving that edit summary. I am sorry I edited the page. I am sorry for being so naive as to think that I could stop the fighting on a page where Nableezy's name appears. I restored the tags and the way is now clear for Nableezy to continue doing whatever it is he does. As I said, it's a free world.--Geewhiz (talk) 05:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "creative solutions" below regarding sanctions on my editing will certainly make Nableezy very happy. But you might as well delete my account right now, because I do not intend to leave 50 word messages about every sentence I change. My interest is in improving articles on Wikipedia, not wikilawyering with the likes of "editors" who are probably 90 weaklings in real life who are using this site to terrorize others. Please check the records to see how many articles I have expanded, copyedited and upgraded over the last several months, and don't forget to check Nableezy's record, which includes not a single valuable contribution to ANY article on Wikipedia. Yes, he has been busy, adding controversial tags, hunting down sockpuppets, masquerading as an administrator with the power to "block accounts immediately," threatening new editors, engaging in edit-wars with perceived opponents, and wasting everybody's time and energy reporting people endlessly on boards such as this. His commandeering of articles by placing multiple tags on them and not allowing anyone to touch them from that point on is outrageous, and administrators who side with this behavior by imposing sanctions on those who are trying to help need to think again. --Geewhiz (talk) 06:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Gilabrand

Comment by Shuki This is a extremely lame and quite frivolous. Frankly, I questioned one of the edits myself, but thank God I'll AGF Gilabrand anyday given her experience in copyediting articles to better English then most of us and NPOV. Gilabrand was just being WP:BOLD. Big deal. Nableezy has been warned about about bringing frivolous reports to AE. --Shuki (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Comment by NickCT Fairly unabashed WP:BATTLEGROUNDing. Not really all that surprising given the editors history. nableezy has a point with the whole "commenting on talk page" thing. If you want to WP:BATTLEGROUND at least try to make some excuse on the article's talk page. NickCT (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Supreme Deliciousness: It seems as the lifting and shortening of Gilabrands 3 month block and six month topic ban, did not help her behaviour: [47] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by AgadaUrbanit: How it seems when it's not? I think we should leave Gila alone. There is a consensus for her edit. She made a single edit on the discussed page, took part in discussion and had an intellectual decency to self revert. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:41, 2 November 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.

Gilabrand has backed away from the dispute, which obviates a need for action at this time. However the sarcastic tone of comments at Talk:Psagot is not a good sign. An editor who would be operating under a topic ban if it had not been lifted needs to be very careful about tendentious editing, and Gilabrand has not been careful enough here. Looie496 (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are we saying that GIlibrand is off the hook because of this single revert? I would prefer to see her make an actual promise to stop edit warring on this article. If not, restoring the topic ban might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the editing on both sides has been lame, with a pointless edit war over tags. Also, there's a centralized discussion over the legality issues, which is nearing completion, so I've protected the article. Although I disapprove of Nableezy's hyperbole, a restriction to require Gilabramd to explain her edits along with a 1RR per day could be helpful. PhilKnight (talk) 23:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both suggestions: the 1RR and the required explanations. I hope the explanation will be better than Gilabrand's 2nd-last edit summary: "No dear, the problems have been addressed and all statements are sourced so go take a hike". Her explanation should be on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I propose the following wording, then - taken, mutatis mutandis, from an ARBMAC sanction imposed by Stifle (talk · contribs):

Gilabrand (talk · contribs) is limited to one revert per rolling 24-hour period per article on all articles within the area of conflict, as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict, for 3 months. Furthermore, they are required to discuss any reverts they do make on the talk page in a minimum of 50 words, in English, within 30 minutes of the revert.

I think 3 months is a reasonable starting point. Feel free to suggest alternate durations. T. Canens (talk) 05:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 months is perfectly sensible. Personally, I'd say until the end of January, if only because it's easier for admins who watchlist the pages to remember, but that's entirely up to you. While I think there should be a requirement to explain edits, I don't consider a 50 word minimum to be necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Very well. Under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, Gilabrand (talk · contribs) is limited to one revert per rolling 24-hour period per article on all articles within the area of conflict, as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict, until 00:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC). Furthermore, they are required to discuss any reverts they do make on the talk page, in English, within 30 minutes of the revert, excepting reverts of obvious (as in, obvious to someone who has no knowledge of the subject) vandalism, as defined in WP:VAND. T. Canens (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy withdrew his complaint. Why are you continuing this discussion??????--Geewhiz (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I missed legality revert which was made without discussion on talk page. This is a disruptive behavior. I guess admins are fair here, Gila. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy

No admin action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Nableezy

User requesting enforcement: No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:48, 2 November 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: [48] 1RR restriction, Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions

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

[49] 1st revert
[50] 2nd revert

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

[51] notified of case.

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: In the past 6 months or so, Nableezy has been [52]

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

Something is not working here.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [53]

Discussion concerning Nableezy

Statement by Nableezy

The first "revert" listed is not a revert, it is an edit. Could NMMNG please explain what version of the page I reverted to? Shuki initially made an edit to that page. I modified, not removed or reverted, that edit so that it properly reflected the source cited. There is not a single version of that page that resembles my rewrite of Shuki's edit. This is one of the reasons that reports at AN3 have to show what version of the page the edit reverted to. No such version exists here and no definition of the word "revert" applies to my initial edit. nableezy - 20:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand it, a revert is anything that changes content another editor put in the article, per WP:3RR: A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what material did I "reverse" "in whole or in part"? By this definition any edit to existing material is a "revert". nableezy - 21:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EJ, could you please tell me why I should be sanctioned for making a single revert when I am restricted to 1 revert? How many reverts did I make? What edit did the first revert listed here "revert"? nableezy - 21:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is truly retarded. I replaced "Palestinians and left-wing activists intentionally vandalizing trees with saws in order to accuse settlers" with "Palestinians had destroyed trees with the intention of blaming settlers for the destruction.". You are going to call the first edit a revert because not every word Shuki wrote was kept. Fine, block me, but that is idiotic. nableezy - 21:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to expand on why this is idiotic. EdJohnston says that I removed, in my initial edit, the phrase "intentionally vandalizing trees with saws." It is true that I changed the sentence "Palestinians and left-wing activists intentionally vandalizing trees with saws in order to accuse settlers" to "Palestinians had destroyed trees with the intention of blaming settlers for the destruction." I then also added a direct quote from the source which says the following: 'According to Yedioth Ahranoth, photos taken by the group "allegedly show Palestinians and left-wing activists cutting down Palestinian olive trees using an electric saw".' So I included that the trees were cut down with a saw. The only part of the phrase that I am accused of removing that actually isnt in my edit is "intentionally vandalized". I replaced "intentionally vandalized" with "destroyed". Because of this replacement I supposedly made a revert. This effectively says that every copy-edit of any edit, no matter how awkwardly worded or nonsensical the original, is by definition a revert if any word is replaced. My edit has as a section title that these are claims of "staged vandalism", including even that word. To call the first edit a revert opens up an insanely wide definition of a revert, a definition that I certainly will remember for any future AE or AN3 report. Change any word and its a revert, thats the rule you are making. nableezy - 00:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its nice having fans, it really is. As much as I would like to respond to some of the mindless droning below, I would instead like to focus on the topics that matters here. If I made 2 reverts I should be blocked, if I did not I shouldnt. There is a restriction on the number of reverts I may make, I acknowledge that and I have been scrupulous in abiding by it. I would like EdJohnston to clarify his reasons for calling the first edit a revert. My edit included a portion of the phrase he says I removed. Is it his position that the changing of the words "intentionally vandalized" to "destroyed", for the first time, constitutes a revert? nableezy - 03:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, I would like to ask a question. If there were a 0RR, would there be no changes allowed to any text? That once material is added it cannot be modified in any way? nableezy - 06:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is decided that my first edit was a revert then fine, I should be sanctioned. But to define that first edit as a revert opens up the definition of the term way past what has been used at AN3 and AE in the past, and if that is the definition used here it is the definition I will expect admins to enforce for every future AE or AN3 request I make. But can yall get to the point and make a decision already? Either that or restrict the ability of my many fans from filling the below section with the babbling that largely characterizes it? I can ignore it for only so long before a response to some of the more asinine comments will be necessary. nableezy - 16:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, if pointless edit warring over tags from editors who've in the past have edited far more constructively is a reference to me, allow me to explain. I have just about given up trying to actually deal with the content. Any correction to the inaccurate or biased material that fills the articles in the topic area made by me is summarily reverted by a number of users. So I place a tag and discuss the issues, vainly hoping to either convince the other party and have them make the corrections or have a third party evaluate the discussion and do the same. Apparently I cant even do that anymore as even tags placed are summarily removed by POV-pushing accounts that demand that not only their biased view be the only one included but further demand that there cannot even be mention of the fact that their biased view is the only one included. nableezy - 21:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezy

- NOTE: Countering bad editing with worse editing is a bad idea. I'm not saying WP:AGF can't be applied even after an editor was banned 4 months in the same year but Nableezy refuses to abide by wikipedia guidelines and is, if anything, an interruption to proper oversight. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Shuki Looie496, you got to be kidding. I have yet to see Nableezy work things out with anyone and that is why it is so frustrating to edit with him. Please bring examples of this collaborative behaviour you attribute to him. Honest. I'm waiting. As for maintaining neutrality, it exists but very rare. Nableezy is a SPA account to introduce negative information on Israeli articles and has virtually no interest in improving Arab articles. I have previously proposed a creative resolution instead of a block that he should concentrate on improving Palestinian articles and perhaps bringing them to good status rather than the sad state they are in now. Until then, you cannot ignore that no one on 'the other side' has a record in the past six months like Nableezy. --Shuki (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Chesdovi regarding Looie496 I find Looie’s comment worrying. I am blocked for 1 whole month after having a clear 4 year run for being “unable to edit from a neutral point of view.” (I have yet to be informed which of my edits compromised NPOV.) Nab has had ban after ban, restrictions and blocks in such frequency and is still deemed a viable editor? What message does this give to other editors, myself included, who get severe treatment without anything like the AE history Nab has managed to attain for himself. I am encouraged however, that you have not rushed to block Nab before a fair and comprehensive discussion has taken place. Chesdovi (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's worrying. I think it would be helpful if one of the more experienced admins could let us know if the attitude Looie496 is displaying below is compatible with how AE is supposed to work. I mean, do editors with multiple topic bans, editing restrictions and blocks in a topic under ArbCom discretionary sanctions get "more latitude"? And if it's impossible to give them more latitude, should editors of opposing POV be topic banned for no specific offense? I must have missed the discussion about all this. I think I dropped out at the point where an editor with a clean record for 4 years got blocked for a month because an admin wanted to "give a strong response". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you guys need to look at it a different way. I completely disagree with Looie496 and it isn't based on the 7 sanctions mentioned. It is on the 11 total (at least 1 reduced) and extensive block log. I do see what he is getting at, though. It is easy to assume that Nableezy is up against a wall and is either a necessary evil or fighting the good fight by countering hordes of POV editors. Whatever the reason, he has gotten away with much more than anyone else (see Chesdovi), continues to be tendentious in anything even mentioning the legality or boundaries of Israel, and won't stop slinging mud (calling others wikilawyers and made it clear that he meant it "in the most derogatory way" is my favorite recent one). I think he should have been banned months ago. He wasn't. And realistically, I don't think this potential violation was that bad. POV pushing (WP:WORDS!) yes but he did use the talk page. Like usual he doesn't appear to be interested in reaching consensus but at least he waited to make the last revert. So if we want to open a discussion on his overall editing then super. However, this incident probably isn't enough and I see why Looie might be hesitant. Realistically, a week block isn't near enough for Nableezy's transgressions so no block would be just as well, IMO. It won't matter since it will be appealed and lifted anyways. So this might as well be closed unless we are going to address the overall concerns and not this particular incident.Cptnono (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Epeefleche regarding Looie496

More than worrying. Looie’s comment is starkly belied by the facts. Even a brief review of his editing, or even his recent block history which is set forth above, reflect quite the opposite regarding this editor. In addition, Looie's particular comment that

"If Nableezy is taken out of action I am going to feel a need to topic-ban a number of other editors who are clearly incapable of editing neutrally without oversight, and that is a suboptimal solution"

is mildly outrageous. A clear violation of wp:admin.

Looie -- let me be clear ... You are not allowed to threaten editors that you will topic-ban them if Nableezy is sanctioned here. That is beyond the pale. A shocking threat from a sysop. It is a form of wheel warring; though you are not threatening to reverse the sanction, you are threatening to take an opposite (and more than equal) action in the face of the sanction being applied. It is clearly a threatened abuse of admin tools. If the editors are not subject to topic-ban today, they will not become so simply because Nableezy is sanctioned. If another editor decides to bring the issue of your threat here up at AN/I or elsewhere, kindly let me know, as I would like to contribute to such a discussion.

I would also note that this area is now one in which Looie has indicated he is involved, in that he has flagged for us his strong feelings about it, which he indicated will lead to him taking admin action against other editors if this editor is sanctioned. Involvement is generally construed very broadly, to include disputes on topics, regardless of the age or outcome of the dispute. It is best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved, as he has flagged himself as being here, that he pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by NickCT - More tit for tat arbitration. Note that the aggressive editing Gilabrand took part in above seems somewhat more sever than the technical 1RR violation nableezy stands accused of. NickCT (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Looie496 Just look at the edits that form the basis of this complaint, and then look at the source. It should be perfectly clear that the original version misrepresented the source, and that the version as Nableezy modified it was neutral and accurately represented the source. I am new to the I-P domain and haven't yet seen all that many examples of conflicts, but so far every example I have seen has followed this same pattern. I have little doubt that both sides would like to push their own point of view if they could, but so far every indication I have seen is that the Israeli side currently has the upper hand. Looie496 (talk) 02:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that your response reflects that you are taking to heart what I have said. I understand that you are new to this domain. Also that you are new to having admin responsibilities. Both facts militate, I would suggest, to you heeding my advice. As a new admin, you must exercise care in using your new functions. You may have reviewed these already, but if not you may find helpful the Administrators' how-to guide and the new administrator school, as well as the Administrators' reading list. As admin tools are also used with judgment, it can take some time for a new admin to learn when it's best to use the tools, and it can take months to gain a good sense of how long a period to set when using tools such as blocking in difficult disputes. New admins such as you are also strongly encouraged to start slowly, and build up experience on areas they are used to. Your approach seems to be somewhat at odds with that.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looie496, if you make a statement "that the Israeli side currently has the upper hand", it should be supported by differences as any strong statement is. Reading your posts I believe you should not be the one to handle the editors involved with I/P conflict articles.

About Nab, and 1RR in general. 1RR is imposed to stop editor edit warring. Nab never stopped edit warring. Only now he reverts in 25 hours instead of reverting in 24 hours. I believe topic ban should be imposed, during which Nab could concentrate on contributing on different topics. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, 25hrs looks like full-on borderlining to me. Again, it is a separate incident than this report. Of course, it could be argued that the tags should not have been removed anyways so again it would just be appealed and lifted again.Cptnono (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Looie -- As to your comment that" "In my opinion Nableezy is the main force maintaining any semblance of neutrality ... and needs to be given if anything more latitude rather than less. The system of Nableezy working things out with other editors ... is working reasonably well." I would suggest that you take a look at the string directly below this one. Perhaps we are discussing different editors?--Epeefleche (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Sol The policy in question specifies that a revert "reverses the actions of other editors". The first edit modifies and expands on the content, it doesn't reverse it. *Yawn* It's just another day in the hot I/P e-turf war. Someone spots Nableezy with a possible policy violation and the usual lynch mob arrives. The judge acquits and the crowd burns him in effigy. I'm amazed anyone volunteers to admin these things. Sol (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by VsevolodKrolikov (uninvolved editor) (I've never, as far as I recall, ever edited I-P pages and don't intend to start.) Nableezy's first edit was to what was clearly a POV representation as fact what the source itself called an allegation. He replaced with key quotations from the source. Is this a revert or an expansion? I think a certain generosity of interpretation is allowed, given what was changed. The second edit was clearly a revert, rather WP:OWNy and done aggressively, but I don't think a formal warning is merited (just a word from an uninvolved admin). Sanctions would be silly based on the evidence presented here, including user history.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Nsaum75 What nableezy is accused of is no different than what people from the "other side" have been accused of. However enforcement and sanctions often *appear* lopsided, casting doubt on the fairness of AE and the admins who manage it. In general, AE has become a tool used to punish those with opposing views and the baiting, gaming of the system, provocation and like must be stopped. Several admins have even as much as acknowledged this. However NOTHING has been done, and good, productive editors have been driven away because they do not want to become part of the "game". The "pro israel" side is just as guilty as the "other" side when it comes to creating a disruptive atmosphere. And the rampant sockpuppets on the "pro-Israel" side create animosity and only make the situation more clouded and complex. HOWEVER If those who manage these boards are incapiable or unwilling to apply uniform, firm, decisive action and make progress towards restoring editors' faith in the AE process, then perhaps it is time to recall some of the admins who regularly manage the boards, or at least find new leadership. Over the past few years I have watched I-P issues turn AE into a three-ring circus. I'm sure I am not the only one who has taken note of this, although it escapes me why I'm the only person who says anything. Maybe its fear of somehow being "punished" or "sanctioned" for bringing up one's concerns. I dont know...but I do know that the the lack of effective leadership here discredits Wikipedia and creates a vicious circle into which the admins are pawns of those who abuse the system. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 05:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by WookieInHeat while i find nableezy's approach to editing rather uncooperative in often making thinly veiled personal attacks and automatically assuming bad faith with other users (even in this very thread), i can't really be bothered with this case per se. regardless, thought i would offer an opinion on looie496's comment below which generated many replies. i understand where looie is coming from, in that nableezy could be seen as providing balance against the opposing side. however the line "nableezy is the main force maintaining any semblance of neutrality" gave me a chuckle. nableezy openly displays his COI with the arab-israel subject on his user page; he may be a "balancing force" to some degree, but calling him a "neutral force" of any sort can only really be described as a bad joke. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wookie, you have twice, insultingly, characterised Looie496 as "loonie". Could you please strike and correct this? Thanks. --NSH001 (talk) 07:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

changed it, sorry my mistake, wasn't meant as an insult; honestly misread his name (it was 2 in the morning). i apologized to looie on his talk page for any offense i may have caused. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that it would be unjust to discipline Nableezy for not knowing that his edit constituted a revert when even a couple of admins (Timotheus, Mkativerata) don't come to that conclusion. Since he acted in good faith, maybe we should all just walk away better informed and on notice for the future. --JGGardiner (talk) 06:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to make clear that last message was a Comment. By me. JGGardiner. Sorry about that. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I make this comment to remark that I am grateful to you, JCGardiner, for making it clear that your above comment was a comment. AGK 16:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JGG that Nableezy acted in good faith here. Furthermore, it is perfectly clear that Nableezy's version is a much more accurate summary of the source than the one he changed. Are we really going to punish Nableezy for accurate editing? This is an enormous exercise in time-wasting, and should be closed with no sanction, other than a note to be more wary in future. --NSH001 (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QuestionPhilKnight, what are you going to topic ban Shuki for? It is Nab, who was edit warring, it is Nab, who violated 1RR. What Shuki, who hardly edited in the last month, has to do with it? Please compare Nab contributions to Shuki contributions. Nab made 500 contributions between October 21 and today. Shuki made 500 contributions between August 15 and today. See the difference? --Mbz1 (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shuki has made over 100 edits in the last week but I fail to see why you are even stating the numebr of edits unless you think it somehow adds to the weight of your arguments, which it clearly does not. Polargeo 2 (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm a bit curious too. I was not even part of this article edit war but admins are dragging me into it and talking about topic banning me??? --89.139.214.24 (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Nableezy

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

In view of the large number of sanctions already issued for this editor in 2010, I suggest that there should be a one-week block for the 1RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the two reverts: Twice, on October 31, Nableezy removed from the article the phrase "intentionally vandalizing trees with saws." The definition of a revert is given in WP:EW. It means undoing the work of another editor. Removing words previously added meets the definition. EdJohnston (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't agree. In my opinion Nableezy is the main force maintaining any semblance of neutrality in this and a number of other articles, and needs to be given if anything more latitude rather than less. The system of Nableezy working things out with other editors such as Shuki and Cptnono is working reasonably well. If Nableezy is taken out of action I am going to feel a need to topic-ban a number of other editors who are clearly incapable of editing neutrally without oversight, and that is a suboptimal solution. Looie496 (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot agree with Looie. If the AE process is to have any credibility, we must not show favors one way or another. Mitigating factors - such as baiting, provocation, enforcing consensus, correcting obvious misrepresentation, etc., can and should be taken into account in deciding upon any sanction; but no editor is (or should be) indispensable, and showing favors in this way only destroys the credibility of the AE process. If others are being disruptive, they can and should be sanctioned, but that is not a reason to not to impose sanctions on this editor if a violation is established.
That said, I think EdJohnston took the definition of revert too literally. The definition should be interpreted with common sense - for under a literal interpretation even adding material that has never been there is a revert, as it "reversed" the implicit decision not to include it. That is nonsensical. I think the first edit cannot be fairly characterized as a revert, and therefore this request should be dismissed on that ground. T. Canens (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having thought this over, I agree with T. Canens regarding whether there was a 1RR violation. PhilKnight (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I accept Nableezy's characterisation of the first edit as not being a revert. Taken literally every tweak would be a revert. In addition - though this has little bearing on whether 1RR has been breached - the edit appears to have been completely justified. I agree with Timotheus Canens above that this AE request should be decided on the no-breach ground rather than for the reasons suggested by Looie. Right or wrong as they may be, they don't justify a 1RR breach and seem to have provoked unnecessary distractions in the sections above.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked to comment here on my talk page by PhilKnight. I agree with EdJohnston that both edits are reverts because they undo - at least partially - the edit by Shuki immediately preceding them. This must have been clear to an editor of Nableezy's experience: WP:3RR provides that "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors," (in this case, Shuki) "in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word." According to that policy definition, every tweak is indeed a revert, as Mkativerata says. I disagree with T.Canens that under that definition even "even adding material that has never been there is a revert", because in that case there is no action by others that is undone. Consequently the request is actionable. I also disagree with Looie496 that the perceived impact on the editing environment must be taken into account, because the 1RR restriction (to be enforced here) did not include any socially gameable exception of that sort. Topic-banning "a number of other editors who are clearly incapable of editing neutrally" sounds like a pretty good solution to me. Since I'm taking a break from AE, I'll not take enforcement action myself, but frankly, if such clear-cut violations of validly imposed sanctions are not acted upon, you may just as well shut down this board.
I'm also amazed at the palaver going on here: the point of AE is not to arrive at a consensus solution, but to give individual admins a basis on which to take action, like WP:AIV. If any admin believes that the conditions for action are met, they are free to go ahead and act. This sort of discussion can then take place, if needed, on appeal. No need to have it twice. Sandstein 06:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thanks to Sandstein for commenting. Regarding Looie's comment, if a sanction was perceived to be overly stringent, then I'd prefer to block or ban anyway, followed by modifying the restriction to 2RR/day or whatever. However, in this case, I don't consider there's a problem with the sanction, more a problem with a number of editors who are incapable of editing neutrally. I agree with Sandstein, issuing topic bans sounds like a pretty good solution. I'm inclined to topic ban Nableezy and Shuki until the end of the year, but allow involvement with centralized discussions at WP:IPCOLL. PhilKnight (talk) 12:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having posted the above comment earlier today, and thought it over, I'm less certain about giving Nableezy and Shuki equal topic bans. PhilKnight (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not obvious from the face of the request the ground for a topic ban on either party, since we seem to agree that there is no 1RR violation, so diffs would be helpful. T. Canens (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm no longer intending to issue topic bans. However, I'm concerned there seems to be a general deterioration in the I-P editing, such as pointless edit warring over tags from editors who've in the past have edited far more constructively. PhilKnight (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh, I agree with that. T. Canens (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Sandstein that both the first and second edits constituted a reversion. An editor is placed on a 1RR/2RR prohibition because it has been demonstrated that they are consistently unable to engage in constructive consensus-building through editing; for that reason, I am disinclined to show leniency here. AGK 16:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Mkativerata. I do not concur with Sandstein. I view a robotic literal interpretation of the finer points of policy wording (the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law) as a form of Wikilawyering, as if people are reaching for any excuse to impose a punishment. In the spirit of WP:3RR, I accept Nableezy's claim that the first edit was not a revert, but rather an attempt to be constructive, and I also allow the possibility that Nableezy was unaware of the interpretation being bandied about above. I see no need to impose sanctions on someone who made a good faith edit while being completely aware of sanctions already in place. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Among the admins who commented, I do not see any consensus for action against Nableezy. Enforcement discussions don't become any wiser when they are open more than 48 hours. Suggest closing this. EdJohnston (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Epeefleche

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

Request concerning Epeefleche

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

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

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

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

[54] Removes tag discussed extensively on talk page without making any comments on talk page
[55] Again

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

[56] Notified of case

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [57]

Discussion concerning Epeefleche

Statement by Epeefleche

Nableezy fails to reflect the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by others about the request concerning Epeefleche

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

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

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

Comment by Greg L: Complainant writes Epeefleche twice removes a tag that explicitly says to not remove absent consensus for doing so, and he does so without making any comment on the talk page. I can’t see that this bit has a factual basis. The differences provided by complainant ([59] and [60]) resolve to the removal of {{Original research}} tags wherein the rendered tag on the page has no proviso about not removing the tag nor does the rendered code for the tag. I see there was an AfD tag there too, which states in the rendered banner that the tag is supposed to be removed only by an administrator. However, no differences were provided regarding respondent’s removal of AfD tag.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Result concerning Epeefleche

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

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

Nableezy, RolandR tag-team and obfuscation

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

Request concerning Nableezy, RolandR

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

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

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: [61] 1RR restriction, [62] gaming the system (see explanation) Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions

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

[63] Blind, reactionary "garbage" revert (after I disagreed with his promotion of fabricated material on Psagot).
[64] tag-team blind revert, calling the removal of picturesque wordings, and further edits "introduce POV assessment"
[65] The only response I received was from RolandR's handler following my request that he clarifies the blind revert. I say blind revert because, for example, he reinserted the false claim that Levy's parents were holocaust survivors - which was not in the supplied source and, best I'm aware, isn't true. Anyways, I posted a request for clarification [66] and this was my reward.
Side comment: Ravpapa also made a single quirky claim and vanished from the talkpage. I find it disturbing when editors game the system in this fashion but to his defense, he made no reverts.

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

In the past 6 months or so, Nableezy has been [67]

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: My concern is very great. Nableezy is not only playing games but still (after being banned 4 months for it) pushing "colonial" type descriptives towards Israeli localities,[68] completely ignores the input of fellow editors about bad sources and what is factual content [69] while making such commentaries as calling others "certain ultra right-wing nationalists"[70]

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

is

Discussion concerning Nableezy, RolandR

Statement by Nableezy

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

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

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

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

Statement by RolandR

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

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

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

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

Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezy, RolandR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Result concerning Nableezy, RolandR

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

Nableezy (civility)

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

Request concerning Nableezy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Realistically, there should not be this many AEs open here. I should't be putting this up for review. But in the midst of ongoing discussion here Nablezy made the comment and an admin closed the discussion without seeing it.[71] So add me to the list of editors about to get a topic ban. I feel that I have a good case for appeal if it comes to that. And if not, maybe a break is something that should be considered.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[72]

Discussion concerning Nableezy

Statement by Nableezy

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

Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezy

Statement by Epeefleche

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy

@T. Canens & Shell: Perhaps I can shed some light on the latest "flurry" of AE reports. Nableezy creates a hostile editing environment for people he doesn't agree with. He is deliberately uncivil. He bullies and provokes. He regularly calls people idiots and their opinions retarded. He tells them to fuck off. Most of us just try to stay away from him when possible. But when he reports someone like Gilabrand, who is an asset to this project, who has improved countless articles not only by copyediting but by adding huge amounts of content that makes this look like a real encyclopedia, for the sole reason that she didn't want to talk to him (which I personally find perfectly understandable considering his behavior) it just sticks in my craw. That is what caused me to file my first ever AE report. I now understand my report was not as clear cut as I thought (although not completely without basis I must add) and I would have not filed it had I known that was the case, but at some point people just say enough is enough and let's get rid of this nuisance. Nableezy's "colorful" block and restriction log is just the tip of the iceberg. Those are just the things that stuck. He has wikilawyered his way out of numerous complaints that would have probably got other users removed from the topic area. I still don't understand how he went from a complete two month topic ban in April, to a tailor-made one month ban on all locations in June, to a 1RR only on settlements in September. Aren't sanctions supposed to get harsher not more lenient? I think Looie496 in an above case gave us some insight into why that happens.[73] Is this really how things are supposed to work around here?
Enough. I don't know how many people Nableezy has chased off this project, but it is high time someone did something about this continuing disruption. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But seriously, if an administrator explains why he thinks something is a revert, and Nableezy replies with "That is truly retarded" [74] right on the arbitration enforcement board, and nobody says a word, I honestly no longer have any expectations that this problem will be solved anytime soon. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Boris, WP:NPA says these are personal attacks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Result concerning Nableezy

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

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

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

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

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

[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