Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive102

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Lutrinae[edit]

Socking dealt with by WilliamH. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
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 Lutrinae[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Sean.hoyland - talk 19:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Lutrinae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

University of Hawaii based Lutrinae (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive92#Lutrinae) who is also Modinyr, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive100#Modinyr) has returned to editing via dynamic IPs, some of which were included in the first AE report. The evidence for Lutrinae=Modinyr is here and here where Modinyr edited logged out as 132.160.54.149, another University of Hawaii IP.

Recent IP editing

For an added bonus they also appear to have access to what looks like the United States Army Information Systems Command (USAISC) server shafbc2.pac.army.mil (Special:Contributions/141.190.32.9) in Fort Shafter, Honolulu. It seems clear that it is the same person when you look at the combined contributions of the various IPs to

I think they have also just registered as That132IP presumably to continue to follow my edits related to this misinformation currently being discussed at User_talk:Soosim#Facts.

Their presence continues to be disruptive, abusive and politically motivated. Please shut them down once and for all, all accounts, all IPs. I don't see any evidence that range blocks would cause any collateral damage.

Okay, thanks. SPI it is next time then. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

User is IP hopping. Notified one IP[1]

Discussion concerning Lutrinae[edit]

Statement by Lutrinae[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Lutrinae[edit]

So let's see,

Thank you for sharing the valuable info above with the community, Sean. Should we prepare the launch pad for defending missiles, since we are aware now of US military Fort Shafter, Honolulu connection to plot against the Freedom of Wikipedia? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Tiamut

I think that SPI reports involving Editors previously sanctioned at AE should be posted or at least cross-posted here. Maybe then admins would begin to have a better understanding of hat it is we are dealing with in this topic area. As I said above (and as evidenced here by the comments of Cptnono), editors calling for Nableezy to be sanctioned, have often upheld, defended or encouraged edits by editors that are sockpuppets discovered/reported by Nableezy. Doesn't anyone else find this slightly suspicious or at the least disturbing? Why are established editors allowed to be harassed by sockpuppets and their enablers? Tiamuttalk 19:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Lutrinae[edit]

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

132.160.54.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked for 3 months. That132IP blocked indef. In the future report this to WP:SPI. T. Canens (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

  • CheckUser evidence suggests a somewhat  Likely match to Modinyr, a  Confirmed sock of Lutrinae, but the behavioural evidence pretty much confirms it.  IP blocked, nothing else to report. WilliamH (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy[edit]

No action taken. T. Canens (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Nableezy[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Ynhockey (Talk) 21:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Further_remedies
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

The following edits show the user violating the 1RR restriction linked to above, which in this case is also a violation of WP:3RR. Another anonymous editor also violated 1RR so any action taken against Nableezy IMO should also be taken against the anonymous user (even though there's no evidence that the anonymous user was aware of the ArbCom case, and did not also violate 3RR).

  1. [2] Reverting User:Two for the show
  2. [3] Possible revert of User:Brewcrewer (depends on your revert of definition)—entering slightly different content as a form of "undoing" the same edit as was reverted the previous time
  3. [4] Reverting anonymous editor claiming vandalism, even though the edit was clearly not vandalism and a discussion was ongoing
  4. [5] 2nd revert identical to previous
  5. [6] 3th identical revert
Additional evidence of recent edit warring and WP:GAMING

At Banias a new edit was made here[7] The edit was reverted twice by Nableezy within a span of 26 hours.

  1. @ 15:15 13 November[8]
  2. @ 17:11 14 November[9]

In addition to WP:GAMING, two things should be noted. First, Nableezy made these reverts whilst an AE for edit warring is outstanding against him thus demonstrating the contempt for which he views these proceedings. Second, at least once before, Nableezy was sanctioned for this very type of behavior, WP:GAMING[10]--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Evidence of tendentious and hateful editing
  1. Refers to Israelis as European colonizers.
  2. Refers to Israelis as European invaders.

The comments are revolting, hurtful and xenophobic in nature and should not have been uttered by any editor and this is especially true of an editor who chooses to focus his edits exclusively on I-P--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

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

While the remedy does not require warnings specifically, Nableezy is aware of the ArbCom case and its remedies, as (partially) shown by the list of blocks and bans.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

I only noticed this behavior now and unfortunately was not there to ask both parties to refrain from edit warring. I therefore apologize in advance for bringing up a case where I couldn't warn/notify the editors in real time. However, the case had to be brought up because it's a gross violation (and not a borderline one) of the remedy imposed by ArbCom.

P.S. I also now saw that the editor edit warring with Nableezy was already blocked as an abuse account. This was clearly the correct decision by the blocking admin, but I'd like to point out that since at the time of the edit war this account had not been known as an abuse account, the case still stands.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Nableezy[edit]

Statement by Nableezy[edit]

The second edit is not a revert, I am not returning the page to any previous version or undoing any other editors changes. The remaining reverts are of a disruptive IP who is an obvious sock. Any self-respecting admin would look at the edits by the IP and have them blocked, not reporting the user who reverted him. Of note, the other IPs edits include deleting talk page comments and reinserting a paragraph in a BLP that contained not 1, not 2, not 3, not 4, not 5, not even 6, but 7 citation needed tags. The IP has been blocked for being an Abuse-only account, and likely sock. Ynhockey, I hope you will reevaluate whether or not you would rather be on the side against such blatantly disruptive throw-away sockpuppet gaming tactics or if you would rather report the people who are. A self-respecting admin would consider that question before reporting the user who had been hounded from one article to the next by this abusive troll who has been socking for some time now. One would hope at least. nableezy - 21:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Im just going to say that when Jiujitsuguy makes an accusation of others vitriolic hatred it is both dishonest and incredibly hypocritical. I can source "condemned internationally" to, oh, how about Murphy, Ray; Gannon, Declan (2008), "Changing the Landscape: Israel's Gross Violations of International Law in the Occupied Syrian Golan", Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, Cambridge University Press, 11: 140, In 1981, Israel enacted legislation that purported to annex the territory. This move was widely condemned by the international community. I did not revert Biosketch because I dont think it matters for that article. If you would like to compare my comments on user talk pages to, oh, calling the natives squatters and trespassers we can do that. Then we can see who is more filed with vitriolic, bile-filled hate. Oh, and the subtle, but blatantly dishonest, inclusion of Jews in his view of Jews and Israelis. is I suppose par for the course when dealing with you. nableezy - 22:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
If that is what you got from my comment then I can understand why you thought Finkelstein was a source for calling the natives squatters and trespassers as you apparently see things in text that require me to trip out on shrooms to see. I dont accept the premise that my comments express any hateful and xenophobic views about anybody at all, though I can make a convincing argument that yours in fact do. I dont see how your imaginations are relevant here though, so until you can bring something worth responding to Ill leave it to the audience to determine just how far you are willing to distort the record. nableezy - 23:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Just so we are clear, I am brought here for making 1 revert of a named user (Two for the show (talk · contribs), who by the way is a sock of NoCal, will compile the evidence in the next days for SPI), then modifying, not reverting, an edit by another user (brewcrewer), then making several reverts of an obvious sockpuppet IP. Id just like to make sure Im not missing anything. nableezy - 15:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

And now that Two for the show has been blocked, the reverts consist entirely of reverts of a sock of a banned user and reverts of obvious IP sockpuppets (and before somebody says it wasnt known the user was a sock, yes it was). If need be I'll address JJG's laughable addition above. If an admin is considering that addition please let me know so that I can respond. nableezy - 18:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I would rather not respond to the garbage just added by JJG, so I repeat my request that any admin considering such nonsense say so before performing any action based on it. nableezy - 18:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The first listed diff at Banias is not a revert. JJG added a pushpin map, I changed the map. The second edit is a revert, my only one. A ban is being considered on the basis of 1 edit and 1 revert, with both the edit and revert being made to rectify the addition of propaganda, literally, into an encyclopedia article? On what basis? nableezy - 00:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

WGFinley, are you even paying attention? The edits at the category are as follows. 1. A revert of a since blocked sockpuppet of NoCal100, a banned edito. 2. Not a revert. 3. Reverts of a since-blocked IP sockpuppet of Ledenierhomme, a banned user. An IP whose entire contributions list are blind reverts of myself and one other editor. None of them are reverts of Jiujitsuguy. Out of every edit of mine listed here, exactly 1 is a revert of Jiujitsuguy. Additionally, reverts of IPs are explicitly exempted from the 1 revert rule. You write and it should have gone to the talk page to be hashed out. If you were not aware, I did exactly that, prior to even my first revert, that being the first comments made on the subject at the talk page by anyone. And until a disruptive sockpuppet IP of a banned editor began mindlessly reverting any edit I made it was being hashed out on the category talk page, and in fact has been. Your comments indicate a lack of awareness to what you claim to have thoroughly read. Please ensure that you have carefully considered the evidence before threatening topic bans and interaction bans. nableezy - 02:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
And I brought the issue to the discussion when that since blocked sockpuppet of a banned editor made that revert without initiating any discussion. But what then justifies a topic ban? Because I made that single revert? Are you serious? You earlier wrote that every revert after the first one is out of line, meaning the first wasnt, so why now do you say that this revert is a problem? NoCal reverted without discussion and laughably, and predictably, asked for discussion. I discuss the issue and revert, but my revert is the problem? Every revert after the first was a revert of a sockpuppet IP of a banned editor made with the express purpose of hounding me and reverting me. You really want to say that such tactics work? That a banned editor can use an IP and go around reverting an editor over and over and over from article to article, and that this will work? Really? nableezy - 02:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

WGFinley, this had nothing to do with Jiujitsuguy, what dont you understand about this? That user has a hard on for trying to get me blocked, so he added a bunch of bullshit to this report, which was not initiated by JJG and did not cover any edits related to JJG. If you do not understand that I do not think you have any business commenting here. nableezy - 12:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

And again, it seems as though you are not reading, because yes I did know that Two for the show was a sock of NoCal. I already linked to [this before. nableezy - 12:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

NW, all due respect, but showing what the entire world calls Syrian territory as being in Israel is not a very small issue. It is the difference between being an encyclopedia article and being propaganda. This may not seem like much, but it is. nableezy - 12:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

WGFinley, you still have no idea what you are talking about. This has nothing to do with Jiujitsuguy, what dont you understand about this? nableezy - 12:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of links being thrown about, with the apparent aim of suggesting a pattern, a pattern that has not been substantiated. In the AE complaint linked by WGFinley as indicative of a supposed pattern of behavior, I was sanctioned for "gaming" the 1RR by self-reverting a revert in order to revert a different revert. I dont think anybody is suggesting I have done anything of the sort here. I can only assume that WGF simply searched for Nableezy Jiujitsuguy and came up with that thread, as it has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with this complaint. Every single revert at the Category page is of a sock of a banned editor, every single one. There is exactly one revert made at Banias. There is no justification for any type of ban, be it a topic ban or an interaction ban, except in the imagination of a set of users, unsurprising in its makeup, and an admin who bizarrely claims that this has something to do with Jiujitsuguy and is part of some unknown pattern of behavior. The pattern of behavior here is that a set of banned users follow me around, and with their sockpuppets blindly revert edits without justification and without comment. Every single revert at the Category page is of a banned editor. The ones of the IP are further excused from the 1RR. And all of them are excused under WP:BAN which allows for reverting any edits made by a user in violation of their ban. So, in sum, there are exactly 0 reverts that are not excused by policy at the Category page, and exactly 1 at Banias. WGFinley, please say exactly how this request relates to the link you provided below, and why you think this has anything to do with JJG. If you cant do that then you should reconsider whether or not you should be bandying about such threats without having carefully considered the facts. nableezy - 19:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Besides the typical sour grapes of serially disruptive accounts such as Agada Urbanit or Jiujitsuguy, which in addition to being wholly irrelevant are teeming with distortions and outright untruths, this remains about reverts against a sock of a banned editor and IP socks of a banned editor, and, if JJG's laughable accusations above are to be taken seriously by anyone, a single revert at Banias. Every revert, every single one, at the category page is excused by WP:BAN. What is left is a single revert at Banias. That a collection of disruptive accounts have been brought to AE or SPI by myself is not evidence of disruption, and the fact that this is the "contribution" some people feel obliged to bring here only underscores the point that these accounts are not, in any way, looking for a proper application of sanctions, but rather that they will try, by any means, to fabricate a case into banning the big bad Nableezy. This remains as baseless a filing as it was when an admin took it upon himself to become the defender of socks of banned users being reverted by that terribly disruptive user Nableezy. nableezy - 13:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezy[edit]

Comment by Malik Shabazz

Reverting edits by IPs doesn't count against 1RR (although it does count against 3RR). In my opinion, nableezy's second edit was not a reversion but rather implements the Talk page consensus. Perhaps it would have been wiser for nableezy to wait another seven hours before making that edit, or to allow another editor to make it, but we're basically talking here about a single edit that Ynhockey describes as a "possible revert". Yes, and possibly not a revert. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

@T. Canens: Might I suggest that the usual suspects (a group in which I probably should be counted) be banned from commenting in future AE complaints unless they bring the complaint, are the subject of the complaint, or their name is raised in the discussion by an uninvolved editor? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Malik the involved editors shouldn't comment on WP:AE unless specifically asked by admin.The bickering between two editors here is a good example of what should be avoided.--Shrike (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Peter Cohen

The Ip account User:89.165.121.234 has been blocked as disruptive. I hadn't heard of one of the other accounts by th euser talk page is so interesting that I had better not make any comment.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

In reply to the first two admins to comment below, If you want to start a new Arbcom case, I will be happy to join you there. I think a group of people have chosen to indulge in WP:TE with regards to the interpretation of certan guidelines and things are going to contnue to escalate until this is cracked down upon.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Given that the purpose of bans and blocks it to protect Wikipedia rather than to punish specific users, then those making a decision need to ensure that they don't facilitate the functioning of one of our most enduring and malevolent sock-puppeteers by preventing the person who is most effective in identifying the puppets from reporting them.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by DougWeller

I've just protected Mount Hermon due to edit warring there in which Nableezy and the IP were involved, the difference being that it started with Nableezy reverting Jiujitsuguy (talk · contribs) and has just been reverted by Ericsmeer (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Jiujitsuguy

Nableezy’s edits go well beyond tendentious; they demonstrate a visceral hatred toward Israel and Israelis. The following are just two examples that epitomize his view of Jews and Israelis.

  • Here, he refers to Israelis as European colonizers. This revolting and despicable comment was repeated
  • Here, in a rather lengthy rant, he once again refers to Israelis as European invaders.

This is not only hateful; it demonstrates a profound ignorance of Israel. Yet Israel and Israelis are the focus of his vitriolic, bile-filled hate. Why is he permitted to say these revolting and disgusting comments with impunity? But that is not all. Nableezy has also engaged in serious source distortion. Here he states In an act condemned internationally and attributes that erroneous and harsh comment to his cited source. The source cited to by Nableezy never even mentioned these words. Thankfully, the error was caught by Biosketch and was reverted here Nableezy's uncharacteristic muted response to Biosketch's revert speaks volumes. He tried to pull a fast one that was thankfully picked up by an alert editor. I was topic banned for six months for similar conduct (that will never be repeated) that I readily acknowledged even before an AE was filed. Hateful editing, tendentious editing, source distortion, edit warring, disruptive bullying; these are all trademarks of nableezy’s style.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

How do any of these comments "epitomize his view of Jews"? Until Jjg's comment, nobody had mentioned Jews, only Israelis. In what way is it "vitriolic bile-filled hate" to refer to Israelis as "European colonizers" (in fact, in the link cited, Nableezy refers to "European colonists", a subtly different term) or "European invaders"? Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights was indeed condemned internationally; but note that, in the edit cited, Nableezy does not, as claimed above, attribute these words to his source. There was no distortion in Nableezy's edits; only in the misleading account above. RolandR (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
"Only Israelis?" So let me see if I understand you correctly. It's okay for an editor, who edits exclusively in Israel-Arab topic area, to express hateful and xenophobic views about Israelis. Got it. Thanks for clarifying Nableezy.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Not everyone (see, for instance, the Hertzl Museum) is as squeamish about using words such as 'colonization' (not that Nableezy used that one) in connection with the establishment of a Jewish homeland.     ←   ZScarpia   02:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Should tolerance work both ways? Just as the views of others may be anathema to you, your views may be anathema to others.     ←   ZScarpia   09:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Brewcewer

My comment is not necessarily directly on point. Basically supported by the diffs presented above, but more clear to those familiar with Nableezy's past AE postings, and general contributions --- it seems like Nableezy edits with a vengeance, an anger, and appears really bitter about anything Israel related. From his edit summaries and talk page comments it appears that it really bugs the hell out of him if an article about any geographic entity outside the '67 border does not make clear at least once that its status is considered illegal or if the article places too much of an emphasis on the fact that Israel is the governing entity of said location. (some examples just from today: ([11][12][13][14] ) This attitude is not conducive to a collaborative project such as ours, and may be just what AE was supposed to weed out, but I'm not writing here necessarily to support any sort of ban. What perplexes me is how Nableezy can involve himself in this volunteer project when it appears to cause him so much heartache. In my estimation there is a general anti-Israel bias here on Wikipedia (especially the last year or two), but it does not make any change in me. I do what I can to keep things NPOV, but don't lose sleep when things don't go my way and stay cool (basically) while on Wikipedia. It just does not make sense to get so rankled up on a volunteer endeavor. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What perplexes me is that you and many other editors don't feel the same way or even more strongly about NoCal100 and make every effort to stop their repeated sockpuppeting when it's clearly the right thing to do for the topic area. You are part of their perceived peer group. You have the best chance to persuade them to stop. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
How do you suggest stopping this sockpuppetry? I agree it shouldn't be allowed. Dougweller (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I really don't know. I'd like to see an end to anonymous editing in the topic area but that will never happen. A technical solution doesn't seem to be possible right now. Raising the entry threshold for the topic area seems inappropriate as that harms the innocent although it would certainly provide some protection. Collective punishment is a popular approach in the real world. Perhaps we should try it e.g. everytime NoCal socks, brewcrewer gets blocked until he persuades him to stop...possibly unethical I guess. NoCal100 in particular is technically capable and careful enough to make confirmation through the SPI process difficult. Many of the persistent sockpuppeteers are. Maybe we should start plastering articles that sockpuppets like with alerts like this. The extent of the problem will soon become apparent to editors.
Notice: NoCal100 and his sockpuppets are banned from editing this article indefinitely
The user(s) specified have been banned by the Arbitration committee from editing this article from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page.

Posted by [[User_talk:|User_talk:]] 16:59, 13 November 2011‎ (UTC) for the Arbitration committee. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles.

What is a bit frustrating is that an admin apparently knows who NoCal is in the real world. They have been in contact with them off wiki when they were very upset about someone else sockpuppeting (as far as they saw it)...no, it doesn't make sense. Clearly they won't be able to stop or reform without help because they just can't see that they are doing anything wrong. It seems we have no way of really dealing with it without help from people who the sockpuppets might listen to. There is nothing good about the sockpuppets. They destabilize the topic area and bring conflict here. A personal appeal from Mr Wales ? Free entry to deprogramming courses ? Pie ? Perhaps just burning Nableezy at the stake would be enough. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
What the what? How is nocal's sockpuppetry relevant here and how am I any more responsible for his sockpuppetry then you are or Nableezy for User:PalestineRemembered? This is just a red herring to throw off the scent of admins. I may have been insulted or even angry over your baseless accusations if they were not so laughable and irrelevant.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Your response is part of the problem. Of course you are responsible. You help to facilitate it. You treat a sockpuppet as a legitimate editor when you must know that they are not. You are enabling their behavior. Solving the issue involves you. Of course not just you. The level of conflict in the topic area at a given time is related to two main factors in my view a) the level of sockpuppetry and b) the level (and absurdity) of the POV pushing. They often go together because disposable sockpuppet accounts can trigger edit warring with impunity, say whatever they want, and cause/contribute to mass hysteria a group response from like minded individuals which can lead to a robust response from policy minded editors who are sick of the nonsense that goes on here. So, not baseless, not laughable and highly relevant. I know nothing about PalestineRemembered. Before my time. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to have to ask you to stop. If you continue to accuse of facilitating sockpuppetry without any diffs or evidence I will have to ask an administrator to intervene.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
How ironic. An administrator has already intervened to file this report with a list of diffs, all of which revert sockpuppets, apart from your edit which reverted to the sockpuppet's version. Marvelous. To be fair, I assume they didn't know. I would like to compile a long list of diffs but it's tedious. I would prefer you to just help resolve the problem. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
That's just flat out untrue. Nobody at the relevant page has been found to be a sockpuppet and my edit conformed with the position of at least two other editors and conformed with WP:V, WP:BLP, as explained on the talk page. You and other editors have insisted on adding unsourced BLP-violative information despite its non-conformance with out polices and despite the lack of consensus. As seen on the relevant history of the page and its talk page, there are atleast two other editors opposing your introduction. The fact that someone who you think is a sockpuppet also reverted your unsourced addition does not mean I or anyone else reverting is facilitating sockpuppetry. For all I know he is a sockpuppet of nableezy and is being utilized to create this red herring by insisting that nobody else can revert because someone he thinks is a sockpuppet also disagreed with him. There is nothing I can do to stop nocal, assuming it is even him. I edit in accordance with the policies, I edit collaboratively, I don't edit war, and I certainly do not sockpuppet of facilitate sockpuppetry in any fashion. The fact that you are trying to turn this around on me instead of actually defending Nableezy is uncalled for and I hope an intervening admin can act or comment accordingly.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Unbelievable. Of course it isn't untrue. This mess started with me. It is ludicrous. A perfect example of how messed up the topic area is. I amended the Category:Israeli settlers inclusion criteria to include the Gaza Strip (and Sinai) so that I could include an article, one article (but there may be more), that I have already started to make clean up preparation edits on[15][16] about a pregnant women who was murdered along with her 4 children just because she was a settler. No other reason than that, she was a settler, so she and her 4 girls were just killed. All I want to do is to be able to categorize the article. The description was preventing that. My edit summary said "restoring Gaza+Sinai. reason=scope of cat should include Israeli civilian victims of militant attacks who were settlers at the time of the attack in Gaza for instance such as Tali Hatuel and her children". To my amazement, it resulted in sustained edit warring including multiple socks who are very obviously socks and I had to deal with nonsense on the talk page despite the fact that the people lived in a settlement in the Gaza Strip, she was a settler according to the sources I provided, and she was pointlessly murdered precisely because she was a settler. I patiently tried to example to you and others why you were wrong in this specific instance, that categorization is valid, clarified that this is not about living people and suggested alternatives. You stonewalled making demands for sources that talk about the attributes of all members of a set when we are only talking about one instance. Categorization is case by case. GHcool did not stonewall and bless him for it. What I'm doing here at AE is called for. It's necessary. Things have gone too far. People throw shit at Nableezy, fine, he can take it. So can I. But if you stand in my way and prevent me from making a change that is based purely on taxonomy, logic, cold heartless completely neutral stuff supported by what the sources say, using arguments that miss the point (probably because you assume nefarious motives that won't mean anything to me), you really get my attention. All of the other things you do that I normally might turn a blind eye to that do not comply with policy begin to shine very brightly. brewcrewer, you have to trust me. I am not the enemy. I'm not an advocate. I'm far worse than that. As I said on the talk page, try to imagine you are dealing with a rules based machine. The bottomline is that the sockpuppetry, the denials and feigned innocence, the bizarre arguments, the pointless edit warring have to stop at some point. Now would be a good time and it needs your help to stop. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
That's just not true again. The problem did not start with you. Look at the page history [17]. You reattempted to introduce a description for which there was a discussion a few months prior that did not result in a consensus based on the opposition of myself and two other editors in good standing. Put simply, per BLP and V you need sources that support the claim that someone is still considered a setter after the settlement has been shuttered or s/he has left. Nobody has ever provided a source for that. Making this about what I can do to stop sockpupppets (absolutely nothing) is a red herring.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, have it your way. I've said what I thought needed to be said. This is now bickering apparently. I normally like to wear a flowery blouse+beret when I'm bickering and I don't have them handy so we should stop. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Also frustrating is the off-Wiki evidence of sockpuppeteers, rather than being asked to stop, being encouraged to persist and to seek ways of becoming less detectable.     ←   ZScarpia   10:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Above, Jujitsuguy appears to be become very needled over references to Israeli colonists and invaders. Would you see that as justifiable irritation, though?     ←   ZScarpia   09:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Zero

Nableezy was perfectly entitled to revert the edits of 89.165.121.234, both according to the AE rules and according to common sense. The boringly predictable comments of Jiujutsuguy and Brewcrewer are irrelevant to this case. Zerotalk 09:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

To WGFinley: I don't understand your judgment of "status quo" at Category:Israeli settlers. The issue of whether to include Israelis who settled in the Sinai and Golan after those areas were occupied by Israel has been simmering there since soon after the category was created. I don't see any reason for Nableezy's version to be less the status quo than anyone else's. Not only that, but (1) it was Nableezy and not any of the others who raised the issue on the talk page, (2) Nableezy's version is what the overwhelming majority of reliable sources support. Zerotalk 05:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Sean.hoyland

WGFinley, statements like "I don't see how that user being a sock has anything to do with this" can only have negative consequences for the topic area, a topic area already seriously compromised by the presence of sockpuppets. This whole report is based on an admin failing to see the obvious. The report is founded on the notion that illegitimate editors, who are not allowed to be here, who are not allowed to do anything at all, can be treated by admins as legitimate editors in a dispute. That is the kind of mistake that the topic area can't afford. You are compounding the original error with another error. That is the important point here. This case isn't about Nableezy vs JJG. That is a distraction. That is the peripheral issue. I edit in the topic area. I will be one of the many people who will have to pay the price for admins legitimizing the actions of sockpuppets because they can't see how socks have anything to do with this. It is not a price I'm willing to pay because of anyone else's inability to see things. Nableezy understands how to deal with sockpuppets and he is extremely effective in reducing their impact on the topic area. That's why they follow him and target him again and again. Admins are supposed to help legitimate editors and should not help sockpuppets profit from their actions. Nothing sockpuppets do can be allowed to affect legitimate editors and content decisions and no one can collaborate with sockpuppets. This whole episode is absurd. We have sockpuppets and editors in the topic area who wouldn't allow a change to the inclusion criteria for a category so that an article about an Israeli settler could be placed in the Israeli settler category and Nableezy is the problem ? Everything in the topic area is connected. Without an effective method to exclude sockpuppets from the topic area, removing Nableezy would be a tactical error. Someone will have to compensate for his absence to ensure ongoing protection and it won't be you. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

That's right, Sean. If the solution as outlined by WGFinley is applied, we can kiss goodbye to any objectivity on these articles. NoCal, Ledenierhomme and others can continue to creat scores of sockpuppets at will. These will revert freely until they are blocked; which will not bother them, as they have no interest in constructive editing, only in disruption and entrapment, and in any case they can always create more. Meanwhile, legitimate editors will each use their one permitted revert, and will then either have to sacrifice themselves in order to preserve the integrity of the articles, or watch them turn into a propaganda-fest. Many of us recognise these socks as soon as they appear, but the SPI process takes so long, and the drawer is so stuffed that insisting that we wait until sockpuppetry is confirmed before reverting will mean that articles are almost permanently in the state desired by the socks. In order to combat this, we need more effective tools to identify and deal with socks, particularly of the handful of serial puppeteers; articles in this subject area may need to be indefinitrly semi-protected in order to make it more difficult for socks to disrupt them; and the guidelines need to be amended in order to explicitly exempt reversions of edits by socks. RolandR (talk) 11:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Nishidani
  • In my estimation there is a general anti-Israel bias here on Wikipedia (Brewcrewer)
We (those exercising some assiduity in looking to ensure that articles regarding Palestinians and The West Bank approximate to NPOV) are not editing articles on Israel. We are engaged in editing articles on a territory occupied and controlled militarily and financially by Israel, on which almost 95% of RS, virtually all of the discursive resources on the West Bank, come from Israeli newspapers, books by Israelis, Israeli-linked think tanks, etc. There is a preponderance of military, political, and discursive power on one side: the number of people with a political or ethnic allegiance to Israel vastly outweighs the exiguous number of editors who are Palestinian (two or three, at last count) So there's no real room for complaint that somehow this zone is full of anti-Israeli bias. Personally, I never touch articles on Israel, since they are excellently edited and have a vital wiki community ensuring quality. But I think it rather silly to whinge about skewed representation when the numbers game is as I described it above. Many dislike Nableezy, and describe his work here as motivated by a 'vengeance, an anger,' psychoanalysing him as 'really bitter about anything Israel related (Brewcrewer).' it appears that it really bugs the hell out of him (Brewcrewer); Nableezy’s edits go well beyond tendentious; they demonstrate a visceral hatred toward Israel and Israelis. (Jiujitsuguy):'This revolting and despicable comment (Jiujitsuguy)'; 'Yet Israel and Israelis are the focus of his vitriolic, bile-filled hate.(Jiujitsuyguy)'; 'Hateful editing, tendentious editing, source distortion, edit warring, disruptive bullying; these are all trademarks of nableezy’s style.';hateful and xenophobic views about Israelis.' etc. etc.
Note that you are all taking editing on the legally distinct topological reality of the West Bank as intrinsically an assault on Israel. It's a convenient rhetorical confusion.
Those of you who have it in for Nableezy would probably see much less of him, myself and a number of other equally obnoxious editors if you managed to take in the fact that the West Bank is not Israel, that our work there is dictated by a policy fundamental, that of ensuring balance in articles overwhelmingly written via (pro-)Israeli sources, backed by a large in loco Israeli editorial body, dealing with an occupied country whose people are all but invisible on wikipedia. Get rid of him or me or anyone else and the NPOV problem doesn't disappear. To the contrary, you would all be under a very strong obligation to double and triple your workload by doing precisely that research load on the underrepresented POV of the Palestinians to ensure NPOV. A little more care to police the wild IP editing, unilateral POV pushing in this area by editors who seem to think Israel and the West Bank are one reality would give us all the opportunity to piss off, and leave all of these articles in responsible local hands. It's policy you know, that editors must ensure both sides are represented.Nishidani (talk) 11:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The claim that Nableezy's editing is only about the West Bank is almost as ridiculous as comparing the "number of people with a political or ethnic allegiance to Israel" with the "number of editors who are Palestinian". See for example this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Wigley. In operational terms, you are suggesting that all reports of editors failing to follow policy should lead to interaction bans between the reporter and the putative abusive editor. It's an issue, however, of admins adjudicating the merits of policy adherence. Most of these conflicts would not arise if consensus were accepted, wikilawyering punished, and policy applied, whatever one's POV. Everyone knows, in the real world, how the legal lie of the land on this content issue lies, and attempts to screw it don't hold water.Nishidani (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
A short summary of this discussion so far about the evidence provided above.

I feel the pain of user:NuclearWarfare, so I tried to summarize the discussion above about the evidence provided, while skipping unconstructive bickering.

1. Edits at Category:Israeli settlers ( [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] )
  • It was noted from multiple angles that according to {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} "edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty".
  • The question still remains whether or not the second edit could be considered as a "revert", for WP:1RR purposes.
  • According to user: Malik Shabazz, a revert of anonymous IP editor "does count against 3RR" so a question of possible WP:3RR violation might be also open, while probably more appropriate at 3RR noticeboard.
  • When considering user:Nableezy line of defense, based on sock claim, maybe user:Tim Song note elsewhere might be relevant: "Reverting someone who you think is a banned user is different from reverting someone who is unambiguously a banned user."
2. Edits at Banias ([23] [24] )
  • Noone really addressed those. It might appear as slow motion edit warring, thus WP:GAMING, though other items of evidence submitted by User:Jiujitsuguy were found irrelevant according to discussion above possibly rendering those edits also moot.
This summary is for the sake of the closing admin, I could be watching Big Bang Theory, but I am wasting my time for this exiting volunteer based project called Wikipedia. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Further_remedies doesn't just say that reverts of anons don't count towards 1RR, it says anons "may be reverted without penalty". A reasonable reading is that they are permitted without 3RR limit either. I suspect that whoever wrote the text didn't think of this question. A ruling on it ought to be sought if we think it is important. Zerotalk 14:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with that, I have always assumed that "revert without penalty" meant you can revert an IP as often as necessary. In any event this case strikes me as highly opportunistic in that the reversions of Nableezy's edits were made by a (since blocked) IP clearly intent on harassment. Such tactics should surely not be rewarded. Gatoclass (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Please clarify your comment. You meant "the edits reverted by Nableezy", not "the reversions of Nableezy", right? Zerotalk 03:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I thought it was clear from the context that I meant the reversions of Nableezy's edits by the IP, but I've now tweaked my comments to clarify that. Gatoclass (talk) 09:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment by BorisG

I think the violations are borderline (at worst) and no action needs to be taken. However if Nableezy thinks (and writes) that Israelis are European invaders, this is a pretty good indication of his battleground approach. I do not know how relevant (or how old) are these comments, nor I have examined statements by his detrators. I think this area is pretty dysfuncitonal, and attempts by Gatoclass (I think) to propose an alternative (to AE) enforcement mechanism has not got any traction. I am pessimistic that we will ever get sanilty in this area, with current mechanisms. - BorisG (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC) I add the diff as asked by Nabeleezy on my talk page. - BorisG (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Please read the post in Nableezy talk page. "Im not looking for peace, Im looking for justice"; "I object to the institutionalized racism that gives European invaders rights over the natives." How the user whos looking only for justice and calls Jews "European invaders" could be allowed to edit the articles about Israel and Palestine?

Boris, Nableezy was asked on his talk page by another editor to state what his views were and why he held them, which he did. How would you feel if you were in the same position, then somebody tried to use your answer as a basis to declare you unfit to edit in the I-P area? On his user page, Ynhockey has declared that he is a supporter of Yisrael Beiteinu. For many editors here, that would probably put him one step below neo-Nazi level. How would it look to you if editors argued that Ynhockey isn't fit to edit in the I-P area because of his political views? Nableezy wrote, "Im not looking for peace, Im looking for justice." So? If you were convinced that an article didn't didn't fairly represent a viewpoint that you supported, if you thought that it was important enough, would you just let it go if you thought that trying to remedy the situation would lead to unpleasant scenes with the editors responsible for the current state of the article? You don't like Jews who emigrated to what was Palestine, or who are settling the West Bank, being referred to as "European invaders". Are you trying to maintain that there are not valid reasons for referring to them in that way, though? Wouldn't you say that there's a good probability that most Israeli Jews have ancestors who were living in Europe a few generations ago? And even the Jews who were living in Palestine when Zionist immigration began were generally unhappy about it weren't they? Zionist settlement was not carried out with the consent of the people already living in the area. I don't think that it should be controversial to say that it has been shown that Arabs living in the area of what was Palestine have, in general, stronger genetic links to those who lived there in antiquity than Jews who have, or whose recent ancestors have, emigrated from Europe. Yet there are probably editors here who would deny that. How would you view it if someone declared that the denialists were unfit to edit in the I-P area?     ←   ZScarpia   21:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
ZScarpia, please strike out your offensive remarks and explain why you made them. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Which remarks are you referring to? And will you strike out any of your comments which I or others have fournd offensive? Perhaps it would be a good idea to read my comment more thoroughly? Perhaps you've missed the points I was trying to make.     ←   ZScarpia   22:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with ZScarpia that the context of the Nableezy's remark (reply to a question on his talk page about his views) is a significant mitigating factor, as it is not an indicator of his editing approach. For avoidance of confusion, we should all refrain from discussing issues unrelated to editing Wikipedia (as Wikipedia is not a forum). Latitude in this regard on talk pages is ok, but may be unwise in the explosive content areas. We all have strong views, but the debate of these views even on our talk pages will only inflame the situation and take us away from our shared goals. - BorisG (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Epeefleche

I agree generally with WGF's thoughtful comments below. I think that he is correct that we have to look at patterns of behavior, and editors' refusal to stop battlegrounding, and as WGF put it, consider: "when is enough enough". Movement away from battlegrounding and in the direction of using that time for helpful contributions to the Project would be a very good thing, and would also free up admins to focus on more productive issues.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You're supporting bans for Ynhockey and Nableezy?     ←   ZScarpia   21:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Tiamut

A lot of the editors commenting here calling for Nableezy's head have done this before. They also tend to edit alongside sockpuppets whose edits they uphold or defend. I understand why they want to see Nableezy saddled with another undeserved sanction for technical or borderline violations that are a result of dealing with multiple sock accounts, IP editors, and POV warriors. What I don't understand is how it is that everytime a case is brought against Nableezy, people are allowed to go on and on until a seeming chorus of voices (always the same ones) manage to create an atmosphere in which one admin feels he has the right to topic ban Nableezy yet again for things other editors do all the time. Nableezy is a sock hunter and he has a lot of enemies because of it. He is protecting Wikipedia from socks. Wikipedia should be protecting, not punishing him. Tiamuttalk 19:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You do not have to worry about this. Even topic-banned Nableezy would still be able to protect Wikipedia from socks.70.231.238.93 (talk) 00:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Motion to close

Generally it's always struck me as odd that while editors are absolutely required to edit from a neutral point of view in the topic area, many don't. There's a rule, people don't follow it, and nothing happens to them unless they happen to break a technical rule about revert counts etc.quoted text originally said by user:Sean.hoyland here

P-I Related Topic Bans

  1. Oct 2009
  2. Jan 2010
  3. Apr 2010
  4. Jul 2010
  5. Aug 2010
  6. Dec 2010
  7. May 2011

Interaction Bans

  1. Shuki Jul 2010
  2. Jaakobou Nov 2010
  3. Cptnono Dec 2010
  4. Cptnono Jun 2011

Blocks

Everybody could make a mistake, it is in human nature to err. However we are talking about 11 blocks so far:

  1. 23 March 2009
  2. 13 July 2009
  3. 1 January 2010
  4. 4 January 2010
  5. 26 March 2010
  6. 9 October 2010
  7. 12 October 2010
  8. 5 November 2010
  9. 6 December 2010
  10. 25 December 2010
  11. 1 June 2011

Summary

I can imagine scenarios where an editor might make a whole bunch of edits to an article or topic that is hopelessly biased and needs fixing. Those edits, taken out of context, might superficially resemble the actions of a non-neutral editor but real POV pushing, consistently non-neutral editing, is usually pretty obvious. I don't think the message that editors must edit neutrally is getting across and I don't think there are working mechanisms in place to deal with editors who consistently edit in a non-neutral way.quoted text originally said by user:Sean.hoyland here Everybody is entitled to an opinion, however Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. I am all for second and third chances, but given a total lack of remorse and denial of responsibility, at this stage I feel that 'nought is said. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

For Creative Commons Share-alike 3.0 license attribution preservation purposes I should put a note here to say that much of this comes from the ARBPIA 3 case page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Sean.hoyland. Agada is of course welcome to use it in anyway he sees fit to support his arguments whether I agree with him or not. I will just say that I regard Nableezy as an example that shows that the discretionary sanctions can work for some people as evidenced by considering the block log as a time series that illustrates behavioral improvement, his preference for high quality sources that enhance neutrality, his robust policy consistent opposition to disruption by sockpuppets (as this case shows) and his willingness to keep challenging non-neutral editing that results from excessive advocacy of minority and extremist views that violate mandatory, core policies of this project. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  1. Shame on you Sean, you've stolen my thoughts ;) In any case I've added green highlighting and attribution, thank you for allowing me to use your wording.
  2. Let me disagree with "consistent opposition to disruption by sockpuppets", I could provide diffs where ideologically favorable socks are ignored. So goes consistent. I'm still wondering how you, Sean, practicing "consistent opposition to disruption by sockpuppets" not harassed by those hooligans?
  3. As for "discretionary sanctions can work for some people as evidenced by considering the block log as a time series that illustrates behavioral improvement", let's see. This is in the area of Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Agreed, user:Nableezy behavior as reflected by blocks and bans had a disruption spike at 2010 and back to 2009 level in current 2011. I've scanned archives going back as far as Archive 53/January 2010. This is a list of WP:AE cases initiated by Nableezy. 15 cases in 2011 and 9 cases in 2010. I hope it is getting better, as Sean's feeling indicate:
I've wasted enough of my time on this, I am moving on. Hope the data gathered could help administrators to make their mind. This case has wasted enough of community time and it would be constructive step to close it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
So, I block in 11 months recently, and a list that defames by the impression of bulk in disregard for context. Remarkably good. It would be more profitable, given the company he keeps, to note any example of his editing where he introduced over the last years, unlike many of the editors with which he engaged, factitious material that was not RS, or which beat a POV drum, rather than adhering strictly to WP:NPOV. I know he makes a lot of people uncomfortable. Almost no one has the patience to patrol the slough of despond he has chosen to monitor. Tough. Nishidani (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
So now it's evidence of wrongdoing just to file cases at AE? FYI, users have been encouraged to bring disputes to AE rather than letting them fester. Lists like this demonstrate nothing more than Nableezy's attempt to play by the rules. It's only frivolous cases that are discouraged at this page, and if you want an example of those - and indeed in the interests of balance - perhaps you should also have listed the cases filed against Nableezy over the same period. More importantly though, none of the above is germaine to the current case, which is about a series of reversions Nableezy made against one user since identified as a sock, and another since blocked as a harassment only account. I'm obliged to repeat once again that sanctioning responsible users who are subject to deliberate harassment by such illegitimate accounts does nothing but encourage the latter to continue their vendettas. The guilty parties have already been blocked and this case should have been closed days ago. Gatoclass (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Nableezy[edit]

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

Am I the only one who's getting the sense that there is going to be quite a few boomerangs here? T. Canens (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This reads a great deal like the West Bank/Judea and Samaria case. I in fact, recognize most people from it.--Tznkai (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes, I wonder why we don't ban everyone who comments more than twice at an AE thread. I was planning on reviewing this report, and then decided I have better things to do with my time. NW (Talk) 04:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't know why we continue to have AE taken up with such nonsense. I went on Wikibreak getting exhausted from mitigating disputes in this content area, come back a bit and look, same cast of characters who refuse to get along with each other. I would deal out a ban myself but they would be back to appeal in a few days or weeks or months and the ban would be lifted. Serious action is needed in these cases of continued and systematic tendentious editing in this subject area. These folks have been warned, they've been banned, they start it again the second their ban is lifted, significant bans are in order. --WGFinley (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • With regards to Nableezy, I have reviewed the edit wars at Category:Israeli settlers and will decline to block. I have also reviewed the issue at Banias. I see it as indicative of a larger issue regarding...territories in the Levant that have at one time or another in the last 70 years been under the military control of either the State of Israel or a bordering state. I think some sort of sanction might help, but I don't know if 1RR, a block or a topic ban is what is needed; those seem far too blunt to me.

    I have not looked deeply at the behavior of other editors, but I think that such a thing is warranted from a brief look. NW (Talk) 18:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  • @Nableezy: I don't think a topic ban is what is required here, but I do think that you and a number of other editors are spending an awful lot of time focusing on very small matters. NW (Talk) 04:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I actually destroyed the brain cells required to try to understand what's going on here. As usual, the first diff provided is the best one. Looking at the edit history of Israeli Settlers you have the constant problem. Previous dispute died down in June, a few days ago it is reignited and then you have parties on both sides calling in their reinforcements. It's "revert first, ask questions later" and by the fourth revert or so it becomes "go to the talk page". Personally I think every revert after the first one is out of line and it should have gone to the talk page to be hashed out. Judging by this current AE page an interaction ban for Nableezy and JJG is in order and probably a topic ban for both, they seem to live to revert each other. --WGFinley (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
    • @Nableezy, yes, I'm paying attention. Two for the show reverted it to status quo and asked for discussion and consensus[25], you reverted him.[26], the only consensus you had to make that edit was your own. --WGFinley (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
      • That user is currently blocked as a sockpuppet. Even if Nableezy didn't know that at the time (and I'm not sure if he did or didn't), at the very least it excuses him after the fact. NW (Talk) 04:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
        • I don't see how that user being a sock has anything to do with this. I just look at the individual action. He reverted to status quo and said let's quit the warring and build a consensus. What's wrong with that? Nableezy didn't like his version so he reverted first (5th Revert on the article that day) and asked questions later. He should have made his proposal on the talk page and left the dispute at the status quo. Instead he just continued the edit war. --WGFinley (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
          • {{BannedMeansBanned}}. NW (Talk) 05:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
          • He didn't know that, if he did he should have cited it in the revert and called it to the attention of an admin. Look, these are all technicalities and I actually racked my brain reading the endless diatribes and dragging in of peripheral issues into this. The complaint is Nableezy participated in and heightened an edit war, do you need any further proof than this PAGE? This page is a war between these users, it needs to end. --WGFinley (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
            • Since Nableezy is the one who emailed me the evidence I relied upon in blocking that sockpuppet, I think it's fair to say that he did know that. T. Canens (talk) 04:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
              • I would agree with that TC if he would have cited that as his reason in the revert, he didn't. If this were a single instance of something I would say fine, not a big deal. When you put it with the pattern of behavior (below) and refusal to stop battlegrounding when is enough enough? --WGFinley (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy/JJG Redux[edit]

I think this case has a good synopsis of the issues between these two, it also includes the numerous prior AE cases involving them. It's pretty clear they don't get along and don't intend to. It's pretty clear previous interaction and topic bans have had little effect and still AE and the P-I topic area is beset with these constant fights. What course of action is there left but meaningful interaction and topic bans without the possibility of early parole? --WGFinley (talk) 06:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Closing as no action taken. I do not find the reverts at Category:Israeli settlers sanctionable. As to the Banias edits, it will take an exceptional case for us to sanction someone over a couple of isolated reverts 12 days ago; this is not such a case. I should add that I find AgadaUrbanit's lists entirely unhelpful. T. Canens (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Lvhis[edit]

Intervention on talkpage to fix RfC process; no action against editor at this point.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Request concerning Lvhis[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Qwyrxian (talk) 08:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Lvhis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 

As a party to the arbitration itself, no additional warnings needed to be given to Lvhis prior to sanctions being imposed.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Explanation: On 16 November 2011, after several months of discussion following the end of the above-referenced Arbitration proceedings, I announced the intention of holding an RfC on the name of the article title (one of the, if not the main, point of dispute between the parties involved in arbitration). Though I was under no obligation to do so, I kindly offered a week for other editors (Lvhis being the most notable one, as he is the primary active editor not currently topic-banned opposed to the current article title) to comment on the RfC draft (found at User:Qwyrxian/SI RFC) prior to my putting it on the article page. I wanted to give people a chance to ensure the neutrality of the statement. Lvhis had several criticisms, eventually enumerated and discussed at User talk:Qwyrxian/SI RFC#Re Qwyrxian's comments. While I acquiesced to the majority of Lvhis's concerns (and one of another editor), even some that I disagreed with, I drew the line at Lvhis's attempt to pre-bias the RfC with non-neutral wording (points 6 and 10 on the list, though I even partially gave in on point 10 as well). During this discussion, Lvhis started talking about making his own RfC, which would essentially be an RfC to determine how to word the article title RfC I had written. I explained that Wikipedia has no such process (in fact, having one would contravene WP:NOTBUREAU), and that he couldn't hold an RfC to govern how talk page discussion would be conducted. After providing an extra day beyond my original intended start date, I found that today, on Lvhis went ahead and put up his own RfC. This is extremely disruptive. If Lvhis's RfC is allowed to run, first, I don't know what it's point is, as it's basically looking to solve a problem not even discussed in the article. Second, it prevents the long overdue and necessary RfC on the main point of contention from running. Furthemore, multiple RfCs on the topic are likely to muddy the waters and decrease the chance of a clear consensus, not to mention possibly tiring the community and making them move to a less optimal position just to make everybody be quiet. Note, finally, that I have said many many times that I believe that Lvhis should present his evidence as a part of the RfC I intended to run--just not as a separate RfC. Lvhis's actions here are tendentious and in direct violation of the need for collaborative work on a contentious topic. Should any sanctions be found to be appropriate, I request also that the RfC which Lvhis started be hatted or removed from the talk page to prevent it from disrupting the process. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Notified.


Discussion concerning Lvhis[edit]

Statement by Lvhis[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Lvhis[edit]

Comment by Quigley

I think the purpose of Lvhis's RfC has been grossly misunderstood. Nothing in its contents suggested that its purpose was to "be an RfC to determine how to word the article title RfC [Qwyrxian] had written". The question asked was simply whether the current title of the article was Japanese or English (WP:EN, WP:NCGN). That's a central policy question for those who object to the current title. In fact, Lvhis's process of answering each major policy question separately is more deliberative and more likely to engender a long-lasting solution than Qwyrxian's RfC, with its panoply of options and avenues of argument that makes consensus difficult to interpret. The ease of which no consensus or a default consensus towards the status quo can be declared makes it easy for Qwyrxian and others to claim that the controversy is over, as is his declared intention; to lock down the article at its current title, and to suppress any indication of controversy over it. How is this "collaborative work on a contentious topic"? Furthermore, Qwyrxian presented his one week waiting period as a benevolent gesture: to quote the filer of this complaint himself, "technically speaking, anyone can put up an RfC at any time, and it doesn't need to be approved by other editors first". Why, then, is Lvhis being punished for sidelining a process that even Qwyrxian denied was required in this case? Quigley (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI. Lvhis didn't file RFC. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography, [27] and Special:Contributions/Lvhis. He seemed not to understand how to file it. Or did I miss something?
It's very difficult to talk with him as he refused to answer my questions. [28] He should have answered my questions before creating the RFC section on the SI talk page. Oda Mari (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Quigley, the problem with your/Lvhis's suggested approach is that it simply isn't how Wikipedia works, and it strongly biases the process against the current name (which I believe to be correct). One of the reasons (check through the archives) that Liancourt Rocks is at its current name rather than either of the two local names is because the community became frustrated with the regular arguing, page moving, and inability for the page editors to reach anything resembling consensus. I am worried that the creation of multiple RfC on what the vast majority of outside users will perceive to be nearly identical issues is more likely to lead to an enforced compromise to simply "quiet" the disputants. Furthermore, we cannot overlook the fact that there is no RfC process to determine subsidiary positions--in the analogy I gave to Lvhis earlier, Wikipedia, unlike international diplomacy, doesn't allow preliminary meetings to determine the location and agenda for the future "real" meetings. That type of work is part of a competitive approach to decision making, not a collaborative one. Finally, let me be clear: the outcome of Lvhis's RfC, if it ran, would have absolutely no bearing what to do with the article itself. Were "Senkaku Islands" ruled the "English name" or the "English transliteration of the Japanese name", neither would make any difference, as our policies/guidelines don't distinguish between these two. Our policies are entirely focused on "common English name", which would apply regardless of the exact nature of the two names. Thus, Lvhis's RfC does nothing more than delay the process that has been sidelined, sidetracked, and derailed for years. As a side note, please realize that this is not about getting a no consensus/default approach. The last RfC we ran, though not formally closed, was a consensus in favor of the current name (all previously uninvolved editors supported the current name, and only the same regular involved editors opposed). It was rejected was due to a false claim by a now topic-banned editor that I didn't do the RfC properly. The fact that there are regularly 1-3 editors who don't like the results of these RfCs does not mean that the status quo is wrong. It's really not much different than the fact that we still get people popping up on both Liancourt Rocks and Sea of Japan claiming that we need to switch to the Korean name; the main difference is that those are usually drive-by arguments, while for some reason this article attracts people dedicated enough to push for much longer. This article should not have to indefinitely have (what I believe is an improper) POV-title tag on it simply because the consensus isn't 100%. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, let me add that like Future Perfect, I think that it is fine to not seek any further sanctions against Lvhis for this action. In fact, I almost think it would be better not to, so that he can actively participate in the RfC. My goal is not to punish Lvhis, it's merely to ensure that we are on a clear path to establishing the name of these articles; FP's substitution of the neutral RfC for Lvhis's improper one solves that problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Lvhis[edit]

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

I agree that the RfC in the form filed by Lvhs is an unconstructive attempt at sidelining the planned RfC in the form drafted by Qwyrxian, which has the advantage of being more neutrally worded and having been based on previous discussion in a decently constructive manner. I also agree that Lvhs's version was problematic insofar as it was framing the issue exclusively in terms of his preferred argument. By insisting on this over aparently a long time, Lvhs has been showing worrying signs of "WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT" behaviour. I have collapsed his RfC version and put Qwyrxian's draft in its place. Not sure if we need to resort to direct sanctions against Lvhs, but he certainly ought to feel warned that further delaying and sidelining tactics will not be tolerated. Fut.Perf. 10:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, since my intervention to fix the RfC process seems to have stuck and there is no further disruption right now and apparently no urgent call for further personal sanctions against any of the editors involved, let's close this for now, but let everybody be warned they are expected to be on their best behaviour while the RfC is running. Fut.Perf. 15:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Pantherskin[edit]

Pantherskin indefinitely blocked due to evidence that that the cited book does not contain the material that he stated. Future Perfect considers this to be a normal indefinite block, not an AE block. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Pantherskin[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Nug (talk) 12:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Pantherskin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

Back in April 2011, User:Pantherskin had been edit warring in the article Lia Looveer a claim that she worked for a particular German Radio station that was staffed by collaborators broadcasting Nazi propaganda:

  1. [29],
  2. [30](with edit comment not OR but well sourced),
  3. [31](edit comment align with source, no need to white wash her Nazi collaboration),
  4. [32](edit comment quote source "the Baltischer Reichs-Rundfunk was a propaganda program in Estonian, Lithuanian and Latvian")

all the while claiming on talk[33][34] it was sourced to an German language book on the topic[35]. Due to the obscurity of this source there was no way to easily access it and verify that Pantherskin had actually sighted it and thus the text was a true representation of this cited source, so I placed a "request quotation" tag[36]. Pantherskin abruptly disappeared, not returning for several months[37].

Two weeks later in mid-May, after User:Vecrumba corresponded with the author of the book, Ansparg Diller, it was discovered that this text that Pantherskin cites does not actually exist in Dillar's book[38], so in fact it appears that User:Pantherskin lied to us all along and faked the quote from the book in order to support his contentious edits.

Now he has returned and reverted the same bogus text with the same faked cite to Dillar's book[39], even having the gall to remove the original "request quotation" template[40] that triggered the investigation that exposed Patherskin's fraud.

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

N/A Remedy Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned allows for summary bans

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

I cannot think of anything worse than fabricating a quote and intentionally lying that the quote was sourced to a book, other than to use that faked quote to fraudulently imply a particular person was a Nazi collaborator. In light of that I ask that Pantherskin be summarily topic banned from editing Baltic articles. --Nug (talk) 12:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Notified [41]


Discussion concerning Pantherskin[edit]

Statement by Pantherskin[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Pantherskin[edit]

Faking quotes is an endemic problem on Wikipedia, and, IMO, is as vile as copyvios - possibly worse as it ascribes statements of fact or opinion which the person cited does not state. Rather than making comments on this case, I suggest that the members examine the source and claim made before determining whether they should take this case. If it is a :fake quote" then the case should be dealt with as expeditiously as possible - whether by motion or whatever. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't verified this case, but in general any clear case of faking sources in order to support a false claim should result in an indefinite site ban. The danger to the project from such individuals is just too big, and it's not appropriate to ask other editors to AGF such a user. Hans Adler 13:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Hold your horses. As far as I understand, we still haven't had anybody actually checking the book in the original. The only thing we have is a single sentence, out of context, from the author of the book, where he says that Pantherskin's text is not literally contained in his book. But as far as I can see, Pantherskin never claimed it was. It was never marked as an alleged literal quotation. If the author, in that e-mail correspondence, was believing he was asked to respond to whether something was an authentic literal quote, that would in fact suggest that his correspondent, Vecrumba, was giving him a distorted picture of what the issue was about. Fut.Perf. 13:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
P. did claim that it's a literal quote in this diff. Once I get my hands on the book we can figure this out. T. Canens (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah, right. Hadn't seen that one. I can get the book from our local library too, but won't find the time to check it before Monday. Fut.Perf. 14:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
You will note that I did correspond with the author and reproduced his feedback in full at article talk. Had he confirmed the text, that would have been fine too, the purpose of my correspondence was simply to verify.
Subsequently re-inserting content with no discussion is WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:EW regardless of how much time has, or has not, passed—or even if there has been massive confusion, Pantherskin could photocopy, highlight, and share to confirm. I can see no constructive purpose to the edit and the manner in which it was done. PЄTЄRS J VTALK 18:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Initially I welcomed a personal touch, if you will, by ArbCom. On reflection... if the book turns up something other than what the author wrote to me in response, where does that leave us? ArbCom now resolving content disputes? That is, you are going to rule on the passage in the book should it prove out to Pantherskin's contention despite the author's correspondence—and not Pantherskin's disruptive behavior, effectively excusing it? What is in the book is immaterial to the complaint, which is regarding editorial behavior. PЄTЄRS J VTALK 01:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Peter, but isn't the request above to determine whether a quote is faked, thus asking to rule on content? What am I missing? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 05:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Fabricating quotes is disruptive, per WP:DISRUPT: "Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.". Fabricating quotes to make an accusation that a person of a particular national or ethnic group harbor Nazi sympathies violates WP:DIGWUREN. --Nug (talk) 10:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Falsifying citations is seriously disturbing and upsetting to me. It fundamentally subverts the epistemological process of the encyclopaedia: being grounded in verifiable reliable sources. Moreover, we have an especial trust in encyclopaedic editors who make claims out of more difficult to access sources—when our especial trust is betrayed, we feel an especial need to indicate out outrage. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The bottom line is this: If it turns out that the quote was indeed faked, I or another administrator will block Pantherskin indefinitely until he can explain himself. NW (Talk) 15:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Well, I am glad (though not surprised) that the author's correspondence to myself has been borne out. @Piotrus, my last point was that even if there were somehow a huge mix-up (i.e., the quoted passage did exist where and as indicated), the manner in which Pantherskin re-inserted content was disruptive, especially considering my following up with the author in the absence of any other confirmation of content produced a result contrary to that indicated by Pantherskin. My sincere thanks to the admins here for volunteering to verify a source in contention. PЄTЄRS J VTALK 20:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

@Fut.Perf., discussion for another place and time, but the fundamental issue particularly with regards to the Baltics is—aside from the small number of genuine collaborators, that is, traitors against their nation and fellow citizens—the meme on the part of some editors that war-time cooperation with German authorities constitutes "collaboration" and "harboring Nazi sympathies" is patently false; when peoples and countries have already survived a murderous occupation, that "rule book" no longer applies. When caught between two devils, you use whichever you can for your own purposes or simply do what you have to in order to survive—how else do you explain those who served in the armies of both invaders? PЄTЄRS J VTALK 20:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I bit the bullet and ordered the complete 5-volume set (of which Diller's regarding the Third Reich is volume 2). I think that puts me close to $3 grand at this point on sources for WP. (Not a complaint, I've gotten to read books which I would never have come across otherwise. Books have simply replaced CDs on my shopping list.) I'll post a note at the article and my talk when the set comes in and will be glad to scan any individual pages for inquiries. PЄTЄRS J VTALK 20:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Pantherskin[edit]

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

I've arranged for a copy of the book to be sent to my local library (via interlibrary loan). This will probably take a little more than a week (due to Thanksgiving). I can't read German, but I can probably scan the relevant pages and send them to someone who do to verify if there is reference falsification. T. Canens (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I checked the book in our library. The material on pages 405–406 and surrounding pages does indeed contain information on German radio stations in the east, including some details about them being transferred between Thorn, Danzig and other places, and it provides enough information to support the notion that essentially all radio stations run by the German authorities targetting populations in occupied eastern Europe were firmly devoted to Nazi propaganda (and indeed, that is so blindingly self-evident to anybody with a basic degree of historical knowledge one really wonders how it could ever have been called into doubt by anybody in good faith), but the book contains no specific reference that I can find to this specific radio station ("Baltic Radio"/"Balti Raadio") mentioned in this edit [42] and its Estonian or other Baltic-language programmes, nor does it contain the literal quote claimed here [43]. In line with what others have said above, I am blocking Pantherskin indef. We can consider an unblock if and when he can explain how this could happen in good faith, but until then he remains blocked. Fut.Perf. 19:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate[edit]

The Devil's Advocate is topic banned from 9/11 Related articles until 30 Dec 2011. --WGFinley (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
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 The Devil's Advocate[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
-Jordgette [talk] 05:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

The Devil's Advocate was recently blocked for one week [44] for edit warring on the 7 World Trade Center article (a Featured Article). As noted in his block case, many of these edits were tendentious. Immediately after the block expired, the user began making more edits to the article. Although they have become increasingly subtle, as another editor pointed out [45], some of the recent edits "make controlled demolition seem less implausible." Edits before block:

  1. 10/24/11 Removal of information about physical evidence used by firefighters to predict that the building would collapse due to fire
  2. 10/19/11 Weakening of language to support the idea that NIST could not "rule out" the use of thermite to demolish 7WTC
  3. 10/25/11 Removal of engineering and fire-safety organizations that collaborated with NIST, such as the American Society of Civil Engineers (the mentions are injurious to CT claims that the investigation was secret, insular, and inadequate)
  4. 10/24/11 and 11/7/11 Repeated removals of image of Fiterman Hall, a building across the street that was damaged by 7WTC's collapse (the image is injurious to the CT claim that 7WTC collapsed symmetrically into its own footprint)

After block:

  1. 11/16/11 and reverted 11/16/11 Weakening of language to make NIST findings about blast sounds more open to question
  2. 11/16/11 More weakening of language, highlighting the fact that this is merely NIST's opinion
  3. 11/17/11 Incredibly, after this request for enforcement had been filed, the user removed the sentence "Few photos and video clips exist that show the damage sustained to the south face of 7 World Trade Center on 9/11" from a caption in the article. This sentence is inconvenient for conspiracy theorists and its removal consistent with the other POV-pushing.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on 11/9/11 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

The user feigns impartiality, for example when it was pointed out that his deletions would be applauded by conspiracy theorists [46]. Having been confronted, the user hides behind WP:AGF to defend his actions (in his statement below [47] as well as here, paragraph 3) while accusing those who protect the status quo on the Featured Article of bias ([48], [49]). The user defends his actions with great verbosity [50] and during his block declared himself right and innocent, even after three admins told him otherwise [51] — so enjoy yourselves on this one!

Update: I would like to get some action on this request. For over a month The Devil's Advocate has been asked numerous times to discuss significant changes to this article and find consensus first [52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60], yet he refuses because he doesn't "need the approval of your group" [61] and continues to make extensive changes to the article including today,[62] in an edit that introduced a missing space and awkward wording and deleted sources without discussion. But when the user is reverted, we get drama [63] and demands for explanation [64][65]. I am growing weary of the user's desire to unilaterally alter the article and then kick up tons of dust, for days, when the changes are resisted. This disruption is a drain on Wikipedia, with very little positive in return, and I'd like it to stop. Considering that the user has cut back on the blatantly tendentious edits but continues to work against consensus, might this issue now be more appropriate for the Incidents noticeboard? -Jordgette [talk] 20:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate continues to unilaterally rewrite and restructure. If this continues it's likely to destabilize the article. Tom Harrison Talk 03:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

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


Discussion concerning The Devil's Advocate[edit]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate[edit]

Since most of my comments below have been more at addressing claims of other editors, namely the editor who started this case, I figure I should provide a more complete statement on my actions. While WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE have apparently been interpreted by some editors as justifying repeating the claims of official investigations without qualification, my take on that is a lot different.

For one, I do not think the idea is that all fringe theories are created equal. Each theory, fringe or otherwise, has its own independent merit or lack thereof and should be treated as an independent case (this applies even within a subject of conspiracy theory i.e. theories about Saudi/Pakistani complicity in 9-11 are generally seen as far more legitimate than theories about the use of directed energy weapons). In addition, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE are about how much attention is given to an idea, not how that is treated. My understanding is that WP:NPOV still applies regardless of how little acceptance an idea has. WP:FRINGE is not a license to promote the mainstream position in any way or to attack the fringe position.

When any source is cited potential conflicts of interest that source may have should be considered, as well as the credibility of any statement cited to the source. Even experts say things they cannot back up with facts. It is important to consider if a cited expert has done so before repeating the statement without qualification. For instance, that Stephen Hawking has stated God is not necessary to explain how the universe came to be does not mean we can repeat such a statement as fact, because it simply isn't a fact. No matter what level of certainty an expert attaches to a statement, it is the certainty of the actual facts presented that matters. When a statement of certainty would be prejudicial to a position held by any group, it definitely better not be stated without qualification unless the claim is clearly backed up.

As it concerns giving due weight and covering fringe theories, insuring that you present the verifiable facts objectively without promoting any position takes precedence over all else. Not seeking to discredit or reject a fringe theory is not the same as promoting it or giving it undue weight. In this case, the controlled demolition theories get one paragraph devoted to explaining that the official investigation does not give these theories much credibility. Attributing these claims about the theories to the investigation does not give undue weight to the theories themselves.

The above mainly concerns disagreements over one or two sentences in the overall article. When it comes to the more substantial dispute over the amount of material devoted to the collapse and investigation my reasoning does not require as much explanation. My take is that the building 7 article is first and foremost an article about a notable structure in New York City. At present it concerns both the present iteration and past iteration of that structure. To that effect I found the amount of detail devoted to the collapse excessive. Specifically six out of ten paragraphs in the section were about the investigation into the collapse, one being devoted almost entirely to the delays to the investigation. For an article about a building that sort of focus did not make a lot of sense. My concerns were magnified upon seeing that the article about the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, where I would expect a great deal more detail, had two or so meager paragraphs on building 7.

Now there is much made of me not discussing changes before making them (I discussed plenty after making a change), but this is partly due to my experience with contentious subjects. I find that many times people are simply unwilling to consider any major change to a contentious article and discussion tends to stalemate. Rather than spending days trying to sort out the question I figured a bold change would provide a clearer picture and make discussion easier than simply going over the vagaries of whether an article needs a major change or not. My desire was thus to have a WP:BRD process, though obviously I did hope the first change would be the only one I would have to make. All along the way my reasoning never changed. I felt a lot of unnecessary information was being included in the building 7 article when it rightly belonged elsewhere. Each time I paid attention to what the other editors were objecting to, asked them what concerns they had, and tried to discern what they really had a problem with as it concerned my changes. Some of the objections I got, like the one about Fiterman Hall, were not even things I thought involved any POV consideration until it was said to involve one.

Part of my thinking was pretty simple: if every subsequent shortening effort kept information they specifically expressed a desire to keep they would either mention other bits of information they wanted to remain or we would arrive at a point where they had no objections, thus successfully achieving a consensus position that made the section shorter and the size more consistent with a Featured Article of its scope. On several occasions I did manage to find ways to shorten the article these editors agreed with and some of those changes remain in place. Two shortening efforts I made several days apart appeared to gain acceptance, in one case an explicit endorsement by one of the editors. Feeling like the bold, revert, discuss cycle was finally bearing fruit I thought of another way to shorten the article while respecting the concerns of these editors. Unfortunately, my memory of the objection to removing Fiterman Hall left me thinking including the information in the article was enough, but editor Jordgette apparently wanted the image specifically to remain.

At the point Jordgette resorted to pushing for administrative action is I think where this really went wrong. I feel had we gone back to discussion the matter could have resolved itself without incident. However, pushing for administrative action no matter how well-intentioned always tends to make things uglier. Here I felt it was anything but a last resort and that everything was going the way any editing cycle should go on Wikipedia. Situations like this, in particular, often lead to one side feeling vindicated if they are left untouched by an administrative action while the other side is severely punished. On some level I think this explains why editor Tom Harrison went about reverting without explanation a number of the changes that had apparently been endorsed by Jordgette almost as soon as my block began. It also led to a complete change in the atmosphere on the article. Efforts to get discussion going on the reverts by Jordgette and Tom before and during my block essentially got stonewalled.

Having reviewed some aspects of the article it has become clear that despite keeping eye on this article like hawks for anything they construe as pushing conspiracies a number of very basis problems like grammatical errors, puffery, and removal of the one wikilink directing people to the conspiracy theory page (an issue that got the 9-11 article stripped of its features status) went unnoticed by these editors until I began contributing. This sort of thing is really not unknown to me as it tends to be the case that when a group of editors push out the only significant opposing editors the whole article declines as a result. What concerns me is that continuing to impose heavy sanctions against me without so much as a reprimand for these editors will only encourage behaviors that do not in any way improve Wikipedia. I do not have any interest in seeing either of those editors sanctioned, but only that my actions be considered in context. Just consider that almost all of my changes to the article after the block have been about the building itself, most of them being "routine edits" as Tom described them, yet I am still getting reverted and often with little to no adequate explanation given. I should not be expected to get approval for splitting one large paragraph into two smaller ones and it is unlikely many editors will have any interest in satisfying such a demand.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Additional comments

I have made it clear in the talk page that the change I was making was purely related to a grammatical error. The word "because" in the sentence does not match with the earlier wording "found no evidence" so I replaced "because" with "such as" and removed "were not observed" so that the sentence would be grammatically correct. An earlier change merely replaced absolute wording with more appropriate wording that was also used in the source material. The only other change just used identical wording to an earlier part of the sentence. It appears these are the only changes Jordgette is using to argue this point. While the latter two changes should not be a matter of controversy given what I just said here, I left those reverts in place and only sought to address the grammatical error.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It would appear Jordgette also believed that the previous wording needed to be fixed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Another note is that of the supposedly three edits listed as happening after the block, two are the exact same edit. The only other edits included the changes Jordgette has now acknowledged as legitimate as well as some changes that concern the building itself and have no bearing on the POV I am supposedly pushing. Some changes were purely style-related and had no impact on content, like merging paragraphs, while other changes involved removing blatantly promotional language, or expanding on a piece of information. What we are left with are edits before the block, in which case it appears Jordgette is merely pushing for additional sanctions on top of the week-long block.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

One issue that keeps getting repeated ad nauseam is the notion that I am pushing a conspiracist POV. Unfortunately these accusations increasingly border on failure to assume good faith, as in the accusation that I was using a grammatical error as an excuse to make "dubious" edits or Jordgette's insistence that I am insidiously hiding behind a pretense of impartiality. That the admin who blocked me accepted the accusation of me pushing such a POV is part of the reason I rejected that decision. It seems there is a poor habit of editors, admins included, presuming that the only reason someone would not want to insert absolute wording in favor of the official version of events (preferring to use intext citation) is because that person wants to push the conspiracy theory or that merely being open-minded when it comes to conspiracy theories means you cannot evaluate edits objectively.

However, my insistence on qualifying such statements by noting who said it or not using definite language is consistent with my edits across multiple subjects that have nothing to do with conspiracy theories. My opinions on some of those other issues are far stronger and sometimes are even dis-served by my changes, but only on this subject do people accuse me of impropriety and seek administrative sanctions over such accusations. Sadly, I cannot really prove to anyone what is going on in my head, but that just makes it all the more important that editors try to consider whether my reasons for edits make objective sense. Rather than approaching the subject with a battle mentality some editors need to be more diplomatic.

Tom's claim below that I was adding "a lot of chaff" to the talk page is an example of this battle mentality. He appears to be referring to comments I made on the talk page looking for his explanation on why he performed a number of reverts on material that had been unchallenged for at least a week or longer without providing any explanation. My concerns pointed to a lot of serious issues like information not being contained in a citation and the questionable use of a non-free image. Describing my queries as "chaff" when the editor was being questioned about his reasons for reverting material that appeared to have gained consensus without explaining why he did this does not suggest a desire for cooperation. Tom may have also been referring to my questions towards Jordgette about whether that editor objected to certain changes that had been reverted, given that the editor only raised one specific concern, as well as explaining why I had made those changes. Describing that as "chaff" would also demonstrate a lack of interest in discussion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Jordgette is going overboard now. I shortened a rather lengthy caption by removing information that goes on about how few photos exist, something that is of no consequence to the subject at hand at all (despite Jordgette's odd insistence otherwise). I also moved the image to the other side of the page so that the section would not look so cluttered. Once more, in Jordgette's haste and trigger-happy reverting, uncontroversial changes have been undone that only improved the article. Now we have three images on one side and it just makes the whole section look terrible. Absurdly Jordgette fails to fully restore the wording and when correcing that mistake makes the bizarre remark that the mistake was a "casualty of the current crisis" only going further to prove my point that these editors are in total battle mentality rather than actually seeking the good of the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Scratch that, it appears that particular word has been absent for some time. It appears to only have just now been noticed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I looked back in the history and it appears that mistake Jordgette blamed on the "current crisis" has been an issue since a change over four years ago.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

On my week-long block, since Jordgette brought it up and with those actions leading to it appearing to be the main thrust of the editor's objections, my reason for not accepting the decisions of the admins is because the one argument I made consistently, that my edits were consistent with WP:BRD, never got addressed by any of those admins. The closest an admin came to addressing it was the last admin reviewing the unblock, who still failed to acknowledge that my efforts at discussion specifically sought the opinions of other editors and tried to accommodate the opinions expressed or that such discussion did result in consensus changes. Of note for this case, Jordgette went to the noticeboard in that case hours after I tried to inquire about that editor's objections. Here Jordgette did not even bother to wait and reacted to a change that the editor now seems to acknowledge was not in any sort of bad faith. This behavior of jumping to seek administrative action even when an editor regularly expresses a clear desire for discussion is far more problematic than anything I am accused of doing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

On WGFinley's reasons for any admin interested you can look at the discussion on the admin's user talk page. However, here is a summary of why the reasons WGFinley gives below are inaccurate:

  1. The "removal of sourced material" was in fact a merge of information from one article to another, with the section in the building 7 article summarized.
  2. It was not done "without explanation" as the idea had been put forward by me on the talk page before the change and a section discussing the change was started immediately afterward with an explanation of the reasons for the change.
  3. None of this occurred after "coming off a block" because those edits WG mentioned were given as the reason for the block.
  4. Even though I had already spent a great deal of effort explaining those edits on the edit-warring noticeboard, in an unblock request, and in a response to an unblock request on my user talk page I still made some effort above to address those edits (I also addressed all the diffs from after the block expired), contrary to the claim made by WG below.

Of course, WG would have probably realized all of this, but, as the admin made clear, my statement on these issues was not read. In spite of this and apparently in spite of my efforts to provide as succinct and simple an explanation as possible on that admin's user talk page pointing out those mistaken reasons, this admin still seems to be pushing for a topic ban. I am not sure what reasoning the admin now has for suggesting such an action, but it should be understood that the reasons currently given on this noticeboard are not accurate and, by the admin's own admission, not based off actually reading my comments.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

On Jordgette's latest update it seems this editor has a nasty habit of selectively taking things out of their proper context. My lack of interest in getting approval for every little change is not unwarranted. Several times I have sought discussion with Jordgette and Tom without getting much feedback or receiving only snarky comebacks (several overtures I have made in the article talk page have still gone unaddressed). Notice how, even though I started a section mentioning these latest changes soon after they were made, Jordgette's first action is to cite those edits here in order to build a case to keep me from editing the article altogether, rather than raising these concerns on the talk page where I explicitly made a point of opening the changes up for discussion. In fact, Jordgette does not even take the time to correct a very simple mistake involving a missing space. Jordgette and Tom are now citing changes that they express no real opposition towards as an example of how I am being disruptive, which just seems bizarre.

This rush to get rid of me, in light of their own expressed interests in having the article used to counter conspiracy claims, should definitely not be heeded. It is because of their own refusal to engage in real discussion and expressed agenda for the article that I aim reluctant to seek their approval for every change, though I have tried to get discussion going on contentious issues. I admit that I do not really believe in any sort of "seek consensus first" standard for editing articles, especially a standard imposed by editors who have a clear interest in pushing a POV. Most changes are just better achieved by taking bold action and then chewing over conflicts with other editors in pursuit of a compromise. I have consistently made an effort to do this all along the way in my edits to this article and, I believe, generally managed to improve the article. What problems exist are a product of several entrenched editors being unreceptive to discussion and seeking administrative redress for perceived slights against their cause instead of trying to compromise.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are some efforts I have made at discussion: [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77]

Here are some of the responses I have gotten: [78] (consider the call in the preceding link for keeping information to counter unmentioned conspiracist arguments in light of this earlier remark about the need for including information because it led the editor to read up more on the official explanation already included in the article) [79] (preceding comment in link in response to numerous specific questions about specific changes) [80] (in response to me suggesting an In-text attribution given conflicting statements in the source) [81] [82] [83] (all in response to me asking an editor why he reverted several edits that had stood for a week without offering any explanation or discussion before or after the revert) [84] [85] (after I asked the editor to respond to some objections, like the revert he performed without explanation or discussion, he refers to my efforts for discussion on the article talk page as "chaff" here)--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning The Devil's Advocate[edit]

It should be noted that this request concerns all of the edits listed above, before and after the block. The user, having gone through the edit-warring noticeboard process and a considerable block, continued making dubious edits immediately after the block. I for one have lost patience with the user and am pursuing this venue as the last resort that it is. -Jordgette [talk] 06:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I endorse Jordgette's request for enforcement. Coming right off his block, The Devil's Advocate, along with a number of routine edits, made two tendentious changes (Jordgette's statement above) to the paragraph on controlled demolition and added a ton of chaff to the talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 14:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Earlier today The Devil's Advocate again began to restructure and reword.[86] My concern is less with these edits themselves than with his not getting consensus for re-writing and moving around paragraphs, and that the long-term result of a number of these edits will be to slant the article toward controlled demolition[87]. Tom Harrison Talk 23:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Soooo, let me get this straight. You want me to get permission from you or editors of a similar mind just to make uncontroversial changes, but apparently think you can revert changes that stood for a week or longer, changes facing no objections from editors frequenting the article (one of which said editors I just noticed made one of the changes that got reverted), without providing any explanation in the edit summary or talk page for why you did it and ten days later, only after repeated prompting for an explanation, offer up a rather vague reason that you refuse to elaborate on. The standards you expect me to meet compared to the standards you use for yourself leave a lot to be desired.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Moving around paragraphs, deleting sources, etc., is not uncontroversial — particularly if it's a controversial topic, and particularly if it's a featured article. Not to mention the fact that you're listed on this page because other editors have serious problems with your ongoing editing practices on this article, and you've been called out by four admins now. Yet you continue as if no one has said anything. The hubris is incredible. -Jordgette [talk] 01:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Let us keep this in context. Moving a paragraph from a place it shouldn't be (somewhere that it interrupts a continuous line of information on a separate subject) to a place it more appropriately belongs (where it is clearly connected to the preceding paragraphs) is uncontroversial. Deleting two outdated sources that no longer go to the cited page and another source in favor of a single up-to-date reliable source that more than sufficiently backs up the information, is uncontroversial. There is no reason why you should consider such changes controversial.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
You've been asked numerous times to find consensus on the talk page before making significant changes to this article. The fact that you continually refuse to do so, because you personally feel you are correct in all of your decisions, is the very reason you are listed on this page. -Jordgette [talk] 01:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Unstated fact: Jordgette apparently thinks I am correct in this instance. The fact I have no issue with some of my changes being rewritten or with rewriting some changes I made after objections are raised would logically indicate I do not feel I am correct in all my decisions. Now, the insistence that I need the approval of your group, because that is what we are really talking about here as you and people of your shared opinion frequent the article most, for any change would be more acceptable if you would not say things like "snore" when reverting my comments on your talk page about the need for you to explain your reasons for reverting changes or refer to my pleas for discussion as "chaff" as Tom did. Stuff like that makes me suspect you really just want to force me to only propose changes on the talk page so that you can give my proposals the silent treatment in the hopes that I will go away and allow you to continue pushing your position unhindered.
Before you accuse me again of not assuming good faith, I am only telling you the impression your words and actions are creating. If this is not the case it is very simple to avoid that sort of confusion. Not treating another editor's calls for discussion with annoyance is one way. Actually discussing things seriously with that editor is another way. In spite of everything I am doing my utmost to try and be nice to you here. Behaving as though you know what I feel about myself is not making it easy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I think DA's continuing editing of the controversial article even during this case is a clear manifestation of disruption and waste of everyone's time (and IDHT). A topic ban that will give everyone some respite and time to DA to think it over may be good. I am pessimistic that this will not continue after the expiry of the ban but I guess all of us have to AGF. - BorisG (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not like my edits since the AE notice have been problematic in any way for the article. One of the edits that got reverted did little more than split one big paragraph into two medium-sized paragraphs. There is no real logic that justifies undoing a change like that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Just to reiterate: there is no basis for reverting due to "no consensus" and editors have to provide more than that. My "continuous editing" should be considered in light of what edits I am making, not that I simply am not partial to getting permission for every edit I make to an article. I did not register on Wikipedia so I could ask "mother may I?" every time I see something that should be changed then wait days or more to get permission and I doubt anyone else did. With one minor exception, my edits after coming off the week-long block have addressed issues with the article not pertaining to disputed content. Any admin should consider that first, and only then consider whether I am being disruptive by not getting permission, a demand for which there is no basis in policy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

If there is any doubt as to the user's POV, note that on the talk page of September 11 attacks the user stated that the National Institute of Standards & Technology is not necessarily a reliable source [88], this being a case of the fox investigating the henhouse [89]. The user has also said that NIST "guessed" at what started the fires in WTC7 despite there being plausible CT-based explanations [90]. When combined with the user's aggressive editing style of the article and resistance to consensus, I believe this fringe POV creates a problem for Wikipedia, even if the user is presently staying clear of obvious POV-pushing in the article. -Jordgette [talk] 22:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that editor's MO seems to be sneaking up on the POV after making some edits that don't change much. My ability to AGF with DA is waning. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
No one should have to sanitize their opinions for someone to assume good faith. Just because I do not share your disdain for conspiracy theories and their proponents does not mean I am not acting in good faith.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
My position is that the government saying it did not do anything wrong should be regarded with the same level of skepticism as anyone saying they did not do anything wrong. You typically don't just take someone's word for it that they did not commit a crime. OJ Simpson is not a reliable source on whether he is innocent or not. On Wikipedia situations like that are when we make sure everyone knows that this is coming from the implicated party. Inserting absolute statements that treat their word as law seeks to keep people oblivious of that clear conflict of interest. That was the thrust of my argument on the 9-11 talk page.
As for what I said on MONGO's talk page, I was seeking to illustrate the point that certain things being claimed as fact are really not even close. No one actually witnessed or had physical evidence to determine the cause of the fires so yeah it was a guess based on the fact that no one saw fires until a little after the collapse. For all we know Billy Joel could have started the fire. Even so, you consistently neglect the more important parts of my remarks like "Personally, I don't really think there is good reason to challenge the collapse from fire explanation" or "All of that is just my own random speculation so naturally it has no encyclopedic purpose in any article" that kind of suggest the opposite of what you are trying to say here.
On the other hand, you appear to favor hiding behind verifiability and denying that you are pushing a POV with your edits even when you make that agenda plainly obvious. Take the instances I note above where you explain how the information on the bulge needs to be included because it led you to look into the NIST investigation (the obvious implication being that said piece of information will lead readers to accept the official version) or how the Fiterman Hall image is important because it is damning evidence that building 7 did not collapse into its own footprint (here the implication being that said image will get readers to reject the conspiracy theories). You phrase a lot of your reasons for including information in the building 7 article in terms of whether it will help or hurt people in adopting the "correct" position.
Like I have noted several times consider that the first major change I made to the building 7 article was moving the information elsewhere on the basis that an article about the building should not be a battleground or soapbox for arguments about the collapse. Part of that was removing all information on conspiracy theories but a single sentence saying no evidence was found of a controlled demolition. What POV do you think a change like that would push if any?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Billy Joel? Really? What's next the Chewbacca defense? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Just trying to lighten things up a little.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning The Devil's Advocate[edit]

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

The diffs provided show removal of sourced material without explanation. TDA has provided a TL;DR explanation of his philosophy but no response to the diffs submitted. Since he just came off a block I think a topic ban is in order. --WGFinley (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

How long are you thinking?
Don't see anything prior, I was thinking a month. --WGFinley (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy[edit]

Clearly no admin consensus to do anything. T. Canens (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Jiujitsuguy[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Nableezy 00:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Jiujitsuguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 14 November 2011 Removal of consensus statement on illegality of Israeli settlement
  2. 13 November 2011 gross misrepresentation of cited source
  3. 13 November 2011 misrepresentation of cited source
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Notified of the case
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Similar to an earlier case where an editor removed from articles the consensus sentence on the legal status of Israeli settlements, which Jiujitsuguy was involved in and is aware of the consequences, Jiujitsuguy has removed from an article on an Israeli settlement the consensus sentence. Jiujitsuguy was involved in both the discussion that resulted in that consensus and in the AE request linked above. Since coming of his topic ban, JJG has continued with the same conduct that saw him banned, relentlessly pushing an extreme minority POV, such as claiming the Golan is in Israel (see for example here or here where he adds maps showing the Golan as being within Israel's borders). This latest episode of removing the consensus statement is the last straw as far as I am concerned. The user should have been banned for any number of actions, this just being the latest one. In both the edit summary of the edit reverted by JJG (here) and the talk page section opened about the issue (here) the discussion WP:Legality of Israeli settlements is explicitly referenced. This is simply bad-faith editing against consensus and should be dealt with accordingly.

Besides the issue with the removal of the sentence on the illegality of the settlement, there is an additional problem with the edit. In the edit, Jiujitsuguy changed it is the largest settlement in the Golan Heights to it is the largest town in the Golan Heights. The source for the sentence says Katzrin, the largest among the Golan settlements with a population of 7000. Now one might quibble over whether Katzrin should primarily be called a settlement or a town or whatever, but Jiujitsuguy here ignores the source to further a political agenda and while doing so introduces a factual error into an encyclopedia article. According to the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, Katzrin (listed as Qazrin in English here, the Hebrew spelling קצרין verifies it is the same city) had, at the end of 2005, a population of 6500. Majdal Shams had a population of 9500. Katzrin is considerably smaller than the largest town in the Golan, it is specifically the largest settlement, yet this was ignored due to the political leanings of a Wikipedia editor. This manipulation of language to suit a political purpose while ignoring the sources causes damage to the encyclopedia. Jiujitsuguy continues to disregard, and indeed misrepresent, sources when they do not conform to his political views. nableezy - 05:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Jiujistuguy's response only causes greater concern. He says I do not for one second regret that part of my edit with that part being a reference to the modification of the sentence on Katzrin being the largest settlement. He now brings as justification for that edit a "source" that was not mentioned in the article or the talk page and one that is clearly inaccurate as even official data from the Israeli government shows (also, I found a more recent census, which gives Katzrin's population as 6500 and Majdal Shams as 9600). He still feels justified in introducing factual errors so long as they reflect his personal political opinions. The misrepresentation of sources to push a political POV was the major cause of his last topic ban. To remind anybody who has forgotten, in that episode Jiujitsuguy modified Israel also expelled Arabs from the DMZ and demolished their homes to Israel also expelled Arab squatters and trespassers from the DMZ and demolished their homes. This most recent episode, with the stubborn refusal to acknowledge the wrong, demonstrates that he has yet to understand the issue of misrepresentation of sources and that he continues to do so for purely political purposes. nableezy - 17:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy still, despite repeated explanations from both myself and RolandR, does not understand the issue. That doesnt give me much hope that this can be rectified with anything other than a ban. This isnt an issue of calling Katztrin a settlement or a village, a colony or a city. That he can only see this issue through that lens and persists in arguing a completely irrelevant point is itself evidence of the tendentious nature of his edits. He still has not understood the basic point that Katzrin is not the largest town in the Golan, and by making the article say that, based purely on his political positions, he introduced a factual error into the article. And he apparently feels no regret for that. I dont think much more evidence is needed that Jiujitsuguy's editing goals and Wikipedia's mission are simply incompatible. His goal here is to align articles with a political viewpoint without any regard for either the facts or the sources. That cannot be tolerated, especially in an area as problematic as the ARBPIA topic area. nableezy - 19:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
JJG, do you really not see a problem with calling that a scholarly source, or with the fact that it is plainly wrong as the census data makes clear? And do you still not see the problem that in your rush to push a POV based on your personal political feelings you disregarded the source and introduced a factual error? Or does everything fall under "content dispute"? It seems you have yet to learn the lesson of the last topic ban, which was due to exactly this type of disregard for sources in order to push a POV. nableezy - 21:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

@WGFinley, the issue is the misrepresentation of sources to further a political agenda. JJG was banned for exactly this behavior, and he repeats it, almost to a t, here again. In the past instance, JJG misrepresented an offline source, changing Arabs to Arab squatters and trespassers when the source makes pretty much the opposite point. Here, he changes what settlement to village when the offline source, again, makes the opposite statement, and in doing so he introduced a blatant factual error into an encyclopedia article. He defends this action. I can think of no action more serious to the integrity of the encyclopedia than willfully and repeatedly misrepresenting sources to further a political agenda. Let me know if you still dont see what the issue is. nableezy - 00:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, no, not exactly. In fact, not even a little bit. Jiujitsuguy self-reverted after being brought here due to his having removed the consensus statement on the illegality of the settlement from the lead. He did not then, nor has since, acknowledged any error in misrepresenting the cited source and introducing a factual error into an encyclopedia article due to a tendentious attempt to push into the article a political viewpoint, an extreme minority one at that. nableezy - 02:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
WGFinley, that last comment of yours demonstrates that you have no business on this page. This isnt about Nableezy vs Jiujitsuguy, and the thread above has almost nothing to do with JJG. I repeat, please ensure that you have carefully considered the evidence before threatening topic bans and interaction bans. Your comments demonstrate a lack of understanding. nableezy - 12:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
There is no basis, whatesoever, for any sort of interaction ban. JJG made an edit that both removed consensus material and, in a blatantly political POV push, willfully introduced a factual error into an encyclopedia article. One admins imagination is not a basis for any type of ban. nableezy - 12:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I have added an additional diff of Jiujitsuguy willfully misrepresenting a source to push a particular POV. In this edit, JJG adds a source that says Mt Hermon, famous as Israel’s highest mountain as justification for claiming that Mt Hermon is in Israel. He also added in the reference the quote famous as Israel's highest mountain. However, the sentence actually reads, in full, The summit of Mt. Hermon—famous as Israel's highest mountain, at 9,230 feet above sea level—is actually in Syrian territory. Yet another example of JJG distorting a source to push a political POV, and this remains in the article today. JJG has in the past beeen topic-banned for reasons such as misrepresentation of sources to push a political POV, and fresh off his topic ban he is right back at it. nableezy - 17:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

And I just added a third diff. In this diff JJG adds this source to claim the the Mt. Hermon's summit straddles the borders of Lebanon, Syria and Israel. What the source actually says is:

On one side of the mountain is Israel, and on the other side are Syria and Lebanon. Israel took part of the southern slope, the Golan Heights, during the Six Day War, in 1967. Syria recaptured it on Oct. 6, 1973, the first day of the Yom Kippur War. Israel took it back two weeks later and has held it since.

Mount Hermon reaches 9232 feet, but its peak is actually located on the border between Lebanon and Syria.

That is, the cited source backs up exactly what the article had said, that the summit straddles the border of Lebanon and Syria. It does not support the edit made that Mt Hermon straddles an Israeli border. This is yet another example of JJG manipulating a source to degrade the quality of encyclopedia articles by introducing factually incorrect material with the sole purpose of advancing a POV. Like the 2nd diff, this, after more than a week, remains in the article. nableezy - 18:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Can an admin comment on the added diffs? In them, Jiujitsuguy repeats the exact behavior that saw him sanctioned last year, namely purposely misrepresenting sources to push a POV. If he can continue to get away with this I would like to know. Of all the things that count, purposely misrepresenting sources has to be more important than reverting too much. He purposely degraded the quality of an article by misleading readers into assuming the sources support the fringe POV that he has focused on pushing into a range of articles. If this is allowed to stand I think you all have to seriously reconsider if this is a project to create an encyclopedia. Because if it is, you cannot allow people to do such blatantly underhanded and deceitful things as purposely distorting sources to push a fringe POV into articles as though they were fact. Honestly, I dont see how anything short of an indef ban could be a proper response to such tactics. nableezy - 14:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

JJG's dishonesty shows itself here as well as in article space. He claims that I fail to note that the source was referring to the mountain’s summit and he fails to give you the entire sentence which says, “The summit of Mount Hermon… is actually in Syrian territory. My quote above of the source was complete, including the part about the summit. However, JJG's edits to the page changed the article to claim that that Mount Hermon's summit straddles the border between Lebanon, Israel and Syria, despite the sources that he himself brought, unreliable though they are, that explicitly say the exact opposite. This is simply dishonest editing, distorting sources to push an extreme fringe POV as fact. His dishonest edits, edits that disregard even the most basic of requirements for editing here, remain in the article. How any admin can accept such blatant dishonesty is not something I understand. How this is being completely ignored is, likewise, something I do not understand. Jiujitsuguy continues to distort sources, the same offense that brought him his last ban. He has not yet learned the required lesson. Is anybody going to do anything about that? Or will WGFinley's imagination that this is all due to some player vs player nonsense derail what should be an open and shut case? nableezy - 14:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
The misrepresentation of sources at Mount Hermon remains, with Jiujitsuguy's edit that changed Mount Hermon's summit straddles the border between Lebanon and Syria to Mount Hermon's summit straddles the border between Lebanon, Israel and Syria with the sources he added saying Mount Hermon reaches 9232 feet, but its peak is actually located on the border between Lebanon and Syria. and The summit of Mt. Hermon—famous as Israel's highest mountain, at 9,230 feet above sea level—is actually in Syrian territory. nableezy - 06:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Is anybody, anybody at all, going to deal with the repeated, constant misrepresentation of sources? Or is Jiujitsuguy entitled to continually falsify sources to push a fringe POV as fact? nableezy - 16:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I dont think an argument can be made that either this or this was made in good faith. In the first one he changed Mount Hermon's summit straddles the border between Lebanon and Syria to Mount Hermon's summit straddles the border between Lebanon, Israel and Syria while the source says Mount Hermon reaches 9232 feet, but its peak is actually located on the border between Lebanon and Syria. The source says the exact opposite of what he put in the article. In the second one he takes a quote and manipulates it into giving a different meaning. He does this again below when he claims that Fodor's says Mt Hermon is famous as being Israel’s highest mountain. That is simply not true, the only place the words famous as appears in that book is where it says The summit of Mt. Hermon—famous as Israel's highest mountain, at 9,230 feet above sea level—is actually in Syrian territory. Here he adds the word is and continues to misrepresent the source. I cant believe such deliberate misuse of a source, to the point of sniping out the parts of the sentence that directly dispute the claim he is attributing to it, can be called a good faith action. It is very clearly a gross misrepresentation of the source, forgetting the low quality of it. nableezy - 14:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

WGFinley, I don't see what he did on Mount Hermon other than to point out there's a ski resort there and added a travel guide as source for information on that, really????? One more time; JJG used a source that says Mount Hermon reaches 9232 feet, but its peak is actually located on the border between Lebanon and Syria. and made the article say that Mount Hermon's summit straddles the border between Lebanon, Israel and Syria. He also used a source that says The summit of Mt. Hermon—famous as Israel's highest mountain, at 9,230 feet above sea level—is actually in Syrian territory. for the same claim. Do you really not see the problem here? He consistently distorts sources, to the point of outright falsification. I have written this several times, explain how you do not see the issue. He did not even write anything about the ski resort in any of the cited diffs, where on Earth did that come from? Have you even looked at the diffs? nableezy - 14:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Surprise, surprise. Enigmaman, the issue is not whether a source is good enough. The issue remains about the deliberate distortion of sources to push a fringe POV in to supposed encyclopedia articles. Jiujitsuguy took a source that says the summit of Mount Hermon straddles the border of Syria and Lebanon and changed the article to instead of saying exactly that to instead say that the summit of Mount Hermon straddles the borders of Lebanon, Israel and Syria. That is a deliberate distortion of the source. Are you seriously going to pretend that this is acceptable? If a supposed "uninvolved admin" is going to play the role of Jiujitsuguy's advocate, could he at least respond to the actual issue. Despite my repeated requests, WGFinley has failed to. And now you completely disregard the issue. Can somebody please tell me if it is acceptable for a user with an established history of falsifying sources to push a POV, as evidenced by his last topic ban, to continue falsifying sources to continue to push that same POV? Forget that the sources are garbage, just look at that the fact that despite his using garbage sources he still needed to fabricate their contents to push that fringe POV into an article. nableezy - 01:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Despite several efforts to get WGFinley to explain his rather bizarre comment that the only thing that JJG did at Mount Hermon was to point out there's a ski resort there and added a travel guide as source for information on that, he has refused to do so. WGFinley, have you actually examined the diffs here? In which one did he point out there's a ski resort? Did you not see that he used a source that said that the summit is on the border of Syria and Lebanon to change the article to claim that the summit is actually on the border of Lebanon, Israel and Syria? If you misread the diff fine, just say so. No shame in that. But you seem willing to disregard the issue in an attempt to remove any sanctions against Jiujitsuguy. This editor was once banned for distorting sources, he continues to do so. Below a thread was open about an editor inventing a quote from a source. This isnt much better. So, can you please explain why you made that comment and what diff shows JJG point[ing] out there's a ski resort there? nableezy - 07:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

People; Jiujitsuguy lied about a source. I dont understand the hesitancy here. He claimed that the sources support that the summit of Mount Hermon lies on the border Israel, Lebanon and Syria. The sources that he brought, despite their low quality, say the exact opposite. Jiujitsuguy consistently distorts sources, so much so that I think it is fair to question the validity of all of his edits. An editor so willing to twist the sources to push a fringe POV should not be allowed anywhere near an encyclopedia. That this is allowed to continue is honestly astonishing. nableezy - 16:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

WGFinley, perhaps my tone has been overly harsh, but in no way are the actions here so trivial that they pale in comparison to my tone. My tone is due to the fact that lying about a source to push a POV by an editor previously sanctioned for distorting an off-line source to push a POV is, or was, being completely ignored. I honestly cannot think of much worse sins here than distorting a source, and in doing so repeatedly introducing factual errors into articles. Forgive me for saying this, but it seems that despite repeated efforts to explain the issue you are ignoring that issue. There are many things that get me wound up, but being ignored tops the list. I have asked you several questions. You have not answered any of them. So, forgive my tone, but please answer my questions. If you do that you will find my tone much more pleasant. nableezy - 07:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Notified

Discussion concerning Jiujitsuguy[edit]

Statement by Jiujitsuguy[edit]

Was unaware that this so-called consensus statement applied to the Golan Heights. I was under the impression that it only applied to the West Bank since the AE against Shuki involved a West Bank settlement and not the Golan Heights. I will self-revert but seek clarification if this is indeed the case.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

self reverted--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I immediately self reverted within seconds once I was provided with the link above. Look, if you’re looking to ban me just let me know so I won't waste any more time with this. I self-reverted almost immediately once I was provided with the link. Forgive me if I'm not completely up to speed with every nuance of IPCOLLAB. In addition I haven't edited in I-P for over eight months. And again, the minute I was provided with the link and read it, I self reverted. What more do you want for Christ sake?!--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
In response to Nableezy’s comments concerning my sourced edits at Mount Hermon, I stand by those edits and sources one-thousand percent. I triple sourced those edits and provided hyperlinks to the source so that any reader could verify what the source says. I want every reader to check and double check the source so that the reader can be better informed. If I had anything to hide, do you think I would provide the hyperlink? It is nableezy himself who is trying to pull a slick one by twisting the source in deliberate misleading fashion.

This source[91] from Fodor’s states that “Mt Hermon is famous as being Israel’s highest mountain.” I take that at face value. Now Nab rather slyly and underhandedly hooks in the part of the source that says “…is actually in Syrian territory.” What he fails to note is that the source was referring to the mountain’s summit and he fails to give you the entire sentence which says, “The summit of Mount Hermon… is actually in Syrian territory.” But the source clearly states that the mountains slopes are in Israel.

This source[92] from Popular Mechanics states “Mount Hermon straddles one of the world's most infamously contested borders. On one side of the mountain is Israel, and on the other side are Syria and Lebanon.” Again, I take that at face value and plain meaning. The source goes on to say that the mountain’s peak is in Syria. But nableezy would have you believe that the source says that the entire mount is located in Syria, which is entirely false.

And the third source[93] which states that Mount Hermon is, “located at the intersection of the Israeli, Syrian and Lebanese borders, Mt. Hermon's southern slopes are home to Israel's only ski resort.” Again, plain meaning and face value. Folks, this isn’t rocket science. It’s plain meaning. No twists, no turns and no pitfalls. The sources are entirely consistent with the edit and I stand by them one-thousand percent. I strenuously object to nableezy's insinuations, mis-characterizations and distortions.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Tim. In addition to Fodor's, I cited two other sources including one from Popular Mechanics to support my edit at Mount Hermon. I note that I’m required to triple source my edits whereas Nableezy is required to provide none. If Nableezy has a problem with the sources used, the appropriate venue or forum is the Discussion Page or RSN. If you have a problem with any one of the three sources that I used, I welcome your input at the Discussion Page as well.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • ─────────────────────────NW, that is completely unfair! I utilized three sources to support a position that part of a Mount Hermon lies in Israel[94][95][96]. If one thinks that all three sources are "suboptimal" the proper forum to address those concerns is at the Discussion page or RSN. I also note that Nableezy hasn’t provided a single source to support his position. It is no secret that Nableezy maintains a visceral hatred of me. By imposing such a one-sided sanction, you are inserting yourself directly into a content dispute and are in effect taking one side over another. This is like an episode right out of Orwell's 1984. I’m called every name in the book by some quarters while Nableezy, one of the most rabidly anti-Israel, tendentious editors remains untouchable. I assert that when I’m wrong I take responsibility and self-revert (as I did at Katzrin) But I stand by my edits at Mount Hermon 1000 percent. I make no apologies for triple sourced edits there.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
So you stand by falsifying a source by claiming Mount Hermon is in "Israel"? This is the quote you used in the exact same manner, the strike through being what you omitted, "Mt Hermon, famous as Israel’s highest mountain -- is actually in Syrian territory". But of course you know that, though you have the advantage of playing off of one admins refusal to even look at the matter, very clever. By the way, with the whole Nableezy "anti-Israel" nonsense, I think we have all had about as much as we can swallow of your recycled, nonsensical personal attacks. -asad (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I have not looked at the totality of Nableezy's edits, though I have seen some instances where he does get tendentious in his edits, but that is irrelevant here because it isn't even remotely difficult for me to perceive that you are making disruptive edits in this case in the pursuit of an agenda. You used travel guide information about a ski resort, distorted said information, and then inserted that distortion into an article about a mountain at the eastern edge of the Golan Heights to push a false claim about the Golan Heights in general. This is gaming plain and simple. Not even the Israeli government claims the Golan Heights are anything but Syrian territory under Israeli control. Three terrible sources that can be misconstrued as expressing a position do not override countless authoritative sources clearly expressing the opposite position. Given your actions on the Katzrin article it is not hard to see these are blatantly tendentious edits that show no regard for Wikipedia's rules about reliable sources and verifiability.
One revealing part is what I noted in my comment below. You removed reliably-sourced material about the 1981 law being declared null and void as well as the consensus statement and never provided any explanation in an edit summary or on the talk page about why you did so. You made a comment in the edit summary to "see talk" but the only comment you made was about whether Katzrin should be called a town or a settlement. Did you really think that was the only contentious change you made?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Jiujitsuguy[edit]

Comment by Epeefleche

Firstly, looking at the first noted diff in complainant's "additional comments" section, it appears that the complained-about edit was supported by a ref to an RS. And that this was noted in the edit summary as well. Secondly, what is referred to by complainant as "the agreed upon consensus statement of illegality" seems to be a violation of wp:SYNTH, in that the subject of the article is not mentioned at all in the source given. While it may be appropriate language for an article on settlements in general, it does smack of spamming for an editor to insert the sentence in the instant article where the ref fails to mention the place in question.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

As to the second point, if there was (as is indicated) an earlier consensus (to the effect that including such a statement in articles is not synth, even where the ref does not mention the subject of the article),then I agree that consensus should be followed. Perhaps that discussion can be referred to with a diff, rather than a bald reference? It would be interesting to understand why that is not synth, in the eyes of the consensus. And also to explore what similar statements could be created (with that as a basis) and inserted into all "relevant" articles (even if the ref fails to specifically mention the specific subject of the article). I expect it could be a template for all sorts of dozens-of-insertions entries. For example, as to entities that are viewed as engaging in illegal terrorist activities.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
What up, Epeefleche? Some (close enough to 50%) were not happy at all with the final consensus. I (the originator of the discussion) was on the fence. The line is SYNTH. This was clearly understood by editors involved. My reasoning for being OK with it being SYNTH is that it was concise and the only way to do it was by WP:Ignore All Rules. How it has played out has been contrary to IAR, though. Ignore All Rules is about the betterment of the project. The rollout of the line has been contrary to the project's goals. It is bad enough that editors have decided to use a boiler plate when using a source directly related to the subject would obviously be preferred. But now we have several incidents of bickering over it. I started the conversation to stop the disruption (edit warring and sneaky editing). Events since have been just as disruptive. This discussion might be better at IPCOLL. I just wanted to clarify since it is so related. Cptnono (talk) 03:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Can you provide a link to the discussion where the decision was made? That would be helpful. It may well be worth revisiting the issue. And/or extending this exception to the SYNTH policy to other matters, such as "x is considered a terrorist organization by z", whenever such organizations are mentioned.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I am just going to chime in here to note that statement is not WP:SYNTH. I have found in several cases that people represent synthesis as being one thing when it is actually another. Obvious inferences from a source related to the subject material are perfectly legitimate under WP:V. As it concerns this case, the source provided for that statement about Israeli settlements clearly says that Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights are considered to be in violation of the Geneva Conventions. That Katzrin is one of those Israeli settlements means that source is in fact about Katzrin, even if it is never mentioned by name. A source does not need to spell out everything for us to use it to back up a statement. If it is plain to everyone competent enough to understand the words being used that a source is referring to x, they never actually have to say x for us to require another source in order to state x is being referred to in that source. Generally, it is safe to presume that the source considers Katzrin as being an illegal settlement by virtue of the fact that the source clearly states that it considers all Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights to be illegal. The only way you could argue otherwise is if you argued that the source does not consider Katzrin to be an Israeli settlement, does not consider it to be in the Golan Heights, or does not consider either of these things to be the case.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Nishidani

The Mt Hermon in Israel edit can be contrasted with what occurred at Alon Shvut recently. User:MichaelNetzer found a source for the Kermes Oak there which ran Without a doubt, the most famous tree in Israel is the Kermes oak in Gush Etzion. Well both Alon Shvut and Gush Etzion happen not to be in Israel, but the West Bank. Notified, Michael commendably understood the objection, though he did think the ambiguity in the syntax allowed for it to be taken as 'famous in Israel'. And he certainly did not use that phrasing to assert in the article that these communities were in Israel, since the article is quite clear on their location in the West Bank. That is responsible editing, and collaborative judgement as opposed to tactical quibbling. No such ambiguity appears to exist in the way the Fodor text has been twisted. This is a serious problem, in any case. You can get any number of your nation-state's sources to promote a line that is wide of the mark in terms of international understanding of geography and history. Experienced editors who've been around here for as long as JJG should not be playing games with this kind of slipshod sourcing. Commonsense tells us all to refrain from temptations to use sources that are evidently skewed as nationalist POVs. There can be no excuse for reading a source only to deliberately misrepresent it by careful erasure of its qualifications in order to trim it to fit a POV, as appears to be the case here. Nishidani (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It has been 12 days and I doubt this is an "exceptional case" (especially since he fixed it already).Cptnono (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC) This is some silliness. Well over 12 days. If admins don't note that traffic suddenly increased a couple days ago then they should not be attempting to fix the area. I know that Tim knows what I am talking about and I do not need to beat around the bush. A whole lot of comments all of a sudden. What is up dude?Cptnono (talk) 07:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, after reading JJG's point above ('Nableezy hasn’t provided a single source to support his position.'), just made, I can't help but comment. For God's sake, until I started reading wikipedia I/P articles, I thought that everyone of a certain age had elementary geography drummed into them (i.e.'Mount Hermon Mount Hermon (Arabic: Jabal Al-Shaykh) is a snowcapped ridge on the Lebanon-Syria border west of Damascus.' Laura S Etheredge (ed.) Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan, Britannica Educational Publishing/Rosen Group 2011 p.3. states, not the position but the elementary geographical fact all general readers of a certain age know). I mean, Jeezus, I can't believe any editor here isn't familiar with the maps at Israel, where Israel is one colour and occupied territories like the Golan another. This is almost comical in the farcical pretense, even among one administrator, that the average joeblow, on looking at a map can't see the obvious, or that editors in the I/P area are unfamiliar with the maps on most pages they edit. I don't care about banning. I do think soap operas in which the obvious facts, any child used to learn at school, are opinionized in such agonizing detail shouldn't be tolerated. What encyclopedia are we writing if even the most basic facts are up to POV challenges like this? Nishidani (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment by asad @WGfinley

As someone who has been following both of these A/E threads and withheld commentary in an effort to not clog the pipes, and someone who is actively involved in the Mount Hermon article, I would have to ask you WGfinley, it appears as if you have not even looked/not cleary looked at the sources the JJG put in the article.

-JJG added the location as being Israel in this diff.
-When adding the reference, JJG quotes the travel guide in the ref, "Mt Hermon, famous as Israel’s highest mountain" cleverly leaving out "-- is actually in Syrian territory".. Please see the actual travel guide source here.

I am not sure how you can back up this action as defensible. He never self-reverted, as is evidenced by the article's history, where his last time even touching the article was to add the source. WGfinley, don't take my word for it. But I implore you, please see the links that I have provided to understand what Nableezy is talking about. I would also like to point out, when JJG added the source, it appears as his search term in Google Books was, "where is mt hermon israel or syria". JJG was just fishing through Google Books to find any source he could where it stated "Israel" rather than "Syria". Hell, he couldn't even get that right. -asad (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Gatoclass

As I posted on his talk page a few minutes ago, I think WG's latest comment on the case demonstrates that he is simply not up to speed with prevailing standards of adjudication here at AE. AE long ago left behind the notion that admins cannot make judgements about such issues as misrepresentation or falsification of sources at this page, indeed, ARBPIA enjoins administrators to take whatever steps they deem necessary to prevent disruption in these topic areas. If WG's interpretation of the rules were to be accepted, it would be straight back to the bad old days when civil POV pushers ran rampant over the topic area with no fear of consequences. Gatoclass (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by The Devil's Advocate

Not being involved in these articles much I cannot speak clearly about this particular editor's actions under ArbCom. However, I think his actions in the first diff should not be discounted because of a self-revert. Has anyone mentioned the other passage removed in that instance? That the UN declared the 1981 action in the Golan Heights null and void was reliably sourced and this information was also removed without explanation despite having been there for some time (I found it in one version from at least a year ago). JJG actually left the comment that the act in 1981 was internationally condemned so it is not that he had an issue with bringing up the stance of the international community, but appeared to have an issue with noting that the act was declared void.

His actions with the other article demonstrated an effort to cherry-pick sources (a "best-of" list in the skiing section of Popular Mechanics should not be treated as a definitive source on the legal status of any territory just because Popular Mechanics is considered a reliable source on news about technology) that are close enough to saying what he wants that he can misconstrue them as confirming something that is plainly false. The biggest cherry-picking of all, however, was the fact JJG was using sources only about Mount Hermon rather than considering them in the context of what reliable sources say about the Golan Heights in general.

Removing plainly relevant and reliably sourced material from one article without explanation and misrepresenting sources, including several that are definitely not reliable (travel brochures and the like are promotional material not legal documents), in another article to push a false position indicates a pattern of acting contrary to core Wikipedia policies like WP:V and WP:NPOV. In no sense is this a mere content dispute. The fact he stepped away from one of those edits after the AE case was filed does not change much with respect to his behavior since that could just as easily be seen as an attempt to dodge administrative action. He could have self-reverted when Nableezy requested he do so as he was obviously online at the time.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Ohiostandard

In a nutshell:

1. "Mt. Hermon" is more of a tremendously huge ridge than an individual mountain.
2. Around 7% of its 1000 km2 area evidently extends southward into the extreme Northern part of the Israeli-occupied Golan. (map)
3. The only way to claim the mountain is "in Israel" is by subscribing to Jiujitsuguy's view that the Golan itself is in Israel.
4. His belief that the Golan is a legitimate and "integral part of Israel", as he puts it, is common among right-wing Israelis, but it's utterly rejected by "almost the entire international community, including allies of Israel", as the BBC puts it. This easily-verified fact is demonstrated by its acknowledgment in WP:Legality of Israeli settlements.
5. Jiujitsuguy's fringe POV about Israeli-occupied territories isn't itself a problem. The problem is that he keeps on trying to use Wikipedia's voice to make others believe this extreme fringe POV too, even based on very thin, inappropriate, and misrepresented sources.

What will he give us next to champion this fringe POV after Popular Mechanics as an authority on geopolitics, I wonder, if he's allowed to continue in the topic area? Cat Fancy on peace negotiations or military strategy, perhaps? And that selectively edited to leave out the inconvenient bits, as we've seen here?

This is wholly unrepentant, long-term behavior: Jiujitsuguy "stands by his edits" to the Mt. Hermon article "one thousand percent", he repeatedly says above. This guy is obviously never going to stop pushing the extreme fringe POV that his edits there demonstrate, and that leaves the community with no alternative to a permanent topic ban.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Afterword: In evident support for his fringe POV that the Golan Heights is "an integral part of Israel" I see that Jiujitsuguy earlier this year also deleted an original CIA Factbook map that showed the region in the same color as Syria ( from whom Israel took it in 1967 ) and that included the phrase "Israeli occupied" beneath the "Golan Heights" label. In that same edit, he replaced the map with an altered version from which "Israeli occupied" had been expunged, and that likewise showed the area in a discontinuous color from Syria. He's evidently been pushing this fringe POV for quite a long time.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

( If you wish to comment, please do so in a section for your own statement rather than adding on to mine below.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC) )

Result concerning Jiujitsuguy[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • The consensus found by LHvU in the discussion plainly covers the Golan Heights (and the West Bank, and East Jerusalem), and it plainly states that this sentence is to be "included in all relevant articles". I'll reiterate what I have said previously: all editors in this topic area are expected and required to respect and follow this consensus in their editing, until and unless a different consensus is obtained through another RfC of similar participation. Failure to do so is ground for sanctions, including but not limited to a block or a topic ban. T. Canens (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
@Tim, I immediately self-reverted within seconds once I was provided with the link as noted in my response above.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately it comes as no surprise that Jiujitsuguy is making this kind of an edit again. If JJG 'immediately self-reverted when he was provided with the link' how come he did not notice the mention of WP:Legality of Israeli settlements in the edit summary of Nableezy's last version, the one that he reverted? The Legality page explicitly mentions the Golan Heights. And in his own statement above, JJG says "Was unaware that this so-called consensus statement applied to the Golan Heights. I was under the impression that it only applied to the West Bank." It seems doubtful he would say this if he had even *read* the single sentence which the Legality page has determined to be the consensus wording. (Yes, that single sentence includes 'Golan Heights'). Unfortunately the only practical way to keep JJG from engaging in more adventures is a renewal of his topic ban. Admins at AE have made strong statements about enforcing LHvU's formula since the pressure to boldly ignore it is so strong. I think the I/P topic ban is the only adequate method to ensure that people will respect the consensus statement. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Ed. I am being truthful when I say That I did not know that that template language applied to the Golan. Yes, I was indeed negligent in not seeing it in his edit summary. I only became aware of it from his AE and after reading the link, I self-reverted, literally within seconds of his filing. I'm asking not to be thrown in the cooler again. I'm asking you to AGF and to take into consideration the self revert.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm very interested in hearing JJG's response to Nableezy's newest comment. T. Canens (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I was truthful in my first response and I will be truthful in my response to Tim’s query. The “consensus template” does not address the issue of whether Katzrin is a town, village, city or settlement. Thus, it would not be incorrect to apply any and perhaps all of these labels to this particular city so long as it comes from and RS and is verifiable.

    Concerning the subject edit, I noted at Talk page the following; "From Time magazine Israeli army tanks advance on the firing range during a training exercise, May 21, 2008, on the outskirts of the Israeli city of Katzrin in the Golan Heights. emphasis added. An equally if not greater persuasive argument can be made for calling it a town or city."[97]

    There is also this describing Katzrin as the largest town in the Golan

    I made the edit because at the time, the first two sentences in the lead described Katzrin as a settlement without any reference to its town or city status. After my edit, the first sentence still referred to it as a settlement and the second referred to it as a town. I do not for one second regret that part of my edit (emphasis added). The only part of the edit that I regret is removal of the “consensus” language, which I immediately reverted once I realized that it also applied to towns in the Golan. (emphasis added)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This response does not even begin to address Nableezy's point: Majd ash-Shams is the largest town in the Golan Heights. In this context, it is irrelevant whether you call Katzrin a settlement, a town, or a city, it is still smaller, and in altering the term "settlement" to "town", Jjg introduced a blatantly false assertion into the article. RolandR (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
So I guess that all the reliable sources that refer to Katzrin as a town or city including Time Magazine[98] The New York Times,[99] Haaretz[100] as well as scholaraly texts[[101], are also asserting "baltant falsehoods," hmm?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
No, you are still missing the point. The blatant falsehood is not that Katzrin is a town or a city; it is the assertion that it is "the largest". RolandR (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
According to this this scholarly text, Katzrin is the largest town in the Golan. So it becomes a content dispute.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
You cite a source that you know is wrong and falsely claim it is a scholarly source, and you think that helps your case? Amazing. Zerotalk 08:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I dug a bit further and I think this [102] is very relevant to that particular portion of the edit. The RFC concerning this very issue was closed as no consensus for the demand that each geographic entity beyond the 67 border be deemed a settlement in the opening sentence.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Sticking To The Point[edit]

Nableezy has filed one action in this AE request, that JJG took action in violation of consensus. JJG reverted himself within 30 minutes of the action when it was pointed out he was wrong. What's the issue? --WGFinley (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

In response to Nableezy's comment above while I am certainly aware of the type of behavior JJG gets drawn in to (having banned him in this topic area myself on more than one occasion) I don't see the particular offense here to merit AE. He put something in, the point was made to him he wasn't being accurate and after 30 minutes of reflection on it he self-reverted. That's the exact thing I would expect. --WGFinley (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy/JJG Redux[edit]

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_Nableezy above. --WGFinley (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Given the sequence of events and the self-revert, I would be OK with closing the complaint against Jiujitsuguy (talk · contribs) with no action. However it is surprising that JJG manages to find himself back at AE so frequently. You would hope that past experience would encourage caution and get him to avoid making changes to very contentious portions of article leads. Some editors in this area who are closely associated with one of the two sides seem to feel duty-bound to strike a glorious blow for the cause. Thanks to WGFinley for all the new analysis he has done. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
    Unfortunately it's not surprising in this topic area. --WGFinley (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't find JJG's response as to the "largest town" issue convincing. To me this seems similar to the example in WP:VNT#"If it's written in a book, it must be true!" of using a travel guide that says "Washington D.C. is named after George Washington (1722 - 1799)" to argue that Washington is born in 1722 and not 1732.

      I agree that no action should be taken on the "legality" issue at this time, considering the self revert. T. Canens (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems we have a consensus to close, is there a support for an interaction ban for JJG and Nableezy perhaps modeled on the one with Cptnono last year? [103]. --WGFinley (talk) 06:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

My view, briefly: The edits Nableezy listed, examined individually, are arguably in good faith. Together, though, they reveal a substantially more worrying pattern of behavior. Any reasonable editor in this area should have known that whether the Golan Heights (or parts thereof) is in Israel is a highly controversial matter. The idea that this kind of controversial territorial claims can be sourced to travel guides is frankly preposterous. The repeated use of clearly suboptimal sources in furtherance of a POV, even assuming for the sake of argument that these sources say what JJG says they say, is tendentious. I think a topic ban is in order. T. Canens (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I prematurely closed this as it hadn't had comments for more than a week (thought we could finally close it) and I missed your latest comment TC. He self reverted and if we started topic banning over these territorial claims we would be topic banning until the cows come home. I think JJG came forward and reverted, I don't think we should topic ban when we get desired behavior. Perhaps an admonishment to use better care and stick to reliable sources in territorial claim articles is in order? --WGFinley (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
First, I don't see a self-revert to Mount Hermon. Second, we expect people to use high-quality sources in this kind of cases. This isn't exactly rocket science. If all of them are using sub-par sources, then banning all of them sounds like a good plan. I'm tired of seeing an ARBPIA request at AE every other week. T. Canens (talk) 11:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't see what he did on Mount Hermon other than to point out there's a ski resort there and added a travel guide as source for information on that. I would consider a travel guide a decent source for information on a ski resort. There doesn't seem to be any dispute there's a ski resort there, it has its own article. These folks argue incessantly over maps and even where a mountain range is based on where the peaks are! Using these nonsensical standards I guess we should put Canadian Rockies up for AfD since its peak is in the United States. We shouldn't be drawn into their content disputes by analyzing sources in taking action. I agree on this constantly coming up on AE but if we are going to reduce leniency then it needs to be across the board and not against one side or the other. But meting out a TBAN for using a travel guide as a source? That's drawing us into content where we shouldn't be going. --WGFinley (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I came across this discussion and I agree with WGFinley. I really don't see how Arbitration Enforcement is the forum for arguing about whether sources are good enough or not. Enigmamsg 00:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Proposal: JJG (and other editors if people feel it is warranted) are topic-banned from articles that are within 25km of a border or disputed border where one of the nations involved is Israel. NW (Talk) 02:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks to NW for proposing something that might allow this to close, but I'm afraid it could be more trouble than it's worth. We would then have admins trying to monitor which topics have some relevance to a border zone, getting us still deeper into content matters. I disagree with WGF on the question of whether we should look at content in the sense that sanctions have often been issued in the past for misuse of sources. This may require that admins read those sources and form an opinion on what they say. It is unfortunate that in my first reading of the complaint (back in mid-November) I thought it was just a 1RR complaint and did not realize that a lot of it was based on a claim of misreading sources. It may be too late in the day to turn the ship around, since several admins would have to (a) agree that misuse of sources was significant, and (b) decide if action is needed. The complaint has been open for over two weeks. Of the admins who commented, only T. Canens seems to have expressed concern about the issue of misreading sources. Jujitsuguy does appear to have used Google searches that try to cherry-pick data favorable to his points. For example, his above search that yielded the Balint reference was a Google Books search for 'Katzrin the largest town.' This should give us very little confidence on JJG's ability to interpret sources neutrally.
  • Meanwhile, if any admins (in addition to T. Canens) want to give a fresh read of this AE based on the angle of misuse of sources (previously neglected) and consider a topic ban on that basis, I'd be open to a further discussion. If T. Canens wants us to ban other people as well as JJG he ought to suggest which people should be on the banned list.
  • The evidence shows JJG in a bad light but it's not easy to follow. Plus, the only reasonable escalation for JJG, who has been warned and topic banned many times, is a new topic ban for several months. That would seem to need an easily-graspable violation to be justified. An alternative closure might be a full protection of Golan Heights, Mount Hermon and Katzrin for some period of time to keep the nonsense in check. EdJohnston (talk) 05:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • My position has been represented by the filing party as supporting what JJG did, I have said I don't see what the large issue here that would make him subject to sanction. Whatever the case, what he did begins to pale in comparison to the tone and accusations made by the filing party here and on my talk page. I think all parties should be cautioned to not come here with unclean hands, which is a bit what NW is getting at with these constant AE complaints and counter-complaints. I think this case should be closed with a warning to JJG to mind his sources and all concerned to work out their differences on sources and articles on the talk pages and not in revert comments as seems to be the usual style. --WGFinley (talk) 06:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Uhh, since when was it necessary that there be admin consensus for discretionary sanctions to be applied? Yall want to close this then fine, but the result is that an editor previously sanctioned for lying about sources is free to continue lying about sources. Well done, everybody. nableezy - 00:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think, you of all people, should be agitating for sanctions without consensus. If I recall correctly, just a week ago there was a case here against you, where at least one admin called for your topic ban, but it wads closed as no action. Be careful what you wish for. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk)
I call for sanctions when there is a cause for sanctions, mr obvious sock. Here we have an editor once topic-banned for misrepresenting a source to push a POV again lying about a source to push a POV. If you want to compare that to reverting a collection of socks of banned users you can do that. nableezy - 01:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
You think there is a cause for sanctions, but clearly, there is no consensus that this is indeed the case. Be careful what you wish for. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
No Sherlock, I dont think there is a cause for sanctions. Additionally, I dont see how there clearly no consensus for it. The admin, WGFinley, who argued against sanctions made several comments that have been repeatedly shown to be false. He has so far refused to rectify the error, and instead has ignored repeated attempts to draw his attention that he was either a. misunderstanding the diffs, or b. purposely distorting their content. I dont care anymore, it isnt worth wasting my time with an obvious sock. I just want to have it written down here that several admins have ignored repeated willful distortion of sources to push a fringe POV into an article. A distortion that was in the article for weeks with a talk page section open discussing that distortion, with the user who had lied about the source neither self-reverting the distortion or responding on the talk page about the distortion. Im done here. nableezy - 01:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)