Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive48

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

Contents

Jmh649[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Request concerning Jmh649[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
scuro (talk) 05:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Jmh649 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Jmh649 restricted (Jmh649 is limited to one revert per page per week within the topic area (except for undisputable vandalism and biographies of living persons violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page). [1]

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

  1. [2] original material reverted
  2. [3] first revert by Doc James on Sept. 16th. 2009. I also don't believe he posted in talk that he made this revert.
  1. [4] original material reverted (part a)
  2. [5] original material reverted (part b)
  3. [6] second revert (part a and b) by Doc James on Sept 18th/2009. I also don't believe he posted in talk that he made this revert.

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

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

Additional comments by scuro (talk):
this would be his second violation

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
"new enforcement action requested for breaking two revertrestriction - you will find the request here" [7]

Discussion concerning Jmh649[edit]

Statement by Jmh649[edit]

Diff [61] and [64] are the same rather than two separate reverts. The revert for Sept 18th is not listed. I was reverting an obvious case of vandalism by an anonymous IP if any one care to look at the scientific literature. I have not made any edits to the ADHD page since Sept 18th and am no longer actively editing Wikipedia due to reasons I am not yet free to disclose. Also I reverted my revert of the vandalism as another user thought that it was a good change on Sept 17th [8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay now that we have the proper diff listed for the 18th. This was not a revert but a dealing with the issues for which the tags were added.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors[edit]

This revert was on an IP address which changed symptoms into signs. Doc James was correct in his revert. Signs are what are observed by a clinician when making a diagnosis. Symptoms are what are experienced by the sufferer. As wikipedia is not a diagnostic manual aimed at clinicians but is aimed at a general audience symptoms is the appropriate terminology and is the term used in almost all medical articles. The policy arbcom ruling says "may be blocked", not "should be blocked". I think that the fact that an ip address was reverted has little to do with the drama on the article that the enforcement was meant to stop. I also think blocking for a revert of an ip address when the revert was correct would not be fair in this instance.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved Ncmvocalist[edit]

16th and 18th is well over a week ago - simple, but stale vio. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

reply

True, but I've had what appears to be a bogus arbitration request amendment filed against me right after the second violation. I didn't have a chance to check the diffs till now. As was explained to me previously, there is no excuse for breaking rules.--scuro (talk) 06:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I came across this while examining the background to a current arbitration request for amendment (the one scuro refers to above). Can I ask what is done with stale reports of violations of the arbitration case remedies? Is it possible to record them at the "logs" section of the case pages? This would give arbitrators and others reviewing the subsequent history of the case a better picture of what has been going on. More generally, has any thought ever been giving to logging AE requests in a section at the case pages? A set of links to the archived AE requests? I know people can search the AE archives, but it would be convenient to have the history and logs all in one place. Carcharoth (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I very vaguely recall insisting that a violation be recorded in the case logs when this situation arose last year for some case, but not sure whether that system has changed. Should I continue responding here, or should we move the more general points to another venue? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
    • In filling out this request, I saw no mention of time limits in filling the request, nor did I see what that time limit is. Could someone point these criteria out to me?--scuro (talk) 11:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
      • It's more of a standard interpretation of blocking policy than it is a time limit. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I don't see where one could interpret any part of "the blocking" policy to come to the conclusion that the violation is "stale" because it happened over a week ago. What we have here is an enforcement request for a long standing problem. This is the second clear violation of an arbitration remedy. Both qualifiers of the remedy were violated, in that Doc James edited twice within a week and he did so without communicating this on the talk page. Edit waring has been an issue for over a year now, and edit waring has been very disruptive to the ADHD article. Both a med cab and rfc were filled then to deal with this issue. Edit waring was the main focus of arbitration. There has been a number of times where Doc James has had the opportunity to reflect, to have "second chances". Many olive branches have extended to Doc James and he has rejected every offer made by others and myself for a meeting of the minds between us. This unwillingness to resolve differences happened as recently as this month when he rejected a med cab proposal by a third party who is sympathetic to him. One of the four stated goals of the blocking policy is to encourage, "a rapid understanding that the present behavior cannot continue and will not be tolerated". No other solution presents itself to us. The violation demonstrates that he continues to work outside of the system. By no means is this violation "stale" to the issues at hand. --scuro (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
          • The Mediation was rejected because you were actively sabotaging intervention by Wiki Medicine Project so it was wholly inappropriate and it was I who first rejected mediation as I felt reporting to arbcom was the appropriate venue which has been done. It was not an issue which needed to be "mediated" about. I do not know what you mean by resolving differences scuro, we are talking about reverting an IP editor who wrongly changed all instances of the word "symptoms" to "signs". The ip editor was wrong, he was reverted by Doc James. I don;t see how this is relevant to the arbcom findings or related to "olive branches" etc except on technical grounds. Consensus was obtained anyway on the talk page and I have since changed signs back to symptoms.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
          • I am bothered that what went on with regards to Wiki Med Collaboration project, is effectively going without any action taken on scuro but yet Doc James might be getting blocked for correctly reverting inaccurate edits by an ip editor.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
            • It is highly disruptive to continue to make baseless allegations. You've been asked to support these bogus charges at the arb com amendment request, and to date you haven't supported these statements. Let me recommend that you do so before action is taken against you. The focus here isn't my behaviour, it's Doc James's behaviour, so can we please focus on that?
            • The remedy states that the criteria to revert without restriction is, "undisputable vandalism". Simply because an IP address makes an edit doesn't mean that it vandalism. That edit was done in good faith even though one could make a good argument that symptom is a better word then sign. Finally Doc James didn't post on the talk page after the edit. This is a clear cut case of a violation.--scuro (talk) 12:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
              • I provided to the arbcom ammendment diffs and link to med collaboration, so I have no idea what you are talking about and why you keep saying that I have made baseless accusations.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
                • Please talk your beef to arb com amendment request. This is not appropriate forum.--scuro (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, this link you submited is not a revert by the way.[9] I put up a tag requesting that copy and pasted text was summarised, Doc James did this. It was not a revert, no text was reverted or deleted. Copying and pasting chunks from sources is unencylopedic. You are alledging that Doc James reverted me, he removed a tag after he summarised the copied and pasted text. The tag was not part of the article and it is common sense to remove it after it is no longer needed and issue is resolved. So there has been no violation in the evidence that you submitted. Doc James did NOT revert me, there was no revert.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Given that it was Literaturegeek's edit that was reverted (which allegedly violated 1RR), and Literaturegeek has no issue with it (and most likely would have performed a self-revert as his concern in the tags was resolved), this already makes this report problematic. Also, given that the first revert involved reverting an anon whom unilaterally changed the usage of "symptoms" to "signs" throughout the article (which may not be vandalism per se, but would legitimately be considered for reversion if someone was on vandalism patrol), there really is no case here. If scuro still has an issue with no action being taken on this request, he should consult his mentor. I urge an administrator to close this accordingly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
    • The critera of the remedy are clear. Both ciritera have been violated. I assuming that Doc James had no idea who posted the the tags and the fact that he removed them once again is problematic. This has been a long standing issue. The case that the second revert was one of "undisputable" vandalism has not been made. Also, Ncmvocalist you were involved in my topic ban request. The designation of uninvolved party does not hold true.--scuro (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
      • This is the risk you take on when making assumptions, scuro. By the way, can you please provide diffs/links to establish how I was involved? Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see how it was a revert. It would be a revert if Doc James removed the tag and did not summarise the copy and pasted text. Seeing as he addressed the tags concern, all it was was "editing the article". For example, say someone added a tag saying citation needed, then an editor provides a citation and removes the citation needed tag, that is not reverting a tag but addressing the tag. My tag/banner removal by Doc James was just part of addressing the tag editing the article. I hope this clarifies this. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Jmh649[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
I am currently leaning towards declining this as a stale report. --Tznkai (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 DeclinedThis is going nowhere, and appears to be pointless. Remedies are not games of gotcha, and the report is stale. Come back if there is a more recent violation. --Tznkai (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Lapsed Pacifist[edit]

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

Request concerning Lapsed Pacifist[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved: Lapsed Pacifist Blocked for two weeks

User requesting enforcement:
GainLine 11:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist Remedies - Lapsed Pacifist is banned indefinitely from articles which relate to the conflict in Northern Ireland

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

  1. [10] This edit is on murals relating to the Conflict in Northern Ireland, a topic that the user is topic banned from editing on and more so this particular edit changes the context of the the picture.
  1. [11] Again an edit in an area (Irish republicanism and the conflict in Northern Ireland) that the user is banned from. While there is no content change, the user is pushing the limit of what may or may not be acceptable in the ban and is gaming the injunction.
  1. [12] continues to push the bounds of what is or isn't acceptable here, even after this RfE being brought up.

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

  1. [13] Warning by Falcon9x5 (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Review if these actions fall under the scope of the remedy and whatever sanction deemed appropriate.

Additional comments by GainLine :
Lapsed Pacifist is currently subject to a second RfAR arising from conduct relating to editing in another area.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
Notification of enforcement request on Lapsed Pacifists talk page

Discussion concerning Lapsed Pacifist[edit]

Statement by Lapsed Pacifist[edit]

Comments by other editors[edit]

Result concerning Lapsed Pacifist[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
First edit listed was a definite problem, second one less so, but still not a great idea. I would be content with a very stern warning this time unless there was trouble caused. Am I missing any procedural history here?--Tznkai (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
My thoughts. LP is restricted from this area. He also will have another topic ban in another area in the ongoing ArbCom case when it closes. I am fine with a warning.. a LAST warning. If the line is crossed again, in any way shape or form, drop the heavy end of the hammer. SirFozzie (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
After seeing the latest edit, where he knew he was under investigation, I have dropped the heavy end of the hammer. Seeing as this is his FOURTH violation of the ArbCom sanctions, I have blocked User:Lapsed Pacifist for two weeks, and I was considering making it a month or indef, and would not protest if the block was extended. I am leaving this open for any further discussion, but will close it in the next 24-48 hours if none is forthcoming. SirFozzie (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Sbs108[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved: Blocked per WP:DUCK by User:JzG

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

Request concerning Sbs108[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
*** Crotalus *** 14:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Sbs108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#SSS108_2

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

  1. [14]
  2. [15]
  3. [16]
  4. numerous others - see notes below

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not required

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
The previous topic ban on this user should be enforced.

Additional comments by *** Crotalus ***:
Based on WP:DUCK, it seems clear that User:SSS108 has returned as User:Sbs108. The user names are only one letter apart, and both accounts focus almost exclusively on Sathya Sai Baba and closely related topics. Both also exhibit similar grammatical flaws. Since User:SSS108 was indefinitely banned from this article, I request enforcement of this remedy on that individual's current account, User:Sbs108.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[17]

Discussion concerning Sbs108[edit]

Statement by Sbs108[edit]

I really don't know how to answer this other than I am not SSS108. This is a bold accusation which is not true. I've also edited two other articles, Desert Fathers and St. Anthony, so I am not just involved with Sathya Sai Baba although most of my edits have been on the Sai Baba article. I really don't know what else to say. SBS are the initials of my name and 108 is a holy number in Hinduism and Buddhism. That is the origin of my user name. Sbs108 (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, Truth is the foundation of the universe. I would never use deceit to get my way. One who would decieve others wouldn't be worthy of the Grace of a Holy Soul. I would never stoop that low as to lie. In reality do I really care about the wikipedia article of Sathya Sai Baba...no...Will my editing affect or change the life of Sathya Sai Baba...no.....Yes I have in interest in the article but not to the extent where I would lie to get my way. If it weren't for me and a few others, this article would be taken over and used as an extension of someone's critical website as it has in the past.Sbs108 (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPA States."One can only form opinions of editors as a result of their actions. Over time, they may diversify their contributions. Users who continue to work within a narrow range of articles may find it difficult to build credibility in community discussions, although extended improvement to a specific section of Wikipedia should not disadvantage an expert opinion. I have been on Wikipedia since May or April of this year, that's 6 months only. I don't see how mainly edited one article can get someone banned? It says nothing of this in WP:SPA. This case is claiming I am SSS108 which I am not. Please drop this case as there is no evidence of such. I have edited other articles and in fact am the main contributor to the article on the Desert Fathers. My edits in the Sai Baba article were mostly defensive and in trying to restore the article from many violations of WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. The article before I got involved was 90% criticism and took on a unrealistic dark tone.Sbs108 (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors[edit]

Sbs108, you have a total of 10 edits on Desert Fathers and its talk page. You have exactly one edit on Anthony the Great. All your other edits (several hundred) are on Sathya Sai Baba, its talk page, policy discussions, or related subjects such as 1993 Murders in Prashanthi Nilayam. If you are not the same as SSS108, perhaps you would care to explain why you not only have a virtually identical user name (only one letter different), but also share the same single-purpose interest. This is just too suspicious to be a coincidence. *** Crotalus *** 16:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but you are wrong. I am not the same person. I have nothing to do with this SSS108. Really if I were would I come back with almost the same name? Like I said the initials of my name are SBS, Scott my first name, Boyd my middle name and my last name begins with S which I won't reveal. The 108 number is a common holy number in Hinduism and Buddhism.Sbs108 (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Radiantenergy[edit]

Croatulus claims that “Sbs108” is banned user SSS108 why? Croatulus stated that “The user names are only one letter apart”?

  • This statement is Preposterous because if we start banning wikipedia users on the reasoning that their username sounds like an old banned user or the spelling is similar to a banned user if you replace the middle letter "B" with a “S” letter. Such arguments really sound very unreasonable and absurd for banning an user. I am sure there will be no users left in wikipedia if that’s the reason for blocking / banning wikipedia editors.
  • The proof Croatulus has given is from the recent edit war in the Sathya Sai Baba about a source “Daily Pioneer”. The Administrator Mfield put the article on Protection because there was an edit war on that source between Croatulus and Sbs108 and others. Again citing that edit-war history does not make Sbs108 same as the old banned user SSS108.
  • Editor cannot request another editor to be banned just because the other editor edit-warred with him on the article. There must be a real evidence or proof for such request.

Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


Question here is did Sbs108 really pass the WP:Duck test? - The answer is No and here's why?

  • So far the proof provided by Croatulus here [18],

[19], [20] did not show any evidence proving Sbs108 made same grammatical errors as banned user SSS108.

  • Croatulus complaint has been about the username being one letter apart that cannot be a criteria for stating that somebody passed the WP:Duck test.
  • The duck test states that "if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck" - But in Sbs108 case so far there has been no evidence to prove the his characteristics matched with the banned user SSS108.
  • The WP:DUCK test has failed. There is no evidence either showing strong comparisons between Sbs108 and banned user SSS108 this case should be dropped.

Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Sbs108[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Please have someone at SPI comment.--Tznkai (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Based on the evidence above and my own check of the contributions of this user, I concur with the conclusion that this is user SSS108 editing in defiance of his site ban for harassment and his topic ban from Sathya Sai Baba. I have blocked the account indefinitely. Guy (Help!) 18:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Jvmphoto[edit]

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

Request concerning Jvmphoto[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
MediaMangler (talk) 03:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey#Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey_banned

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Not applicable

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not applicable

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Block user account.

Additional comments by MediaMangler (talk):
User of account claims to be the permanently banned Jeff Merkey.

Of course I don't actually know who is using the Jvmphoto account. Various things said in the talkpage history of that account seem designed to bring Merkey into disrepute and therefore suggest that the account is actually being used by one of his critics. Further, the personal details which the account has attempted to add to Jeff V. Merkey are the type of privacy violations which a stalker might be expected to make. The personal attack that Jvmphoto immediately directed at me certainly reads like one of Merkey's classic rants, but with so many examples available that is easy enough to mimic. --MediaMangler (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jvmphoto&diffonly=1&diff=next&oldid=320675527&diffonly=1

Discussion concerning Jvmphoto[edit]

Statement by Jvmphoto[edit]

The subject of a biography is permitted to correct missing data and add a photo. This Merkey-Hating Troll and his friends have made it their lifes mission to deface any contribution by Merkey and have him banned. Whether banned or not, the subject of a biography is permitted to add a photo (which has been requested for over a year) and add simple demographic materials. Removal simply demonstrates this users personal hatred and vendetta against the subject of a biography -- with the sole intent to deface and vandalize the content of Wikipedia and this persons biography. It is MediaMangler and his associates who should be banned. In the present case, reliable content was removed and MediaManglers actions are nothing short of vandalism. If someone wants a photo and accurate information on personal family, birthdate, and other info, biographies of living persons allow the content to be added and/or corrected. It should also be noted that review of MediaManglers edit history clearly indicates he is a single purpose account who came to Wikipedia solely for the purpose of stalking and harassment of the subject of this biography. His edits are almost totaly geared towards a pattern of harassment and/or defamation of the subject of this bio. Jvmphoto (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry[edit]

I have indefinitely blocked Jvmphoto for being both a sockpuppet and a problem user, with links to Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Jeff V. Merkey and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Ronz[edit]

It's fairly obvious that he's continued to edit as 166.70.238.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), responding to personal attacks against him [21] [22] with some of his own [23]. He's also rushing into editing his article again [24], against WP:COI. --Ronz (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no arbcom ban any longer, and BLP allows input from the subject of a biography. Please resist the temptation to cave to peer pressure and be your own man for a change (or woman if you are female). Thanks for your wonderful approach, however, I am disappointed you chose to bring this here. 166.70.238.46 (talk) 03:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
If you just repeat the same past behavior for which you've been blocked, and attack new editors trying to help, then you have nothing to be disappointed about. I, however, do, as the only pressure is from you. I hope you'll think twice before making this mistake again.
Requesting a block of this ip at ANI here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Obvious_sockpuppet_of_Jeff_V._Merkey_-_coi.2C_harassment for sockpuppetry, continued coi violations, harassment, and using Wikipedia as a battleground. --Ronz (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors[edit]

Result concerning Jvmphoto[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Dealt with by Chase me ladies.--Tznkai (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Powergate92[edit]

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

Request concerning Powergate92[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
jgpTC 03:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Powergate92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Mass_date_delinking

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

  1. [25] date delinking with generic edit summary that looks like it could've been done by a script
  2. [26] see above, but different article
  3. [27] now edit warring over it after being warned (see below warnings)
  4. [28] third article, done after warning
  5. [29] fourth article, done after warning
  6. [30] fifth article, done after warning

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

  1. [31] Warned by Ryulong (talk · contribs) that the issue is contentious
  2. [32] Warning by Ryulong (talk · contribs) mentioning there was an arbitration ruling over it

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
appropriate-length block based on enforcement: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Enforcement_by_block

Additional comments by jgpTC:
User engaged in mass date delinking on several articles and edit-warred over it even after being warned.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [33]

Discussion concerning Powergate92[edit]

Statement by Powergate92[edit]

I was not using an automated script you can look at my monobook.js and see. I was not edit warring as you see in the edit summary I reverted has edit "per discussion at User talk:Powergate92#MOS:UNLINKDATES" That is not warning that him saying that I was making "automated edits that are not labeled as automated" when I was not. In that warning he said "There were two separate arbitration cases about it." but then did not show me links for the "two separate arbitration cases about it" when I asked him "Can you add the links for the "two separate arbitration cases about it"? Also if it's "extremely disputed over its usage" then why is it still part of WP:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)?"[34] but he said "I'm not sure what has come about of it or why it's not mentioned anywhere on that page."[35] and then I said "If your not going to add links for discussions about it being "extremely disputed over its usage" then I am going to revert your edits."[36] and then 14 hours after I said that I reverted has revert. Now that I see a link for the arbitration cases about it I am going to revert my edits. Powergate92Talk 04:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Diffs of me reverting my edits that were not reverted by other users:[37][38][39] Powergate92Talk 04:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Re to Tznkai: How is reverting 1 edit, 14 hours after the discussion ended edit warring? Powergate92Talk 05:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors[edit]

Result concerning Powergate92[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
For cryin' out loud, I cannot think of a single topic that justifies edit warring less than this. It isn't even funny enough to be lame, its just ridiculous. Powergate, do not edit war. Edit warring includes what you were doing - "its not automated" doesn't make it not edit warring, - arguing with someone on your talk page doesn't make it not edit warring. I do not see a clear violation since mass delinking implies more volume, but that won't stop a simple block for edit warring if this stupidity continues.--Tznkai (talk) 04:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Discussion is not "I'm going to do something unless you do XXXXXX" its the active attempt to form an agreement.--Tznkai (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
General cautions are sadly rarely effective in disputes that turn up at arbitration enforcement. We should look at what sanctions need to be applied to the article or to the editors involved in the conflict. Comment on that note is welcomed. (That said, I do concur with Tznkai.) AGK 00:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Not sure if I'm involved now, Powergate92 baited Ryulong into 3RR and got him blocked, I unblocked him. I absolutely agree with Tznkai here, this is unbelievably lame and needs to stop about five minutes before it started. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Shuki[edit]

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

Request concerning Shuki[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
untwirl(talk) 19:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Diffs of edits that violate it, and an explanation how they do so

  1. [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46] - these were the edits shuki was warned about on 10/7
  2. [47] continuing changes after warning
  3. [48] continuing changes after warning
  4. [49] more edit warring (along with inappropriate commentary insinuating racism)
  5. [50] continuing changes after warning
  6. [51] continuing changes after warning
  7. plus all of these from the user's contributions:
  8. 10:03, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Ma'on ‎ (Undid revision 318718235 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
  9. 10:03, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Immanuel (town) ‎ (Undid revision 318716885 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
  10. 10:03, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Beit Horon ‎ (rv OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
  11. 10:02, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Alon Shvut ‎ (Undid revision 318718337 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
  12. 10:01, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Efrat ‎ (Undid revision 318718628 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
  13. 10:01, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Kiryat Arba ‎ (Undid revision 318718824 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
  14. 10:00, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Avnei Hefetz ‎ (Undid revision 318719858 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
  15. 10:00, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Ma'ale Mikhmas ‎ (Undid revision 318719976 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
  16. 10:00, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Kokhav HaShahar ‎ (Undid revision 318720051 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
  17. 10:00, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Sha'arei Tikva ‎ (Undid revision 318720146 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
  18. 09:59, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Beit El ‎ (Undid revision 318720326 by Nableezy (talk)OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
  19. 09:59, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Alon, Mateh Binyamin ‎ (OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
  20. 09:58, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Barkan ‎ (Undid revision 318720575 by Nableezy (talk)OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
  21. 09:58, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Ma'ale Adumim ‎ (Undid revision 318646193 by Dailycare (talk) unneeded edit, might construe all Palestinian settlements as holding same status)
  22. 09:57, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Adora, Har Hebron ‎ (Undid revision 318719523 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)

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

  1. [52] Notification of sanctions by CIreland (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  2. [53] Warning by CIreland (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) "Shuki (talk · contribs) is notified of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles and the article in question watchlisted. I would be inclined to apply discretionary sanctions if the edit-warring over the order of adjectival phrases in the ledes of such articles continues. Involved editors may prefer to go to WP:AE for further reports."


Editor notified
[54]
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
whatever action admins deem appropriate; topic ban editing topic ban, narrowly construed and excluding talk pages so the editor can participate in discussion seems most likely to help since warnings and notifications haven't.

Additional comments
This editor is edit warring over calling israeli settlements "villages" or "kibbutzes" first instead of the most common name: Israeli settlements. After being warned and notified of sanctions, shuki has continued this behavior aggressively. I went ahead and returned most articles to their consensus based state, however I will not continue to revert. This issue needs admin attention.
Due to shuki's concern's in [55] exchange, i have stricken and adjusted my suggested remedy. untwirl(talk) 22:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Shuki[edit]

Statement by Shuki[edit]

The only thing that I am going to say on this here is that it is plain 'weenie' and bad faith pre-emptive effort to gang up and silence me after I was merely notified of the existence of the I-P sanctions (and you might all need to admit that I am one of the most prominent I-P area editors who has not received this official notice until now because of simply not needing to).

A) There is absolutely no warning of sanctions as explicitly stated by admin Clerland.
B) The Untwirl user did not even bother to open a section on WP:AN3, instead went for the kill on this page.
C) The user Untwirl abused WP:AGF by not even giving me a week to digest the 'notification'.
D) I already announced last week that I plan on opening a DR later this week (because of G below).
E) I already started a pre-DR discussion at WP Israel in order to avert a mass edit war by multiple editors that Untwirl, unfortunately, could not resist joining in.
F) The discussion is already dominated by non-WP Israel members because...
G) last week and this weekend is a religious Jewish holiday around the world and
H) I am certainly expecting opposing editors to respect that.
I) If anything, I suggest that it is Untwirl who is now the next candidate to receive notification of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Log_of_notifications for his controversial unilateral reverts on 10 October 2009 while a healthy discussion has already begun and for opening a false and misleading request on this page which has put an undeserved mark on my username, especially given my taking the lead in the attempt to resolve this conflict. --Shuki (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors[edit]

I dont think this is necessary, Shuki said that a WP:DR process would be started shortly over this issue and I dont think it would be a problem to wait on that before doing anything here. IMO this should be closed without any action. nableezy - 19:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

sorry, i missed that statement by shuki. could you provide a link, please? this is the user's last contribution and i don't see any statement that an rfc or dr process is being started. plus, all of those edits are after the notification and warning by an uninvolved admin. untwirl(talk) 19:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I plan on opening a WP:DR early next week. nableezy - 20:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
how does that statement on 10/9 justify diffs # 2-6 on 10/10? untwirl(talk) 20:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not trying to justify anything, I am saying that the best way forward would be an RfC on the topic which Shuki said would be forthcoming. That being the case I think it would be fair to wait on that RfC and see what happens. nableezy - 20:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
he was warned on the 7th. made many related edits on the 9th. said on the 9th he would seek DR. on the 10th continued on the same issue without seeking dr. you can't just say, "i'm going to seek dr next week" and then continue doing the same thing you have been warned about. i dont understand why you are defending this behaviour. untwirl(talk) 20:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment—actually this is a content dispute, and the editor who most clearly violated policy is not Shuki, as explained here (in reference to Nableezy). The user was notified in the past of the case, therefore I request that the enforcement be extended to include him as well, if action is taken against Shuki. —Ynhockey (Talk) 00:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I have only now noticed that the user who filed this request did exactly the same thing that they are accusing Shuki of doing—a mass revert in the articles in question. This does not help matters, and the things I said in the linked-to post apply here as well. —Ynhockey (Talk) 01:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Your accusation of me violating policy was nonsense the first time you made it, it is no less nonsensical now. nableezy - 01:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Ynhockey, I think your comment is rather unhelpful and misrepresents the situation. Nableezy's objectives and actions increase the compliance of article content with mandatory core policies. Shuki's actions decrease the compliance of article content with mandatory core policies. Nableezy argues by referring to core policies. Shuki and others argue using subjective emotional feelings about the meaning of words and people's intentions. Dispute resolution is the right course but it would certainly help if everyone could stick to just making policy based arguments and stop treating wikipedia as an ethnic battleground. If this AE request reduces the about of non-policy based actions/statements by editors then that is a good thing in ny view. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
if requested by an uninvolved admin i will happily self-revert. i was simply undo-ing the actions which shuki had been warned not to continue. untwirl(talk) 01:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion?[edit]

I think it is worth pointing out that in addition to the more general I-P case, there was a subsequent one dealing with the “Judea and/or Samaria” vs “West Bank” naming dispute. The underlying issue there was fairly similar – does WP follow the terminology used by the vast majority of real world English-language sources, even within Israel, to describe something; or does it use a minority terminology? As with this issue, it also spread itself across multiple pages. It would seem to me that WP rules are pretty clear on this, eg in respect of place names at least, per WP:NCGN – “By following modern English usage, we also avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it is called.” I was one of the editors who ended up being topic banned in that decision, when ArbCom decided to ban everyone they thought was involved in past edit wars over the issue, regardless of which “side” they were on, or what sins they may or may not have actually committed. In some cases, this was as few as 4-5 reverts over a two to three month period around the beginning of 2009, several months prior to the case even being heard (see this table). Anyway, I’m not commenting here in a bid to violate my topic ban, or in order to ask for User:Shuki to be clobbered, but because it seems relevant for the following reasons –

  • That decision does set a clear precedent that this kind of thing is, to say the least, frowned upon
  • Shuki should know this, because they were involved in edit warring on the West Bank issue along with everyone else at the beginning of 2009 (eg here, here, here, etc) and were lucky not to get caught by the decision (it was fairly arbitrary in terms of who it hit, and the grounds on which it hit people). That makes it doubly bad that they are continuing to do pretty much the same thing all over again, especially in terms of following an editor to multiple articles to make contentious changes
  • The West Bank decision also called for some sort of formal guidelines for the underlying West Bank vs J&S naming issue to be agreed. Oddly perhaps, this was not even included as part of the proposed decision at first, and even when it eventually was, it did not call for a wider I-P naming convention. Even though – ahem – some of us were calling for precisely that from the outset of the case, and had to repeat that point subsequently before even the limited provision was included in the final decision. It was fairly obvious all along that a related issue would just blow up somewhere else a couple of months down the line, as several people pointed out to ArbCom as their plans for dealing with the case became clear

Anyway, it seems the most obvious solution is to expand those guidelines to include the settlement point, as well as any other relevant disputed I-P naming issues, and for this to be done under ArbCom’s gaze, as before. As, perhaps, should have been done in the first place. --Nickhh (talk) 09:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Just looked over the links in the above post (obviously did not read the total case) but see that a lot of established editors on WP were banned from editing in the area indefinitely. This seems to me to be handling an issue that should require scalpels with a butcher knife instead, and we see now that the underlying (larger) issues were not addressed. If the question of Judea&Samaria were the only issue it would be (mostly) fixed now. J&S is clearly only a symptom of a larger problem, one that will not be solved through the use of a butcher knife. Stellarkid (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I fully support this proposed approach. I had a similar idea involving centrally agreed standardised content statements about these issues that could be deployed to the relevant articles to ensure global consistency and global consensus e.g. a statement about the occupation status of X would be a globally standard statement with a standard set of refs that has been agreed centrally. We can't keep having the same arguments over and over and over again. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure I agree. Guidelines perhaps, but "centrally agreed standardized content statements" "to ensure global consensus" only enforces a possibly probably false consensus and does not take into consideration that consensus can change with the facts. Further it is unlikely that a real consensus can be agreed upon when you have two groups so diametrically opposed. When Israel comes to an agreement with the Palestinians ("final status")- and vice versa - then an appropriate consensus can be made. Until then, it will be like the U.S. Republicans and the U.S. Democrats agreeing on a President, that is, either a false consensus or a forced consensus. Stellarkid (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't clear. I didn't mean to imply that the statements would be static in nature. Consensus could change but the changes would be centralised as would be the discussions. It means you would have one ongoing discussion for one issue that evolves rather than many fragmented edit wars distributed over the project. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed - I’m not sure Wikipedia needs to wait until a final status agreement for the real world Israeli-Palestinian dispute before a group of (hopefully) rational, well-informed and reasonably objective people here can come to an agreement about what certain things are currently called, or how they are referred to, in most English language sources; and then apply that agreement across all related articles. Those articles have to say something, and hopefully say something accurate – the choice is between agreeing it centrally, or fighting over it again and again on every individual page; not between whether people have the debate or not. Of course, that agreement can then be updated if and when the terminology in the outside world changes (not something that's imminent, I suspect, in any event). And the status of MEPP, or what either “side” - let’s assume for the sake of argument that they each think as a homogenous whole - involved in the conflict happens to think at any one point in time, actually has very little to do with it (a mistake ArbCom made when they figured the West Bank vs Judea & Samaria issue as if it was partisans from each side slugging it out). Each of them can argue what they like – it’s what the majority of uninvolved, mainstream international sources use at the moment that’s what counts. Anyway, I've said my piece I guess, and have no wish to be involved substantively, even if I were allowed to be under the slightly bizarre and unevenly applied punishment regime in force in this area. Perhaps this is better raised anyway at the arbitration noticeboard or something? --Nickhh (talk) 07:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Shuki[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
As I mentioned in a different section, the entire topic area seems to be a breeding ground for bad behavior. I am leaning towards a revert and move restriction.--Tznkai (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Shuki[edit]

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

Request concerning Shuki[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
untwirl(talk) 19:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Diffs of edits that violate it, and an explanation how they do so

  1. [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62] - these were the edits shuki was warned about on 10/7
  2. [63] continuing changes after warning
  3. [64] continuing changes after warning
  4. [65] more edit warring (along with inappropriate commentary insinuating racism)
  5. [66] continuing changes after warning
  6. [67] continuing changes after warning
  7. plus all of these from the user's contributions:
  8. 10:03, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Ma'on ‎ (Undid revision 318718235 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
  9. 10:03, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Immanuel (town) ‎ (Undid revision 318716885 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
  10. 10:03, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Beit Horon ‎ (rv OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
  11. 10:02, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Alon Shvut ‎ (Undid revision 318718337 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
  12. 10:01, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Efrat ‎ (Undid revision 318718628 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
  13. 10:01, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Kiryat Arba ‎ (Undid revision 318718824 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
  14. 10:00, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Avnei Hefetz ‎ (Undid revision 318719858 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
  15. 10:00, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Ma'ale Mikhmas ‎ (Undid revision 318719976 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
  16. 10:00, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Kokhav HaShahar ‎ (Undid revision 318720051 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
  17. 10:00, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Sha'arei Tikva ‎ (Undid revision 318720146 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
  18. 09:59, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Beit El ‎ (Undid revision 318720326 by Nableezy (talk)OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
  19. 09:59, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Alon, Mateh Binyamin ‎ (OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
  20. 09:58, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Barkan ‎ (Undid revision 318720575 by Nableezy (talk)OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
  21. 09:58, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Ma'ale Adumim ‎ (Undid revision 318646193 by Dailycare (talk) unneeded edit, might construe all Palestinian settlements as holding same status)
  22. 09:57, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Adora, Har Hebron ‎ (Undid revision 318719523 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)

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

  1. [68] Notification of sanctions by CIreland (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  2. [69] Warning by CIreland (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) "Shuki (talk · contribs) is notified of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles and the article in question watchlisted. I would be inclined to apply discretionary sanctions if the edit-warring over the order of adjectival phrases in the ledes of such articles continues. Involved editors may prefer to go to WP:AE for further reports."


Editor notified
[70]
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
whatever action admins deem appropriate; topic ban editing topic ban, narrowly construed and excluding talk pages so the editor can participate in discussion seems most likely to help since warnings and notifications haven't.

Additional comments
This editor is edit warring over calling israeli settlements "villages" or "kibbutzes" first instead of the most common name: Israeli settlements. After being warned and notified of sanctions, shuki has continued this behavior aggressively. I went ahead and returned most articles to their consensus based state, however I will not continue to revert. This issue needs admin attention.
Due to shuki's concern's in [71] exchange, i have stricken and adjusted my suggested remedy. untwirl(talk) 22:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Shuki[edit]

Statement by Shuki[edit]

The only thing that I am going to say on this here is that it is plain 'weenie' and bad faith pre-emptive effort to gang up and silence me after I was merely notified of the existence of the I-P sanctions (and you might all need to admit that I am one of the most prominent I-P area editors who has not received this official notice until now because of simply not needing to).

A) There is absolutely no warning of sanctions as explicitly stated by admin Clerland.
B) The Untwirl user did not even bother to open a section on WP:AN3, instead went for the kill on this page.
C) The user Untwirl abused WP:AGF by not even giving me a week to digest the 'notification'.
D) I already announced last week that I plan on opening a DR later this week (because of G below).
E) I already started a pre-DR discussion at WP Israel in order to avert a mass edit war by multiple editors that Untwirl, unfortunately, could not resist joining in.
F) The discussion is already dominated by non-WP Israel members because...
G) last week and this weekend is a religious Jewish holiday around the world and
H) I am certainly expecting opposing editors to respect that.
I) If anything, I suggest that it is Untwirl who is now the next candidate to receive notification of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Log_of_notifications for his controversial unilateral reverts on 10 October 2009 while a healthy discussion has already begun and for opening a false and misleading request on this page which has put an undeserved mark on my username, especially given my taking the lead in the attempt to resolve this conflict. --Shuki (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors[edit]

I dont think this is necessary, Shuki said that a WP:DR process would be started shortly over this issue and I dont think it would be a problem to wait on that before doing anything here. IMO this should be closed without any action. nableezy - 19:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

sorry, i missed that statement by shuki. could you provide a link, please? this is the user's last contribution and i don't see any statement that an rfc or dr process is being started. plus, all of those edits are after the notification and warning by an uninvolved admin. untwirl(talk) 19:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I plan on opening a WP:DR early next week. nableezy - 20:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
how does that statement on 10/9 justify diffs # 2-6 on 10/10? untwirl(talk) 20:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not trying to justify anything, I am saying that the best way forward would be an RfC on the topic which Shuki said would be forthcoming. That being the case I think it would be fair to wait on that RfC and see what happens. nableezy - 20:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
he was warned on the 7th. made many related edits on the 9th. said on the 9th he would seek DR. on the 10th continued on the same issue without seeking dr. you can't just say, "i'm going to seek dr next week" and then continue doing the same thing you have been warned about. i dont understand why you are defending this behaviour. untwirl(talk) 20:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment—actually this is a content dispute, and the editor who most clearly violated policy is not Shuki, as explained here (in reference to Nableezy). The user was notified in the past of the case, therefore I request that the enforcement be extended to include him as well, if action is taken against Shuki. —Ynhockey (Talk) 00:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I have only now noticed that the user who filed this request did exactly the same thing that they are accusing Shuki of doing—a mass revert in the articles in question. This does not help matters, and the things I said in the linked-to post apply here as well. —Ynhockey (Talk) 01:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Your accusation of me violating policy was nonsense the first time you made it, it is no less nonsensical now. nableezy - 01:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Ynhockey, I think your comment is rather unhelpful and misrepresents the situation. Nableezy's objectives and actions increase the compliance of article content with mandatory core policies. Shuki's actions decrease the compliance of article content with mandatory core policies. Nableezy argues by referring to core policies. Shuki and others argue using subjective emotional feelings about the meaning of words and people's intentions. Dispute resolution is the right course but it would certainly help if everyone could stick to just making policy based arguments and stop treating wikipedia as an ethnic battleground. If this AE request reduces the about of non-policy based actions/statements by editors then that is a good thing in ny view. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
if requested by an uninvolved admin i will happily self-revert. i was simply undo-ing the actions which shuki had been warned not to continue. untwirl(talk) 01:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion?[edit]

I think it is worth pointing out that in addition to the more general I-P case, there was a subsequent one dealing with the “Judea and/or Samaria” vs “West Bank” naming dispute. The underlying issue there was fairly similar – does WP follow the terminology used by the vast majority of real world English-language sources, even within Israel, to describe something; or does it use a minority terminology? As with this issue, it also spread itself across multiple pages. It would seem to me that WP rules are pretty clear on this, eg in respect of place names at least, per WP:NCGN – “By following modern English usage, we also avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it is called.” I was one of the editors who ended up being topic banned in that decision, when ArbCom decided to ban everyone they thought was involved in past edit wars over the issue, regardless of which “side” they were on, or what sins they may or may not have actually committed. In some cases, this was as few as 4-5 reverts over a two to three month period around the beginning of 2009, several months prior to the case even being heard (see this table). Anyway, I’m not commenting here in a bid to violate my topic ban, or in order to ask for User:Shuki to be clobbered, but because it seems relevant for the following reasons –

  • That decision does set a clear precedent that this kind of thing is, to say the least, frowned upon
  • Shuki should know this, because they were involved in edit warring on the West Bank issue along with everyone else at the beginning of 2009 (eg here, here, here, etc) and were lucky not to get caught by the decision (it was fairly arbitrary in terms of who it hit, and the grounds on which it hit people). That makes it doubly bad that they are continuing to do pretty much the same thing all over again, especially in terms of following an editor to multiple articles to make contentious changes
  • The West Bank decision also called for some sort of formal guidelines for the underlying West Bank vs J&S naming issue to be agreed. Oddly perhaps, this was not even included as part of the proposed decision at first, and even when it eventually was, it did not call for a wider I-P naming convention. Even though – ahem – some of us were calling for precisely that from the outset of the case, and had to repeat that point subsequently before even the limited provision was included in the final decision. It was fairly obvious all along that a related issue would just blow up somewhere else a couple of months down the line, as several people pointed out to ArbCom as their plans for dealing with the case became clear

Anyway, it seems the most obvious solution is to expand those guidelines to include the settlement point, as well as any other relevant disputed I-P naming issues, and for this to be done under ArbCom’s gaze, as before. As, perhaps, should have been done in the first place. --Nickhh (talk) 09:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Just looked over the links in the above post (obviously did not read the total case) but see that a lot of established editors on WP were banned from editing in the area indefinitely. This seems to me to be handling an issue that should require scalpels with a butcher knife instead, and we see now that the underlying (larger) issues were not addressed. If the question of Judea&Samaria were the only issue it would be (mostly) fixed now. J&S is clearly only a symptom of a larger problem, one that will not be solved through the use of a butcher knife. Stellarkid (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I fully support this proposed approach. I had a similar idea involving centrally agreed standardised content statements about these issues that could be deployed to the relevant articles to ensure global consistency and global consensus e.g. a statement about the occupation status of X would be a globally standard statement with a standard set of refs that has been agreed centrally. We can't keep having the same arguments over and over and over again. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure I agree. Guidelines perhaps, but "centrally agreed standardized content statements" "to ensure global consensus" only enforces a possibly probably false consensus and does not take into consideration that consensus can change with the facts. Further it is unlikely that a real consensus can be agreed upon when you have two groups so diametrically opposed. When Israel comes to an agreement with the Palestinians ("final status")- and vice versa - then an appropriate consensus can be made. Until then, it will be like the U.S. Republicans and the U.S. Democrats agreeing on a President, that is, either a false consensus or a forced consensus. Stellarkid (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't clear. I didn't mean to imply that the statements would be static in nature. Consensus could change but the changes would be centralised as would be the discussions. It means you would have one ongoing discussion for one issue that evolves rather than many fragmented edit wars distributed over the project. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed - I’m not sure Wikipedia needs to wait until a final status agreement for the real world Israeli-Palestinian dispute before a group of (hopefully) rational, well-informed and reasonably objective people here can come to an agreement about what certain things are currently called, or how they are referred to, in most English language sources; and then apply that agreement across all related articles. Those articles have to say something, and hopefully say something accurate – the choice is between agreeing it centrally, or fighting over it again and again on every individual page; not between whether people have the debate or not. Of course, that agreement can then be updated if and when the terminology in the outside world changes (not something that's imminent, I suspect, in any event). And the status of MEPP, or what either “side” - let’s assume for the sake of argument that they each think as a homogenous whole - involved in the conflict happens to think at any one point in time, actually has very little to do with it (a mistake ArbCom made when they figured the West Bank vs Judea & Samaria issue as if it was partisans from each side slugging it out). Each of them can argue what they like – it’s what the majority of uninvolved, mainstream international sources use at the moment that’s what counts. Anyway, I've said my piece I guess, and have no wish to be involved substantively, even if I were allowed to be under the slightly bizarre and unevenly applied punishment regime in force in this area. Perhaps this is better raised anyway at the arbitration noticeboard or something? --Nickhh (talk) 07:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Shuki[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
As I mentioned in a different section, the entire topic area seems to be a breeding ground for bad behavior. I am leaning towards a revert and move restriction.--Tznkai (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Abbatai[edit]

Mr Unsigned Anon[edit]

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

Request concerning Mr Unsigned Anon[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 22:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Mr Unsigned Anon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

  1. [76]--dragged up case
  2. [77]-Archieved Wikiquette alerts
  3. Wikiquette alerts - Both Wikiquette alerts ended in stalemate with both side agreeing to end the "war". --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 21:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

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

  1. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jiujitsuguy&oldid=318711814#Disengaging_from_disputes (dito for the other editor)

--Notice to disengage-Warning by untwirl (talk · contribs)

  1. User_talk:Jiujitsuguy#Please_disengage--Gaza_War-Warning by Tyw7 (talk · contribs)
  2. User_talk:Mr_Unsigned_Anon/Archive_1#Disengaging_from_disputes-Warning by untwir (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Up to administrator discretion (Jehochman Talk 13:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC))

Additional comments by Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions):
This war has been going on for sometime and repeatedly dragged up.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

Discussion concerning Mr Unsigned Anon[edit]

Statement by Mr Unsigned Anon[edit]

Short version: Jiujitsuguy started with namecalling around 5 oct and insinuated I was a nazist

  • Revert to your heart's desire just don't call it the Gaza War or Operation Cast Lead. Call it a recruiting poster for Hamas and don't forget to throw in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" while you're at it.[79]

after removing somthing he considered important. I complained at his talk [80] checked his IP and googled his username. I brought it up at Wikiquett. [81] I was told it belong in arbitration and backed off. [82] I was during that time frustrated of being framed as a nazi and after finding Jiujitsuguys ISP in Brooklyn and his postings seemed to only support Israels side in IP-conflict. I also faced his reverts of my NPOV-ing in article Gaza War. I later googled him and found him writing to a sionist/neocon blog asking for help editing wikipedia in "Any assistance you can extend to reverse this bias/censorship would be appreciated" .

Then BOOM he went to counterattack using false accusations, a faulty and flawed list of editdiffs [83] and next excuse himself imediatly followed with

  • "The article was shaping up to be pretty good, though when it comes to Middle East, no one can be entirely satisfied. But comes along Mr Anon Unsigned and starts reverting like a mad man with out regard for any etiquette or decorum. It was very frustrating to see the long process of editing going down the toilet" [84].

The list is a very bad faithed attack in it self, compiled by Stellarkid (talk), whos involvement been increasing dueing this conflict. He still today stands for some of the faulty accusations in the list.

Conflict escalated again at oct 8 when Jiujitsuguy edit warred article Gaza War, asked for its protection a few minutes after his last revert, same time throw this accusation on the admins talkpage.

  • "The most vile of the bunch is Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) who was already warned that he would be blocked for persistent vandalism to this site. Please go to his talk page to see what I'm referring to" [85].

He refer to the warning, now removed by the uninvolved editor who wrote it, comming from the false list of claimed edit warring by me.

Again at oct 16 he make a false accusation [86]. This is absolutly false. In detail described at my complaint at ANI [87]

Then Jiujitsuguy with help of Stellarkid started a campain against me, using quotes out of context, trying to frame me as a nazi again I understand. Im still not sure of th scope of it. I filed a complaint of his last editwarring and now his banned for a week. I must point to his, blatant lying and like stellarkid, use of very manipulative languages. Also posting of quotes of me, even if some are totally harmless, bolded and hard cut out of context in a way that word cant describe. This is a first statement and I will follow it up (and copyedit for spellings etc). Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I like to point to my 8 october response to Jiujitsuguys accusations and my 9 oct attempt [88] to get advice how to proceed at Enigmamsg talkpage after he protected article 'Gaza war' (on Jiujitsus request a few minutes after he did his last revert, violated 3RR in the article and pasted the usual accusation about me).Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 09:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to RomaC. Im not innocent of wrongdoings but some importent things should talk to my favour and not put me on same level of editwarrinng and aggressive editing in 'Gaza War' that should be punishable. I did stepp back a few days before the 8 oct editwar that led to articleprotection. I did step back in the last editwar with Jiujitsuguy even if I technically could have done a last revert without breaking 3RR leaving his version in article. I noted and informed him of his 3 reverts on his talkpage and even marked that editwarring dont need 3RR violation but he still continued editwarring and reverted another editors at another part of article. His 4:th revert. Therfor, respectfully RomaC, you cant compare my level of editwarrin with his. I let him 'win' in both cases (well there is more) even if I could have got my will thrugh without breaking 3RR. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 09:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to Tyw7. I should have adressed you first, sorry for that. But, respectfully, I dont really understand whats my wrongdoing is. Wikiquett is what I understand the right way to go in cases like this. And I backed off[89]. The next action from Jiujitsuguy led to your mistake which you corrected (the warning of vandalizing on my talkpage). I had to clarify and put that mess of nonsence (the false list of editdiffs)in right perspective or being marked as a vandal. Am I to blame in any aspect of this? My case on ANI [90] is a response to Jiujitsuguys lies on Nableezys talkpage [[91]]. What am I to blame in that? Though I am thankfull for you to bring up this as I hope I can get a chans to respond jiujitsuguys shenanigan (with help of Stellarkid.) They unfortunatly quite effective turn uninvolved editor and admins against me. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors[edit]

Mr Unsigned Anon has been here about a month, and has become involved in disputes (on Gaza War), often with Jiujitsuguy, who has been here about a month and a half. I see that Jiujitsuguy has now been blocked for a week. Perhaps if the same message were sent to Anon both could come back and work more less aggressively, more constructively? In my opinion a problem shared by these editors is that they understand that all content in Wikipedia should be supported by reliable sources, but don't appreciate that not all content supported by reliable sources necessarily belongs in a given article. It's the first time I've seen source-warring! Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Mr Unsigned Anon[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Request is malformed and missing adequate information as well as notification.--Tznkai (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you please "format" this for me. I am quite unexperienced in these matters. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 01:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I cannot. I need more information from you, as to what you are talking about, what you are asking for, and you need to show you've notified whoever you're in conflict with of this discussion.--Tznkai (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Tz, check the diffs currently at WP:RFAR. There is very worrisome conduct.[92] Don't dismiss this. Jehochman Talk 10:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr Unsigned Anon (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) appears to be a recycled user. For somebody who's been here less than a month, it's odd that they have references to WP:NAM all over their talk page. They made a bee line straight to the PIA dispute and engaged in the battle. Could a checkuser see whether this account is controlled by somebody who is already banned or restricted? Jehochman Talk 13:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
J.—You had best flag a checkuser down directly. I don't think many of them watch this page routinely, as checks aren't frequently necessary. AGK 21:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The diffs cited by Mr. Unsigned Anon show incitement.[93] I am disinclined to sanction an editor who reacts badly under pressure or incitement. Mr. Unsigned Anon, if others are acting badly, that does not excuse you to respond in kind. Please rise above it. Whoever you may be, consider this a chance to do better. If I spot you causing trouble going forward, I will be much more inclined to run that checkuser. If you are a target of incitement, go find an administrator and ask for help, don't take the bait. I suggest closing this request. Jehochman Talk 02:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono[edit]

Jacurek[edit]

David Tombe[edit]

Request concerning Jdorney[edit]

The Troubles[edit]

This is not a specific enforcement request, but a notification of an AE-related thread. At ANI, there is discussion about the community consensus from October 2008[197] that expanded the remedies from the October 2007 Troubles case. Specifically, how to define "1RR", and the level of warning required before an editor can be blocked under the expanded remedies. Interested editors are invited to participate at the ANI thread. --Elonka 19:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

A proposed addendum to the Troubles case restriction is now listed at Wikipedia:ANI#Addendum to community sanction. It would be appreciated if any interested editors could comment on whether or not they support the addendum, thanks. --Elonka 15:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)