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


Request concerning Nickhh, Nishidani, and Nableezy[edit]

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

User requesting enforcement
--Epeefleche (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Users against whom enforcement is requested
Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

  • Nickhh: "placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles."[4]
  • Nishidani: same as Nickhh, immediately above.[5]
  • Nableezy: Nableezy's ban arose separately. Originally, on October 29—"per the provisions of this remedy of the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case, ... banning ... for 4 months from editing all pages (including both article and article talk pages) within those topic areas which relate to the Palestine-Israel articles case."[6]

Then Nableezy's ban was reduced on November 3, as follows—"I have included in the sanction on Nableezy all articles within the subject area in question.... I am adjusting my initial sanction... The ban on editing article content is reduced from six months to two; and the ban on editing article talk pages is reduced to one. These times are relative to the initial sanction".[7]


Despite their I-P conflict topic-bans, Nickhh and Nishidani actively participated in an AfD discussion regarding Jonathan Cook, a freelance journalist whose notability arises (as is clear from the first sentence of his article) from his writing on the I-P conflict.

Nishidani left his comments up for 7 days. Only crossing them out a few hours before the AfD closed (w/the accurate edit summary: "Striking out comment written in breach of my ban, as indeed I should have when this was first complained of").[8] This was IMHO willful flouting of his ban with intent to influence the AfD. Nishidani also said at the Request for Clarification that the reason he weighed in was because the vote at the time was "in favour of deletion". That reflects his desire to influence the outcome of the AfD, which—mildly speaking—he was not allowed to do.

And Nickhh left his AfD comments up for the entire course of the AfD, never striking them out.

Multiple participants in the AfD voiced concern that this violated their topic ban,[9][10] and removed the banned users’ comments from the AfD.[11][12][13] The banned users' comments were re-inserted into the AfD; more than once by Nableezy, who was himself subject to a similar topic ban, arising from a different Arbitration Enforcement.[14] Nableezy even went so far as to delete my questions—as to the appropriateness of banned editors commenting—from the AfD page,[15] insisting on moving them to the AfD's discussion page, without my permission,[16] and refusing to restore them or allow me to restore them.

Nickhh and Nishidani themselves acknowledged that their participation was questionable (e.g., Nickhh: “I wonder if I'm allowed to say anything here, given the topics the man tends to write about”[17]; Nishidani: “Yes, technically we should keep out of it.”[18]

At the Request for Clarification on this matter, the arbitrators unanimously indicated that the banned editors violated their bans.[19]

Arb Vassanya made clear that this applied not only to the Nickhh/Nableezy topic ban, but also to the Nishidani topic ban ("Neither topic ban makes an exception for discussing unrelated issues on related pages. They are prohibitions on editing related pages. Full stop."). However, the matter is confused a bit by the fact that apparently (however the Nishidani ban may appear to me and to the arbitrators on its face), the banning admin did not view it the way we did, and at a concurrent WP:AE on the same facts, which took place as the arbitrators were taking the above position, enforcement was declined.[20] I'm therefore uncertain whether as to Nableezy, despite the arbitrators' above clarification, the matter is now moot as to whether Nableezy violated his ban, or whether it is appropriate to consider sanctions against him for violating his ban. In any event, among Nableezy's edits were repeated insertions of clearly banned editors' comments into the AfD, as is reflected in the below diffs. He thereby facilitated violations of their ban. Finally, he edited the AfD page as early as November 28, which was clearly a violation of his ban, even under the most generous interpretation. I leave the determination as to whether it is appropriate to sanction Nableezy completely to the arbitrators closing admin, without expressing a strong view.

It is important to note, btw, that Nableezy's Palestine-Israel articles ban was only reduced after arguments and testimonials about him were made by the very same two editors who were already banned from commenting on any community discussions related to the I/P conflict—Nickhh and Nishidani! See [21], [22], [23], and [24]. I believe this constitutes another series of violations of their ban.

Diffs of edits that violate it, and an explanation how they do so
  1. [25] Nickhh at AfD
  2. [26] Nickhh at AfD
  3. [27] Nickhh at AfD
  4. [28] Nishidani at AfD
  5. [29] Nishidani at AfD
  6. [30] Nableezy reinserting banned editor's (Nickhh's) comments on November 28
  7. [31] Nableezy reinserting banned editors' (Nickhh's and Nishidani's) comments
  8. [32] Nableezy at AfD
  9. [33] Nableezy at AfD
  10. [34] Nableezy removing others' comments at AfD
  11. [35] Nableezy reinserting comments of banned editor (Nickhh) into AfD
  12. [36] Nableezy deleting my comments (and others' responses) from AfD (and moving them to discussion page)
  13. [37] Nableezy deleting my comments (and others') from AfD
  14. [38] Nableezy reinserting comments of banned editor (Nickhh) into AfD
  15. [39] Nableezy commenting at AfD
  16. [40] Nableezy commenting at AfD as to why his comments and those of the other banned editors were appropriate
  17. [41] Nableezy insertion at AfD talk page of material he deleted from AfD
  18. [42] Nableezy at AfD talk page
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)

Per Arbitrators' discretion. But i It would seem that the only thing left with Nickhh and Nishidani, as their topic ban is already indefinite, would be to for some period enlarge the scope of their ban beyond that of the I/P issue.

As to Nishidani, it may well be enough, if sanction is appropriate (and if this is the correct place to pursue it), for a temporal extension of his ban from the I/P issue.

Additional comments

The basis for this enforcement is set forth in the arbitrators' responses to a Request for Clarification on the conduct at issue here.

At the Request for Clarification, Nishidani wrote: "If you think my ban should extend beyond the I/P area, to elsewhere, I won't object. Indeed, it would be logical"; and "I ... expressed my readiness to suffer any further sanction an arbiter might wish to impose on me for my egregious lapse"; and "I expressed my guilt and readiness to be punished"; and "I've waited to be banned from all wiki articles ... I suggest the way to stop this bickering is to act immediately and extend my perma-ban."[43]

And Nickhh wrote:

"I don't think anyone's claiming that relevant AfD pages - in principle - are not covered by the topic ban as worded. I'm certainly not, and agree that they pretty clearly would be."[44]

The pertinent language at the Request for Clarification from arb Vassanya (w/whom arbs Bainer, Wizardman, and Risker agreed) was:

"AfD discussions about IP-related articles quite clearly falls under "participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles". There is no grey area. An AfD is about as perfect of an example as you get for a "community discussion substantially concerned with such articles".... Shifting discussion over to user talk pages or other venues is at bare minimum a gross violation of the spirit of a topic ban. ... As far as I'm concerned, the confusion here is only arising from splitting hairs and trying to look for grey areas where they do not exist. The topic bans are perfectly clear and AfD is unquestionably included even in a strict reading of the sanction language.... "[A]ll pages ... which relate" seems to make the scope inclusive and clear in a similar fashion. Neither topic ban makes an exception for discussing unrelated issues on related pages. They are prohibitions on editing related pages. Full stop."[45]

And arb Carcharoth (w/whom arb Wizardman agreed) wrote:

"When someone is given a topic ban in a particular area, they are meant to move away from that topic area...If... an editor shows an inability to move away from a topic area, then sanctions should be enforced.... The normal response would be to either extend the topic ban (if it is not already indefinite), or to move on to harsher sanctions."[46]

And arb Coren (w/whom arb Wizardman agreed) wrote:

"Agreed with my colleagues; an AfD discussion of an article within the topic area definitely and unambiguously falls into that topic area. The only case where I would consider any ambiguity is if the topic ban specifically excluded talk pages or was explicitly limited to articles; and even then it could be argued that a discussion about deletion is too "close" to the topic ban to be confortable."[47]

--Epeefleche (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Reply to Nickhh—Yes, readers are encouraged, if they like, to read the full 47 quotes and diffs I provided, as all have been truncated for purposes of brevity. The links are provided at each quote or diff, or in the preceding text. Furthermore, while Nickhh made points at the Clarification which he repeats here, the arbs responded emphatically as indicated above. As to timing, it seemed logical to raise this AE only after the Clarification was closed, which is what was promptly done. As DGG mentions below, he indicated that AE would be the appropriate next step. As to points raised regarding other editors, as to whom I am completely unfamiliar, that would appear to be irrelevant to the proper treatment of violation bans in the Cook AfD—the subject of this AE. Finally, the arbs did not think the ban violations were at all borderline, and support was voiced for enforcement, which is what is sought here.—Epeefleche (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply to question by Nableezy, as to why Nableezy warning another editor for a putative 3RR violation for editing regarding use of the phrase "occupied" when referring to territories within the I-P conflict is a violation of his topic ban. Yes, I can provide further clarification. As arb Vassanya (w/whom arbs Bainer, Wizardman, and Risker agreed) pointed out at the Clarification at which your similar behavior was raised:

    "Shifting discussion over to user talk pages or other venues is at bare minimum a gross violation of the spirit of a topic ban.... [your] confusion here is only arising from splitting hairs and trying to look for grey areas where they do not exist. The topic bans are perfectly clear ... Neither topic ban makes an exception for discussing unrelated issues on related pages. They are prohibitions on editing related pages. Full stop."[48]

    Epeefleche (talk) 05:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
(cont'd) Do you actually believe that your I/P topic ban allowed you to snipe at an editor who was editing an I/P issue, in an I/P article, by giving that editor a 3RR warning for his edits there? And a 3RR warning that is baseless, to boot? If so, I think you may not be taking to heart the comments that the arbitrators directed at you, and perhaps could benefit from some greater guidance by the closing admin here as to the appropriateness of your behavior.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply by Nableezy[edit]

This is dumb. But it is what Epeefleche and Gilabrand should have done instead of edit war out comments that they are not qualified to decide are a violation of anybody's topic ban. As to my own topic ban, AGK has clarified that my topic ban does not include AfDs and my actions here have already been addressed in an earlier AE thread. While it is nice having fans, two frivolous AE threads within the span of 12 hours is too much for even me. nableezy - 17:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

But since we are here, below is a rundown of what happened at the AfD (apologies if I miss a revert in there):

Gila removes Nick and Nishidanis comments, reverted by Jeppiz, again removed by Gila, anon removed others, reverted by Mackan79, removed again by Gila, again by Gila, restored by Jeppiz (who at this point went to ANI where the closing admin said that this is an AE issue), I restored, removed by Mr. Hicks The III (now known to be another NoCal100 sock), I reverted, This stops for a while. When Hicks is discovered to be a NoCal100 sock I remove his comment and vote (something that any user, not only uninvolved admins, can do as he was site-banned). Gila then removes Nick and Nishi's comments again. I restore. I then move comments not relevant to the AfD but rather about the AfD itself to the talk page. Gila then again removes the comments relevant to the AfD to the talk page [49]. I revert. Epeefleche now joins the fun by removing the comments, and then removing my comments though my topic ban did not include AfDs. SlimVirgin reverts.

This entire time I asked each person who removed the comments to instead go to WP:AE with their complaints so that an uninvolved admin could make a determination of whether or not the comments were in violation of the topic ban and what to do if they were. Instead Gilabrand and Epeefleche, both highly involved and non-admins, took it upon themselves to make that determination and to enforce their own decision. All they had to do was to come here, instead they choose to continually revert. If anybody deserves an admonishment for what happened there it is Gilabrand and Epeefleche. nableezy - 17:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche, would you care to explain how informing a "new" user about the 3 revert rule after they have made 3 quick reversions is a violation of my topic ban? nableezy - 05:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Breein, you yourself have written that you are not a new user (see here), so why would you take exception to that? nableezy - 05:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Apologies, but, fyi, sarcasm often does not translate well in text. nableezy - 05:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ep - the content of the edits is immaterial, I did not discuss the content of the edits, I did not discuss whether or not a place was occupied, what I did do was inform a "new" user of what they could expect if they continued repeatedly reverting. I think I am qualified to do so. I did not edit a "related page". Breein was not given the notice because he or she added or removed the word occupied, Breein was given the notice because he or she made 3 quick reversions. nableezy - 05:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I was not "sniping" at another user, I did not raise any issue about the content of that users edits. And the 3RR warning was not "baseless". Unlike everything you have written above. I am not wasting more time on this or on you. Bye. nableezy - 19:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved editor Breein1007[edit]

I take exception to those quotation marks, Nableezy! Breein1007 (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Here, take a quick look at this. Breein1007 (talk) 05:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough! Breein1007 (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply/Comment by Nickhh[edit]

Just so that I'm not seen to be ignoring this altogether, my response to this is the same as that to the original clarification, posted here. In response to a couple of further points -

  • Epeefleche, you quote me as saying AfDs are definitely included in the topic ban in principle, suggesting that as a result I was knowingly in breach of the ban, but neglect to quote the following sentence - "The point is more about whether making a general comment about journalistic notability in an AfD debate about one journalist's page is indeed a breach of a ban that stops editors discussing I-P issues". That was the issue in my view that needed clarification. As you also do quote me saying, I wasn't sure at the time. Once it has that clarification (although it has to be said, no arb made this point explicitly), it would seem more sensible for all involved to leave it there, rather than susbequently demanding enforcement in some manner some three weeks after the original event, when nothing much has happened since - I didn't even go back and look at the AfD once I'd made the brief initial comments. No one for example is running around demanding that enforcement action is taken against User:Jayjg for their one-off action in actually closing a far more contentious AfD recently.
  • DGG, you appear to be conflating my and Nishidani's case with Nableezy's - for the former of course AfDs in principle were included in our topic ban (as acknowledged rather than "challenged" - the point was slightly different, see above); for the latter they were not, on the basis that Nab was allowed to comment on talk pages, as the terms of their ban were different.

Following all the drama and the clarification I think it unlikely I or Nishidani will do something similar. At the time I knew my comment was borderline (and was quite open about that), and with hindsight would probably not have skirted so close to the border. The only qualification I would put on that is that of course this whole incident had the unexpected bonus of flushing out a rather wide sock farm, which has ranged across I-P pages for a long, long time, making it such an unpleasant place for initially passing editors such as myself whose main interest has never been the Middle East conflicts particularly, and ultimately drawing them into rather daft conflicts that end with us all where we are now. --Nickhh (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved editor Sm8900[edit]

I think that any such topic ban should have a specific end date as well as a start date. I think that this one has run its course. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Tznkai[edit]

There appears to be a major misunderstanding of what goes on here. First, with very rare exception, Arbitrators do not patrol enforcement requests, other admins do. I am an admin, I am not an Arbitrator. Second, enforcement requests are not meant to handle general troublemaking, they are meant to handle specific violations of arbitration remedies. This is why it is important that you link the exact remedy. Third, we do not relitigate, retry, or reargue cases. We do not expand, or minimize remedies unless they explicitly invite us to do so. While we may accept or deny requests to enforce on our own discretion, we are not in the buisness of arbitrating ourselves.

In this case, Nableezy is not sanctioned under Westbank Judea-Samaria, and no action will be taken against him under this request. You can see me comments in an above section for what will or will not bring sanctions down on his head.

As to the other two, there was already a clarification requested and it came down clear enough that Jonathan Cook afd was within the Westbank - Judea and Samaria topic ban, this issue is mooted - its already been decided and I'm not sure what harm additional sanctions would prevent. To reiterate the point from the clarification: Knock it off! If there are recent issues I am unaware of, please update the request to make me aware of them. I'm going to wait 24 hours for more information or another administrator to come in and take over.--Tznkai (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I still really don't know what action it is I'm supposed to take here, but I'll throw this one on the table - I'll make a 1 second block on NickH and Nishidani, with a link to the clarification request and making it clear that AfDs of journalists involved in the IP conflict are off limits.--Tznkai (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Mackan79[edit]

I hope that ArbCom's clarification will settle any questions that remained about these sanctions, until the sanctions may be reevaluated. I do not see why we would seek to apply the clarification retroactively, particularly considering that it was brought by a banned sock puppet under the same restrictions, who was using another account to participate in the same AfD (if indeed we're going to review for technicalities). Epeefleche seems to remain unaware of this, as they quote the sock (Mr. Hicks The III) to show concern about the Jonathan Cook AfD, so I think it bears mentioning. Mackan79 (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

To DGG, my comment is based on the fact that it is not the only "close call" (or what I would also have called a clear violation) that has preceded the recent clarification. I consider Nickh's comment a clear violation in that, even though he tried to limit the scope of his comment relating to an article that is not wholly within the area of conflict, he still couldn't help briefly mentioning the political motivations for the nomination. I consider Nishidani's comments a clear violation in that, while his presentation of sources itself on this AfD should in some format be protected under WP:IAR, he also couldn't help making a similar comment about motivations in passing. And yet, I am no less clear that Jayjg's edit here, removing material which argues that the Washington Times is "pro-Israel" is at least equally a violation of the restriction. If the latter was deemed not a violation, then notwithstanding the Arbitrators' comments, the remedy was not sufficiently clear that we editors knew how to implement it. I hope it now is, but unless we're going to reevaluate every incident, I don't think you take a recent clarification to go back and look at just one of them, especially considering that the clarification itself was brought about by a sock puppet who was very specifically trying to game the system. The much better option is to look forward. Mackan79 (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by JoshuaZ[edit]

I've already told Mackan why the comparison to Jayjg's edits isn't accurate. Since I don't have much time right now, I'll simply link to that comment. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Nickh, Nishidani, and Nableezy[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • I'm a little confused by some of the rejoinders above. Eppefleche asked my advice what was the appropriate step after the ArbCom clarification motion closed. I advised him that it would be to request enforcement here. Th people involved made engaged in an AfD. Arb Com had previously t said they were not to participate in that subject area. Enforcement was requested and challenged on the grounds that arb com had not meant to include afds within the topic ban. Several of the members of arb com replied, all saying that it did, and that it was totally obvious that it had been included from the start--none expressed the least doubt about it. (And, frankly, that seems the obvious view to me as well.). It was not a matter of extending their ban to additional areas, it was saying what it had been all along. In essence, they were saying that it had been a proper case for AE all along, and action should have been taken there. (Being arbcom ,they didnt simply refer it back, which would have simplified things.) I don't see how the editors involved can now try to say it was ex post facto, or moot; it was always part of the ban, and they violated it. Action is now expected of us. Having advised Eppefleche about procedure, I'm not uninvolved enough to do what should be done. (And personally, I wish arb com would start enforcing its own remedies or designating someone or some small group to do so--throwing it back to the community tends to have the effect it did here, of reopening the issue from the start and continuing the problem. ) DGG ( talk ) 09:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This is my assessment of the request:

  • Nickhh and Nishidani: The RfC has made it clear that I-P topic bans cover relevant AfD discussions. Accordingly, Nickhh and Nishidani have violated their ban. But since this happened about a month ago, and there are no actionable outstanding complaints of more recent violations, a block at this time would not have a preventative effect. Their topic ban is already indefinite, so we can't extend it. It seems to me that no enforcement action is needed under these circumstances, but any new ban violations should be reported here and result in rapid blocks.
  • Nableezy: By editing the I-P-related AfD, he violated the I-P topic ban imposed as a discretionary sanction in effect at the time. He is also unapologetic, asserting that "AGK has clarified that my topic ban does not include AfDs and my actions here have already been addressed in an earlier AE thread", but providing no diffs to support these assertions, which makes them immaterial. What matters is the sanctions log, which clearly states that the ban applies to "all pages within subject areas relating to this arbitration case", which includes AfDs. Under the authority of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions, I am therefore restarting the two month topic ban, beginning now. This means that Nableezy is prohibited from making any edits to any page if the edits or the page relate to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, broadly construed, with the sole exceptions of defending himself in any subsequent arbitration or arbitration enforcement proceedings, or reverting blatant vandalism.  Sandstein  19:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


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

Request concerning Nableezy[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Cptnono (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Nableezy (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 this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
Nableezy is continuing to make the topic area a hostile environment for other editors. Over the last month or so he has called other editors "duchebags", told editors that he can't comment on them since he would be breaking civility guidelines (close enough to breaking it), and harassed another editor since he felt their was Wikihounding. All that could be in the past since several of us have gone through this arbitration process with reminders, Wikibreaks, and blocks to because of inappropriate behavior is to be avoided. Unfortunately, the pattern is repeated over and over again.

Nableezy took offence to my assertion that the International Committee of the Red Cross's webpage on Palestine and the Occupied Territories was not an appropriate external think under the WP:ELNO provision "Avoid undue weight on particular points of view". The Red Cross is only concerned with the humanitarian concerns of the conflict. It doesn't matter why people are blowing their hands off while making bombs or why babies are getting killed by tanks. The focus is that it is happening and there is suffering. I called it bias and having an agenda (oops). I've attempted to clarify my reasoning with more palatable terms (goal, mission) but Nableeezy appears to want to continue arguing and is making some personal attacks that have crossed the line. This is a particular concern because he has just recently had his sanction on talk pages lifted and has voluntarily taken some additional time away from the article. One of his first series of comments upon returning is full of insults, assuming the worst, and continuation of the battlefield mentality.

  1. [50] "Uninformed editors should not be allowed to edit these pages." - This is uncivil and spits in the face of what Wikipeida is. I don't believe I am uninformed but simply look at the subject form a different perspective. His comments were insulting and I recieved a sanction for similar venting.
  1. [51] "But perhaps it is too much to ask that you do the slightest bit of reading about an organization before you write about it." Completely inappropriate remark. Just to admit when I have dome something inappropriate, in this edit difference you will see that I referred to Nableezy's previous comment, Tiamut commenting on my intentions (something I am not allowed to do since she opened an arbitration case when I did), and Romac's sarcastic edit summary and use of an image on the talk page (which he has been asked not to do). I later apologized for using the term bullshit and admitted that less crass language would have been better. Nableezy also believed I was implying that he was a sole purpose account. He actually does have a focus on a few select topics (nothing wrong with that) but my comment was completely unrelated and an attempt to illustrate what I was trying to say.
  1. [52] "Uninformed editors should not be allowed to edit these pages..." After I attempted to clarify my position and recommended that all four of us stop, Nableezy again makes a comment that is against the collaborative nature of Wikipedia and is simply insulting.
  1. [53] "your comments undermine the very idea of what this 'project' purports to be" - Wikipeida falsely claims to be collaborative (he would later verify that this was indeed what he meant) and "and, yes, others agree that the link should not be included, but not because of the inane idea that the ICRC is 'biased'" - Calling another editors opinion "inane" is not appropriate. Even if he disagrees that is a personal attack.
  2. [54] "...unlike others I know the meaning of what it is I write and am careful to make sure I do not say incredibly stupid things." - This was the point where I thought seeking enforcement would be appropriate. It is one thing to disagree with another editor, but stating that others (presumably me) were writing "incredibly stupid things" was too much.
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy) 
[55] This diff shows a couple comments by me. I tried to diffuse the situation by admitting to a mistake I made while asking other editors to stop. I thought everything would be OK but it stoked the fire.

[56] My attempt to explain that his comments were not appropriate

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
I have requested a 1rr restriction and reminders to stop edit warring on Nableezy previously. I even made mentions that I have not been seeking his block. This time is different. This incivility on the talk page shows to me that the reduction in his talk page sanction was, in hindsight at least, premature. We all need to try harder to be civil but Nableezy has proven that he either cannot or will not. If that is too much to request, a simple "Hey, you all need to be more civil" would be great. Not saying we need to frolic through meadows together but this stuff is going to far.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
I think it would be nice if Romac removed the image from the talk page and if Tiamut was reminded that the talk page is not for commenting on other editors intentions. I was pretty pissed when I saw their comments but they haven't continued and would be lame of me to not get over it. Nableezy's just get worse and worse, though. Apologies to pile it on. I see that there are two others up above but I believe this incident is unrelated. I'm sure that will cause frustration and would have been happy to take it to the Wikietiquette noticeboard if this wasn't the proper venue. Cptnono (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
In response to Nableezy, that was sometime ago and I have gone out of my way to express apologies, knock it off, and not repeat such mistakes. It is continually brought up in discussions but there is nothing I can do to take it back. You have continued being disruptive. That is why this AE is about you. Although it sucks that I was a jerk in the past it doesn't excuse you from continuing with this sort of behavior.
x2: We have discussed my sanction previousley. I also took a good Wikibreak. Blocks and all that are meant to b preventative not punitive. Mine obviously worked since I am trying to not start fights on multiple pages and have stopped making personal attacks. I get it now and had hoped that everything would be OK. You keep it going when it isn't needed. My past transgressions should have no bearing on how you conduct yourself.

And another follow-up. As in the previous enforcement request against Nableezy, I get emails from other editors pointing one thing out or another. I seems a little sneaky to me, but at the same time I have to respect someone's privacy and there was a point. It looks like we make Wikenemies when we have lapses in judgment (I am sure I have). He was asked to stop but continues to edit. I doubt this edit would warrant enforcement on its own but it could be viewed as continued flouting of the sanction (which includes the greater Arab-Israeli conflict). I'm on the fence with it myself since it might seem nit picky. This enforcement request is also based on civility. That last enforcement request ended in Nableezy telling me to "piss off" so I hope this doesn't come across as baiting.Cptnono (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Offliner. I can see why that might come across. However, I think I have been pretty honest so am surprised that anyone would look at this as an attempt to use the guideline as a weapon. I could have attempted it after being told to piss off a couple of weeks ago if that was the case. Nableezy has made inappropriate comments time and time again and continues to start conflicts over multiple pages. I wouldn't be seeking a block if this was the first time to be honest. I was surprisingly offended by this round and he kept on making inappropriate comments even after a request to stop. And if you reread my requested action you'll see that I mentioned a good reminder as an option. I still think a block is needed but I really don't expect it. Cptnono (talk) 09:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Response to Tiamut: Although I have admitted to leaning in one direction on the talk page, my article contributions have shown both sides of the coin. The only major content dispute between the two of us is the massacre thing on a single article. I even agreed that the Cook one should be kept. I know you like Nableezy but some of us disagree due to his negative influence on the project (discussion and edit warring not opinion wise). If Nableezy would stop edit warring and causing conflict on talk pages people would stop bringing AEs against him. At the time of this filing there were three individual requests. He does receive more attention then other editors so it would probably be in his best interest to be more cautious. Pages under the West Bank arbitration can be under the Palestine-Israel case since it covers the broader Arab-Israel topic (something that started due to Israeli settlements should meet that criteria). Nableezy knows this and even pointed it out to another editor previousley. There is no punishment about it. It is about stopping this behavior on multiple pages.
I had actually failed to realize his topic ban just ended. I'm going to ask you to assume some better faith as I did when I took Nableezy at his word and struck out the already admittedly nit picky incorrect violation since it seemed like an honest mistake well before you made your comments.Cptnono (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Tiamut, we've gone over this several times including just recently on this page so there is nothing left to say to that.

Regardless, I am OK with withdrawing this request since. Nableezy made a note on my talk which alleviates my concerns (assuming it doesn't continue). An apology or acknowledgment can go a long way sometimes.This request is also falling into the previousley seen pattern of repeating arguments and becomming unreadable for the closer. The assumption of bad faith is also taking this in a weird direction. Cptnono (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Nableezy[edit]

Statement by Nableezy[edit]

Cptnono has problems understanding basic things, I did not say that Wikipedia is not collaborative. I also did not believe that he was calling me a SPA, not that I give two shits if he does feel that way. And the idea that the ICRC is "biased" is in fact inane. That is all I have to say about this. And the "venting" that Cptnono was "sanctioned" for was calling another user a dirty liar (something that should have already been covered by NPA, but apparently he needed a sanction specifically telling him not call another editor a dirty liar) and for saying that If you have Palestinian stuff on your user page you shouldn't be editing such pages. Not exactly the same thing as saying that uninformed editors should not be allowed to edit pages that they have no knowledge about. nableezy - 01:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I was not looking for an excuse, I was pointing out that your comparison that your behavior which led to your laughable "sanction" is in no way comparable to me saying that uninformed editors should not be allowed to edit those pages. Just showing the comparison made was bogus. nableezy - 03:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The Suez Crisis edit was an honest mistake, I saw it in my watchlist and thought it was the Suez Canal page, and in any event it was straightforward vandalism that was reverted. But had I noticed it was the Crisis page and not the Canal page I would not have made the reversion. nableezy - 02:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Upon being dragged to AE with the complaint that you contribute to a hostile environment, do you really think it's a wise course of action to start your response with "Cptnono has problems understanding basic things"? henriktalk 10:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
He was making basic errors in quoting me, but it was probably not. nableezy - 15:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

For Jaak, as Tiamut points out my topic ban expired prior to those edits. AGKs adjustment was relative to the initial sanction which was on Oct. 29. nableezy - 15:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche - yes, it has been disputed that I violated my topic ban on the Cook AfD, and your understanding of my topic ban has been proven wrong in the past. nableezy - 18:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Who exactly "chastised" me? nableezy - 19:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono is right, I was acting like a dick on that page. I got pissed off and let it get the best of me. Im sorry and will not let it happen again. But if somebody wants to block me or take some other action that is fine by me. nableezy - 21:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jaakobou[edit]

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is in breach of his currently active ARB sanction by reverting on the Israeli politician Avigdor Lieberman.

  • Sanction: topic banned from all related articles for two months in November 2009[58].
  • Violation: 22:00, 29 December 2009
  • History: Nableezy edit wars and has incivility issues in Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Principles. He was blocked for edit-warring in March and July of 2009[59] and topic banned for two months in November 2009 (initially 4 months)[60] (talkpage ban for 1 month). Sanction aside, I disagreed with Nableezy's surprise revert on Israeli politician Avigdor Lieberman (Nableezy doesn't really contribute to the page), removing what Hamas stands in the 'treason' context.[61] I opened a WP:3O to avoid the usual drama (sample-continued) but as there's a standing complaint, I decided to mention the violation.

With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 12:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tiamut[edit]

Regarding Jaakobou's assertion that Nableey is currently in violation of his topic ban, he is incorrect. The original topic ban was placed for four months on October 29 at 21:02 and was reduced to two months (one month from talk pages and two months from article pages) on November 3 19:33. [62] The reduction to two months was to be counted from the date on which the initial sanction was made (i.e. October 29th). Therefore, Nableey's edits to Avigdor Lieberman came just after his topic ban had formally ended.

I share Offliner's concern that the complaints may be attempts to eliminate an editor with an opposing viewpoint, without regard as to whether or not this is the best course of action for the project. Tiamuttalk 14:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Epeefleche's comment, I am unsurprised that he would like to see Nableezy's topic ban extended given that he filed an unsuccessful request to get further sanctions placed on him less than a month ago. Again, this seems to a bit of a pile-on by editors with opposing POVs, anxious that now that Nableezy's topic ban has in fact ended, they will have to engage him in substantive discussion to achieve NPOV on different articles. Nableezy has already explained that his edit to correct spelling errors on Suez Canal Crisis a day before his topic ban ended was a good faith mistake based on a misreading of the title (which he saw as Suez Canal). Could we please let him get back to editing (and perhaps allow him to even enjoy it)? He's been punished for two months already and over that time, the encyclopedia has been deprived of an excellent contributor who catches vandalism, and produced comprehensive content like Al-Azhar Mosque. Others might try doing the same rather than spending their time nitpicking. Tiamuttalk 17:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Epeefleche, you are incorrect in your statement. No one thought that Nableezy violated his topic ban by editing the Jonathan Cook AfD but you. His topic ban on talk pages had already expired by the time he made his comments there and AGK, who initiated the topic ban, himself stated that it was permissible for Nableezy to participate in AfDs once that happened. Please do not misrepresent the facts. Tiamuttalk 18:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I remain unsurprised by the fact that the three people seeking to extend Nableezy's topic ban include two editors who have previously filed unsuccessful AE complaints against Nableezy and one who is currently engaged in a content dispute with him at an article that falls under the scope of his original topic ban which has now expired. Please people, try not to be so obvious. Tiamuttalk 18:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Epeefleche, you are conflating admin statements regarding the topic bans of those covered under the WestBank/Judea-Samaria case with those regarding Nableezy. The two issues are quite separate. Please try to recognize that. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 19:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Epeefleche, without a diff supporting your statement, I cannot accept what you are saying as true. My own review of the clarification request shows that Nableezy's case was not the one being addressed. AGK was clear in stating on another page that when his talk page ban expired, he was free to comment in AfDs. Tiamuttalk 22:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Cptnono, while I appreciate you striking your comments after Nableey's explanation regarding the Suez Canal edit, I remain concerned that you are overly interested in finding fault with what Nableezy is saying or doing. I long ago got over you calling me "a dirty liar" and drawing conclusions about my editing based on user page content alone. I'd appreciate it if you would get over Nableezy's comments at Talk:Gaza War too, which were not even comparable to your own, and which he admits above were not helpful and for which he has expressed regret. Tiamuttalk 22:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Epeefleche, thank you for providing the relevant commments. While the admins were commenting on whether or not the Jonathan Cook AfD fell under the scope of the topic bans for both, they seem to have missed the fact that Nableezy's ban from talk pages had ended. AGK clarified on a separate page that when Nableezy's talk page ban had ended (it was only for one month), he was permitted to comment in AfDs in that topic area as well. So while you are technically correct about what the admins said, their comments are frankly irrelevant given that the ban on talk pages had ended when Nableezy made his comments. They were speaking as to the general principle, and not his specific actions.
Cptnono, thank you for showing largesse and withdrawing your request. It goes a long way to alleviating my own concerns about your motivations in filing this request. I hope that in the future, we can all learn to speak to each other more politely and graciously, and avoid coming here every time we have a spat. Happy editing. Tiamuttalk 22:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Epeefleche, upon review, it seems you are correct that Nableezy made his first edit to the Jonathan Cook AfD one day before his talk page ban on I-P articles ended. Considering his belief that this article was not covered by the scope of the ban (as exemplified in his defense of the right other indefinitely banned I-P editors to comment there) I see this as a good faith mistake. In any case, admins who commented in the request for clarification you filed did not see fit to do anything about it then, so I do not see the relevance of this now.
Shuki, I think you mean that Nableezy returned to copy edit articles in a way that does not accord with your POV? I really do think this pile-on by editors with opposing POVs, just when Nableezy's 2-month topic ban has ended, is extremely unfortunate. Particularly so given that Nableezy apologized for the comments that prompted Cptnono to file this report, and the apology has been most graciously accepted and the complaint withdrawn. I understand that some of you are not happy to have to deal with the return of an editor who tenaciously challenges your POV, but I think it would be best to let sleeping dogs lie. If Nableezy so much as sneezes in the wrong direction, we will no doubt be here again in short order, given the intense interest in every move by so many. Tiamuttalk 21:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Epeefleche[edit]

Nableezy did in fact violate his topic ban elsewhere as discussed further up on this very same page, and the tone of his comment even here (as has been pointed out) have often been markedly uncivil. This is an ongoing, intransigent problem.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

@Tiamut: As is discussed further up on this very same page, and has not been disputed, even in the most liberal reading of Nableezy's topic ban he violated it with trigger happy editing at the Cook AfD. Of course Tiamut shouldn't be the least bit surprised - Nableezy has been repeatedly uncivil (even on this page) and shown repeated lack of an appropriate approach to editing (as pointed out even after his ban by the arbs, as discussed above). Indeed, that's what led to his topic ban in the first place.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
@Tiamut: I've not filed an unsuccessful AE. In fact, the admin who has opined above at the still-open matter under "result" indicated that it was clear that the AE was appropriate. And of course, as indicated above, the arbitrators at the request for clarification uniformly chastised him for his post-topic-ban behavior.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
@Tiamut: Not so. I would refer you to my request at the clarification that the arbs discuss both bans, and the arbs comments regarding both bans.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
@Tiamut:At the request for clarification I wrote:

"nableezy had indicated on my talk page that this "request for clarification in no way applies to my topic-ban." As he was a named party, and his ban discused here, it would be helpful if arbs were to indicate (if it is the case) that it does apply to his ban as well."[63]

The pertinent language at the Request for Clarification from arb Vassanya (w/whom arbs Bainer, Wizardman, Coren, and Risker agreed) was:

"AfD discussions about IP-related articles quite clearly falls under "participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles". There is no grey area. An AfD is about as perfect of an example as you get for a "community discussion substantially concerned with such articles".... Shifting discussion over to user talk pages or other venues is at bare minimum a gross violation of the spirit of a topic ban. ... As far as I'm concerned, the confusion here is only arising from splitting hairs and trying to look for grey areas where they do not exist. The topic bans are perfectly clear and AfD is unquestionably included even in a strict reading of the sanction language.... "[A]ll pages ... which relate" seems to make the scope inclusive and clear in a similar fashion. Neither topic ban makes an exception for discussing unrelated issues on related pages. They are prohibitions on editing related pages. Full stop."[64](emphasis added)

--Epeefleche (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

@Tiamut. I'm actually in agreement w/the admins, and unlike you don't think they were all incorrect. As already noted more than once, he did in fact start editing there before his topic ban was over. under the most liberal interpretation. I'm done repeating myself and re-posting for your benefit as you appear not to be reading (at least closely), and am sure the closer here will appreciate my stopping this colloquoy now. On a final note, pls don't follow me around -- much appreciated.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Shuki[edit]

I am very disappointed with Nableezy's behaviour and return after the block. I once suggested to Nableezy to concentrate on creating and improving the quality of existing articles instead of spending the vast majority of time attacking articles and edit warring (in the past). Nableezy did start off the topic ban with a pretty good new article showing how one can be productive on WP but unfortunately, to celebrate the return after that was to continue the edit warring, reverts, and copyeditting of issues contrary to Nableezy POV. Frankly, it started during the topic ban. --Shuki (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezy[edit]

The diffs presented above show that Nableezy is using an inapproriate tone, but I do not see major incivility. I am concerned that this report may be an attempt to eliminate a content opponent from Wikipedia, using WP:CIV as a weapon. Offliner (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: I noticed another violation of ARB sanctions and added it (12:01, 30 December 2009) to this complaint. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no other violation, as outlined above. Though Jaakobou has been asked to modify his statement in light of the facts, he has declined to do so. [65] Tiamuttalk 19:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Coming off a 2 month block and starting an edit-war on an article he was blocked for edit-warring on seems like a problem IMHO. Your participation in reverting for him/tag-teaming with this and smearing other users here is not proper conduct either. JaakobouChalk Talk 19:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Kettle said to pot, right, because the main edit-warrior at Avigdor Lieberman as I see it is none other than yourself Jaakobou. And refusing to correct a factual error in your statement, even when you know it is wrong, is a huge problem, IMHO, and evidence of a out-to-get-Nableezy-at-any-price mentality. Further, making unsubstantiated accusations of "reverting for him/tag-teaming" is smearing other users without cause (diffs please?). People in glass houses maybe? Tiamuttalk 21:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Nobody's out to get Nableezy. In fact, I suggested that the initial sanction was too long and doesn't give him a reasonable chance at returning and fixing his condut issues. I don't see his return from the talkpage ban to be showing great improvement in the area of incivility and his return from the article space ban by taking on an edit war together with a couple partners is clearly a violation of the spirit of his sanction.
p.s. tag teaming between you two has been quite obvious and the main person smearing others with a COI brush here is you.
Cordially, JaakobouChalk Talk 01:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
The edit war at Avigdor Lieberman began when you undid this edit by Jim Fitzgerald (your first revert). Nableezy then undid your edit (his first revert). You then undid his edit (your second revert), and opened a section on the talk page for discussion. After I posted to the talk page three times to object to your restoration of that material citing POV, and asked you to please remove it until consensus could be gained on how to phrase it, and you refused to do anything about it, I reverted (my first revert). Shuki then undid my edit (her first revert) and posted to the talk page. Then, Factsontheground undid her edit (his first revert). Nableezy (engaging in talk throughout) then attempted to introduce a compromise formulation here (not a revert, and an attempt to break the deadlock). You then made this edit (your third revert, undoing his edit, while adding "sources", ignoring that the lack of sources was not the problem). I then undid your edit (my second revert), and quickly offered this edit as a compromise. Ynhockey then largely undid that edit. Discussion on the talk page continues to determine how to proceed.
In sum, you reverted three times and Shuki reverted once to back you up. On the other side, Nableezy reverted once (to Jim Fitzgerald's version), Factsontheground reverted once, and I reverted twice, offering a compromise edit 15 minutes after my second revert. Nableezy also offered a compromise edit.
In other words, you are the primary reverter and edit warrior at that page. Your edits show no evidence of a willingness to compromise. Conversely, both Nableezy and I have offered alternatives to our preferred versions, in an attempt to garner consensus.
Please refrain from making false accusations without providing diffs. Thank you. Tiamuttalk 17:10, 1 January 2010 (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.

No action taken. This thread covers several complaints: Cptnono believes that Nableezy has violated conduct norms in the topic area, and Jaakobou believes that Nableezy has violated a topic ban imposed as a discretionary sanction. The former issue is no longer actionable at the moment given Nableezy's credible apology at the bottom of his statement, and Cptnono's withdrawal of the complaint. As to the latter issue, on closer examination, it appears that the two month ban ([66]) was meant to begin on 21:02, 29 October 2009 ([67] in fine) and was thus already expired at the time of the contested edit at 22:00, 29 December 2009. Finally, allusion is made by others to other occasions, including a "Jonathan Cook AfD", in which Nableezy is believed to have violated his topic ban. But these would need a properly formatted, separate and timely complaint (including diffs) in which they could be properly discussed. Accordingly, no arbitration enforcement action is required, based on this request, at this time.  Sandstein  18:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Nefer Tweety[edit]

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

Request concerning Nefer Tweety[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Nefer Tweety (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
# Several editors mediated between me and Arab Cowboy at the Asmahan article, after the last mediation ended with admin al ameer son you can see here the sections of the article was, "career" section and in that section a subsection of "Egypt's influence", and "immigration to Egypt" was a subsection of "early life", I made an edit and explained this at the talkpage yet it has been reverted by Nefer Tweety against the the mediations/collaborations/consensus [68] and also undue weight, texts about her career are put in "Egypt's influence on Asmahan’s career". Nefer Tweety is an account which is almost exclusively used to do the same edits as Arab Cowboy, Nefer Tweety reverted the entire article back 4 months to Arab Cowboys edit, not caring about edits made by several people [69] I had also made a copyright violation request and a copyright admin removed the copyrighted material here, the exact copy righted text has been re added by Nefer tweety , personal life, section: [70]
Update: Assumption of bad faith is a violation against a principle: "to promote his POV and Syrian agenda" [71] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
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 or bann.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
<Your text>
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Nefer Tweety[edit]

Statement by Nefer Tweety[edit]

User: Supreme Deliciousness is presently under disciplinary probation for one year for edit warring and other violations specifically related to Asmahan and other articles. On 20 December, Supreme Deliciousness returned to his old ways of making biased and inflammatory edits into Asmahan to promote his POV and Syrian agenda while claiming copyright violation about any text does not suit his agenda. There's no more copyright violation, the article had been rebuilt by Arab Cowboy without any copyright violations while Cactus Writer was closely watching. Supreme Deliciousness's probation must be enforced as well as the probation on Asmahan and he had better leave this article alone. I am dedicating my time on Wikipedia to protecting Egypt related articles from Supreme Deliciousness's vandalism. Nefer Tweety (talk) 11:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Nefer Tweety[edit]

(This threaded discussion moved from admin section below.  Sandstein  18:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC))

NuclearWarfare, at the talkpage there has been comments which are in direct violation against the cases principles Decorum, incivility and assumptions of bad faith in principle: [73] comment: "to promote his POV and Syrian agenda" "Supreme Deliciousness's vandalism" [74] The scope of the case shows that Nefer Tweety has been involved in this: [75] Is no action gonna be taken against this violation against a principle? What are the principles for if that is the case? So people can violate them and get away with it? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I looked over the recent edits to the talk page. As there have been no edits to even the talk page since December 25, I am still inclined to not give any sanctions here. I shall watchlist the page and keep an eye on any discussions. If any administrator disagrees with my (lack of) action, they are of course free to use their judgment to take what they feel is the appropriate course. NW (Talk) 21:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Nefer Tweety has continued to violate the proposed principles and has been canvassing: [76] (To Arab Cowboys sockpuppet) which I believe is inappropriate behavior: [77] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Nefer Tweety[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • I am inclined to dismiss this report as  Stale. There have only been 4 edits to the article in the past week, and the edit warring seems to have died down. I would be interested in hearing any other outside opinions though. NW (Talk) 17:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The request is not formatted in the recommended style (see {{Arbitration enforcement request}}), making it difficult to evaluate. In particular, it is not clear which specific edits are believed to violate which specific remedy for which reason. If the request is not improved soon, I am inclined to close it with no action.  Sandstein  18:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Closed as no action per the above.  Sandstein  11:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Climate change[edit]

Resolved: Not a request for arbitration enforcement. This is not a general purpose noticeboard.  Sandstein  18:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

A discussion from WP:AN relates to at least one and probably more cases plus one case requested right now, which is likely too unfocused right now. Experienced editors and dispute resolvers are invited to contribute at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


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

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

Request concerning ChildOfMidnight[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Sceptre (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
ChildOfMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#ChildofMidnight and Scjessey restricted
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
[78] As COM was not mentioned in the amendment request (and Scjessey was) apart from a non-controversial statement explaining why I'm not adding him to the request, I believe that this is not exempt like the arbitration pages normally are from topic bans, and is, in spirit, similar to COM posting in an AN(I) thread about Scjessey and contravenes his restriction set down in the case.
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
COM has been blocked three times for contravening his topic bans.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning ChildOfMidnight[edit]

Statement by ChildOfMidnight[edit]

Statement by Bigtimepeace[edit]

Just a quick comment here as I'm out the door. I don't think this should be acted on, though it was not improper to file the request for enforcement. ChildofMidnight was named (I think unnecessarily) in the Request for Amendment mentioned above. It was reasonable for him to respond at that point, though it is true he should not have mentioned Scjessey. In so doing the he was largely pointing to what ChildofMidnight perceived to be violations of the interaction restriction between Scjessey and C of M (which largely took place on my talk page). I don't think those comments were violations (see my statement here, especially paragraph three), but it's not unreasonable to for C of M to mention them if he saw a problem. The rub here is that there has been some recent discussion (going back to early December) about how to construe an interaction ban between two parties, and some of that discussion has led to accusations of violating the ban, etc. etc. In that context (which is a bit confusing, and admittedly somewhat ridiculous) I don't think sanctioning anyone is a good idea, though everyone involved should definitely drop the whole matter. A block of C of M really will not accomplish anything, particularly as the amendment request which led to this issue is now being withdrawn by the editor who proposed it. I can provide more detail about the situation later if needed but will be offline for the rest of the night. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Scjessey[edit]

In the interests of trying to foster good relations and avoid further drama, I would prefer that no action be taken against ChildofMidnight for this. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning ChildOfMidnight[edit]

Result concerning ChildOfMidnight[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • At the request of the two editors above, (especially Scjessey, whose statement I commend), I will close this request as "no action taken." NW (Talk) 18:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to modify topic ban (User:Thomas Basboll)[edit]


On December 8, a topic-ban against me that had been implemented under the 9/11 ArbCom ruling was suspended for a trial period of one-month. (See discussion archived here.) My original request had been to modify the ban: instead of being an indefinite ban it would become a two-year ban, to run out on April 21, 2010. I hadn't expected to return to editing so quickly, but I've tried to do some work that might indicate what sorts of thing I'd like to do if I returned. I'll leave it up to you to evaluate my editing and decide on the future status of the ban. Thanks for your time.--Thomas B (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As this is an ArbCom sanction and ArbCom retain jurisdiction, you should raise this at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment for a formal decision. Thanks,  Roger Davies talk 23:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
OK. Will do.--Thomas B (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Procedurally closing this thread; the action continues in the appeal below.  Sandstein  21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Request concerning Offliner[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Sander Säde 10:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Offliner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
All following edits violate WP:BLP, specifically adding highly dubious category not supported by neither article content nor sources.
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
[80] Arbitration enforcement by Thatcher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), later vacated as Offliner had not officially been warned under WP:DIGWUREN previously ([81])
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Extended topic ban from all BLP and Estonia-related articles
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Attempts by myself and others to resolve the issue without involving AE:
  1. Talk:Mark_Sirõk#Category:Victims_of_Estonian_political_repression
  2. Talk:Dmitri_Linter#Category:Victims_of_Estonian_political_repression
  3. Talk:Johan_Bäckman#Category:Victims_of_Estonian_political_repression
  4. [82]
  5. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_31#Category:Victims_of_Estonian_political_repression

Offliner created category Category:Victims of Estonian political repression and added the category to three BLP articles - Mark Sirõk, Dmitri Linter and Johan Bäckman. There is no content whatsoever in any of those articles supporting the category as required by WP:BLP#Categories nor are there any sources whatsoever supporting it. Offliner has been repeatedly asked to provide sources ([83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89]); so far he has not been able to do so and has only claimed that the inclusion of category is "clearly demonstrated" ([90], [91]).

As a background information - Mark Sirõk and Dmitri Linter organized a demonstration which became a looting and rioting (see Bronze Night). They were arrested under suspicion of organizing mass riots, but the court acquitted them of the charge and monetarily compensated the time they were arrested, as they were not responsible for the demonstration's becoming a riot - and peaceful demonstrations are obviously not forbidden. There have been no claims by them nor any other source that they were arrested for their political views.

Johan Bäckman has repeatedly calling to violently overthrow Estonian government. He attempted to come to Estonia without travel documents required to cross borders between Schengen countries, was detained (not arrested, like Offliner has repeatedly claimed) for a few hours and denied entry to the country under a brief entry prohibition (two weeks, if I remember correctly). No source has claimed he was "victimized" nor that he is a victim of "Estonian political repression".

Offliner has a history of BLP violations and tendentious editing of Estonia-related topics:

  • Mark Sirõk. Edit-warring to include BLP-violating material (health information sourced in a web forum!) and to remove well-sourced material: [92], [93], [94]
  • Kaitsepolitsei: Including and edit-warring to include criticism from non-valid sources (Johan Bäckman's blog and self-published book): [95], [96],

[97], [98], [99]

  • Creation of one-sided WP:POVFORK Discrimination against ethnic minorities in Estonia, merged quickly to Human rights in Estonia after AfD.
  • Creation of draft in his userspace, which started "According to organization X, there is considerable glorification of the country's nazi past in Estonia, with parades of former SS-officers taking place in the capital Tallinn annually", an utter fabrication to a degree where it was seen as an attack page by an Estonian editor [100].
Response to Offliner

Please do not misrepresent BrownHairedGirl. She did not claim that removal of category from BLP articles during CfD discussion was inappropriate - in fact, she did the opposite, supporting removal of categories from articles that violate BLP principles, providing the articles are listed in CfD discussion and removal of category is clearly spelled out. And as I left a very clear notification to the CfD discussion prior to removing categories ([101]) and the articles are linked in the discussion...

You still haven't provided a single source supporting inclusion of those articles in the category, a policy which is very clearly spelled out in WP:BLP#Categories - and that despite close to ten requests to provide sources for your claims. Like you wrote below, you believe the inclusion of category to the articles is justified. Wikipedia does not work with beliefs, Wikipedia works with sources. Hence inclusion of this category to articles without single supporting source is a violation of core Wikipedia principles.

I fail to understand what has EEML has got to do with your policy violations? Also, you are (again) misrepresenting Arbitration Committee, as there are no FoF's related to "organizing campaigns aimed at getting rid of editors who had content disagreements with the group". Would you please stick to the truth at least on this page? --Sander Säde 12:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Offliner[edit]

Statement by Offliner[edit]

User:Sander Säde emptied the category by removing it from all articles while the category was discussed at CfD.[103] This is inapproriate and forbidden under CfD policy: Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision.Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Therefore I reverted his removal.

As I have explained on the CfD, I believe the inclusion of the category in the three articles is justified. I definitely do not see a WP:BLP violation and neither did any of the other participants in the CfD. I have no objections to the category being deleted or removed from all articles if this is the consensus; I only reverted Sander Säde's removal because it is inapproriate during a confirmed by admin User:BrownHairedGirl: [104].

I'd reluctantly also like to point out that User:Sander Säde was a member of the WP:EEML cabal, which according to ArbCom was responsible for organizing campaigns aimed at getting rid of editors who had content disagreements with the group. Offliner (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by BrownHairedGirl[edit]

I was alerted to this discussion by a note on my talk page.[105]

I have no knowledge of the dispute between these two editors other than what I have seen at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 31#Category:Victims_of_Estonian_political_repression, and no comment on the dispute other than in relation to my note on removing articles from a category while it is being discussed at CFD.[106].

Offliner is incorrect to claim that I said that "it is inappropriate during a CfD". What I actually said was "Per WP:BLPCAT, I will always support the removal of BLP articles from categories which are not supported by references."[107]

In the same comment I also noted that "However, doing so whilst a CFD discussion is underway has a major impact on the discussion, so any such removal should be clearly notified at the CFD, listing the articles removed and explaining the reason. Editors discussing the fate of a category need to know why it has suddenly been emptied, because without that information they cannot reach a meaningful decision. Unless the decategorised articles are listed at the discussion, the removal appears sneaky, even when the removal has been done in good faith."

However, User:Sander Säde's comment at CFD noting the removal of articles did not actually list the articles removed.[108] They had been listed elsewhere in the discussion, but it would have been clearer for all concerned if the note on their removal had explicitly listed them, which User:Sander Säde has now done in response to my comment.[109] None of the three edits removing the category from articles[110][111][112] has an edit summary explaining the reason for their removal, which would also have been helpful.

At this point, rather than a further argument about process, it seems to me that since Offliner supports the categorisation of these three articles as "Victims of Estonian political repression", Offliner should explain which references to reliable sources explicitly support this view, without WP:OR or WP:SYN. My understanding of the relevant guidelines and of the general principle that wikipedia relies on secondary sources is that it is insufficient for a reference to simply report events; what is needed is references to reliable sources which explicitly make the value judgement that the actions against each of these people did amount to political repression.

As a wider point, I would like to note my only other comment in that CFD debate, in which I expressed a concern that the whole series of categories under Category:Victims of political repression are too subjective to be viable.[113] It seems to me this particular dispute is an inevitable consequence of wikipedia's use of this group of subjective categories, and I am surprised that these categories do not appear to have generated many more similar disputes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Offliner[edit]

Result concerning Offliner[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • User:Offliner is placed on a 1RR restriction for 6 months, with the additional condition that the user is also required to discuss all reverts. henriktalk 13:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Appeal by Offliner[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Appealing user 
Offliner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Offliner (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
1R restriction
Editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction 
Henrik (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) / Henrik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Notification of that editor 

Statement by Offliner[edit]

I was given a 1R restriction by User:Henrik for making only 2 reverts in 24h in 3 different articles. I have done very little reverting since July 2009 (after I changed my habits), and practically none during the last two months. My recent contributions have been positive and a result of hard work. I believe these reverts are my only actions in recent months that could be regarded as controversial.

After I had created Category:Victims of Estonian political repression, User:Sander Säde (with whom I've had content disputes in the past) immediately nominated it at CfD[115] and, at the same time, removed it from all articles.[116][117][118][119][120][121]

Why I think the sanction is unjustified

I reverted Sander Säde's 2 removals because my interpretation of the WP:CFD policy was that removing the category from articles is forbidden while the category under CfD. (...please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision...)[122]

Sander Säde then submitted an WP:AE report about me, souping it up with some old (pre-July 2009) diffs which I think are irrelevant to this case and also misrepresentations. I do not believe that this report was made in good faith, taking into account that Sander Säde was a member of the WP:EEML, which is known to have organized noticeboard campaigns aimed at getting rid of the group's content opponents.

There are indications that admin Henrik made his decision in haste (only 3 hours after the request was filed), without checking all the facts. For example, he claims that User:Sander Säde discussed his reverts on the article talk pages[123], which is simply not true. The only post regarding the category on the talk pages is from User:Termer.[124][125][126] (Neither did Sander Säde give any edit summaries in his reverts, marking them as minor edits.)[127][128][129][130][131][132] Henrik also says that he doesn't "see any attempts to engage in discussion" from me, and that I made the reverts without discussion.[133] But this is again, simply not true. I commented on the category at the CfD, which I thought was the correct place for such discussion: [134].

Admission of mistake

I thought that the inclusion of the category in the three articles (Johan Bäckman, Mark Sirõk and Dmitri Linter) was justified based on the article content (all three were arrested in Estonia for political reasons.)

However, after thinking this over and seeing the comments at the CfD, I now believe that adding this category to these articles was a mistake, because many sources do not explicitly say that they were victims of political repression (which I now think should be a requirement for the categorization.)

I now support removing this category from these articles and I also support deleting the category since the removal would make it underpopulated. I have changed my vote at the CfD accordingly.[135]

I feel that getting a 1R restriction for making two errors (mistakenly believing that adding the category to the 3 articles was justified, and misinterpreting the CfD policy), especially with no recent background of edit warring, is extremely harsh.


I will promise not to create categories on politically controversial subjects in the future and be very careful when adding categories to such articles. I will also promise to avoid edit warring and to follow a voluntary 1RR from now on.

I'm not asking for the 1R sanction to be lifted because I want to edit war, but because I think the sanction is unjustified and because I'm concerned about the effect it will have on my reputation.

Following Sandstein's good advice, I'm going to withdraw the appeal. Offliner (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Henrik[edit]

This user was very nearly restricted (1 revert per week, indefinitely) half a year ago[136] for the exact same thing: edit warring over contentious categories, a restriction only vacated on a technicality and apparent exhaustion[137]. And in October [138] and again now ([139][140][141][142][143][144][145][146][147] - as linked above) this user does the exact same thing again, which unfortunately, combined with a general tendency towards battlefield behavior and tendentious editing meant that I considered restrictions necessary (though granted; there are others, on both sides, which are likely worse in this aspect). As 1RR and discussing reverts is only standard good practice for contentious areas, I consider it a fairly lightweight and limited restriction.

I'm glad that User:Offliner admits his mistake and promises to have learnt from it, but as this is one continuously troublesome topic area, I think a formal restriction will have a better chance of not being forgotten in the heat of the moment. henriktalk 20:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the appeal by Offliner[edit]

I don't really have an opinion about Offliner's 1R, however not so long ago I was slapped with a 1R by admin Future Perfect after I didn't even reverted more than once, I made 2 single reverts one of each I self-reverted after i was notified it was a wrong revert. Unlike Offliner I also I don't have a history of edit warring. If Offliner's restriction is lifted it goes without saying that I expect mine to be lifted too, almost by default.  Dr. Loosmark  20:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to Loosmark
Your restriction has already been discussed and confirmed [148]. I fail to see how you yet again bringing it up helps the project. Varsovian (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Sander Säde (ec)[edit]

Just... sigh. A lot of - shall we put it mildly - misrepresentations by Offliner.

Offliner brings up EEML once again, without explaining what it has to do with his breaking a core Wikipedia policy (WP:BLP). And "WP:EEML, which is known to have organized noticeboard campaigns aimed at getting rid of the group's content opponents" - strangely, Arbitration Committee did not find such thing in their very thorough investigation. No one but myself, Offliner and BrownHairedGirl posted to the AE request.

I did not "at the same time, removed it from all articles", I removed the category three days after I had requested Offliner to provide sources ([149]), and Offliner was unable to come up with a single source supporting the addition of category to BLP articles, as it is very clearly spelled out in WP:BLP#Categories. And I notified that I am removing the categories in CfD discussion, before removing them ([150]). After his first reverts I posted a very clear request for sources to his talk page ([151]), which went completely unanswered, same as Termer's posts to article talk pages.

As for not giving edit summaries - indeed, I used HotCat (default settings) to remove categories. I did not know until Offliner brought it up here (linking them twice for some reason in his appeal) that HotCat marks the edits as minor. I had no intentions of sneakily removing the categories; if I would have wanted to do that, then it would have been rather silly to announce it in CfD beforehand, which is monitored by far more people than those articles.

"irrelevant to this case and also misrepresentations" - no, they're definitely not misrepresentations. Or are you claiming that you didn't edit war to include health information sourced to web forum (!) to BLP while at the same time removing well-sourced "uncomfortable" material - and that you also included and edit-warred to add criticism from non-valid sources (Johan Bäckman's personal blog and self-published book) to Kaitsepolitsei? They were relevant to the case in hand to show your prior BLP violations and highly tendentious editing of Estonia-related topics.

And for the third time Offliner claims that Johan Bäckman was arrested, which also isn't true. He was briefly detained (he didn't have travel documents) and denied entry to the country. He was never arrested. Other two were not arrested for "political reasons", as Offliner believes, despite being unable to come up with a single source supporting that view - they were arrested under suspicion of organizing mass riots, but the court acquitted them of the charge.

And finally, I believe Henrik's decision came with consideration of Offliner's prior blocks - he has been blocked twice for edit warring. I have no comments on merit of this restriction but I think it is fairly mild and would not be an issue unless an editor plans to continue revert-warring. In fact, I think I will adopt it myself - only one revert in a day unless I am dealing with obvious vandalism - and requirement to discuss reverts is something that should be more pronounced in Wikipedia policies.

--Sander Säde 20:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Sandstein[edit]

Henrik's reasoning is persuasive, and I do recall Offliner's username from numerous previous AE cases dealing with Eastern Europe. But his admissions of mistakes and promises to observe a voluntary 1R restriction are also very encouraging. My recommendation to Offliner is to withdraw this appeal at this time, but to re-approach Henrik after a month or two of trouble-free editing. Henrik might be inclined to lift the formal restriction at this time, and if he does not, a new appeal might fall on more receptive ears.  Sandstein  21:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by The Four Deuces[edit]

I do not see how Offliner's actions can be seen as being outside the ordinary. Here is what happened in all three articles. (For disclosure, Offliner asked my opinion of this matter.)

  • Offliner created a category and populated it with three articles.
  • Sander Säde nominated the category for deletion
  • Sander Säde removed the articles from the category with the notation: (Removed category Victims of Estonian political repression (using HotCat)).
  • Offliner restored the category with the notation: (rv - restore valid cat. per article content)
  • Sander Säde posted to Offliner's talk page not to add unsourced categories
  • Sander Säde removed the articles from the category with the notation: (Removed category Victims of Estonian political repression (using HotCat))
  • Offliner restored the category with the notation: (rv disruptive removal of a valid cat during a CfD by Sander Säde)
  • Termer then set up a discussion thread.[152]

Essentially Offliner twice restored (with edit summaries) his edits that had been removed without explanation in the edit summaries or any discussion thread having been set up on the talk page. At some point Offliner should have used the talk page and dispute resolution but it is not obvious when this should have been done.

Henrik wrote the following to justify his decision:

Alright, I'll explain my reasoning and also why I did not give User:Sander Säde a corresponding restriction in this case.
You made six reverts, two to each article. I don't see any attempts to engage in discussion, or substantiate the claims with sourcing. Reverting the same user 6 times without discussion amounts to actionable edit warring. A reason Sander Säde did not get a corresponding restriction is that he posted discussion requests here and on the talk pages.
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion is also not a policy page, and the guidelines there don't amount to policy. The request for sourcing was reasonable, and the BLP concerns are not patently unreasonable (thus meriting discussion), both which give User:Sander Säde policy based justification for his actions based in WP:V and WP:BLP respectively. The burden on people wanting material in biographies is always on the one inserting it. henrik•talk 15:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[153]

In fact, Sander Säde did not post any discussion on the talk page and nothing was posted there until Offliner's final edit. Neither Sander Säde nor Termer had raised the BLP concerns. Since the purpose of the BLP policy is to protect subjects against unfounded claims, there was no violation of the spirit here. Furthermore, Sander Säde posting to Offliner's page was not inviting of discussion:

Please stop adding unsourced categories like you've done repeatedly. This is an online encyclopedia, not a vehicle of propaganda, and adding highly questionable categories based on your prejudices is not acceptable. Nothing in these articles warrants the category; unless you can come up with solid, reliable sources claiming that those people are victims of Estonian political repression, your actions can be considered vandalism. And I mean actual sources - not personal blogs, but court cases and academic journals. Until you have such sources, please stop. --Sander Säde 15:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, it is not normal to add sources to categories. The policy is: "...the case for each category must be made clear by the article text. Articles must state the facts that support each category tag, and these facts must be sourced". The articles clearly state that two of the subjects were unsuccessfully prosecuted for actions at a demonstration while the third was denied entry to Estonia. The dispute really is not whether sources exist in the article, but whether they rise to the level necessary to include them under the category.

I think that this matter should have been treated as a content dispute.

The Four Deuces (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sander Säde has written to me with the following comments:

Ah, I see that Offliner has asked you to comment before you did - good, it saves me from starting a new section.
In your comment, you miss the fact that I posted to CfD discussion prior removing the categories - and that happened three days after I had asked to provide sources for Offliner's claims (he has now admitted that no such sources exist). I also pointed out BLP concerns in the CfD; as Offliner replied to the post he obviously saw it. And it would be rather silly to claim that Offliner did not realize the three articles were BLP's and hence covered by WP:BLP, a policy that is well known to him.
You also claim the articles say "two of the subjects were unsuccessfully prosecuted for actions at a demonstration while the third was denied entry to Estonia.". That is not true, they were not prosecuted for actions at a demonstration - as stated in the articles, they were arrested on charges of organizing mass riots, something that is illegal everywhere in the world. In case of Bäckman, it seems that both you and Offliner assume that it is acceptable to incite violence against a democratically elected government. Try to imagine if you would openly and repeatedly call to kill Obama - would you be surprised if you are not allowed to enter USA? And if you would try to do so without travel documents (like Bäckman did), would you be only detained for a couple of hours, then released and not allowed to enter the country for two weeks like Bäckman was?
In short, I ask you to fix the errors in your comment.
--Sander Säde 09:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[154]

Regarding BLP, although Sander Säde did mention in the CfD application that the articles were BLP, there was no discussion of the significance of BLP until after Offliner's second reversion:

Sander Saeda: Seeing your biography under derogatory category can result in court action against Wikipedia....
Offliner: I fail to see the BLP violation...

I note that despite Henrik's concern about BLP violations he did not revert Offliner's edit and Sander Säde did not use the article talk pages or any other method of dispute resolution other than the CfD to notify other editors of the supposed BLP violation.

While I do not "assume that it is acceptable to incite violence against a democratically elected government", I can see that some people might believe that the charges against them were false, especially considering that the prosecution was unable to prove their case.

The Four Deuces (talk) 10:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Biophys[edit]

Some diffs of interest can be found here. Biophys (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Offliner[edit]

Offliner has withdrawn his appeal. Dougweller (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Appeal by Nableezy[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Appealing user 
Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction being appealed
2 month topic ban from I/P conflict articles and block for violating that ban by filing a CU request
Editor who imposed the sanction 
Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that editor 

Statement by Nableezy[edit]

Executive summary[edit]

As requested: Sandstein topic-bans me for 2 months as a result of edits to the Jonathan Cook AfD. After being informed that nearly all of my edits to the AfD came after the conclusion of my talk page ban, which AGK clarified as including AfDs, Sandstein raises the issue with the two edits I made prior to that ban concluding which were reversions of other users removing Nickhh and Nishidani's comments. Later he blocks me for editing a CU request regarding a suspected sock of NoCal100 on the basis that the suspected sockpuppetry took place in the I/P conflict so the SPI is off-limits. I am appealing both actions.

And Tznaki, before this topic ban was placed both the article and the talk page ban had expired

Full summary[edit]

Sandstein imposed a 4 2 month topic ban as a result of this AE thread that centered around edits made to an AfD about Jonathan Cook. In that complaint I wrote that AGK had clarified the scope of my topic ban and that AfDs were to be treated as article talk pages, from which I was banned from one month starting 21:02 October 29, [156]. I also wrote that my actions at the AfD had previously been discussed in another AE thread, (here), which Tznaki had declined action as a result of AGK's clarification. Epeefleche, who had been actively campaigning for disciplinary action in that thread, opens another thread about the same AfD but also including Nickhh and Nishidani in the request for enforcement. Having just dealt with this issue I said that AGK had already clarified that my topic ban on AfDs was for 1 month and that a previous AE thread had already been opened, and closed, about my actions at the AfD. As the result was still fresh, it did not occur to me that diffs were needed, especially given that Tznaki had closed the earlier thread and had commented in the new one. Tznaki's comments in the new thread included In this case, Nableezy is not sanctioned under Westbank Judea-Samaria, and no action will be taken against him under this request.

Sandstein, 2 weeks after the thread had any comment, comes to AE and closes the thread, saying that in my case By editing the I-P-related AfD, he violated the I-P topic ban imposed as a discretionary sanction in effect at the time. He is also unapologetic, asserting that "AGK has clarified that my topic ban does not include AfDs and my actions here have already been addressed in an earlier AE thread", but providing no diffs to support these assertions, which makes them immaterial. What matters is the sanctions log, which clearly states that the ban applies to "all pages within subject areas relating to this arbitration case", which includes AfDs.

Within two hours I provided Sandstein the diff and prior AE thread that he had said was "immaterial". Sandstein then adjusts his position on why the topic ban is justified by raising 2 diffs of edits I had made to the AfD in the 24 hours prior to my talk page ban expiring. Those two edits are [157] and [158]. As to these two edits, as they are now used to justify a two month ban a month after they occurred: yes, they are technical violation of my topic ban. The reason for reverting those edits was that I felt, and still feel, that highly involved users should not be attempting to enforce arbitration decisions, there is a reason that task is left to uninvolved admins. I asked both users who I had reverted to instead go to WP:AE if they felt that Nick and Nishidani were violating their topic ban and let an uninvolved admin make that determination and decide how to enforce the decision instead of unilaterally deciding that they had in fact violated the topic ban and removing the comments. One of those users, Mr. Hicks The III, has since been shown to be a sockpuppet of the banned user NoCal100. I felt, and still feel, that my reversions were essentially reverting vandalism as the other users were removing or modifying other peoples comments. I purposely did not comment about the AfD itself until after my talk page ban had expired.

After placing the topic ban, Sandstein blocks me for violating that ban by making edits to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100 (edits that have since been endorsed by a CU clerk as meriting a CU). Sandstein maintains that as these edits were about sockpuppetry in the I/P area that my topic ban precludes me making such edits. Now forgetting for a second that he could have just told me that instead of blocking me, these edits are in no way related to the I/P conflict. I do not discuss the conflict at all in those edits. Sandstein cites a recent request for clarification as proof that such edits fall within the scope of the topic ban. The only thing that I see that could possibly lead to that interpretation is Vassyana's comments that shifting discussion to another venue is a violation. But I did not shift any discussion, I did not discuss the actual conflict anywhere. I requested an unblock asking for any reasonable person to show how those edits were related to the I/P conflict. Sandstein replies that as an arbitration enforcement action the block may only be overturned by coming here, which as I was blocked I was obviously unable to do, and the reviewing admin threatened to remove my talk page access for "abuse" of the template, apparently for having the audacity to post one single unblock request. As I still feel that my block log contains a block that was wholly without basis I request that a note be made in the log that the block was improper.

I request that the topic ban be either revoked or drastically shortened as my edits after those two listed above were not in violation of my topic ban. If it is felt that those two edits merit an additional topic ban I feel that four two months is far too long for two edits made over a month ago.


If somebody wishes to start a separate section on an unrelated topic please do so, but I ask that we not clutter this one up with arguments. This section is to address specific things and topics unrelated are topics that distract. nableezy - 00:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein[edit]

The topic ban I imposed lasts for two months, not four ([159], [160]). But then I suppose we would not be here if Nableezy were in the habit of paying attention to the sanctions that apply to him, though he is to be commended for finally going about this the proper way and making an appeal for community consideration. (Edit, 22:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC): This has now in part been amended to read 2 months; the original appeal referred to a 4 months ban.)

The reason for the topic ban is noted at the AE thread. The matter has been discussed at great length, and frequently impolitely, at User talk:Sandstein#What a way to start the New Year!, so I'll not repeat here what I said in these threads. In view of Nableezy's unapologetic and generally confrontative attitude to his infringement of the original topic ban ([161]), and considering that he infringed the new topic ban from the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict within three days of it being imposed ([162]) instead of making an appeal (a request for lifting the resulting enforcement block was declined, if a bit curtly, by another admin), I recommend that this appeal be declined and the ban maintained, both to disencourage Nableezy and other editors from infringing arbitration sanctions and to prevent disruption in the area of conflict.

Of course, I am also fine with whatever consensus develops here at AE to modify or lift the ban, if administrators who may be more acquainted with the underlying dispute(s) than I deem it appropriate. One might ask, however, why an editor who labels himself as retired, which he maintains is meant seriously and not as a gesture of protest ([163]) has any interest in filing an appeal against a topic ban.  Sandstein  21:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: it might be of interest to whoever determines the outcome of this appeal to evaluate whether the notifications by Tiamut (talk · contribs), beginning on 21:22, 5 January 2010, may be an attempt at votestacking insofar as they appear to be addressed to editors who seem to share her and Nableezy's point of view in content disputes in the area of conflict, except for Epeefleche.  Sandstein  23:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the appeal by Nableezy[edit]

I don't really understand the ins and outs of this, but I don't think the details matter at this point. I appeal to Sandstein to lift whatever blocks or topic bans are in place against Nableezy. He's a good editor who tries hard to be neutral, which includes making edits that I'm pretty sure he doesn't personally agree with. I don't have diffs to hand, and wouldn't know how to find them, but I've seen him do it several times.

The first topic ban came about because he was reverting too much on the 2009 Gaza War article, but he was trying to insert the alternative name for it, "Gaza massacre," which was well-sourced as an alternative, and while too much reverting for any reason is never good, content-wise he was in the right. A warning would have been better than a topic ban at that point. Had that ban not been imposed, his edits to the Cook AfD would have been unproblematic and this one wouldn't have been imposed, or violated, or whatever has happened since.

It would be good if Sandstein would bring a halt to Nableezy's slide into frustration and retirement by simply lifting whatever remains of the topic ban and asking Nableezy to be more careful in future. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 21:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have found one diff of the kind of thing I mean. I removed from the infobox at Modi'in Illit, an Israeli settlement in the West Bank, that it was in Judea and Samaria, because I see it as POV to use that term when the majority term is the West Bank. I am guessing that Nableezy would largely agree with me. He nevertheless reverted me, [164] because the issue had been discussed elsewhere, and a consensus had apparently been reached to use Judea and Samaria in that context, because it's the formal Israeli name for that district. He stuck with that consensus, regardless of his personal views. I realize this is only one diff, but it's typical of my experience of editing with Nableezy that he seeks to follow the policies. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 21:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I have been able to figure out Nableezy's description of the events is correct, and I think the appeal should be heard. I think the admin who warned Nableezy about abusing the unblock template misunderstood something, probably an honest mistake. I am about as uninvolved as it gets and I have never edited much in the Israel-Palestine area. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

  • I'd appreciate it if Nableezy would provide an executive summary, but I am concerned with which the frequency of which Nableezy has ended up on AE on shaky ground. The last time I checked, aside from the ban on point, Nableezy was topic banned from articles only. Have I missed something?--Tznkai (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Tznkai, this is one of those situations where the first sanction was arguably mistaken, and led to the second, which led to the third, in an escalating series of misunderstandings and frustrated responses. Fresh eyes on the whole situation are what's needed at this point. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 22:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • And, Tznkai, several of these cases involving Nableezy were repeat referrals of this same matter concerning the afd page.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Epeefleche.

If this is as Slim suggests, about character and editing, without diffs, I'll simply say my impression of Nableezy is polar opposite of that described by Slim directly above. I've found Nableezy to be tendentious and disruptive, exhibit a strong POV, not have much respect for WP topic bans, skirt his own topic ban, and enable topic ban violations by others. His behavior, even after being topic banned, is a strong sign that he doesn't feel a need to pay much attention to what the arbs and others have had to say about his behavior. That behavior is a time-suck from positive editing efforts by others. IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that the ban extension here was already appropriate for reasons discussed at length at the AE. As were the points being made here all over again. Sandstein did a commendable job in his close, IMHO.

I'm concerned w/the apparent vote-stacking here. Tiamut contacted 20 other editors, none of whom from what I can tell have expressed the view that Nableezy acted inappropriately. At the pace of one-to-two-a-minute. He appears to have stopped notifying people for a five minute period. I then at that point (not having been notified, but with an eye on the appeals page) make a comment here, and only then--five minutes after I've already commented--am I helpfully noticed by him that "since" I filed the complaint he "thought [I] might want to know that Nableezy has decided to file an appeal." (Nor does he notice anyone else after me--I'm last on his list, though he did toss in a throw-away notice to another editor before contacting me). The suggestion of vote-stacking is worrisome.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Tiamut

I am deeply concerned by Sandstein's decision to reinstate the topic ban. First, because it encourages forum-shopping. After User:Tznkai declined to take any action against Nableezy stemming from User:Cptnono's complaint regarding Nableezy's edits to the Jonathan Cook AfD here, Sandstein should have dismissed the complaint by User:Epeefleche here, or at least the part that dealt with Nableezy, since it was a repeat of what Cptnono had complained about. Nableezy was essentially tried twice for the same wiki crime (double jeopardy). Sandstein does not see this legal concept to be relevant to Wikipedia as expressed in his comment here. Judging things purely by Wiki standards, however, retrying the same case and coming to a different conclusion than another admin means Sandstein's actions give the appearance of wheel-warring, at least in spirit. User:John Z raised this concern with Sandstein, asking for his thoughts on that on his talk page here, but Sandstein has declined to answer that specific question. Tiamuttalk 22:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Sandstein's concern re:votestacking (also raised by Cptnono and Epeefleche, the only two editors to so far agree with his decision, both of whom filed the double jeopardy complaints against Nableezy) - I told Sandstein that I would be contacting every editor who commented on his talk page about Nableezy's topic ban and subsequent block here so as to file an appeal or open an RfC. He did not dissuade me from doing so. True to my word, I contacted everyone who commented, even User:Breein1007 and User:No More Mr Nice Guy (both of whom did not express support for Nableezy, but rather argued with others who posted there). I then also decided to contact every editor who commented on Nableezy's talk page, expressing their concern about what had happened. Upon further reflection, I decided to contact User:Epeefleche as he filed the report that led to Nableezy being sanctioned. I did not contact Cptnono, even though he also filed a complaint, since he erased my last two talk page comments to him with the edit summary putting this behind, and asking for a block next time. I took those to mean I should not discuss this issue with him on his talk page any further. Tiamuttalk 23:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
And Sandstein, its not my fault that out of the eleven people who commented on your talk page about this decision, nine found it to be ill-advised. Tiamuttalk 23:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
PS. Your statement that I only contacted people who share Nableezy and my point of view (which is not exactly the same by the way) in the I-P editing arena is demonstrably false. Besides the three editors listed above (Epeefleche, No More Mr Nice Guy, and Breein1007), I also contacted IronDuke and Nsaum75, who commented below (who are on the "I" side, if any), and Apoc24, Malik Shabazz, among other editors, who do not belong to a side, as far as I know. Please refrain from assuming bad faith about those critiquing your decision. Tiamuttalk 00:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Malik Shabazz

I note that Sandstein's comment is dripping with sarcasm and condescension. I tried to discuss the matter with her/him civilly yesterday, and Sandstein insisted she/he had no personal motive. See User talk:Sandstein#nableezy. After today's little show, it's hard to accept that argument.

I can't fathom Sandstein's logic in imposing a two-month topic ban on a month-stale complaint. When Sandstein was shown that her/his knowledge of the facts was incomplete, instead of reconsidering the topic ban, Sandstein replied, "it is your own responsability [sic] to submit any evidence in your favor in a timely manner." [165]

It's time for Sandstein to act like a grown-up and admit that she/he made a mistake. Since Sandstein seems to have taken this matter as a personal affront, it's time for a truly uninvolved administrator to take a look. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The complaints against Tiamut of canvassing are much ado about nothing. Most of the people she contacted left messages on Sandstein's Talk page yesterday and probably had it on their watchlists. Tiamut's messages were all left after nableezy notified Sandstein that he had made this appeal, [166] and probably were unnecessary for most of us. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Peter Cohen

I consider Sandstein's actions to be ill-judged. Nableezy's actions on the AfD page had already been dealt with here. It is therefore a case of double jeopardy for him to be punished for the same actions. Sandstein has claimed in this post that double jeopardy does not apply on Wikipedia. But some things very like it do: WP:WHEELWAR and WP:FORUMSHOP. In this case another admin had made a decision. Nableezy's enemies then decided to ask the other parent. Then, rather than discuss the original closing admin's decision, Sandstein has decided to go off on his own and aggressively defended his decision by blocking Nableezy when Nableezy has reported a likely sock of a well-known troublemaker. It is not a good idea to reward forum shoppers by letting them get what they want. I think this is a situation when several people, not just Nableezy and Sandstein the apparent subjects of this appeal, need to take a metaphorical teabreak and calm down with all actions being rolled back.

Just for the record, I note that Epeecleche was one who asked the other parent on this very matter with this thread that postdates the first thread on the same matter I mention above. It strikes me that rather than being an innocent victim of "time-sucking", he seems to have sucked it out of admins on this very board. Repeated frivolous referals of Nableezy here can mislead people into thinking that that user is the problem when several others are contributing too--Peter cohen (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

  • This is just to note, just in case is not apparent to others, that I was not aware at the time of imposing the sanction that the same conduct by Nableezy had been the subject of a previous, archived AE request by another editor, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive52#nableezy. In that earlier request, Tznkai declined to take enforcement action. That decision is in no way prejudicial to my decision to act on the later request, though I would of course have taken it into account had it been mentioned and linked by any editor in the later request.  Sandstein  23:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
    • True, the case was not linked, but had you read your fellow admin's comments in that case carefully [167], you would have noticed the following: "Third, we do not relitigate, retry, or reargue cases. We do not expand, or minimize remedies unless they explicitly invite us to do so. While we may accept or deny requests to enforce on our own discretion, we are not in the buisness of arbitrating ourselves. In this case, Nableezy is not sanctioned under Westbank Judea-Samaria, and no action will be taken against him under this request. You can see me comments in an above section for what will or will not bring sanctions down on his head."
    • That comment should have prompted you to look for the "above section", which by the time you decided to come along, had long been archived. You could have asked Tznkai what he was referring to exactly. Instead, without probing further, you made your ill-advised decision. And when people pointed out to you that you had effectively retried the same case twice, you refused to back down and you still refuse to acknowledge that perhaps you may have been wrong/hasty. This is a huge problem in my opinion. You need to learn to be more receptive to the views of your fellow admins and editors. You also need to learn that no one is infallible, and that when you make a mistake you should own up to it. Tiamuttalk 23:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
    • (Replying to Sandstain not Tiamut.) Fair enough. But once the matter was mentioned, I think that you should have been aware of WP:OTHERPARENT and reconsidered your decision in the light of that, consulting Tznkai in the process.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
      • All: The earlier case and disposition by Tznkai was mentioned and linked in this case - in Epeefleche's background statement [168] : "and at a concurrent WP:AE on the same facts, which took place as the arbitrators were taking the above position, enforcement was declined.[169] ".John Z (talk) 06:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Yes, now I see it too. I overlooked that - sorry - presumably because I assumed, obviously in error, that Nableezy himself would raise any circumstances in his favor such as a previous AE request. Had I noticed it in time, I would probably have deferred to Tznkai's judgment in the previous request. However, by now, given Nableezy's erratic and confrontative conduct after my sanction, including a "retirement" that appears not to be serious, legal threats to induce an indef block (albeit apologized for later) and breaking the sanction, I do not think that simply lifting it would benefit Wikipedia. I am amenable, though, to EdJohnston's suggestion to reduce it to one month; that might suffice to get the point across that topic bans are not to be infringed under any circumstances and to cool Nableezy down somewhat.  Sandstein  07:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
What you are now saying, in effect, is that you wouldn't have banned him if you'd known about the prior case, but since he got pissed about it, you think it should stand? Sorry, but one cannot legitimize a ban on the basis that the user overreacted when it was applied. If that is your only remaining rationale, I think you should just do the right thing and withdraw the ban altogether. We don't do "cool down" bans at this project either BTW, you should know that. Gatoclass (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I think this business of the legal threat is unfair. Nableezy wrote: "If you feel that is ban worthy so be it, but please indefinitely block my account right now ... If you decline to block my account I will sue you all, (that line should give you reason for an indef block, NLT)." [170] That's not a legal threat. It's satire. Yet he was blocked for it by Chillum, and had to apologize, giving rise to the new meme that he had withdrawn a legal threat, when in fact he hadn't made one in the first place. It's clear from this alone that we're dealing with a series of misunderstandings here, each one triggering the next, so that Nableezy now has this pile of claims and counterclaims he's expected to explain clearly before he can be unblocked, which in turns give rise to the impression that there's no smoke without fire.

What is needed now is for the topic ban to be lifted completely, and Nableezy to be advised not to revert too often and to be extra-polite to everyone. End of story. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 13:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Cptnono

I don't think any appeal would stand a chance if Sandstein would have put in his decision that it was based on continuous edit warring, incivility, and just generally stirring up trouble. He didn't though. He based his decision on what appeared to be a disregard for the sanction at the Cook AfD. Nableezy did break his sanction several times after it was reduced from 4 to 2 months but this wasn't one of them. Sandstein mentioned that Nableezy's assertions that AGK said it was OK could not be considered because there was no proof. Instead of saying that there are "Too many stupid people here. Bye" and calling Sandstein 's decision retarded, he should have shown the -->diffs<-- from AGK's page. Nableezy has had his ban reduced once and hasn't exactly changed as this recent event shows. If this appeal is successful, I hope that it is another reminder to not edit war and to try to be a little more civil.

I am also concerned with the consensus possible with this appeal and the upcoming RfC on Sandstein. Due to a mainly targeted campaign with one-sided wording by Tiamut ("Nableezy/Sandstein" messages), there are many eyes on this that I fear are not being completely objective (might be completely unintentional). Many people see the above decision as "shameful" and "piss poor" but others who are less vocal see some reasoning behind it. Hopefully, everyone can keep an eye out for themselves and there won't be any problem.Cptnono (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up, Nableezy said that he did show him the above diff. I don't recall seeing it so I stand corrected.Cptnono (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Here is the diff in question. It was posted two and half hours before Nableezy's posted those other comments, which while regrettable, were obviously posted in frustration over this wholly unjust decision. Tiamuttalk 23:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Nableezy should have filed an appeal with it instead of letting it sit (more than likely unnoticed with all the back and forth) and not overreacted. It happens and live and learn though.
And please don't misrepresent the situation as you did a couple sections above, Tiamut. You restoring material from other editors and increasingly combative tone led to me giving you the required notice. Also, I have much more to say about what I think is at the very least potential canvasing but I'm not sure if this is the proper venue and it detracts from the primary discussion.Cptnono (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Cptnono, I provided the diffs to your edit summaries so anyone can see what was at stake. My intention was not to misrepresent anything, only to explain why I did not contact you. Tiamuttalk 00:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say it was your intent. In fact, I'm not even allowed to comment on what I feel might be other editors' intentions with my sanction. Just like the potential canvassing, it is more of a result of how you went about it not why you did it. As both Nableezy and I have mentioned up above, this is straying away from the main point of this appeal. and I am happy to stay on topic: Did the Sandstein have sufficient reason to close it as he did?Cptnono (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Nsaum75

Firstly, for the record, Nableezy and I usually edit from opposing viewpoints; however I feel compelled to comment based on my concerns that the actions taken against him may be incorrect with regard to the recent block. While I think both sides could have handled this situation using a more civil tone with less "attitude" (which may have kept things from escalating to this point) I am concerned and confused by Sandstein's application of the IP ban/sanctions and subsequent block in response to Nableezy's CU request. I might (and it would be a weak might) understand the sanctions/ban-based block if Nableezy had a history of initiating frivolous SPI/CU requests with the intent of creating disruption at IP articles; however from a quick review of Nableezy's past SPI requests, that does not appear to be the case. In fact, the last few SPIs that Nableezy took part in have been successful in exposing sockpuppets of repeat offenders. If Wikipedia is going to start allowing IP sanctions & bans to be applied to administrative and clerical functions, it sets a dangerous precedent and creates a whole new interpretation of the IP discretionary sanctions -- an interpretation that may not have been the intent of the original arbiters of the case. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 00:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by IronDuke

Let me say first off that I’m commenting with a bit of a bias here: I have worked with Nableezy on several articles in a highly productive manner, and have come away with, generally, highly positive feelings about his editing style. I hope he won’t mind if I say I put him squarely on the P side of the ledger in the I-P debate, but unlike some on the P side, he is actually willing to compromise and debate productively without stonewalling.

I think the purpose of this ban – of any ban, really – is or at least should be to protect Wikipedia from disruption and bad/unstable articles. And, while some completely justifiable bans do cause disruptions, they are sometimes necessary. I’m not sure I see how this one is, however. Was this ban, therefore, a case of horrible rouge admin shenanigans? No. But it’s better for the topic area if it were lifted, IMO. And if notice need be given to Nableezy to mend his ways (and I’m not convinced it need be), surely this experience will recommend caution in the future. IronDuke 00:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy

Since Tiamut insists on dragging me into this, I'd like to make the following points:

  • I did not comment on Nableezy's ban. Anywhere.
  • Tiamut practically admits on my talk page that she contacted me to avoid being accused of canvassing.
  • Of the nine people who commented on Sandstein's page and found the decision to be "ill-advised", there's one I've never seen editing on Nableezy's "side" on IP articles. Several are in fact on very friendly terms with him, as their talkpages show. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy, as I explained to you on your talk page in this section, "You may not understand that in order to avoid being accused of canvassing, it is my responsibility to inform to all interested parties (all those who commented at Sandstein's page and Nableezy's of any intended initiative. I did not think you would support such an initiative, but you have the right to know about it, so that you can oppose, if that is what you wish to do." I'm glad to see that you took me up on that offer. Tiamuttalk 00:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I know what you said. And I'm saying I did not comment on Nableezy's ban and thus am not an interested party (at least I wasn't until you wrote my name here). Your notification is a (pretty transparent) attempt at avoiding accusations of canvassing. The same can be said about your contacting User:Breein1007. He didn't comment on the ban either. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Again, as I said to you on your talk page: "You responded to another editor's comments regarding Nableezy's ban on that page. If I misunderstood, and you do not want to be informed/involved in the discussions to follow, then you can simply disregard this message." Clearly, you have chosen to respond to the message. However, the subject under discussion here is Nableey's appeal of Sandstein's sanction. If you have nothing to say about that, then I suggest you cease commenting here, and open a separate section for a review of my actions, should you feel that to be necessary. Tiamuttalk 01:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment by JGGardiner

I have to say that I'm not very knowledgable about procedure but that is what compels me to comment here. I'm certainly in no position to question Sandstein's conduct but I think there may be a systemic problem here. It seems to me that Nableezy was punished for misunderstanding the extent of his initial ban. I think that's unfair. The ban should be explained explicitly, if not exhaustively and a reasonable misunderstanding shouldn't result in punishment of the editor. I was troubled when I read this comment from Sandstein: "It is immaterial whether or not Nableezy says that he believed that he did not violate the ban. Based on its plain language, he ought to have known that he did."[171]

Sure, one could argue that Nableezy did know but to say that he should be punished even if he did not know seems remarkable to me. It is absolutely unjust. Like I said, I'm just an unsophisticated editor with a small edit count and I have no ability to second guess an admin. like Sandstein. I'm sure his comments reflect policy or precedent -- stare decisis or whatever. But why would we ever need to be so Draconian and inflexible? I could understand if this was an army barracks where punishment needed to be swift and severe to deter others. But the last time I checked, admitedly it was some time ago, this was an online collaborative writing project. For fun.

There was a difference of opinion about some of the terms of the ban. Frankly that's the fault of those who wrote it, not those who were subject to it. But whatever, we should work out the ambiguity and move on. And even if something had to be said immediately, then it should be said. Nableezy wasn't selling crack to children on the Sesame Street article. A warning would have been sufficient. Maybe that's not the rule but that's what the rule should be. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And I should add that I saw SlimVirgin's comment about Nableezy being a good editor and Mr. Nice Guy's comment about messages coming from editors who were friendly with Nableezy. As well as Jaakobou's below. So I thought I might address them all. I didn't send any of those messages but I am an editor who is friendly with Nableezy, because he started it. We met at the Gaza War talk page and disagreed over this very issue, the "massacre" thing, last year. You can see the diff from my second ever message to him: "Thanks again for all of your patience and consideration of my concerns. It makes that talk page a little less scary to know there are actually good users who are willing to actually talk things out."[172] We worked on a compromise edit that'd I'd like to think was the basis for the eventual inclusion. But at the time Nableezy was the only willing to listen and compromise. Besides, you know, me. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Notes and Query by Jaakobou: No More Mr Nice Guy is right about the nearly uniform POV of those who commented on Sandstein's page and found the decision to be "ill-advised". It's a given that if any pro-Palestinian editor is up for sanction, then, for example, Tiamut and Nishidani will show up protesting that they are, in fact, incredibly good editors, who have been dealt with unjustly. It's also no surprise that Tiamut appealed to the admin Gatoclass, who shares that same POV, and can be relied on to nix any DYK that seems even slightly pro-Israel. Nableezy was given more than a fair chance by the reduction of his recent sanction from 4 months to 1 month talkpage ban and a 2 month article space ban (I promoted at the time a reduction to 2 weeks and 1RR hoping it was enough to persuade improvement[173]). From my perspective, Nableezy and Tiamut started a tag-team edit-war -- Hamas/Israel related -- a mere 57 minutes after Nableezy's reduced 2 month ban ended[174] and made strange talkpage assertions, making up that Hamas supposedly supports a bi-national state alongside the Jews (and adding this into the article[175]). There is a basic merit to allow banned editors the option of raising sockpuppetry concerns but it feels as though there's more than just that going on. There's editwarring, incivility and a fuck all attitude[176] with likeminded editors rooting from the sidelines and shouting at the referees when they don't like the play. Nableezy has some upside as well. don't get me wrong, but I'd like to know if he had made or is willing to make any comment or action to suggest that he plans to correct his errors that result in this type of drama?
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 02:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
p.s. I'm expecting a lot of response to this, for sure, none of it positive. Still, it's all the truth. JaakobouChalk Talk 02:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you'll get one from me, since I think you put this in perfect perspective. You can find all the usual suspects here at AGK's page appealing (no, complaining about) the initial ban which was based on months' worth of edit-warring (in which I participated, which should be brought up, and for which I am still subject to a ban). After AGK made the decision to ban Nableezy based on his reading and best judgment of the situation (and which some of us considered not unreasonable, but we did not swarm AGK's page urging him to keep the ban in place). First step should one of their group be sanctioned is for the forces to come in and sing praises. If this does not work then to point fingers at others in the opposite camp. Then comes the bitching and personal attacks. AGK made his judgment in good faith and in good faith reconsidered it, cutting the initial article ban in half and the talk page ban by three/quarters. But talk about a fuck-all attitude? Here's is Tiamut on AGK's reconsideration: "Sorry AGK, but your reconsideration is simply not good enough" and "While you may pride yourself on being somehwat lenient, the impression your decisions have given me are that you are biased." and here "you should admit your decision was a piss poor one" and accuses him of "rather weak reasoning" She goes on to accuse him of bias, poor judgment and lack of evenhandedness. Finally she ends with this: "Where can voice my opposition to your bid to be arbitrator by the way? It is very dangerous for someone like you to have that power in our community, and I strongly oppose." Just Outrageous! Stellarkid (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I fear they will now turn this into a referendum on Sandstein, rather than with respect to this decision, right or wrong. Even if wrong, there has been an issue over I think Sandstein felt that we are all enough of adults to know what the I-P ban does and does not include, and if we need clarification we should go to the banning admin or ask for clarification. Stellarkid (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Gatoclass[edit]

As I said to Tiamut earlier, I can see some merit in both sides of this debate. On the one hand, Nableezy clearly violated his topic ban at the AfD, then exacerbated the error by edit warring on the same page - the very offence for which he was originally sanctioned by AGK. He then followed up not long thereafter by making a series of personal attacks against Cptnono on another page - attacks for which he later apologized, but which might have been considered sanctionable in themselves. He also edited I-P pages in technical violation of his ban, albeit to remove vandalism. His response when confronted with these infractions has generally been defiant rather than conciliatory.

In that regard, I think one can see how Sandstein came to the conclusion that a renewal of the sanction would be appropriate. Quite frankly, were I not an "involved" admin in the I-P area, I may have come to a similar conclusion.

On the other hand, I think AGK's initial sanction was overzealous - a four month topic ban, reduced to two on appeal, for an apparently isolated instance of edit warring. I'm inclined to the view that so-called edit warring is too heavily policed on this project in general, but I think two months for a single episode is excessive even by prevailing standards.

Secondly, it seems that Nableezy was subject to double jeopardy in that his edit warring at the AfD had already been processed by Tznkai in a previous AE request. And while arbcom quickly confirmed that ARBPIA applies to AfD pages, I think it's clear that there was at least a degree of uncertainty amongst the participants at that page before the arbcom confirmation.

Finally, Sandstein's sanction came more than a month after the original offence, after Nableezy's original ban had expired and he had apparently returned to productive editing. The question then arises as to what benefit there is from imposing a sanction so belatedly. I think it's a fairly well established principle around here by now that one doesn't generally apply blocks and bans when the misconduct has ceased, unless there's evidence of an ongoing pattern of misbehaviour.

So I do think there are reasonable grounds for appeal. On the other hand, I think it's also important to set clear standards, and my impression of Sandstein's contributions over time is that he makes a genuine effort to do so. Part of the problem with AE, I think, is that different admins have differing standards, and that outcomes can consequently look very arbitrary. I've long been of the opinion that there is simply not enough guidance for AE admins when it comes to a consideration of appropriate sanctions, any ... measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project is really not very helpful. Perhaps it's time we started thinking about some sort of graduated regime of sanctions for set offences?

Other than that, like nsaum above I too am concerned with the apparent extension of ARBPIA into the realm of Checkuser requests, and I think there are grounds for a Request for Clarification on that issue. Gatoclass (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by EdJohnston[edit]

For the record, I voted in the Jonathan Cook AfD. Here are some issues that should matter to admins:

  1. Nableezy was still under a topic ban at the time he was editing the Cook AfD. As confirmed by Arbcom in their clarification, Nableezy's editing of an AfD was ruled out by his topic ban in the I/P area. His argument that he was reverting vandalism in the AfD, since he was restoring comments deleted by others on grounds of ban violations, is not credible persuasive.
  2. Nableezy's conduct in the AfD was reviewed by Tznkai in an AE complaint that he closed in early December with no action. This might have appeared to be a verdict that no further consequences would happen to Nableezy due to his AfD editing.
  3. Epeefleche made a new AE complaint on 15 December also complaining about Nableezy's AfD editing, and not mentioning the previous AE case that had been closed by Tznkai. The other participants did not mention the case either.
  4. On 1 January, Sandstein closed Epeefleche's case with a two-month renewal of Nableezy's topic ban. It appears that Sandstein was not aware of Tznkai's earlier ruling, but in a comment cited above, he indicates that he still thinks his action is correct.
  5. Later, Sandstein issued a short block of Nableezy for editing an SPI request about someone who'd been working on I/P articles. Since this is presumed to be a violation of the ban, given Arbcom's very wide interpretation of it, I don't see any reason for the closer of this AE to do anything about the block, which has expired anyway. This SPI issue came *after* Sandstein's January 1 ruling so didn't form any part of his reasoning on that.

My conclusion is that Sandstein's action of 1 January is technically justified. He was not obliged to take Tznkai's previous ruling into account. Nonetheless I suggest that the closer of this AE should reduce the two-month ban to one month, applying to both articles and talk pages. The ban should be interpreted to rule out mention of any I/P articles or editors, anywhere in Wikipedia, including AfDs, admin noticeboards and sock complaints. If any new socking issues come up, Nableezy can write to an admin's talk page to get advice on how to proceed. EdJohnston (talk) 06:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by CasualObserver’48[edit]

From a distance, I have been watching some of what has been going around, starting with my vote at the Cook AfD; I now note that it has grown and come around to AE-appeal. It seems like a topic-ban has grown to a ban-ban, with insufficient consideration of AGF regarding the original topic scope. Although peripherally related, an AfD should rightly be considered a whole new ball of wax beyond just I/P, it is basic to how Wiki works. I also regard the decision being appealed to have been ill-considered; I support Nableezy's appeal. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Sm8900

Gaaahh, this is complicated. I usually try to be more insightful in my comments, but this is a little beyond me. I didn't expect it to get so complicated. I don't think Nableezy should have gotten a ban though. I say that as someone who is often on the other side of various issues from him. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Nableezy[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Accusations of POV bias are unwelcome.
I have zero interest in these things, and I furthermore, consider them disruptive. I highly recommend everyone carefully go through their statements and decide if what they have to say is truly on point. We are here to discuss whether Sandstien's decision was correct in the first place, and relatedly, whether there is an independent reason to lift the ban.--Tznkai (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
We appear to have exhausted any useful contributions to this discussion, and from the above, it appears the only admins here intending or capable to act on this request are myself and Sandstein, and due to the unique procedural history here, that seems like a wheelwar waiting to happen.
If I have read the above correctly, we have a couple of major problems. The first is Nableezy's topic ban by AGK was a bit confusing. When the original thread came up I confirmed with AGK that he did not intend to exclude Nableezy from AfD discussions. (As a side note, Nableezy was never sanctioned under West Bank). The second one is the confusing signals from multiple admins functioning in a strange (and possibly defective) environment and that issue there is no clear answer or one likley to come. The third and most important, is that Nableezy did not - as it would have behooved him to - link specifically to the past clarifications or insist that AGK or myself update the sanction logs. Unlike most courts of law that I am aware of however, we do not, for better or worse, have published rules of procedure and trained advocates to navigate them. I think it is unfair and unwise to punish sanctioned editors for providing a procedurally defective defense at the time an issue came up, especially in light of what has been brought up now.
In light of the information in the above thread, I do not intend to enforce Nableezy's ban, discourage other admins from enforcing it, and I highly recommend to Sandstein that it be modified.--Tznkai (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay. In view of the tenor of the discussion above, and because the matter is now becoming too confusing for most outsiders to follow and usefully comment on, the ban is hereby lifted in the hope that Nableezy will not engage in any conduct that will require its reimposition. I will log this on the case page.  Sandstein  18:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

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


Abd (talk · contribs) has not engaged in prohibited behavior, but is advised to back off anyway.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Abd[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
William M. Connolley (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [177] Abd involving himself in an AFD in which he has no interest, and turning that into policy discussions
  2. [178] Ditto, plus expansion of the dispute to harassment
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)


Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
Abd to be told to engage in productive edits to articles rather than unproductive dispute-mongering
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Copied here from "requests for clarification" per arb request.

GR raises an interesting point, or possibly wikilawyer, depending on your POV. Is AFD a "poll"? Arbcomm's sanction is regrettably vague on this point. Is a "poll" something with the word "poll" in it's name? I would so argue. Furthermore, AFD isn't a vote, so I don't think it is a poll. Well, this is a point that the arbs will have to clarify - they wrote the text, presumably they know what they meant.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Abd[edit]

Statement by Abd[edit]

Well, first WMC filed a RfAr/Clarification over this silly "dispute," then, since he was asked why he didn't file an AE request, he's apparently gone and done that. My editing restriction allows me to respond to polls. I'm not clear what "interest" in an article means. Am I required to have been an active editor of an article to respond to an AfD poll? That would be a strange interpretation of the restriction. I was aware of the article and the concerted effort to delete it from the second AfD, when I was blocked. In any case, I appreciate guidance from neutral administrators, and the issue of whether or not this was a violation was already asked of ArbComm. I certainly don't think so, nor do I think it even close, or I'd not have done it. I suggest we wait for an answer from ArbComm, but the sanction was quite clear, at least in this respect. It's been modified, the version cited by WMC is obsolete, so here it is in all its revised glory:

"Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution pages. He may, however, vote or comment at polls."[180]

If ArbComm intended for me to avoid commenting in AfDs, surely allowing me to "vote or comment at polls" was a strange way to do it. I think not. On the other hand, any uninvolved admin could issue me a warning pending clarification from ArbComm, if the admin thinks the edit was out of bounds. WMC, highly involved -- he lost his admin bit over insisting on his right to block me whenever he pleased -- should not be the one to "guide" enforcement by dredging up every imagined offense, or even real but harmless ones, and wasting everyone's time. What WMC has been doing is harassment. He even tried to reopen the last AE request, after it was closed by the one who filed it. I'm hoping ArbComm will address that, and suggest to WMC that perhaps he shouldn't track my every move, not that I mind being visible. --Abd (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Re WMC's diff showing a claim of harassment. He fails to note that shortly after writing that, the editor who had commented on my Talk page apologized, and I struck the claim. The only tendentious debate coming up here is from WMC and Mathsci, who somehow seem to discover every edit of mine practically immediately and make maximum fuss from it. Yes, AfD policy was discussed there. AfD comments, in fact, are supposed to refer to policy and guidelines, it's part of the process. Excessive? That's arguable. But is it necessary to argue it? Here? I wasn't prohibited from "excessive discussion of policy" in a discussion where I'm allowed to participate. Not yet, anyway! --Abd (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Well the usual cast of characters shows up here, from the RfAr: all parties have now commented, plus Mathsci, who would have been a party if he and WMC hadn't edit warred his name out while the clerks sucked their thumbs. WMC making hostile edits to the filing of a case naming him? Really? But that was then, this is now.
I have not violated my sanction, the whole point of bans is to be clear, and unclear bans lead to more disruption. The ban clearly permits an AfD comment, not requiring that I be an 'originating party' for that, and my comment did not create any major disruption itself, compared to an RfAr/Clarification and AE request filed, both the same day. If I made an inappropriate AfD comment, then it would be an ordinary offense, and subject to ordinary process, not AE. There is no ongoing dispute from me over the AfD, I simply saw some problems there and commented as I have commented countless times in the past without problems. Mathsci brings up a host of issues that would take many words to address, and if people are tired of seeing my responses, perhaps they should stop provoking them, or stop allowing others to provoke them gratuitously. Mathsci is not some innocent editor, uninvolved, he was admonished in the subject RfAr for less than what he's been doing lately. 'Nuff said.
Ah, one more comment: my RfAr/Clarification was successful. The restriction was clarified. Isn't that the purpose of an RfAr/Clarification? Apparently not to those who think of this place as a battlefield. They have some idea, apparently, of winning a game by getting your "enemies" blocked. I'll say this: that's not my game, at all. --Abd (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Tznkai Thanks. Much agreement. "He has a way...." Yes. For better and for worse. As to backing off, I made a comment, not outside the envelope for AfD comments, pointing out a policy issue about AfD discussions, and many do this. The issues I pointed out aren't really controversial, not if directly faced. But it was taken as a personal criticism, and was perhaps clumsy in that sense, I might have written it better. There was response, and I responded in turn, and the result, in the AfD and on my Talk page, was that argument did not continue. I backed off, and they backed off. I'd made my statement, and so had they. Done. Not only no hard feelings, at least not on my part!, but possibly some good, and very little time wasted. But an RfAr/Clarification and an AE request were filed, by a party historically involved in contentious dispute with me, with support from another hostile party who was also subject to critical comment in the RfAr that created the subject ban, creating far more disruption and need to respond, and neither of them were actually involved or injured in any way by my comment. So there were two processes requiring response filed in one day? I have not presented the evidence that I could present on harassment, so my mention of it is dicta. If it does not continue, it's moot. It could be useful if these parties were warned that they, too, should Mind Their Own Business. But I'm not asking for sanctions, one might note that I almost never ask for them. --Abd (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Abd[edit]

Comment by GoRight[edit]

It should be noted that this matter was previously raised at [181], which WMC curiously forgot to mention, and that the discussion there has not been closed. --GoRight (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC) I somehow missed the stricken part on my initial reading of the request.

The text of Abd's sanction, as recently amended by Arbcom, currently reads:

"Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution pages. He may, however, vote or comment at polls."

Emphasis is mine. An AfD is clearly a poll and as such he is specifically ALLOWED to participate per the sanctions. This request and the one mentioned above are both frivolous and vexatious and WMC should be instructed that repeatedly raising such matters might lead to blocks. --GoRight (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Enric Naval[edit]
The problem is not that he comments into a AfD to provide sources or give his opinion on the article. The problem is that Abd enters a controversial AfD raising procedural objections and saying that deleting the article "wastes or even insults the work of all those who contributed" [182]. And he does this without making any comment on the merit of the article itself or its sources, aka he is commenting on editors and not on its contributions. That is the problem: he was inserting himself into the dispute about the article and the AfD, as opposed to simply commenting about the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: Abd's edit in AN should go into a new AE thread if you want to discuss it, please. If we try to discuss it in this request, then this request will become a mess and different issues will be mixed up together and accomplish nothing useful. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Mathsci[edit]

Abd still seems to be testing the limits of his editing restrictions. His edits to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_Tylman_(3rd_nomination), and related edits on his talk page, go considerably beyond a simple vote and comments on the article in question. Offliner (talk · contribs) mentioned that Abd had joined the EEML in his ArbCom evidence. It appears that Abd probably found out about this slightly obscure EE-related AfD off-wiki (cf his editing history). Abd seems to be deliberately seeking out problematic areas on WP, first when he attempted to involve himself in the unsuccessful climate change RfAr and now in this AfD related to EE issues. [183] The manner in which he has done so seems to be against the spirit of his editing restrictions, even if technically it might not be regarded as an infringement. In the end, however, I would have to agree with MastCell below that no enforcement is required here and, whatever the special circumstances, this matter should be allowed to drop. Mathsci (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by MastCell[edit]

I have to agree with GoRight here, inasmuch as I can't see how Abd's editing restriction was intended, in letter or spirit, to prevent him from commenting on AfDs (except cold-fusion-related ones). One could certainly question the constructiveness of his comment, but if we banned people for making inflammatory comments at AfD, you'd be able to hear a pin drop over there. I don't think the intent of the restriction was to bar Abd from participating in AfDs across the board; it was focused on abuse of dispute resolution, and AfD isn't part of dispute resolution. MastCell Talk 23:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Ikip[edit]

"He would be allowed to vote or comment at polls." What in world is a poll? A petition? It seems like some clarification is needed.

Once again, I have no idea what Abd was trying to say. I am deeply disappointed that a mentor was not assigned to Abd, thus the section Abd refers to was changed, and the mentor section removed, this would have solved the problem, as Abd could have asked his mentor first whether posting on AFDs was okay.

RE: "AFD isn't a vote" Officially yes. But this is another one of wikipedia's legal fictions. One of many. About a year ago I found out this was once called WP:Votes for Deletion. When it changed names it magically was no longer a vote.

Clarification is needed on what a poll is.

Mr. Connolley did not mention this next edit: "editor apologized, "reference" comment struck" where Abd strikes the comment.[184]

MastCell: "if we banned people for making inflammatory comments at AfD, you'd be able to hear a pin drop over there." ha ha.

Comment by Loosmark[edit]

This is probably one of the silliest arbitration requests I have ever seen. "Abd involving himself in an AFD in which he has no interest" oh my god, unbelievable!!! everybody else who voted there has a demonstrated super interest in that page save for Abd!!! -irony mode off- Seriously this request should be scrapped and the editor who started advised to stop wasting everybody's time.  Dr. Loosmark  01:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Abd[edit]

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

I should be sleeping, but I have enough time to do a bit of restriction interpretation using my uninvolved-administrator-voice. Skip to the three sentence summary if you don't want to be bored to death.

3.2) Abd is prohibited from participating in discussion of any dispute in which he is not one of the originating parties, unless approved by his mentor(s). This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution. He would be allowed to vote or comment at polls.

3.3) Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution pages. He may, however, vote or comment at polls.

The spirit of the above quoted restrictions seems to be "don't get involved in fights or arguments you're not involved in." With an exception carved out for "vote or comment at polls." I further quote from the workshop page:

MYOB = Mind Your Own Business? I agree in principle, but is this actually in any Wikipedia policy or guidleine and should it be? Or does it only apply to some people? I suppose the opposite of WP:MYOB (redlink left to be filled in if anyone thinks it is worth it) is WP:OWN. For example, what if Abd expressed an interest in giving third opinions following requests at WP:3O? Carcharoth (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - To answer Carch, no it isn't part of policy. I'd say he could vote at "comment/support/oppose" sections, and for the sake of simplicity and unambiguity, I'd leave 3O off limits for the time being. Yeah I think this one is good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I imagine the polls so mentioned include things like the recent Arbcom elections, constitutional conventions and straw polls, and perhaps even XfD debates. These polls by their nature invite comment from all, though preferably ones that are pithy, insightful, topical. This invitation does not however allow Abd to engage in the disputes of others using XfD as a medium - (s)he is banned from using all on-wiki media in that way. Similarly, Abd is not allowed to do any number of bad ideas, even as an originating party to a dispute, if these bad ideas are covered by other policies.

Abd's behavior on the XfD is suboptimal. It is passive aggressive ("I further become suspicious when a nominator or single editor argues tendentiously against every keep vote, but that, too, is irrelevant as to keep/delete."), argumentative and a bit patronizing ("Who originally created an article is completely irrelevant to the notability of the subject, and any !vote based on that argument should be deprecated."), but in this (s)he hardly stands alone at XfD. Where Abd does stand unique however, is that (s)he has been specifically prohibited from minding the business of others, an indicator that there is something about the way Abd makes arguments that is defective. Abd would be best served by the rule "unless there is an objectively compelling reason to speak, stay silent." As it stands, I do not believe Abd's behavior rises to the point that invokes sanctions.

As a separate issue, the word "harass" should be used with considerable care. I too am guilty of using the term in a more casual manner, but I've learned that there are certain buzzwords that carry extra baggage around here. Likewise, I am intolerant of re litigation and of AE complaints servings as vehicles for potshots at the committee, clerks, administrators, and random passerbyes in general. The only person who I really accept invective against is myself (which is not to suggest open season, as other admins may block you even if I won't).

The summary: the remedy allows participation at XfDs that does not otherwise constitute prohibited behavior. Abd has not engaged in the prohibited behavior. Abd is advised to back off anyway.--Tznkai (talk) 07:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree and am so closing this request.  Sandstein  10:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)