Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive67

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

Contents

Forsts23[edit]

First topic-banned, then blocked as a sock.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Forsts23[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Forsts23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Final decision.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [1] this and the following 8 sets of edits added Armenian related material to the article which was then reverted by at least 5 editors until he was blocked for edit warring
  1. [2] as above
  1. [3] as above, etc, the rest can be seen at [4]
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

[5] warning by Stifle (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
He has received a 48 hour block for edit-warring. I'm not sure what is appropriate here, but given his other edits last month, after the warning, at Urartu, ie 8 edits similar to [6] adding a history of Armenia template, I think a block extension is warranted. As he is blocked, someone will have to add any comments from his talk page here.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
<Your text>


Directly after his block expired he went back to Mitanni (where he'd been blocked for edit-warring) with [7] and [8] (which also so far as I can tell, completely fail WP:EL}. Dougweller (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[9]

Discussion concerning Forsts23[edit]

Statement by Forsts23[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Forsts23[edit]

The edits which Forsts23 has been reverting have been primarily mine. What particularly concerns me about his behavior is that six days before I actually began editing Mitanni, I warned him here[10] that the text in question was cited with what is clearly not a reliable source. It seems Forsts could not find any time in six days to even glance at WP:RS, but somehow manages to revert any edits he doesn't like within minutes. If Forsts wishes to use reverts as a substitute for discussion, clearly he needs a revert probation. Thanatosimii (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Forsts23[edit]

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

This a copy and paste of the account's last 20 edits:

  • (del/undel) 05:10, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) m Mitanni ‎ (Undid revision 378126235 by Seb az86556 (talk))
  • (del/undel) 04:48, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) Mitanni ‎ (Undid revision 378125525 by Seb az86556 (talk) look at my edits before reverting, he is referring to the Eupolemus section)
  • (del/undel) 04:45, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) Mitanni ‎ (→Legacy)
  • (del/undel) 04:44, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) m Mitanni ‎
  • (del/undel) 23:52, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) Mitanni ‎ (Undid revision 378086779 by Thanatosimii (talk) please discuss in the section I mentioned, and dont remove the ref'd materials)
  • (del/undel) 20:25, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) m Mitanni ‎ (m)
  • (del/undel) 20:23, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) Mitanni ‎ (→External links: added further references see my discussions with User Paul_Barlow and User Til on the references. added Henry Hall ref)
  • (del/undel) 19:30, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) m Mitanni ‎ (Undid revision 378047059 by Thanatosimii (talk) see talk page, stop removing info from the page)
  • (del/undel) 19:28, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) m Mitanni ‎ (rv removals of material)
  • (del/undel) 17:09, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) m Mitanni ‎ (Undid revision 377865860 by Thanatosimii (talk) restored deleted reference, and reason i made is clear)
  • (del/undel) 16:16, 28 July 2010 (diff | hist) Mitanni ‎ (found a Eupolemus info, close enough. Notice you wrote here "may" correspond, its not saying "for sure")
  • (del/undel) 11:19, 27 July 2010 (diff | hist) m Mitanni ‎ (the response above your last comments, and this was always put here by you even, and its not a problem on the page)
  • (del/undel) 10:41, 27 July 2010 (diff | hist) m Mitanni ‎ (Undid revision 375703394 by Dbachmann (talk) Dougweller's response)
  • (del/undel) 10:39, 27 July 2010 (diff | hist) Urartu ‎ (Undid revision 375702218 by Dbachmann (talk) there was no discussion regarding this also with user Aregakn , who is still waiting)
  • (del/undel) 04:48, 27 July 2010 (diff | hist) Urartu ‎ (Undid revision 375676680 by Nakh (talk) rv, discuss with Kentronhayastan first)
  • (del/undel) 05:06, 24 July 2010 (diff | hist) Urartu ‎ (Undid revision 375158645 by Nakh (talk) discuss with KentronHayastan first before making changes)
  • (del/undel) 22:40, 23 July 2010 (diff | hist) m Urartu ‎ (you are mistaking yourself with User KentronHayastan, he is the one that put "more than enough" info regarding this, and the discussion 'is' related to this)
  • (del/undel) 22:43, 22 July 2010 (diff | hist) m Urartu ‎ (Undid revision 374928610 by Dbachmann (talk) please use talk page)
  • (del/undel) 15:39, 22 July 2010 (diff | hist) Urartu ‎ (rv, there is no source for image, and there is no vandalism)
  • (del/undel) 05:24, 21 July 2010 (diff | hist) Urartu ‎ (Undid revision 374616543 by Nakh (talk) rv, discuss in talk page first, and give a proper source for the crosses, Christian era crosses)

Clearly there is a serious problem here, so an editing restriction, such as a 1RR/week, or a temporary topic ban, could be appropriate. PhilKnight (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with a strict revert limitation or downright topic-ban. I was considering a revert limitation linked with enforced talk page participation and additional slow-down waiting time (Something like: 1RR/48hrs, with the additional condition that before any revert, the user must explain their intention with a polite note on talk and then wait at least such-and-such a period, let's say, 4hrs, between his talk page explanation and the actual revert, to allow others to comment.) But I'm not sure whether this is the type of user who could actually profit and learn from such a rule. Fut.Perf. 21:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I would tend towards 1RR/48hrs with a mandatory discussion afterwards. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the recent reverting since the block, I am not certain 1R/48 is enough. The current revert-warring is slow, but recalcitrant, persistent, and with no regard to consensus or reasonable considerations of article quality [11][12]. Forced talkpage participation won't help much either: he is participating on talk, but won't adhere to consensus anyway. So, I am now going for a medium term topic-ban, 4 months. Fut.Perf. 05:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by JRHammond[edit]

Appeal declined.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user 
JRHammond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)JRHammond (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
1 week block, see above notification of block by WGFinley.
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Wgfinley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
I wasn't notified but learned of the appeal here, seems to be a simple slip by the editor who copied over as this editor is blocked. --WGFinley (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by JRHammond[edit]

The situation is simple, and grossly mischaracterized by WGFinley, who has previously blocked me on similarly spurious pretexts (you will observe the fact that I successfully had that block reversed because of its spurious nature).[13] A section of the Six Day War article stated that the French version of UN resolution 242 is not authoritative, that only the English version of the text is legally valid. This is false. So I corrected the article to note that the French version is equally authoritative as the English. I provided a source, to the deliberations on 242 just prior to its passage by the UN Security Council, in which the French delegate observes this fact, that the French version is equally authoritative. I also began a new section on the talk page to address this issue and provide an extensive explanation for my edit, contrary to WGFinley's suggestion that I've refused to try to work with others to build consensus on the Talk page.[14]

Following that, somebody reverted that edit with the reason provided in the edit summary being that this source was not good enough to demonstrate that the French text is legally authoritative. I again returned to the Talk page, observed that no source was provided for the (false) assertion that the French text was not authoritative, and that thus a double-standard was being applied.[15] Nevertheless, I did not simply revert the revert to restore my previous fix. Rather, I made an enormous effort to find authoritative sources to satisfy the stated objection to my edit.[16] Having done so, I again corrected the unsourced and false assertion to the contrary, this time, to satisfy the objection, including those additional sources. [17]

An anonymous editor (IP only) then reverted my fix, with the edit summary stating "revert 1RR violation".[18] (1) I did not "revert" my edit. I took the objection to my original edit into consideration and provided numerous additional sources. (2) A non-admin has no legitimate authority to revert my fix under the guise of enforcing Wikipedia policy. That is not a legitimate reason to revert my fix, or a legitimate objection based on the merit/demerit of the edit itself. (3) No further discussion was made by this editor on the talk page, despite my creation of a new discussion extensively explaining my edit and offering sources. There was no explanation made for this revert on Talk, and no objection raised, such as with regard to my additional sources. Given these facts, it seemed reasonable to me to re-implement my fix, in order to correct a factual error and thus to improve the article, and I did so.[19]

WP:3RR clearly states that "Considerable leeway is given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page." The spirit of that principle must clearly also apply to enforcement of the 1RR rule in effect on the Six Day War article, and I explicitly made this point to WGFinley prior to this whole episode, when I agreed with his interpretation of how 1RR should be enforced. WGFinley did not object to the principle that what is important to enforce is the spirit and not the letter of the policy, that leeway should be granted to editors who make good faith edits to improve the article.[20] Yet WGFinley did NOT take into consideration, even in the least bit, the actual merits/demerits of my edit, when he blocked me, as demonstrated by the fact that he reverted my fix back to the version that contains a false and unsourced statement.[21]

It comes down to a simple question: Which edit was more appropriate and helped to improve the article? Whose actions here demonstrate a good faith effort to have this article read fairly and accurately?:

(a) My edit: "However, the definite article is included in the French text of the resolution ("des territoires occupés"), which is equally authoritative as the English text." Fully footnoted with numerous authoritative sources.[22]

or

b) WGFinley's revert of my edit back to: "The word the is present in other (notably French, Spanish and Russian) versions, but according to international law, the authoritative version of a document is the one which uses the language used in the drafting of the document, which in this case was English." Not only completely unsourced, but demonstrably false. [23]

My good faith efforts speak for themselves, as do my legitimate and reasonable edits.

Addendum Per JRHammond's Talk Page[edit]

I don't have a voice elsewhere, as I'm currently blocked, but I would observe that WGFinley is violating his own rule and reverting an edit multiple times: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Six-Day_War&diff=379326420&oldid=379314087 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Six-Day_War&diff=379402012&oldid=379397740

He's indicated he are reverting because people are violating 1RR. The purpose of the rules is to create a civil and productive environment in which editors can work on improving articles. WGFinley is enforcing rules for enforcing rules sake, with total disregard for the spirit of those rules and the merits of edits being made. This is more counterproductive than helpful.

He is undoing an edit that improves the article by stating a fact that is well sourced to definitive authoritative sources in favor of an edit that consists of an unsourced claim that is demonstrably false.

The merit of an edit must be taken into account. 1RR must follow the basic policy of 3RR, which clearly states that editors who revert to maintain the quality of an article will be given leeway. Furthermore, it states explicitly that reverting unsourced material does not count as a violation of the rule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3rr#The_three-revert_rule

The 3RR policy on giving leeway to editors who maintain or improve the quality of an article states this with regard to featured article. But the principle applies to all articles. WP:IAR states: “If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IAR

The 3RR policy exception with reverting unsourced material is with regard to biographical material, but, again, the principle applies to all material. According to WP:BLP: “All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

But does not only apply to biographical information. “Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information”. “It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.” This is “particularly true of negative information about living persons”, but “is true of all information”. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.html

If anyone thinks that it is somehow helpful towards the goal of maintaining or improving the quality of articles to revert an edit inserting a well-sourced factual statement back to an unsourced demonstrably false statement, I would welcome an explanation of how that could be possible, because I come to the opposite conclusion. JRHammond (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Sandstein stated: JRHammond's appeal addresses only the circumstances that led to the ban, but these do not matter here: since he appeals the block, not the ban, the only proper subject of discussion is whether the ban was indeed violated and that violation properly sanctioned.

This is a fallacious argument. It follows that if the ban was wrongful and illegitimate, and therefore null and void, then therefore so was the block that followed, and thus no violation occurred. JRHammond (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Further Addendum Per JRHammond's Talk Page[edit]

User:RomaC posted: Mbz1 has made an attempt at possibly outing an editor, perhaps that should be dealt with.

User:Mbz1 responded: The so called "outing comment" was copied from the user's talk page. It has been present there for quite some time. So there was absolutely no outing here...

It's true that Mbz1 copied it from my talk page. What he neglected to mention is that he copied HIS OWN COMMENTS.[24]

User:WGFinley argues that: This action has nothing to do with the merits of the material. But as I outlined above, it has everything to do with the merits of the edit. The whole purpose and intent of Wikipedia rules and guidelines is to further goal of maintaining and improving articles. To say that the merits of the edit "has nothing to do with" it is to enforce the letter of the law in clear disregard for and contrary to its spirit, purpose, and intent. As outlined above, Wikipedia policy demands that the merit of an edit be taken into account. Those arguing otherwise dismiss the entire purpose of the rules they feign to be "enforcing".

Again, it comes down to a simple question: Which edit was more appropriate and helped to improve the article? Whose actions here demonstrate a good faith effort to have this article read fairly and accurately? Whose edit is in violation of the spirit, purpose and intent of all Wikipedia policy?:

(a) My edit: "However, the definite article is included in the French text of the resolution ("des territoires occupés"), which is equally authoritative as the English text." Fully footnoted with numerous authoritative sources.[25]

or

b) WGFinley's revert of my edit back to: "The word the is present in other (notably French, Spanish and Russian) versions, but according to international law, the authoritative version of a document is the one which uses the language used in the drafting of the document, which in this case was English." Not only completely unsourced, but demonstrably false.[26]

The answer is self-evident. JRHammond (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Sandstein stated: JRHammond's appeal addresses only the circumstances that led to the ban, but these do not matter here: since he appeals the block, not the ban, the only proper subject of discussion is whether the ban was indeed violated and that violation properly sanctioned.

This is a fallacious argument. It follows that if the ban was wrongful and illegitimate, and therefore null and void, then therefore so was the block that followed, and thus no violation occurred. JRHammond (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


User:Timotheus_Canens stated: Looks like the discussion has died. Barring objections from uninvolved admins, I'm going to call this appeal declined. There's no "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" to overturn the block; if anything, the consensus is to the contrary.

(1) Not a single admin has substantively addressed my argument for overturning the block. Not one.

(2) Two of the users arguing for the validity of the block are not uninvolved. User:WGFinley has demonstrated a lack of good faith in previously blocking me on a spurious pretext and violating WP:OUTING by posting information personally identifying me. User:Mbz1 is heavily involved in editing the Six Day War article and any one of you can go and see that he has strongly disagreed with a number of my edits/suggestions, and thus he has an ulterior motive in seeing me remain blocked. His lack of good faith is also demonstrated with his own violation of WP:OUTING in posting information personally identifying me (as User:RomaC rightly observed).

(3) User:tariqabjotu suggested my appeal should be denied on the basis of his argument that the merits/demerits of an edit are irrelevant. That is a fallacy, as I've already outlined. The whole purpose and intent of Wikipedia guidelines is to help maintain and improve articles. Therefore the question of whether my edit improved the article or not is absolutely relevant. Enforcing "rules" for enforcement's sake, with clear disregard for and contrary to the purpose and intent of those rules is a blatant abuse of admin authority that is counterproductive.

(4) User:Sandstein suggested my appeal should be denied on the basis that the circumstances leading to the "ban" are irrelevant. As I've already pointed out, that is a fallacy. Again, it follows that if the ban was wrongful and illegitmate, and therefore null and void, then therefore so was the block that followed. Thus, no violation occurred. Again, not one admin has substantively addressed this valid point.

(5) The rest of the users participating have not taken up the position you attribute to them in suggesting a "consensus" has been achieved. User:Nandesuka did not take up a position, but merely observed that two of my edits were substantially the same. He did not substantively address even a single point in my argument for overturning the block. User:PhilKnight didn't post anything relevant to my appeal, and didn't take up or even suggest an opinion one way or the other. User:Unomi asked "Can someone point me to where this particular edit was argued against? I can only seem to find the arguments for inclusion." Yet received no reply. This goes to the heart of the issue, with regard to the invalidity of and prejudicial nature of the ban, implemented by User:WGFinley wrongfully and on the basis of false characterizations, such as that I've refused to engage other editors on the talk page, which is an outright lie (as any of you can see for yourselves; see above).

I request that UNINVOLVED admins capable of non-prejudicial judgment SUBSTANTIVELY address my argument and reply to my points. If I've made any error in fact or logic in my argument for overturning the block, kindly point out where. Admins will find you're unable to do so. My facts are correct. My logic is undeniable. This goes to the heart of the very intent and purpose of Wikipedia policies. If policies are enforced in a manner that violates the purpose and spirit with which they exist, clearly this is an abuse of authority and counterproductive. My appeal should be accepted on that basis. JRHammond (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by WGFinley[edit]

I will be brief because the facts here are clear. I will be happy to provide further detail if needed. I feel brevity is needed for a talk page that went over 330k for just a few days and makes diffs take very long to load.

  1. Six-Day War is subject to WP:GS, all editors there have been notified multiple times and this editor has been notified[27]
  2. I put a modified 1RR restriction into effect because of the constant edit warring on this article.[28] and logged it.[29] Previous attempts using Pending Changes had failed.
  3. I clarified the nature of the 1RR[30] and this editor even noted he agreed with my interpretation[31], in it he indicates he feels there should be exceptions.
  4. This editor put content previously discussed and objected to on the talk page into the article.[32], content that was previously reverted [33] and he was warned there were objections to and no consensus on[34][35].
  5. He was reverted by another editor for violation of the 1RR restriction.[36]
  6. I put this editor on an article-ban for 48 hours for violating the 1RR restriction[37] and logged it.[38]
  7. Despite being article-banned he edited the article putting back in this same material.[39].

As you can see this editor makes multiple attempts to bring admins into the debate on the merits of his material, I have consistently refused and remained uninvolved in this article. This action has nothing to do with the merits of the material. There's no consensus for the changes he wanted to make, he has shown he will ignore restrictions to continue to put material in that is disputed and I had no choice left but to block him. --WGFinley (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Mbz1[edit]

The user was notified that he was made the subject of 48 hours ban for the article. Versus appealing the ban the user violated it. As I was told the bans are in effect until expired or successfully appealed. The diff I linked to above was a clear cut violation of the current and still in effect ban. The appeal should be declined.

On a side note: the user is a single article account, who has been pushing his POV ever since he came to Wikipedia. IMO the user's topic ban for Six Days War should be extended to indefinite, and lifted, when the user proves he could make positive contributions in other topics. --Mbz1 (talk) 12:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1 has made an attempt at possibly outing an editor, perhaps that should be dealt with. RomaC TALK 14:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
The so called "outing comment" was copied from the user's talk page. It has been present there for quite some time. So there was absolutely no outing here, but as user:Tariqabjotu put it while removing my comment "irrelevant -- please don't expose or use people's off-wiki identities as evidence: people are free to express whatever views off-wiki; what's important is if/whether/how that effects on-wiki behavior" Well, I asked the admin for clarification on his removal, and he responded. I still believe I've done nothing wrong by adding the comment, and definitely there was no outing ,but if it is against any other policy, I am sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Unomi[edit]

Can someone point me to where this particular edit was argued against? I can only seem to find the arguments for inclusion. Unomi (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter now, if the 48 topic ban was issued correctly, and if there was 1RR violation. What matters that the ban was issued, and it was violated.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, it matters to me because my edit was just reverted. Unomi (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment There have been no arguments presented against the proposed edit since the 15th - and what seems to be ample evidence against the relevance / weight of the arguments presented at that time. Could someone please point to how this can get resolved? Unomi (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by JRHammond[edit]

  • Here are the two diffs being discussed: the earlier change here and the later change here. This seems to me to be an incontestable violation of 1RR. If they differ, it is only in trivialities: the diffs are substantially identical. Nandesuka (talk) 11:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Any AE request that begins with explaining why a particular person is correct in a content dispute should be outright dismissed. But, were I to humor JRHammond for a moment, I should mention that the block is not just for a 1RR violation -- it was for a violation of an article ban, something which is quite obvious. It seems JRHammond might have a problem with the article ban, but the appropriate solution to that would have been to appeal the ban, not violate it, and then appeal the block. -- tariqabjotu 14:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Tariqabjotu you are an admin, why are you commenting here? You are heavily involved in the I/P topic area and I recall several editors recently asking you to stay out of such discussions. RomaC TALK 15:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi RomaC, forgive me for saying this, but just about every admin who has enforced ArbCom decisions has been asked to stay out of such discussions. I've been asked for all sorts of reasons, none of which come close to meeting the requirement of WP:UNINVOLVED. Tariqabjotu has been an admin enforcing WP:ARBPIA decisions since the very beginning, and in this context, I think you should substantiate your comments with diffs. PhilKnight (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline appeal. The block is the correct reaction to a clear-cut violation of an article ban. It is remarkably long, but the length is within admin discretion and is at any rate not being contested here. As Tariqabjotu correctly explains, JRHammond's appeal addresses only the circumstances that led to the ban, but these do not matter here: since he appeals the block, not the ban, the only proper subject of discussion is whether the ban was indeed violated and that violation properly sanctioned. If JRHammond disagrees with the ban, he should have appealed the ban instead of violating it.  Sandstein  07:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by JRHammond[edit]

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

Looks like the discussion has died. Barring objections from uninvolved admins, I'm going to call this appeal declined. There's no "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" to overturn the block; if anything, the consensus is to the contrary. Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This appeal must be declined. There is no consensus to overturn the block. The proper way to appeal a ban is, well, to appeal it, not to violate it and then appeal the block; just as if you are wrongly convicted and imprisoned, you should be appealing your conviction and not orchestrating a prison break—and the invalidity of the original confinement, as far as I know, is no defense to an escape charge. Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

User:No More Mr Nice Guy and User:Jiujitsuguy[edit]

No action v. NMMNG, action v. JJG rescinded, all involved parties are admonished to abide by WP:CANVASS or risk further discretionary sanctions.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning No More Mr Nice Guy and Jiujitsuguy[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 

Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ARBPIA, Discretionary sanctions, [40]

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

On 16th August I removed synagogues in the Palestinian territories and in Syria from the Oldest synagogues in Israel article, since these two synagogues weren't in Israel:[41]

The day after on the 17th, No More Mr Nice Guy shows up and re ads these synagogues in the Palestinian territories and in Syria to the article:[42]and then says at the talkpage that ""Israel" in this context doesn't necessarily mean the modern state of Israel".... "Perhaps a name change for the article is in order"

Now this looks like a normal content dispute, and that's also what I thought until a very interesting blog was revealed to me yesterday.

In that blog several of my edits are brought up.

In one of the posts at this blog, the blogger reveals that he is a Wikipedia user and also says: "So, I have started this blog to publish the often hidden problems of the world’s free online encyclopedia. I plan to work with other Wiki editors on this site, and we must be totally anonymous in order to keep our accounts on the site."

I looked around at this "blog" and I noticed that in one of the posts published 1 day before No More Mr Nice Guy performed his edit, the blogger said about my Wikipedia edit: "The editor removed two synagogues, the one at Gamla and the one at Qumran" .... "when these ancient synagogues were built, both Qumran and Gamla were part of an the ancient Kingdom of Israel".... "It is probably best resolved by renaming the section"

This edit that the blogger advocates, and his suggestion for a rename, and his argument for what "Israel" means in this context, is the exact same edit that one day after the blog post was posted, No More Mr Nice Guy showed up and performed at that article and also suggested a rename at the talkpage and used similar argument for the meaning of "Israel" in this context.

Another user, Jiujitsuguy, also showed up to the article one day after the blog post: [43][44]


Notice that before all of this happened, neither No More Mr Nice Guy or Jiujitsuguy had made any edits at this article, and both of them just "showed up" there the day after the blog post. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Topic ban.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning No More Mr Nice Guy and Jiujitsuguy[edit]

Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy and Jiujitsuguy[edit]

Not sure what I'm being accused of here. He removed relevant sourced (from two different RS) material. I restored it and discussed the issue on the talk page.
I submit that this is a frivolous report, and considering it's not the first one from SD, a cooling off period for him might be in order. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I initially wasn’t even going to respond to this horse shit but against my better judgment, I will. SupremeD made some contentious edits and removed well-sourced information. I reverted him/her. Looks like SupremeD has lots of spare time on his/her hands conjuring up wild conspiracy theories. It’s a shame that I have to waste time dealing with this nonsense. I’m pretty sure that, as with all Israeli-Arab enforcement actions, partisan battle lines will be drawn with the pro-Arab and anti-Western contingent calling for our heads so that the playing field can be their exclusive domain. Nableezy will of course lead the charge. Gotta love Wikipedia.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

So if I understand the accusation correctly, a blog created in August 2010 recruited me in December 2008 for the purpose of editing in a particular way? Either that or I run that blog? I deny both accusations. Both are completely without basis. I think someone should have a talk with SD (at the very least) about what kind of evidence should be brought forth when reporting other editors. Again, this is not the first time he has filed such a frivolous report. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

What you just said doesn't make any sense. An editor can get involved in off-wiki canvassing/meatpuppetry after creating a Wikipedia account. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning No More Mr Nice Guy and Jiujitsuguy[edit]

  • I'm not sure what the accusation is here either. That the two editors read a blog post and acted upon it? First, there's no evidence of that. It's possible that happened, but it's also possible it didn't; he could have, for example, simply been looking at your contributions to see what you have done, which, while annoying, is far from being involved in an army of POV editors. So, without being able to do anything about that, as, again, there is no evidence of it, we only have their on-wiki activities. The hard evidence is a revert or two from three days ago. Not a big deal, so I'm suggesting this be declined. I'd like to know who this blogger and his followers are, but we don't, unfortunately. -- tariqabjotu 14:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • @tariqabjotu - I'm not sure how you're missing the implication that User:No More Mr Nice Guy is the blogger in question. @User:Supreme Deliciousness - Nice spot, but I think you have wayyyyy too much time on your hands to make these kinds of links. Additionally, while this kind of off-wiki collusion does certainly seem a bit decietful and conspiratorial, does it actually violate any policies? NickCT (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Im not saying that he is the blogger, but the circumstantial evidence leads me to believe that he read the blog post and acted upon it. That is participation in canvassing. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment I concur with Tariq. This seems frivolous. I doubt either NMMNG or Jiujitsuguy is the author of said piece, and even if they are readers and stumbled across it, that's hardly a violation on their part. Anyone is free to surf the web and read things about Wikipedia and make edits based on what they read. There has been no evidence presented by any wrongdoing. Enigmamsg 20:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, I believe that we do have policies against acting as meat puppets, which is the basic allegation here as I read it. The fact that they echoed the same arguments and desired outcomes as the activist site, one day after the post was published, on an article they had seemingly never edited before, seems to circumstantially support the allegation. unmi 15:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I would say it's relatively strong circumstantial evidence. Does WP:MEAT really apply here? I thought WP:MEAT's basic idea is "Do not recruit....your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate". Is that happening here? The issue seems more that No More Mr Nice Guy is colluding with other editors off-wiki to push a certain POV. I don't think that that is explicity against policy. NickCT (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
There is unambiguous proof that Jiujitsuguy has violated WP:MEAT several times, though that proof requires linking to sites which contain his real name so I cant do that here. However, if any admin is serious about enforcing that policy I would be glad to email them the information that shows Jiujitsuguy recruiting like-minded editors on various websites. nableezy - 15:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Nab, could you please send the evidence you have to admin tariqabjotu? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Not unless he asks me to. nableezy - 23:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
One of the outcomes of the CAMERA arbcom case was that they explicitly wanted to be informed about such incidents, atleast that is my reading of this. unmi 18:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the basis of this complaint. The internet is full of blogs and forums written by Wikipedia editors. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully, unlike Wikibias, not many of them advise editors to use sockpuppets: "DO NOT get stupid, log on under a new user name at Starbucks (different IP address) and immediately enter the debate under a new identity (sockpuppet)."     ←   ZScarpia   00:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
You're misinterpeting, but I'll assume good faith that it was a mistake. It actually says the exact opposite. It says not to use sockpuppets. The "log on under a new username" was explaining the "do not get stupid." The above is said in context of an entire paragraph dedicated to telling editors not to violate the rules.[45]--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Brewcrewer is right here: the site is advising against using sock puppets. In effect, the site is telling people to behave well most of the time, as most of the time it's not that important after all.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Very well. I can see that the sentence can be read in two ways depending on how you interpret the comma. I read it as: "Do not get stupid BUT log on under a new user name at Starbucks (different IP address) and immediately enter the debate under a new identity (sockpuppet)." You two read it as: "Do not get stupid AND log on under a new user name at Starbucks (different IP address) and immediately enter the debate under a new identity (sockpuppet)."     ←   ZScarpia   12:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
If the site were to advise people on using sockpuppets, it probably wouldn't tell people to use them "immediately". People who can read between the lines will probably learn from that sentence that the really stupid thing is to enter the [same] debate, and to do so immediately, under a new identity, while doing so later on may be less stupid or even outright ingenious. That's the problem with the site: it never tells people to acquire a view of the issues that transcends their personal preferences, but advises them on how to refine their outward appearence on Wikipedia.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, similar situations have been seen as meat puppeting in the past. The point is that this very likely is off-wiki canvassing. However, I would suggest that it is difficult to distinguish an editor who just read something on the net that referred to Wikipedia and made an edit based on this, and another edit who regularly visits sites on which such canvassing is taking place. Also, many editors are not aware of the policy. For these reasons, I would suggest to notify the editor about the policy, adding that continued editing based on off-wiki sources that are canvassing people is a violation of Wikipedia policy.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - The way this AE is being presented, and given the tenacious history between the editors on both sides of the filing, this AE could be taken as a violation of WP:OUTING -- or at least an attempt to silence an editor by raising the implication that they may be the person in an offsite blog. Either way, it can adversely affect the reputation of individuals involved, especially since the accused has denied being the individual in question but SD and NickCT are still trying to "tie" NMMNG to the blogger in question. This is a clear violation. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 19:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
From my reading of SD's request she is indicating that they may have fallen victim to being used as meat puppets, even if she had stated that she believed that any of the two were the authors of the activist site, there is no indication of the real world identity behind it. I see that NickCT made a comment that indicated that he read her request differently, that may be due misreading it as the blog post having been written after the arguments were presented on-wiki, I don't know, but for myself I don't see indication that SD has made such a claim. unmi 19:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Outing requires information about identity. None has been presented here and the blogger is anonymous (although it seems fairly obvious who it is....I could be wrong and I don't think it's NMMNG or J). Everyone involved here is well aware of what the policies and the discretionary sanctions say. I'm not sure that anyone here really knows exactly when WP:MEAT applies and I think clarity is needed on these issues. For example, Tariq used the phrase 'army of POV editors' in his posting above. What does 'Wikipedia' regard as an army of POV editors and what attributes would indicate that an individual editor is a member of that set ? We already have many armies of POV editors across various topics but they're self assembling because they have common objectives. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Now I'm confused. SD is linking NMNG's actions to the statements on the blog. Isn't he/she suggesting the blogger is infact NMNG? The blogger in questions says claims to have done some of the stuff on NMNG's edit history.
This has absolutely nothing to do with WP:OUTING because no has made an attempt to reveal a real-life identity. NickCT (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I never said that NMNG is the blogger. Read my post above: [46] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I stand corrected. NickCT (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that this report is premature. This happening once is coincidence. It happening twice is suspicious. It happening every time for the first 100 articles posted at the blog is more than conclusive. Of course now that everyone is aware of Wikibias - there's a name that is wondefully self-descriptive - they'll find that the people they disagree with will be following the blog too.

Nableezy says he has concrete evidence which unfortunately would out someone. Approaching Arbcom with a reference to the CAMERA case and an explanation that outing would be involved in the presentation of evidence is the way to go with that. --Peter cohen (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Question moved to ANI discussion. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Question - I would like to know why J's off wiki activity produced no action when it was reported to the functionaries list by nableezy in July but resulted in an 1 year block when reported here ? Their inaction after that report and lack of clarity on these off wiki issues played a large part in my decision not to pursue the matter further. Did it fall between the gaps ? Is it better to raise these kind of issues here at AE (without identity info) or contact an admin directly via email rather then email the functionaries list ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu, remember this: please don't expose or use people's off-wiki identities as evidence: people are free to express whatever views off-wiki; what's important is if/whether/how that effects on-wiki behavior . Nothing was exposed by the way, the link was taken from the user's talk page. What you've done to two editors you've blocked is not fair according to your own edit summary. You may tell me that it is different because they discuss wikipedia. Then what about that site? Few dozens of wikipedia administrators are posting stuff about wikipedia. Are you going to block all of the them or only half of them?--Broccoli (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it is consistent with the edit summary. The that in "what's important is if/whether/how that effects on-wiki behavior" refers to "off-wiki behavior". The actions of Eric and Jiujitsuguy are all about Wikipedia behavior -- asking people to join in to particular discussions -- while the link by Mbz1 didn't even mention Wikipedia. But thanks for playing. -- tariqabjotu 18:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm concerned about tariqabjotu's aggressive involvement here and the other pages concerning this issue, from what I see as prelimenary knee-jerk blocks without discussion, and now the cleanup based on some sort of vigilante defence of WP not based on policy and especially given that, Broccoli brings up very relevant issue here, tariqabjotu seems to think this domain includes policing the whole internet. I also think that tariqabjotu is not 'uninvolved'. --Shuki (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Without commenting on the merits of the block, or problem plaguing the current IP/AE system, I agree with Shuki in that tariqabjotu is not an "uninvolved" party as far as settling IP conflicts is concerned. The block, since it involves the IP ARBCOM ruling, should have been made by an uninvolved admin, not someone who regularly edits IP-related articles. This may have just been an oversight, however, but further exemplifies the problems with the way the current system is implemented and ruled. Regardless of the need for it to be done, it should have been done by someone unquestionably uninvolved. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 15:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Please save the hypocrisy, all of you. You all know that I have blocked people in this area before, and you didn't bat an eye. I'm not particularly concerned how you feel about losing two of your pro-Israel allies. If you want to contest the block, contest the block, not me. -- tariqabjotu 18:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
That kind of terse response is precisely why you did not belong making the block, but rather someone else who was uninvolved. The uninvolved party rule exists to avoid situations like this from arising. I'm not disagreeing with the block, but rather how it was carried out. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 18:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
At the rate "you're involved" is claimed in the ARBPIA subject area we would need an endless supply of admins to comply with the constant requests, it happens any time someone is blocked. Involvement has been clearly defined by Arbcom in ARBPIA and this isn't it. I really wish that both sides in this would stop constantly attacking the admin action and stop crying "involved" and recognize we are being even handed. I've taken action against both sides as has Tariq yet these same complaints come up every time. Tariq is a very even-handed and level headed admin but we are all human and bound to get frustrated from the constant drain of trying to admin these articles. --WGFinley (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
You guys are doing fine. I think Wgfinley wasn't communicating as clearly at first as needed (simply adding a wikilink in the edit summary does wonders) and Tariqabjotu might have gone a little far (it is debatable at least). However, cleaning up the topic area's battlefield mentality has been a long time coming.

Result concerning No More Mr Nice Guy and Jiujitsuguy[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Jiujitsuguy (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely, per Nableezy's evidence. If an admin or ArbCom member wants to contest or look into this block, they are free to ask me (or, I'm sure, Nableezy) for the evidence, but it as, as he says, unambiguous that it comes from Jiujitsuguy and clearly unacceptable for someone who chooses to edit in the Israel-Palestine area. The kind of off-wiki canvassing, as well as the ethnic personal attacks, used by Jiujitsuguy also suggest he is unsuited to edit anywhere on Wikipedia. People have been banned for less, so I applied an indefinite block. -- tariqabjotu 01:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
The relevant remedy at WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions authorizes only "blocks of up to one year in length" (emphasis mine), so I assume that this isn't an AE block? Because otherwise it is clearly ultra vires. Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, didn't realize that. In that case, the block up to a year -- August 21, 2011 -- is an arbitration enforcement block (subject to all the intricacies that go with reversing an AE block) and the rest is my doing (not subject to those intricacies). -- tariqabjotu 09:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu, I have now 100% evidence that links wikibias to a wikipedia user. Its personal information. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Accordingly, I blocked Eric1985 (talk · contribs) indefinitely. The nature of Wikibias isn't as bad as the approach taken by Jiujitsuguy, being less riddled with personal attacks and more cognizant of Wikipedia's principles. However, the point still remains that Eric, as author of Wikibias, is trying to undermine Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, primarily in the Israel-Palestine area, but also with the stated intent of considering doing so in other areas. Once again, if people want to be pedantic; the first year is subject to arbitration enforcement regulations, while the remainder of the block is not. -- tariqabjotu 11:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think closer review of the CAMERA Decision is in order here and possibly something we want to have more discussion on. The CAMERA decision found that merely being a member of a canvassing group was not an infranction, it was actions taken on WP in concert with canvassing that was. It seems we may have an incoming wave: The New York Times, YouTube, and The Guardian and Haaretz. The current media attention could bring a wave of such related editing to Wikipedia and admins who have the thick skin and supply of aspirin to handle ARBPIA duties are already few and far between.

The CAMERA decision also had guidance on the handling of potential WP:OUTING material, it was to be turned over to Arbcom. I'm not saying I have any problem with what Tariq did in this case I think it was an entirely proper action for the time being, I think we just may need further discussion and possible request for amendment or review by Arbcom. --WGFinley (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm extremely confused. Were there a couple times in your above comment when you said CAMERA, but mean ArbCom? -- tariqabjotu 17:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, when I'm saying CAMERA I mean the decision and not the organization. I fixed. --WGFinley (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
See this new ANI thread. -- tariqabjotu 18:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Are you looking to get a wider audience of input? If so, I agree. --WGFinley (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I've also expressed my concern in the AN/I thread and urge ArbCom to consider opening a case on its own motion as soon as possible. It is my thought that there are a lot of questions that need answering by all involved.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I started drafting an amendment request I have no problem doing that if there's some agreement it's probably needed. --WGFinley (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Tariq has lifted the blocks, I am going to close this up but I will be putting together an Arbcom filling for this case. Both editors are admonished to mind WP:CANVASSING and govern themselves accordingly. Failure to do so could result in discretionary sanctions, in this case I think an ARBPIA topic ban would be in order until the case could be heard by Arbcom (should it be accepted). --WGFinley (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Brews Ohare[edit]

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

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

Request concerning Brews ohare[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#Motions, Motion 6:

"Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed, for twelve months. Passed 9 to 0 on 16:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)"

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

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive633#Peremptory archiving of particular threads on Talk page Talk:Matter, i.e. starting a physics-related discussion at ANI. See comment for a more detailed explanation.

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

Not applicable. Brews was topic banned yesterday, and he was notified of it. He's also an ARBCOM regular by now, so this'll be nothing new for him.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction

Block, and hopefully for a long while, per topic ban.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Brews was topic banned for his talk page behaviour at Talk:Speed of light and others physics pages (such as Talk:Matter). After his ban, I archived a plethora of thread started by Brews, or about Brews which distracted from improving the article. (See here for the reasoning behind this).

Brews then opens a debate about Talk:Matter at ANI, by which he hopes that his viewpoints will be recognized and so on (see comments such as "These threads include a number of unresolved issues regarding the article Matter, which in my opinion, deserve to remain on the Talk page and which point out some desirable changes that should be made on that page"). This is a clear violation of his topic ban, which kicked in just yesterday. SarekOfVulcan closed the ANI as "resolved", saying Brews was banned and that archiving was a good thing. Then Brews goes on about how it's "not resolved", than rants against high-handed abuse yet again. How much wikilawyering and attempts at dodging his ban through forum shopping do we have to tolerate from Brews before enough is enough? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Discussion concerning Brews Ohare[edit]

Statement by Brews Ohare[edit]

This motion is nonsense. My objection on AN/I was not an attempt to promulgate my views on any subject. It's object, clearly stated there, was to object to Headbomb's high-handed actions in archiving selected sections of Talk:Matter prematurely. Obviously, protesting Headbomb's high-handed actions is not advancing physics, it is objecting to high-handedness.

The present action by Headbomb is still further evidence of a concerted campaign by this editor to make life difficult for me, regardless of any and all other considerations. Brews ohare (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Response to arbitrators: To say that objection to high-handed tactics is in itself : “technically an infringement”, “no doubt a violation” and “an unambiguous violation of the topic ban” : is, excuse me, a ludicrous failure to make the obvious distinction between what was done and what it was done to. My AN/I complaint about Headbomb's archiving actions is not a topic-related activity, it is a complaint about Headbomb.

Contrary to some misconceptions here, the threads archived by Headbomb were created before the ban against me, I did not contribute to them in any way at all after the ban was imposed, and Headbomb archived these threads after the ban. My AN/I action was not about the content of the threads, it was about Headbomb's burying them.

What I have learned, not just from the above blunders of ArbCom over rudimentary distinctions, but from all ArbCom activity that I have experienced, is to stay as far away from ArbCom as possible, under any and every circumstance, no matter how ridiculous, annoying or demeaning that may seem, and no matter what the true merits of any argument might be. The maxim is: No matter what, stay away. I hope you folks find that resolution of mine quite satisfactory. If I can do anything about it, you will never see me again.

Of course, frivolous actions by Headbomb, like this one, drag me before you. Such forced appearances are beyond my control, but could be prevented by telling Headbomb to lay off, to devote himself to protection of WP from actual harm, to stop indulging his penchant for courtroom entertainment, and to renew his vows: "This above all, to do no harm to WP".

Please don't be offended by my desire to shun you all at every opportunity; some kind of administrative activity is necessary and you have chosen to do it. I'd rather contribute to the encyclopedia, and keep away from administration and administrators. Brews ohare (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Response to Slp1: You say “Your AN/I complaint was indeed a topic-related activity, as your own post (stating that there were issues in the archived threads that you felt still needed discussion) makes clear.” What you are saying is that the request that a Talk page be restored to its condition before the ban was enacted is somehow a prosecution of a topic-related activity. It isn't. It is a request that an arbitrary action be reverted. It is no different than a request to do the same thing on a page about apple cobblers. When a sanction is interpreted in a manner that defies common sense, it will lead to difficulties. Brews ohare (talk) 12:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You might ask yourself what is the possible purpose of a topic ban. I'd say it is a topic ban because it is judged that the particular subject area is one that I have trouble with, and my thinking about physics-related topics is somehow screwed up. It is not a judgment that I cannot tell when I am being knocked about for the sake of it. And it is not a judgment call that when Headbomb brings me here for protesting his action, that is a topic-related matter: it isn't; it's a Headbomb-related matter, about Headbomb's actions. Regardless of Headbomb's opinion of it, my AN/I action was subject-matter independent, and not a violation of the topic ban against me. Brews ohare (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Summary: Under the circumstances, I find that ArbCom will rule a violation if the word "physics" shows up in anything I say, regardless if any actual content about physics is there. So, were I to say "For 50 years I have studied physics and have a Ph D in theoretical solid-state physics from one of the best physics departments in Canada and have published numerous physics articles in Physical Review" that would be a really tremendous violation of my topic ban. Got it. More than that, if I say Headbomb has reverted some text, and if that text has in it a statement like "the constant π is used in mathematics and physics" then reference to this reversion is a violation of the physics topic ban. And this entire paragraph contains the word "physics" several times, and so it is in itself a violation of the physics topic ban. Right? Got it. Brews ohare (talk) 13:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply to EdJohnston: What exactly is the offense? Is it that page Talk:Matter was off limits, so appealing Headbomb's actions that affected that page also were off limits? And what advice, exactly, have I disagreed with? Please repeat it for me so that I know what you are talking about. Brews ohare (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What is this hearing about? I thought the issue before us was that Headbomb says my appeal of his actions was a transgression of my topic ban. I don't think so. My idea was that appealing an action was appealing an action, not an engagement in a topic-related activity. Apparently you all think differently. Why? I have asked point blank if the basis for your seeing my appeal as a transgression is this: that page Talk:Matter was off limits, so my appealing Headbomb's actions in archiving portions of that page also was off limits. In other words, it isn't the impropriety of Headbomb's action that matters, it is the venue where he did it that matters. I cannot appeal impropriety per se. No-one has replied to this question directly. Brews ohare (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Baffled: I am being given a "pass" this one time and warned not to do "it" again. No-one has explained the rules better, or just what the infraction is. Apparently "it" is so obvious no-one can believe I don't understand "it". However, my question above is not disingenuous; I'd like an answer. I'd like to know what "it" is that I am to avoid in the future. An explanation of the charge would help to avoid "it" in the future, eh? Brews ohare (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you understand a bit of confusion to find that using the appeal system to try to correct an action can result not only in denial of the appeal, but in a further tribunal that use of the appeal system is in itself a heinous offense? In other words, don't try to appeal, because appeal is a crime in some cases; you won't know which ones until it happens, and even then you won't be told why your particular appeal is one that will lead to retribution. Brews ohare (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, this action is brought under the remedy cited by Headbomb: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#Motions, Motion 6; If there is in your minds a different basis for your ruling (and I can't think of one) Headbomb's action should be denied and he can be invited to do this all over again under the correct remedy. In particular, there is no remedy in force that restricts me from taking an action to AN/I. Brews ohare (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment by JohnBlackburne[edit]

As Headbomb stated in his post if anyone wants to continue the discussions at Talk:Matter they can simply start a new thread on the topic they wish to discuss. Brews ohare cannot as he has been banned from physics discussions, and so from the page. The correct way for him to deal with this is either accept the ban or appeal it via arbitration appeal, not raise discussions at Talk:Matter on another page, clearly breaking the terms of his ban even after being reminded of it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

On watchlists

In reply to Count Iblis if Brews or anyone wants to temporarily suspend part of their watch list they could view it as raw text, copy it to a text file or a part of their user space, then remove the parts they don't want to see while otherwise engaged. At the end of this time restore the removed entries from the copy made, merging any new ones and removing duplicates. No need to create another account, which anyway might be interpreted badly if done by a recently banned user.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

And now I take exception to this where under the edit summary Links to recent persecution it says "Blackburne files trumped up charge" (with a diff to one of his own edits not mine). Users in general have a lot more freedom in editing their own user pages, but I think this goes too far.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Brews Ohare[edit]

Rubbish. The self-appointed physics coordinator is trying to get a real physicist banned. It is not going to improve encyclopedic accuracy or reputation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket[edit]

This seems to be frivolous. I'm not seeing how Brews violated his topic ban by bringing a archiving issue to ani. I think it's fairly obvious that while brews has a vocal dedicated group that help him there is a equal group on the other side that does their best to dog him. I think that's a fair view and would urge that restrictions be placed on those that constantly dog on him. Hell if it makes them feel better reinstitute the crap on us too. There are times the committee has issued interaction bans and it only makes sense to do so fairly and on both sides. For the love of god though I swear this is really getting old. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Count Iblis[edit]

Without question, Brews should not use AN/I as a proxy to violate the physics topic ban, but I agree with Hell In A Bucket that Brews did not violate the topic ban by posting there. Of course, it is better to not start AN/I threads on a problem on a physics page, even if it isn't related to the topic matter.

In this case, we have to recognize that the topic ban was imposed in the midst of an ongoing discussion on the Matter talk page. Headbomb decided to archive the discussions and I can then fully understand that from Brews' POV that's provocative, because you then make the discussion effectively invisible for someone else who could visit that page later and would have weighed in. I also accept that there are good arguments for archiving the page. However, there wasn't much talk page activity going on apart from the discussions started by Brews, so I don't really see the urgency to do that.

I.m.o., this is really a non-issue, it certainly does not merit a block. To request one here with the comment: "...and hopefully for a long while", is unnecessarily provocative, i.m.o. Count Iblis (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Removing physics topics from watchlist

Slp1's suggestion looks good to me. If you don't want to remove all the items from your watchlist (e.g. because you do plan to come back eventually), then you could also create a new account, e.g. "Brews Ohare II" and then notify ArbCom that you have done this. You then log in using this new account as long as the topic ban is in force. Count Iblis (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Timotheus Canens about previous block

I remember that Brews had stopped editing physics related articles well in advance of the topic ban (there was a lengthy ArbCom case and he was only participating to that). This issue did not come up a that time. I do remember Brews getting an additional restriction for postings at AN/I and other such venues. But then that can give an impression to Brews now that a new explicit restriction like that needs to be issued. Anyway, i.m.o. this needs to be wrapped up asap because the longer one discusses this, the longer this stays In Brews' mind. Arguments, counter arguments and in case of a block, appeals to the block etc. etc. All that instead of Brews editing e.g. some math article and forgetting about all this. Count Iblis (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Dr.K.[edit]

I agree with Count Iblis's point that since the ban was imposed in the middle of a discussion on the Matter talkpage and Headbomb decided to archive the page, Brews may have found the circumstances surrounding these actions rather pointy. Given the past history of Headbomb and Brews it doesn't take much to ignite a mini drama which this is. I'd say Brews should stop reacting to Headbomb's actions, ill-advised or not, or those of any other of the usual actors and move on to a life beyond Physics and beyond his usual opponents. I still think that Brews has made many positive contributions to Physics, not least of which is his recent involvement in creating History of the metre due to raising points at the Speed of light talkpage. I therefore find the Physics-related restrictions imposed on him unnecessarily harsh because the creation of the "History of the metre" article shows that a rigorous debate involving Brews, even if lengthy or frustrating for some, may ultimately be good for Wikipedia. Meanwhile PhilKnight has offered a solution which is measured and wise. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Brews Ohare[edit]

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

I agree with Count Iblis; while technically this is an infringement, a block isn't necessary. Obviously, Brews Ohare shouldn't violate the ban again, but beyond saying that, I don't believe any further action is required. PhilKnight (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no doubt that this is a violation, contrary to several of people who commented above. Topic bans are generally interpreted liberally, to effectuate their purpose - i.e., a complete break from the topic area - and to prevent gaming. That said, I'll leave it to others to decide what is the appropriate sanction, if any, being undecided on that point myself. Timotheus Canens (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree that this is an unambiguous violation of the topic ban "from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed." Brews needs to leave the whole area behind, and trust that for the next year other editors can and will be the ones to take up important matters concerning the articles, discussions, archiving, highhandedness etc. I'll also let others decide whether this should be an absolutely final warning or result in a block. Hearing from Brews that he now better understands the limits of the topic ban, might be helpful in making that determination. --Slp1 (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
His interpretation of the restriction as "No matter what, stay away" seems about right. PhilKnight (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Except that it seems to be more a mantra about keeping away from ArbCom, and that he still maintains that he hasn't violated the topic ban and it is all HeadBomb's fault that he is here. But I agree, that "No matter what, stay away" would be excellent guidance for him about the the meaning of the topic ban. --Slp1 (talk) 11:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Response to Brews: I applaud your desire to try and keep away from arbitrators and administrators, but fear that you will be frustrated in your hope unless you accept that the topic ban is a complete and utter one. The only exceptions generally made are the removal of unambiguous vandalism or BLP violations. Your AN/I complaint was indeed a topic-related activity, as your own post (stating that there were issues in the archived threads that you felt still needed discussion) makes clear.[47]. You need to unwatchlist the physics pages and leave them for others to worry about. Find some non-physics topics to contribute to, do so peacefully and productively, and you never need be bothered by administrators again. --Slp1 (talk) 11:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
It is far from unusual for a recently topic-banned editor to make the good faith error of assuming that various project or meta- discussions are not within the bounds of the ban. I have dealt with a number of very similar incidents in the past and have typically simply advised the editor that the matter is covered by the topic-ban, reverted any disallowed edits (if appropriate) and asked them not to repeat the mistake. I think this would be the best course of action here - with the implication that subsequent edits within the scope of the ban would draw a harsher response. CIreland (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't object to the concept of giving Brews one more chance. But his comments in his own section (above) give no hint that he will behave any differently in the future. If you want to give him a pass on this, why not make it contingent on a promise not to repeat the offence? His own comment section shows him disagreeing with every bit of advice anyone here has given him. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Brews thinks he has done nothing wrong. If admins disagree, they need to decide how they can convince him of this, if it turns out that this case closes with no sanction. His persistence results in many, many return appearances at the various admin venues. I am fine with making a deal about his future behavior, but he has not agreed to any deal. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
A warning says "Yes, you have done something wrong but we are assuming it was a good faith, naive error"; whether Brews ohare agrees is of limited relevance - topic-banned editors don't get to specify the scope of their ban. And whether or not Brews ohare promises not to repeat the offence is irrelevant - a subsequent violation should result in a block. There are no "deals" to made. CIreland (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I can accept that a warning is good enough were Brews a newly banned user - but he is subject to the exact same ban since October save for a two-month period between ~29 June and 22 August, so I fail to see how that argument applies to this particular case. Timotheus Canens (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

─────────────────────────A warning at this point is just saying "we really mean it". There should be some teeth behind it. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Teeth would be a block, and while I agree that this was a violation, I see enough dissent on that point and enough dissent with its severity being worthwhile of enforcement to conclude that teeth are not appropriate here.
Brews - This would be your one and only free pass while getting the scope and terms of the topic ban straight and clear to everyone. Please understand that you should not do this again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
This has dragged on long enough that I don't see the benefit of a block now, though I probably would have supported one ~36 hours ago. Nevertheless, Brews needs to be put on absolutely his final warning, and if this happens again, be confident a block will be sure, quick, and likely as long as the decision allows. Courcelles 08:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Closed with a warning. Every admin who commented believes that Brews' action violated his topic ban. The admins here did not reach a consensus to block, but several of them predict that the next similar violation will produce a block without further ado. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2010

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

Sjudɒnɪməs[edit]

Blocked 24 hours.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Sjudɒnɪməs[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
O Fenian (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Sjudɒnɪməs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [48] First revert, to reintroduce a section originally added by the same editor
  2. [49] Second (partial) revert to re-add what is still a list of victims, within 24 hours of the first
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. [50] Warning by RepublicanJacobite (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Block
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Editor was given not one but two opportunities to self-revert and avoid being reported, referred to the good faith offer as "threats". O Fenian (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[51]

Discussion concerning Sjudɒnɪməs[edit]

Statement by Sjudɒnɪməs[edit]

For the record, I am neither Irish nor Northern Irish, neither Catholic nor Protestant - in fact, Jewish. My interest in this article is purely one of putting the facts of the incident into WP. My edits to this article have been unbiased, for example introducing referenced statements that the PIRA has denied involvement in the attack, and issued an immediate statement to that effect. I also corrected an edit of mine to introduce the phrase "concluded" rather than "confirmed" with regard to the ombudsman's statement. I also added an external link to Bruce Anderson's excellent article explaining why the "collusion" of the agencies involved was necessary to prevent Civil War. I don't understand why listing the fatalities of the attack is verboten - many, many other articles contain exactly the same type of information - eg Virginia Tech massacre. As I have stated on my talk page, a three-bomb incident producing multiple fatalities is a complicated event, and many other articles - including those about The Troubles - contain just such a narrative list of events - eg Bloody Sunday. The deaths were not all caused in one place by one bomb, but in two places by two bombs. Explaining that seems only natural. Sjudɒnɪməs (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit to add - I was directed to Wikipedia:Victim Lists and instructed that this was the reason for earlier removing the victim list, but this was a wikipedian's essay, not the MoS. Sjudɒnɪməs (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
No matter how often I read the Principles of the Final Decision which was apparently some kind of "warning" - as stated above - I see nothing that applies to my editing of the article. Sjudɒnɪməs (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
See also - Springhill Massacre; Ballymurphy Massacre; Battle of St Matthew's; Dublin and Monaghan bombings; Droppin Well bombing; Castlerock killings. Sjudɒnɪməs (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Sjudɒnɪməs[edit]

Result concerning Sjudɒnɪməs[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Clear violation of 1RR after warning; blocked for 24 hours. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Iadrian yu[edit]

Request struck out due to failure to fulfill conditions precedent to requests for sanctions.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User requesting enforcement 
--Nmate (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Iadrian yu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions digwuren sanctions

Request concerning Iadrian yu[edit]

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

[52] It is a rancorous and bully type of talk page editing at the article Miercurea-Ciuc. For having had a discordant opinion from that of him, Iadrian yu rebuked an Ip editor with such inflammatory remarks as "Please stop using Wikipedia as a forum to express your ultra-nationalistic opinions regarding Romanian lands." and "Please try to visit some forum Greater Hungary, I am sure that you can talk this kind of stuff there. " Then Iadrian yu deleted the sentences of the Ip user from the talk page as in his opinion, it was vandalism. Shortly after Rokarudi and I had tried to restore the deleted comment [53] [54] , according to WP:TALK, but Iadrian yu deleted it over and over again [55] [56] and left some reproving type of "warning" messages on both Rokarudi's talk page and that of mine afterwards. [57] [58]


[59]

It is a rancorous editing by trying to kindle animosity among Romanian and Hungarian wikipedians (see : edit summary): "is this just another attempt to promote some sort of greater Hungary"

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

[60] by myself.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[61] done

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction

I want Iadrian you to receive a broadly defined topic ban on Hungarian related articles for indefinite time.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint[edit]

Usually I shun any interaction with Iadrian yu due to his bully type of demeanour, which is noxious for this project, otherwise, and I am not keen to have myself dragged into skirmishes.Nonethless, I have enough of him already and now I would like to enlight some grim facts about this user:

Firstly, it is worth checking the block log: [62] Everything of his blocks was inflicted on him in connection with Hungarians.

If you take a glance at the user page, you will find a map about Greater Romania with a caption of "Romania - the way it should be" there. For verification, please visit User:Iadrian yu 's user page and then click on the "About me" link where this map scrolls down.

I know well that the administrators are not interested in discussion over article content or users' personal opinions, however, this information is necessery to dully depict the battlegroud type of background of the user. An user, who expressed his allegiance to Romanian revisionism on his own user page, is about to grapple with those who do not endorse the current boundaries of Romania, according to him. In other words, Iadrian yu is eager to defend wiki articles about Romania from "Hungarian revisionists" as long as he wants Romania to be as big as it was between 1918 and 1940. It is astounding, isn't it?

The user keeps wikihounding Rokarudi and it was strikingly preceptible by even one another Romanian user, Dahn, who told him that "Iadrian, seriously, stop harassing Rokarudi: you are getting nowhere with this, at least part of your edits are way more controversial than his, and your claims about policies are desperately transparent."[63] It is also interesting to note that Rokarudi has been followed in the Wikimedia Commons too. [64]

Then Iadrian yu gave a vote, in order for the "template Mureş County" to be deleted, which was made by Rokarudi, and during this vote, he told the following sentences: "Some Hungarian users like Rokarudi see Wikipedia as a battleground to express their irredentism feelings." , " I think that Rokarudi`s comment/vote proves again that for him Wikipedia is just a toll for expressing his irredentism feelings over this matter." [65]

Also, this marvellous user filled a frivolous report on WP ANI under the title name of "User:Rokarudi_and_irredentism" , creating an abusive topic heading naming one another editor. [66]

Further interestig reasons for reverting via edit summaries:

[67] (see edit summary: "Use wikipedia to see irredentism. Please refrain yourself from this kind of edits and respect WP:ENC") [68] (see edit summary: "It is unofficial at the best. Please refrain from irredentism edits") [69] (see edit summary: "Irredentism is irredentism. This is an encyclopedia not something to express our opinions. - Vandalism") (see edit summary :"Transilvania we can`t mention facts? .Because Hungarian ultra-nationalists claim use Hungarian ultra-nationalists claim") [70] and so on

Recently, I have solicited Iadrian to chuck up the sponge regarding his bout against "Hungarian revisionists" as such may entail an ArbCom report, to which he answered that "Your revert was inflammatory and inappropriate because you removed my comment but left the Vandal`s comment who practically screams for Greater Hungary- that is inappropriate behavior.", concerning the aforementioned edit of the Ip editor at Miercurea-Ciuc_talk_page.[71] [72] At this point, I think an ArbCom report is the best thing to do.--Nmate (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Iadrian yu[edit]

I will enumerate my opinion regarding this artificially created problem by Nmate. Time line: first there was a Ip vandal at Miercurea Ciuc talk page where I and Rokarudi talked and conclude that talk pages are for improving the articles not for promoting various ideas. Then user:Nate appeared (wiki-hounding me, entering in conflict on purpose and creating this request) and delete my comments where I explained this IP user that what he is doing is inappropriate and asking him to come back with constructive edits[73]. Then I contacted Nmate, with a question why did he deleted my comment and on purpose left the vandals comment[74]. After that instead of providing reasonable arguments [75]for this action he responded with a threat filing this report. I deleted this "explanation" from my talk page, responded to him, on his talk page, advising him that he should listen to his own advices and to check his data before making this kind of actions/accusations[76]. Then he filed this "request" for my permanent ban. This only proves further that this user "holds a grudge" against me and that his report is made in bad faith:

  • This request is unjustified and it is just another attempt for some sort of "payback" by Nmate with this erroneous statements.
  • About Dahn`s comment,I have explained it several times when this was used against me, if looked properly and not presented in bad faith like this, it can be seen that Dahn did`t know what was the discussion about and retracted his statement(for harassing).
  • As for user Rokarudi, we became good associates and have no problems between us - as it is being tried to represent here like something else. From time to time we have disagreements but we talk them through and always come to agreement.
  • As for edit summary under which this request is filed by : "is this just another attempt to promote some sort of greater Hungary" was on the Panonian Basin article where there was introduced by some IP user the Kingdom of Hungary while there are much more than just one state/nations in this area and it was a clear attempt for some sort of promoting pro-Hungarian ideas. Implying that in the Panonian Basin there is only the Hungarian culture and Hungarian nation, but where is the Slovakian, Serbian, Ukrainian, Romanian, Croatian nation? If we represent the history of Hungary then we should represent all other nations histories also(NPOV). I explained everything on the talk page where if this users would have checked could find all the answers he was looking for and not Assume bad faith.
  • My contributions to this project are constructive and that can be easily checked.
  • This request as such is requesting what Nmate wants nothing that is provided by facts.
  • My block log is regarding edit warring was a long time ago (and I am not doing anymore and it has nothing to do with your report). If this would be a case of edit warring then it can be taken into consideration. I made a mistake and I was punished for that, I learned my lesson and that is the end, even if some user thinks I should "pay" for this for the rest of my life :-).
  • My user page has no meaning nor validity (as any other user`s page), and even if we take meaning in it you can find many from your "crew" having black ribbon at the anniversary of Treaty of Trianon. I have never edited subjects related to the Greater Romania idea nor the lands regarding it therefore this attempt for tarnishing my reputation or creating this report has no validity. Who is the problem here? Me who stay`s away and respects the NPOV or you who`s biggest concerns are Hungarians in Slovakia,Romania and Serbia (Ex Greater Hungary)-single purpose account ?
  • About templates, this request is clearly another attempt of some sort of "payback" and evidence that Nmate sees this project as a battleground WP:Battleground for his personal ideas. There was a discussion and it was proven that this form of templates has no sense, therefore they were deleted and replaced by normal ones.
  • Also I have read that his kind of warnings are valid only when they are written by administrators [77].
  • Also this request is filed based on the wrong statement, I quote from WP:TALK that Nmate call`s as basis for this process. "This page in a nutshell: Talk pages are for polite discussion serving to improve the encyclopedia, and should not be used to express personal opinions on a subject." - Therefore I just respected wiki guild-lines and deleted Ip`s comments regarding promoting some ideas that are seen as irredentism.

I expect for this request to be rejected because of false representation and no facts/basis for such having in mind that it is filed by a user who was a colorful block log [78](if we are taking that into consideration) for personal attacks or harassment of other users: Ethnic slurs and incivility which I consider this request also, and also appear on an arbcom list for restrictions for previous ethnic based conflicts on Slovakian,Romanian,Serbian related articles and now is trying to add other users to this list of restrictions who disagree with him.Adrian (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn`t Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement page for enforcement of decisions already made? Not for filing a complain about something? I quote from this page: Enforcement requests against users may be brought if a user is likely to be acting in breach of the remedies in a closed arbitration case, or a passed temporary injunction (for open cases).Adrian (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Iadrian yu[edit]

Result concerning Iadrian yu[edit]

  • Please provide evidence that User:Iadrian yu has been notified by an uninvolved administrator of the existence of the discretionary sanctions. Failure to do so will result in the request being struck out. Stifle (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • A user has brought to my attention on my talk page (please don't do this; it's really important to keep all material related to the AE case in one place) that Iadrian yu was given this warning by User:Nmate, but Nmate is not an administrator. The discretionary sanctions remedy clearly requires that "[p]rior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines". There is no wiggle-room here — an uninvolved administrator must have warned the user before any discretionary sanction can be implemented. This has not happened here, so the request is struck out. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Lida Vorig[edit]

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

Request concerning Lida Vorig[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Grandmaster 19:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Lida Vorig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [79]
  2. [80]
  3. [81]
  4. [82]
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. [83] placed on 1RR by Nishkid64 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
block
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Lida Vorig was placed on 1rv per week parole one year ago. He was absent in Wikipedia since September 2009, and returned in August 2010, and his contribs almost exclusively consist of edit warring on AA related pages, especially the article about 2010 Mardakert skirmish, where he repeatedly violated his 1rv per week restriction. Grandmaster 19:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[84]

Discussion concerning Lida Vorig[edit]

Statement by Lida Vorig[edit]

Oops, I totally forgot about the undo restriction. My bad, I'll stick to 1 revert from now on, I promise. Lida Vorig (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Lida Vorig[edit]

Lida Vorig was not revert warring alone, why is Grandmaster reporting him alone? Note that Grandmaster is saying that after a long period of activity Lida Vorig was back. But what Grandmaster is not saying is that after several Azeri users were banned from Russian Wikipedia because of a staged attack premedited and headed by Grandmaster, Azeri users who were innactive are back on English wikipedia continuing revert warring, other suspicious accounts being created after the ban. Check the users with whom Lida Vorig was edit warring with. BTW, I have been reporting Brandmeister at three occasions, and they were all archived without an admin reply. He had over a dozen of revert in a very shorp period of time in the same article and was previously topic banned. Do administrators endorse the AA2 rules based on whom is editing or what? Ionidasz (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Lida Vorig[edit]

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

Russavia[edit]

Circus closed because of bad reviews, all clowns whacked. Stale as no admin is willing to take action.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


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

Request concerning Russavia[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Colchicum (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys#Russavia_restricted
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

[85] Russavia reverted an edit by Biophys within hours (and the reason given for this revert was bogus, by the way). Russavia is under interaction ban (Biophys being "an editor from the EEML case"), and this revert most certainly not only violates it but is also a violation of WP:STALK. This is not an accident, neither is it a case of necessary dispute resolution, there was no dispute in the first place, Russavia had never edited the article or its talk page before this revert. Seriously, how many times should he be allowed to test the limits of the restriction?

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

N/A, officially warned as a party to the case and blocked before

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Something effective
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Response to Russavia:

Biophys is not topic banned from pre-Soviet Union Russia-related articles, as Shell Kinney, a co-drafter of the decision, made perfectly clear: [86]. Thus you were not reverting an edit made "by a topic banned editor in violation of their topic ban" (which you wouldn't be entitled to do anyway given your restriction). You are banned from interacting with Biophys, and you have violated this ban. That was a famous quote known to everybody even remotely familiar with the subject of the article, right from the very first of Chaadayev's Philosophical Letters, which predated the formation of the Soviet Union by nearly a century, there was absolutely no sound reason to summarily remove it. Now, as you effectively admit that you don't give a damn about the subject, and it is easily verifiable that you had never edited the article before, your revert (let alone the comments here) is a clear-cut attempt to make a point and a violation of the interaction ban. Oh, and there is absolutely no reason to prohibit me from reporting your violations. Reporting your violations is by itself not a violation of any existing rules or restrictions. There is no omertà on Wikipedia. Other than that, I don't fancy interacting with you and limit our communication to the bare minimum, such as mandatory notifications.

Now, bottom line: Biophys peacefully edits within the limits of his topic ban, facing no objections from others, when Russavia jumps in to revert him in an egregious violation of his own interaction ban. When I report him for that, which is not prohibited by any rule or restriction, Igny and Russavia start attacking me. Very nice. Colchicum (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow. It has just occurred to me that the story Russavia tells us here is completely untrue unless he can travel in time.

On 22 August, this edit appeared on my watch list. I took a peak because the edit summary caught my eye. The nature of the comment (and link) led me to glance over Biophys' contributions (which I had not done for 3-4 weeks previous in any great way), and that led to Pyotr Chaadayev leaping out in front me.

The first edit Russavia is referring to was made at 14:49, seven hours after he reverted Biophys (7:56). Russavia, if you don't want to be reported, don't violate your interaction ban. Nobody but you is to blame for your name "being a permanent feature on this board". Colchicum (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No, Russavia, a direct revert is not just "editing the same articles", and you have made it very clear below that it wasn't an accident and that you targeted Biophys on purpose [87]. If a revert is not interaction, I don't know what is. Your comments on Biophys right here are also for the most part completely unnecessary for dispute resolution and thus fall under the ban. I can only repeat, if you don't wan't to be reported, don't violate your restrictions. It is a PA in itself to paint this report as harassment. Quite obviously I didn't make you violate your restriction, that was your free choice, so be a man and take responsibility. You may appeal your interaction ban to the Committee, though it looks highly unlikely to me that you will succeed given the pattern of your behavior, but for now the restriction is in effect and must be obeyed. I can show dozens of diffs where Colchicum continually engages in such behaviour – so go ahead. They are few in number, though, and many years and arbcoms old, unlike yours. Colchicum (talk) 11:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

[88] So here we go again. Russavia, personal attacks won't help your cause. And this is how you were willing to collaborate, right. QED. Where is my revert on Vitaliy Mutko? this? Adding interwikis and a minor correction to a new article publicly announced on User:AlexNewArtBot/RussiaSearchResult now amounts to stalking you? Oh my... Sourcing and expanding the Sandoz chemical spill [89], another new article, where you were by far not the most interesting editor who had edited it? This is all rhetorical, of course. Get real. Certainly I won't accuse you of stalking me because of this edit, restoring a borderline hoax, or should I? Colchicum (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[90]

Statement by Russavia[edit]

Response to accusation[edit]

The accusation of stalking by Colchicum is, in my opinion given history, furtherance of battleground behaviour in this area by himself.

As always, I will be upfront and open, whilst other try to paint an untrue picture. I have the talk pages of EEML-sanctioned editors (inc. Biophys) on my watch list. As it is possible that these editors will return to editing in this area, from time to time I make a point of having a quick glance over their contribs. I don't generally look into the specifics of the contribs unless they read like edit warring, but rather I observe their interactions on talk pages and other areas of the project, to see how they are interacting with other editors, and whether this area will see improvement upon their return. There is nothing wrong with this. I do not interject myself unnecessarily into any conversations, or otherwise engage them unnecessarily.

On 22 August, this edit appeared on my watch list. I took a peak because the edit summary caught my eye. The nature of the comment (and link) led me to glance over Biophys' contributions (which I had not done for 3-4 weeks previous in any great way), and that led to Pyotr Chaadayev leaping out in front me. As editors are well aware, Biophys is currently under a topic ban as per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys#Biophys_topic_banned which states:

Biophys (talk · contribs) is banned from editing articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles, broadly construed, for a period of no less than 1 year. At the end of 1 year, Biophys may apply to have the ban reviewed by the Arbitration Committee.

As we know from my own topic ban, and topic bans handed out at WP:EEML, in effect this means that Biophys is banned from editing articles relating to the Soviet Union, Russia, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, or any of the other former constituents of the USSR. It is a complete removal of Biophys from this area. Other topic banned editors chose political topics from outside Europe; I chose airline articles. Given that "All animals are equal (unless editors want to argue that "some animals are more equal than others"), this means a complete removal of Biophys from this topic area - he can go edit Pokemon or Sudanese rugby players, just nothing within this area which it is deemed he has been disruptive. As someone who has been involved in the dispute resolution of all these EEMLer's topic bans, inc. my own, surely Biophys is not able to plead ignorance.

As Biophys is a topic banned editor making edits within the ban area, I would have been within my discretion as an editor with no article editing restrictions to do a wholesale revert. But instead, I made this edit. Note it is not a pure revert, but the removal of an unreferenced quote, which as mentioned in my edit summary, it's purpose in the article is not clear - formatting changes are kept. For clear reference, this is what was removed:

"We are an exception among people. We belong to those who are not an integral part of humanity but exist only to teach the world some type of great lesson".

It needs to be noted that Chaadayev is a controversial figure, as were some of his views. This is another flag that Biophys should not be editing that article. After Colchicum posted this AE report, Biophys posted this on the talk page. Yes, the quote is from a book by Satter, who as we all know is one of those fantastic authors who is nothing but critical of Putin. In fact, his book Age of Delirium: the Decline and Fall of the Soviet Union opens with what was removed by myself. This is not Wikiquote. What exactly does the quote say, what is the context of what Chaadayev originally said, and what academic opinion does Satter put forward about this quote. And why was this one quote inserted (unreferenced mind you)? He surely said many things over his time, but why was this given prominence. That question as it stands is moot, because I am not under topic bans, and I removed unreferenced material from the article as is my right per WP:V. I did not report Biophys' topic ban violation, as that would be a clear violation of my interaction restrictions. Biophys can thank Colchicum for bringing his breach of topic ban to the fore (not the first time he's breached it if one cares to look).

Response to other comments[edit]
  • Biophys mentioned this posting on his talk page, and his resultant post to my talk page. My posting to his talk page was automatically done as a result of nominating Category:Post-Soviet Russia for renaming by way of using Twinkle; it is setup to automatically advise all creators of nominated content of the discussion. It was good to see Biophys took it in his stride, thinking nothing of it. "No complaints from me, however.", even as he may have been unaware of the automated nature of the notification. No harm, no foul there.
  • However, it pains me to see Biophys now using this AE request, about an alleged interaction violation by myself, as a platform to spark unrelated manufactured disputes about topics which he is topic banned from at the moment.(i.e. Medvedev, Gulag, etc) I dare not say more as I hope the admins will investigate themselves so I dont need to get involved, or at least recognise that they are offtopic to this AE request and ignore them. Please review his comments here and consider how much of them are a necessary part of dispute resolution regarding the alleged interaction violation by myself.
  • Given that this request is on my removal of an unreferenced, zero context quote from an article after it was placed by a topic banned editor in violation of their topic ban, I am concerned by the appearance of Vecrumba in this request, given Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted. Should I be expecting an appearance by the rest of the EEML in due course? It will be like a big reunion - i'm not laughing! It would be appreciated if an admin could enquire as to why involvement was deemed necessary in something one is not directly involved in.
  • I am growing tired of my name being a permanent feature on this board by way of battlegrounds being manufactured by editors, which then takes me away from editing to respond to what I regard as continued harrassment and vexatious reporting on the part of these editors. It is like a flashback to last year when I was being completely ignored by the very admins who were supposed to be able to help put a stop to the battleground. As Igny, who is a neutral editor (given he has defended on many occasions those who we will call my "opponents"), is regarding behaviour of editors in this request as harrassment on myself, I sincerely hope that admins will not ignore it when I say that I too am regarding this entire request, and further accusations which have been thrown my way, as continued harrassment of myself.
  • In addition to striking down the vexatious complaints by a couple of editors in this request, I ask that the following be considered..
    • Under provisions outlined at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions, Colchicum is prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia, except in the case of necessary dispute resolution.
    • Under provisions outlined at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions, Biophys is prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia, except in the case of necessary dispute resolution. - this I believe is warranted due to the unsubstantiated allegations that have been made here, and which other editors have been warned against making. Additionally, it would appear from Biophys' own comments that only I am restricted from commenting on him, that he used the fact the same is not true of him to engage in unnecessary speculation, which I regard as harrassment.
    • Other sanctions/blocks as are deemed necessary by reviewing and enforcing admins.

If admins require any further information from me, please let me know and I will gladly respond. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 09:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

General comments on broadly construed topic bans[edit]

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys#Biophys_topic_banned, Biophys:

is banned from editing articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles, broadly construed, for a period of no less than 1 year. At the end of 1 year, Biophys may apply to have the ban reviewed by the Arbitration Committee.

Last year when I was topic banned, I was banned from:

all articles, other pages or discussions having to do with the Soviet Union or its successor states (including Russia and the baltic states). In other words, you are banned from anything that involves Russians or Russia.

If one looks at these topic bans, they are exactly the same. Both topic bans cover both the Soviet Union and the states that made it up. I won't list all 17 now independent countries that made it up, for we know what they are. The only difference is that the "country" part is worded different. Mine was worded as "successor states" and Biophys' was worded as "former Soviet Republics.....broadly construed". Everyone knows that I was unable to edit anything relating to ANY of those countries. So much so, I was unable to place in Air Botswana information on a potential buy out by a Russian businessman.

Both bans "effectively remove you from a topic area in which you have been exhibiting unacceptable battleground-like behavior." That is the purpose of a topic ban.

My topic ban was done under a remedy at an Arbcom in which I was not involved and coverd anyone who may be editing in the EE topic area. The remedy was passed by the committee, and was able to be enforced by admins as they saw fit. Biophys' topic ban was done under a remedy at an Arbcom in which he was involved in and was directly on himself. The Arbcom passed the Biophys topic ban, and it now up to admins at AE how they interpret it, and how it will be enforced.

An uninvolved person would have good faith reason that both bans cover all eras, and all iterations of those states, due to being broadly construed. And the purpose of "broadly construed" is to stop potential wikilawyering.

This is not an official Arbcom clarification on the issue, it is merely the exchange of opinions of two editors on one of those editor's talk pages, but it happens that one of those editors is an arbitrator. Requests for clarification are supposed to take place at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests_for_clarification so that any involved editors are able to provide input and engage in discussion, and arbs can do likewise.

Until such time as that occurs, it is up to individual admins who work AE to interpret and enforce the topic ban as they see fit. It is up to an admin to decide whether a Russian philosopher from the 1800s (who held controversial views, and which are still controversial today) is covered by the topic ban. Or more specifically, is the Russian Empire related to the Soviet Union to the Russian Federation? I know the answer to that as a result of my own long expired topic ban. And it is a fair assumption that an uninvolved editor would say that the history of Russia directly includes the Russian Empire, and I know this as I have run it by a couple of totally uninvolved people, and they hold the same opinion.

And a friendly suggestion, whilst this is still active at AE, and yet to receive any statement from an admin, it might advisable for certain editors to stop editing the article talk page, until such time as comment is provided in this (correct) forum by an admin. I certainly wouldn't continue to edit the article based upon the opinion of the person who started this request. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 07:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban requested[edit]

It was only a few days ago that another editor came to this forum claiming that I broke an interaction ban. It was clearly mentioned that editing of same articles is not an interaction ban. Colchicum would have been aware of this, and decided to bring this here. I see this as harrassment by Colchicum and I sincerely request that he receive, at the very least, an interaction ban on commenting on or interacting with myself.

I have made it very clear in the past that I am willing to collaborate with ALL editors. And that includes Colchicum. He has made it quite clear that he has no intention of doing this. It's sad that he feels like this, but that is his choice.

However, it is obvious that where I am concerned Colchicum only uses WP as a battleground. For example. Last year, I asked a supposed content opponent for assistance - encouraging collaboration. After the editor offered to help, Colchicum posts:

"I stronly suggest you not collaborate with RuSchutzstaffel SS.svgavia. Probably decent people shouldn't communicate with such dishonest outcasts at all [91]. Mature people should assume responsibility for what they are doing. From now on, let's let him absolutely alone. Something like Я не еду в разговариваю с RuSchutzstaffel SS.svgavia. He will get banned eventually anyway. Petri Krohn may be well worth reconciliation, this one is not."

Not only is this inexcusable for the personal attack, it is also promoting battleground mentality by encouraging other editors to engage in battleground conditions. He was warned and made no apology. Since then I have not had anything to do with Colchicum, apart from filing a 3RR report, which it turns out was not 3RR, and for which I apologised. However, the only thing that Colchicum has had to do with me is attacking my mere presence on this project, attacking my contributions (which if I were to show, people would say they are constructive), and part of this is acting in a totally partisan way and only ever attacking everything that I do, in an attempt to have me sanctioned and/or driven away from the project. I can show dozens of diffs where Colchicum continually engages in such behaviour.

Colchicum will say that his last AE request was acted upon,[92] however given his history I let my comments to him on my talk page stand as my only comments at the AE report.

As Colchicum has absolutely no intention of acting collaboratively, and continues to engage in battleground behaviour in relation to myself, and files vexatious reports about me -- all of which when put together seems like his only intent is to harrass myself and drive me away from the project, there is no need for Colchicum to interact or comment on me. His actions also promote battleground behaviour - the public suggestion for editors not to collaborate is the one that sticks in my head. But even this very request has invited one editor to engage in speculation about myself (and whom I have also requested an interaction ban on), and another editor who has been blocked 3 times for breaking a still current interaction ban joins the thread as well.

Hence, I do ask that an interaction ban be placed on Colchicum as asked for above, so that those who want to act collaboratively together can, and then we can all disengage from battleground conditions, especially manufactured ones like this very report.

I do make a general apology for this section, in that it deals with the editor, rather than the content, but this history is not likely known in this AE forum. These are my very last words in this report, as I will not be validating any further the harrassment and this battle shit. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 11:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, these will be my last words. I should have mentioned that I am more than happy to be placed under a similar interaction ban with Colchicum if it deemed necessary in the interests of fairness. It shouldn't be necessary for interaction bans in the first place, if we could all forget the negativity and hostility and step back from the conflicts in this area, editing would be so much more enjoyable, and beneficial. I have already made clear my willingness to do this with most editors, however, it has to be reciprocated. I have yet to see this happen, only time will tell I guess. Until such time as that occurs, if two-sided interaction bans are required, then it will have to be that way unfortunately. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 13:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Response to admins[edit]

Jehochman, I can assure you that I have not stalked Biophys or any other editor. I stand by my reasons for perusing editors contributions. It would be stalking if I followed editors and did nothing but revert and get involved in disputes. Kind of like [93],[94],[95] and of course this very request. At least I have been upfront on what I have done. My stalker says nothing and his stalking is totally ignored.

Anyway, even though I am not stalking them, if you see it as such, without admitting any guilt in that, I will agree to not to look at their contributions in anyway meaningful way in future, unless it is necessary for DR. My reasons for doing so are pretty much moot now, as I am now certain that there is no way one can collaborate with those editors in a healthy way either now or in the future. And I will not let their anti-Russian baiting to catch me again. So I will withdraw from the battleground that has been manufactured here, but I do ask that the interaction bans be placed as I have requested above, and for which reasoning is pretty clear.

And in relation to topic bans and the like, please ensure that some animals are not more equal than others. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 21:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Russavia[edit]

Statement by Biophys[edit]

After receiving my topic ban, I edited in different subject areas [96], made exactly zero reverts (beyond fixing a few obvious vandalism problems), and completely disengaged from all other participants of my case. I did not report any of them to AE even when they openly violated their bans, for example by coming to my talk page to start political debates in the topic ban area [97], or tell me about removing my contributions [98] and knowing that I can not respond. I thought the guys would appreciate my non-involvement and removal from the subject area. But what do I have in response? Russavia wikistalks my edits in a different area, Offliner complains about me to an arbitrator next day after coming from his block [99], [100], and Igny attacks me with ridiculous accusations right on this page (see below). I believe this is a serious tag-team because all three editors in question have been already blocked (two of them indefinitely) for precisely that kind of things. Biophys (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC) [Please note that I commented here only in response to accusations by Russavia at this noticeboard: [101]. I did not tell a single critical word about him before and can keep it this way after this incident].Biophys (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I just would like to notice that Offliner came uninvited to my talk page to suggest that we are in a state of war and need an official "peace treaty" [102]. I do not know if he is in the "state of war", but I am certainly not. I am very open to collaborating with anyone, including Offliner, as I explained to him. Offliner responded by complaining again to the same arbitrator [103]. Hey man, if you want to collaborate with me (as you said), you do not need Arbcom. However you should not make such edits right after me. This is not a collaboration, but to the contrary, making articles off-limits for me by creating conjectures to modern-day Russia (remember my topic ban?). Biophys (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Re to general comment by Russavia about topic bans [104]. Russia ≠ Soviet Union, and we both know it.Biophys (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Re to Petri Krohn. You tell that Russavia reverted my edit because "he could not report Biophys to WP:AE" (and Russavia tells the same). Is it true? This is my edit. It tells nothing about Soviet Union, Satter, or the "Age of delirium". Of course I prefer translations by an American journalist because he knows English better than me. There was absolutely no reason for Russavia, Offliner and you to blame me of violating my ban. You all did this only to support Russavia (exactly as you tell). Can you guys just leave me alone? Thanks. Biophys (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Re to Jehochman. No, I quite obviously did not violate my topic ban. In addition to statement by Shell who said it was within my limits, I also asked Carcharoth previously [105]. Furthermore, I placed this question at AE talk page [106], just in case, but I did not receive any response. I would therefore appreciate if a couple of unvinovled [107][108] [109] administrators officially decided if I can or can not edit Russian history of 18th and 19th centuries. If they decide I can not, I certainly will not edit such articles. There is no need for blocks.Biophys (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC). I asked Jehochman but received no explanation. Once again, I have no problem with not editing anything on Russian history if it helps to reduce battlegrounds, although this AE request is obviously not my fault.Biophys (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Petri Krohn[edit]

First I must apologize to Biophys for making these accusations. However, as Russavia is accused here, he deserves a proper defense. Also I apologize for the puny nature of the accusation, but as the accusation against Russavia has even less weight, this must be said. I wish we could all just forget about this episode and go do something useful.

Even considering the narrowing of the topic ban by Shell Kinney, It seems clear to me that Biophys broke his topic ban. He copy-pasted deleted content from his last version of the article David Satter and inserted it into Pyotr Chaadayev. David Satter, an article created by Biophys and edit warred over by him and his EEML opponents is at ground zero of the Russian / Soviet dispute and clearly within his topic ban. Satter is arguing that Putin was behind the Russian apartment bombings. The quote, attributed to Pyotr Chaadayev, but interpreted by Satter seems to be part of the argument.

I have elaborated on the issue at the talk page here: Talk:Pyotr Chaadayev#Quote taken from book by David Satter?

Russavia is not under any ban, so he should be free to edit articles on Russia. Editing the same article, even edit warring is not sanctioned in the interaction ban. He could revert, but he could not report Biophys to WP:AE. However, as he is under an interaction ban, I would suggest to him that he removes Biophys from his watchlist. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Russavia[edit]

I occasionally edit Russian history of 18th and 19th centuries. I hope that's not a problem? No judgment about Russavia or any other participants of my case, although there was this recent post by Russavia at my talk page (and my response). I have one general comment however. Since me and others were topic banned, the situation in the area did not improve a bit, as everyone can see here, here and right on this noticeboard. I am not here to judge, but political battles rage [110] [111], an email coordination to get rid of "undesirable editors" continues unabated [112], just as during my case [113], and people are leaving. Biophys (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Colchicum, could you clarify how you obtained this diff? Did you edit the article before? Do you have it in your watchlist? Or you are stalking Russavia yourself? Or, which is even worse, you are participating in continuing harassment of Russavia and coordinating it with someone who is stalking his edits? Oh wait, I drop the last accusation. If you actually followed the AE requests against Russavia, you would notice that the previous attempt to file a frivolous request against Russavia ended poorly for the person who filed it. Oh wait, did Biophys ask you to file this request in order to circumvent his interaction ban?(Igny (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC))

Re to Igny. Your statement support my words that situation in this area was not improved. As about emails, I did not received them and did not sent them to anyone for many months. Why? Because people are afraid to communicate with me. Fine, I am going to disconnect my email right now. It's useless anyway.Biophys (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Igny, are these personal attacks really required? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 04:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Just to notice, I do not have interaction ban with Russavia (he has). It does not mean that I am going to interact with him or comment about him. Quite the opposite. I responded here only because the post was about me.Biophys (talk) 04:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh well, that's something! Just for your pleasure, it is not meant to say that you are somehow entitled to demand answers to such questions. Biophys' page is on my watchlist, I saw his changes there and wondered about the reasons. Then I looked at the list of his recent contributions, and one of the very recent edits stood out as not "top". Et voilà! Of course I won't ask you what you are doing here. The idea that I am somehow responsible for Russavia's own misdeeds is preposterous, and, frankly, should be humiliating for him. Now please mind you own business. You were blocked before precisely for this kind of "protracted assumption of bad faith and unfounded suggestions of backstage collusion", weren't you? Well, it is impossible for the suggestions to be more unfounded, but the assumption of bad faith is now more protracted than ever, well worth another forced wikivacation. So please stay away from me. Colchicum (talk) 10:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, it is all a matter of interpretation. Just as a single revert (not even an edit war) "within hours" became "testing the boundaries of an interaction ban" and instead of following WP:BRD, one decides to escalate the issue to an AE, so can your request easily become "part of continuing harassment of Russavia". If someone were collecting evidence of the harassment campaign, your request would be in the center of it. I could show you how that evidence in a slightly different interpretation might look on the next AE request.
  • Colchicum filed(link) another frivolous AE request, possibly on behalf of Biophys, to further harass Russavia
So can you please stop this campaign? (Igny (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC))
ArbCom can decide who is harassing whom here. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 15:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I can not provide diffs about Russavia reverting all my old edits in the Post-Soviet Russia-related articles, because that would be a violation of topic ban on my part. But my last wikipedia email was dated May 27, and it was from Boghog2. I sent him a couple of wikified files about proteins. Biophys (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Biophys, Vecrumba, could you please stop this off-topic discussion. Your participation here is not exactly helpful, sorry. These guys look eloquent enough as they are. Colchicum (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear admins who will hopefully be reviewing this, could you please look into the behavior of Igny on this page and take appropriate measures. I am fed up with his unfounded (and unfoundable) accusations. Are such blatant personal attacks to be tolerated on the AE noticeboard? Unbelievable. More on this here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive62#Igny. This is a recurrent problem, indeed, a campaign of sorts, as you can see, albeit somewhat unrelated to this request. Colchicum (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Short of a leak of the relevant private correspondence, there will be never direct evidence for off-wiki collusion. However wikibehavior demonstrated by Colchicum here could be used as circumstantial evidence of something going on. I could picture the following interpretation of Colchicum's actions here
  • Colchicum contributed to the battlefield mentality by filing a frivolous AE request. That is also a circumstantial evidence that he either stalked Russavia himself or was contacted by Russavia's stalker to file that request.
See how twisted and escalated interpretations of events may be? (Igny (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC))
Just amazing how eager you are to get into trouble. This is word-for-word the personal attack you was blocked for on May 19.
The request is not frivolous (neither was the first one). Russavia is banned from interacting with Biophys, which is what he did (the fact that he did it via a revert and edit summary is hardly an excuse). It is not open to interpretation, the violation took place independently of the existence of this report and is a full responsibility of Russavia, I have very little to do with anything substantial here. Happy anniversary of the MRP! Colchicum (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
@Colchicum, no need for the uninvolved to get further involved. :-) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 17:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Right above me is the most ironic statement on WP. Is any admin aware that this user is under an interaction ban with myself? And have been blocked 3 times for breaking it so far? And yet, here they are yet again, breaking it, and most ironically in something that has absolutely NOTHING to do with them? What about this harrassment? Is nothing going to be done about that? So no, the statement should read "no need for the uninvolved to get involved at all, considering to do so is to break interaction ban for the 4th time". Of course, I know what will happen. I will be blocked for it. Go figure. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 20:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It was indeed quite pointless for him to comment here, but at least he didn't comment on you and didn't interact with you. You are under an interaction ban with him too, btw. Colchicum (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Hasn't interacted with me? Are you serious Colchicum. You call my removing unsourced information from an article an interaction, but you don't call an appearance at an AE enforcement thread entitled RUSSAVIA an interaction? It should be clearly obvious what is going on here. And please tell us, how you found the so-called interaction with Biophys at the article. Are you going to admit to stalking my edits? --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 05:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I am perfectly serious. You followed Biophys' edits, as you openly admitted above and as is clear anyway, and you reverted his edit, not just a random piece of unsourced information (and that piece would be a common knowledge for anybody familiar with the subject, so at most it a "citation needed" tag would be warranted there, though IMO even that should still be off your limits due to the interaction ban). This is an interaction with Biophys. Vecrumba, as much as I agree that he shouldn't comment here at all, commented on Igny, not on you, and didn't respond to any of your comments. This is not an interaction with you. I am indeed worried that "some animals are more equal than others" and that Arbitration remedies are enforced selectively. If the ban of Vecrumba is normally enforced, so should be yours. I mean, we all see now how easy it is to derail AE with a lot of off-topic drama. Nothing unusual, of course. And no, it is not stale, as it has lasted for months (for years, in fact, it is just that the last arbitration was three months ago). Oh, regarding "how I found the so-called interaction", I have already explained this [114], enough is enough, I am not going to repeat this twice, if you have missed this you definitely need a rest. Colchicum (talk) 11:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Russavia[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • The usual partisans appear to be lining up for another battle. Perhaps we should apply lengthy bans to stop this long term disruption. Thoughts by the uninvolved? Jehochman Talk 05:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Russavia admits to stalking Biophys' edits. This is most unhealthy. Biophys has apparently violated their topic ban. Both editors have been warned and sanctioned before. ArbCom specified short blocks, escalating up to 1 year. Russavia has already had 48 hours, so my inclination is 96 hours, and we start Biophys with 48 hours. Regrettably, we don't seem to have authority to place longer blocks at this time. I personally hate placing editors under short blocks. In the alternative, could I get Russavia to agree to stop stalking Biophys (and any other disputants), and would Biophys please agree not to push the limits of their topic ban? Am I being too optimistic here? Jehochman Talk 05:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Until ArbCom gets their stuff together, I'm not going to do any more enforcement work. Somebody else should feel free to take this over, but it's probably stale by now. Jehochman Talk 03:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Closing and archiving[edit]

I am closing and archiving this as its continued presence here is only creating WP:BATTLEground mentality. No admin is willing to take enforcement action. For more information see User talk:Jehochman#EE circus.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Momento[edit]

Momento (talk · contribs) banned from Prem Rawat and all related articles and discussions for one year.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Momento[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
  Will Beback  talk  23:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Momento (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat#Article probation
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [115] These are five reverts in three days. The edit summaries are not accurate.
  2. [116]
  3. [117]
  4. [118]
  5. [119]

Here he makes uncivil or non-AGF comments:

  1. [120] But if enough of you want to ignore Wiki policies, guidelines and practices and revise history to suit your POV, how can I stop you?
  2. [121] Wrong as usual Will.
  3. [122] It may suit you Will to have this article treat readers like idiots but it is unacceptable to me
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. [123] I specifically asked him to not revert again.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
I request that Momento's topic ban be reinstated for another year.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Momento was topic banned for one year, ending April 2010, as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2#Momento topic banned. He returned to the topic immediately after the ban expired, and started up arguing the same point he'd been arguing when the ban started. He has been making edits without consensus despite the objections of others, and has been engaged in tendentious argument on the talk page. This goes back to April, but the most recent talk page thread is an excellent example.[124] He was blocked again for edit warring on a talk page on August 2. Most recently, he has repeatedly deleted neutral, sourced material that had been in the article since April 2009, and reverted an edit to which that others agreed. He has used misleading or inaccurate edit summaries for the changes. He has indicated on the talk page that he continues to think he's right, according to a unique interpretation of Wikipedia policies, and I presume he would continue to revert to his preferred version. It does not appear that Momento has learned anything from his previous bans and blocks. He does not appear to be genuinely interested in seeking consensus for article improvements. Instead, he seems interested only in pushing his POV into the article and engaging in endless arguments on the talk page.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[125]

Discussion concerning Momento[edit]

Statement by Momento[edit]

Firstly, I claim that according to WP:BLP "the three-revert rule does not apply to removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material". And I further claim that the material I removed was "unsourced". Will Beback thinks the sentence is question is fine and keeps putting it and variations in. I think some of it should be removed because it isn't sourced. The sentence is - "At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru to millions of Indian followers". The sources given, Lewis and Downton, both say the position he succeeded to is "Perfect Master". Lewis says "he was recognized as the new Perfect Master and assumed the title, Maharaj Ji" and Downton says "he was elevated to his father's position as Perfect Master at the age of eight". Neither source mentions "Satguru", nor does it appear in the article and therefore "Satguru" is not sourced. But instead of replacing the unsourced "Satguru" with the doubly sourced "Perfect Master" Will Beback responded with endless arguments and ended by constantly re-insert it, providing five false sources to support it and adding an absurdly incorrect translation that was contradicted by the source supplied by Will that was supposed to support it, all without consensus and all against objections. And all designed to exert ownership of this article.

Will Beback claims I "repeatedly deleted neutral, sourced material that had been in the article since April 2009". In fact, as is clear from above the material I kept deleting, "Satguru", was not sourced. Will says I haven't learned from my previous blocks and bans but on the contrary I have discussed every edit a great length, edited strictly by the book and nine out of 14 of my edits to this article have been accepted by all as good edits, despite endless objections from Will Beback. Will himself was admonished for his conduct and goes to great lengths to object to every edit I make. But please have a look at the previous ARB/COM material, a one week ban would have been sufficient for these indiscretions.[126]

In short, judge by this. Five edits which all conform to "material about living persons that is unsourced should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". Three for the unsourced "Satguru" and two for an absurd translation that is contradicted by the source provided to support it. All inserted or re-inserted by Will without consensus and in spite of policy based objections.

Here is my recent editing history:

I have made 14 edits to the article in three months, hardly an edit war.[127] And every edit has been to correct factual errors and all edits have been accepted by all editors.

The first was to remove material that other editors considered too vague and was accepted by all.[128]

The second was to correct grammar at the request of another editor and was accepted by all.[129]

The third was to remove material that I pointed out appeared in the lead but not in the article.[130] It was immediately reverted but all agreed it shouldn't be in the lead and it was removed a.s per my proposal

The fourth was to insert material that should have been in the lead, as per my proposal, and it was agreed by everyone. At the same time I corrected an incorrect date.[131] It was immediately reverted but my edit was reinstated as being correct and was accepted by all.[132] Note that the edit summary used here was automatically appended to a later edit as pointed out by Will.

The fifth was to improve grammar and accepted by all.[133]

The sixth and seventh were to remove material that I pointed out was incorrect.[134]. It was immediately reverted but later reinstated as being a correct edit and was accepted by all.

The eighth was to remove material that I pointed out was incorrect.[135] And was accepted by all.

The ninth was to improve chronology and sources and was accepted by all.[136]

Now we arrive at the current issue, a month since my last article edit. The sentence in dispute is - "At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru to millions of Indian followers". The sources given, Lewis and Downton, both say the position he succeeded to is "Perfect Master". Lewis says "he was recognized as the new Perfect Master and assumed the title, Maharaj Ji" and Downton says "he was elevated to his father's position as Perfect Master at the age of eight". Neither mention "Satguru" and therefore "Satguru" is not sourced.

Despite pointing out to Will Beback that "Satguru" is unsourced and should be replaced by "Perfect Master" and despite ongoing discussion WB inserted "and Perfect Master" into the sentence.[137] This edit a) retained the unsourced "Satguru" and b) gives the impression that Rawat succeeded to TWO positions when there is only ONE.

The tenth edit was to remove "Satguru" since it was unsourced.[138] WB immediately reverted saying "pending consensus" when in fact his previous edit had no consensus and was still being objected to and discussed.

The eleventh edit was to revert back to the original long standing incorrect version because it didn't include the confusion of suggesting Rawat succeeded to TWO positions.[139] Will BeBack's next edit was to insert five false sources to try and legitimise "Satguru", again without consensus. And to reinsert the misleading material that Rawat succeeded to TWO positions.[140]

The twelfth edit was to again remove "Satguru" to accurately reflect the major sources and remove the misleading material that Rawat succeeded to TWO positions.[141] Will Beback then inserted without consensus and despite objections a new version which gave an absurd and incorrect translation of "Satguru".[142]

My thirteenth edit was to remove "Satguru" and it's incorrect translation because it was contradicted by the source that was supposed to support it.[143] This was reverted.

My final edit was to revert back to the version that is faithful to the major sources, doesn't contain the minor description "Satguru" and doesn't contain the objected to incorrect translation.[144]

In short, 14 edits in three months, of which nine have been accepted by all as good and correct edits. And three edits to stop Will Beback from inserting unsourced material into the lead without consensus and despite objections, and two to remove an incorrect translation inserted into the lead without consensus and despite objections. Ignore if you can that I belong to a minority religion. I welcome any questions.Momento (talk) 05:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

New response - I see that the admins are obviously unaware of WP:BLP policy which says- "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material". Thus ignoring that Will Beback and PatW "added and restored" unsourced material 5 times in three days and are instead focusing on my removal of the unsourced material which WP:BLP says "should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.Momento (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Momento[edit]

Momento is the exact kind of zealous partisan editor who makes Wikipedia impossible for more reasonable people to enjoin. As an ardent follower of the subject with an obvious and highly aggressive 'mission' to clean up the article with regard only for publicity and at the expense of proper encyclopaedic content he constantly mocks the intelligence of others with insubstantial bluster and filibustering, aggressively chases off people with less time or will to oppose his plans. etc. etc. All exactly the kind of unwelcome partisanship that Wikipedians are now struggling to find an effective way to combat. It will be a full-time job stopping Momento turning the article into a revisionist lie I'm afraid.
In response to GWH's comments below -Momento's adventures into the Lede of the article are clearly just the start of his plans to revise the entire article. Momento's apparently limited concerns are just the thin end of the wedge. He has indicated his commitment to a more complete revision on several occasions. It is hard to remain civil in the face of such consistent nastiness but there you go - I often fail as it's hard not to call 'a spade a spade' sometimes. (Can't go on further as am on holiday and internet access keeps cutting out). PatW (talk) 07:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Momento's personal agenda appears to be to try to create a portrayal of his "master" (Prem Rawat) which is subjective and often at odds with the source material. I would say that, on current form, his 'vexatious editing' (to coin a phrase) is not helping to improve the article. Far from it, in fact, and if allowed to continue, his increasingly rude and aggressive attitude is likely to lead to some other editors, myself included - who aren't endowed with the remarkable perseverence that Will Beback displays - simply moving on and leaving the likes of Will with the unenviable and time-consuming task of expending even more energy on battling with this particular proponent of what is evidently partisan editing. Revera (talk) 11:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Momento was topic banned starting on April 20, 2009 from editing any of the Prem Rawat related articles. All articles remained stable during that year. Momento provokes others by making snarky, demeaning, and uncivil remarks to them. He has been doing this consistently to Will Bebeck and I have to praise Will for his patience. Momento constantly refuses to engage in simple, reasonable conversations about his proposals and he obfuscates discussion by denying simple facts. A good example of this was his refusal to acknowledge that the term "Satguru," which has been in the lede since 2009, is in the body of the article. He kept saying the term was not in the article when in fact it is, and all he had to do was a simple word search of the article. This is time-wasting and obnoxious behavior. I think Momento should be permanently topic-banned from all of the Prem Rawat articles because I see no evidence from his behavior since April 2010 that he has learned anything from his year-long ban. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Momento[edit]

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

On first impression, I agree with Will's assessment. This is clearly a single-purpose account at this point, it's the area they previously were sanctioned multiple times by Arbcom over, and though they're being polite about it the end effect is pretty disruptive. They do not seem to be helping the Wikipedia topic area coverage, on the whole. This much edit warring and a flip-flop on the title - over only the title - in the lede paragraph? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

  • I concur with Gwh and would be minded to reapply the topic ban with a side order of WP:LAME. Or if you're infected with too much good faith, a revert restriction of 1 revert per week with a requirement to explain reverts might work. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I must concur with both of my colleagues towards reapplying the topic ban. Momento does fulfil all the classic signs of a single purpose account, and with nearly 8,000 edits has only edited 194 distinct pages. If Momento wishes to productively contribute outside the Prem Rawat article and related pages, so be it, but the disruption to the area needs to be put to a stop. Courcelles 09:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I received an email from Momento earlier today; it echoed comments made in his response to Will above.
Three admins concurring is usually enough for taking an action here, but it won't hurt anyone if we wait another few hours until tonight to see if anyone else has input. If we don't get dissenting admin opinions I will reimpose the one-year article ban tonight. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I concur with above comments in this subsection by admins Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs), Stifle (talk · contribs), and Courcelles (talk · contribs). A topic ban of duration one year would be an appropriate remedy to apply with respect to the user in question. -- Cirt (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a consensus to me. Per the discussion above, and under the authority of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat#Article probation, Momento (talk · contribs) is banned from Prem Rawat and all related articles and discussions, for one year. Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Shuki[edit]

Complainer and complainee both topic-banned for 5 weeks.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Shuki[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
nableezy - 19:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Shuki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [145] Removes reliablly sourced material because it conflict's with the user's own personal view
  2. [146] again
  3. [147] again
  4. [148] again
  5. [149] again
  6. [150] again
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. Notified of the case
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Topic ban
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Shuki has been filibustering any mention of the status of these settlements in international law. Originally Shuki has complained that the sources did not specifically say that a certain settlement is illegal. Since sources have been provided that specify for each of the settlements listed that they are illegal under international law Shuki has now changed tactics and insisted that the source "prove" that the specific settlement is illegal. The issue here is not the one or two reverts Shuki has made in each of the articles or the content being reverted. The issue is that Shuki has obstinately filibustered what reliable sources have reported and demanded proof beyond the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS. The arbitration case specifically says that editors should be editing within the policies of the website, including NPOV, RS, and V. Here, Shuki is violating all three; NPOV by refusing to allow a super-majority view to be represented in the article, RS by demanding that a RS is not sufficient "proof" on Wikipedia, V by repeatedly removing material cited to verifiable reliable sources.

Reply to Shuki's statement: The RFC had nothing to do with the legal status of the settlements or how that should be covered. And it is not an exceptional claim that Israeli settlements are illegal, and even if it were reliable sources were provided. The text is not discussing Israeli law but international law, so Israel's High Court's rulings on the legality under Israeli law is immaterial. None of this addresses the issue though, that you have repeatedly filibustered the inclusion of reliably sourced material for pure POV reasons. nableezy - 19:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Re Gatoclass: How much emphasis should be put on the material is certainly something that is strictly a content dispute, but Shuki has not been simply moving this information from the lead into the body, Shuki has been filibustering the content from appearing anywhere in the article. Is edit-warring the only thing that is actionable under ARBPIA? Is a systematic campaign to violate core policies of this website not actionable? Is everything that is not edit-warring a "content dispute"? nableezy - 04:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Gatoclass, each of those diffs is of Shuki completely removing the content on legality, claiming that because the source does not "prove" it is illegal it is not acceptable. The only reason there are not more diffs is because I have not made any other edits as I would rather not have edits to the 200 or so articles on Israeli settlements be reverted without cause. Shuki is demanding that a source provide "proof" that the settlement is illegal, that it must reference a specific court decision that says that specific settlement is illegal (see [151], [152] where that argument is made). Shuki is completely disregarding what RS says and removing content that says "X is illegal" and the source that says "X is illegal". But if this simply a "content dispute" then there is not really much of a point of any of this. If a user can simply just say no and block what reliable sources say from appearing in an article then this whole system is ****ed. We have had lengthy topic bans for making too many reverts, but things like this just get brushed away as "content disputes", which lead to, guess what, more reverts. nableezy - 05:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
And Gatoclass, not only has Shuki rejected sources that say all Israeli settlements are illegal, he or she has further rejected sources that say specific settlements are illegal if that source does not provide "proof" that the settlement is illegal. Each of the edits listed above are removals of sources that say the specific settlement is illegal. nableezy - 05:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to respond to many of the comments below. It is understandable that people come to the aid of what they perceive to be an ally. I'll just note that many of these same editors also came to the defense of the sock of a banned editor at a recent SPI, claiming that I was attempting to remove an opposing editor. That may well be the end result, but my purpose here is simple. Shuki's edits have violated a number of core policies of this website in contravention of ARBPIA. If there are editors that wish to show how that is not true they should make that case. Making this about me does not help anything. nableezy - 06:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Stifle: I understand it is easier to say "a pox on both your houses", but if you do so you are effectively saying that it is more important that there is an appearance of an equal application of the rules than it is to actually have an equal application of the rules. I have added well-sourced material about these settlements. The material I added is not "POV", it contains both the majority POV and Israel's by saying that they are illegal under international law though Israel disputes this. The material is both notable and verifiable, in fact every BBC story about a settlement contains that very same information. Shuki has removed notable, relevant, reliably sourced material from a number of articles and has done so by twisting policy such as RS and V or by giving no policy based reason for such removals. Regardless of Shuki's and Ynhockey's absurd comments about this material being "REDFLAG", there are countless reliable sources that flat out say that all Israeli settlements are illegal under international law; to record that in supposed "encyclopedia" articles cannot be seen as disruptive unless "disruption" is defined as anything the extreme right-wing of the Israeli political spectrum does not like. I understand that you all are not supposed to adjudicate "content disputes", but that does not mean you cannot actually look at the content. The material I added is backed by literally hundreds of reliable sources. Shuki removed that material on the most specious of reasons and has done so repeatedly. If people are free to simply remove whatever information they like without regard to how well sourced it is then this place truly is a complete waste of time and fails its goal of providing an educational resource. If you or any other admin is actually serious about creating an "encyclopedia" then you should not, no cannot, tolerate such behavior as repeatedly removing well-sourced content. Our "sins" are not all equal here. You have on hand a user adding well-sourced content. You have another user twisting policy and filibustering the inclusion of that well-sourced material. Shuki has in the past removed sources that say all Israeli settlements are illegal because they dont say that specific settlement is illegal. Now, the removals are of sources that say that the specific settlement is illegal because the source does not supposedly "prove" that and does not cite a specific court case saying that the specific settlement is illegal. That is plainly an absurd reason. If you want to treat both the person adding well-sourced material and the person removing it for absurd, ideological reasons then topic-ban us both. If, however, you want to ensure that our articles follow the policies of this website then I invite you to take a closer look at the circumstances. We are not guilty of the same sins here, and treating us as though we were may be easy but is without justification. nableezy - 14:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Re Stifle: I would like to know what exactly you say I am at fault of. I added sources that say specific Israeli settlements are illegal under international law. Almost 5 years ago Shuki reverted the same information asking that a source be provided. I provided that source. Shuki has since shifted the goalposts writing that the source must "prove" that Ariel is illegal under international law. No sane person can read WP:V or WP:RS and come to any such conclusion. What exactly did I do wrong here? nableezy - 18:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[153]

Discussion concerning Shuki[edit]

Statement by Shuki[edit]

Nableezy has never shown any attempt to collaborate and make reasonable efforts with other editors. Nableezy also forgot to mention that he is violating the closure of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Israeli settlements. Since he 'lost' that RfC he started, he has wasted no time in opening a new front with his typical and documented battleground mentality. Nableezy is one of the most negative editor I have met on WP and has nothing good to say on articles. It is not 'fun' to edit with people who hold this attitude for long. Most people mellow out and learn to work with editors with opposing POVs, Nableezy simply cannot. I wish I could say he was pro-Palestinian, but even a superficial glance at his contributions show that he has nothing positive to say on Palestinian pages, and is merely a general SPA for including controversial negative material into Israeli articles. Until now, there was no 'BLP' for geographical places, and because of him, I think there should be one. Nableezy, blocked numerous times for problematic behavior, is himself in violation of AE with his insertion of negative boilerplate WP:REDFLAG material. Specifically, his latest non-consensus solo effort, is to find any mention of a locality that also says that it is illegal. No proof of any court action specifically declaring this and definitely in contrast to many court cases with the Israeli Supreme Court that has decided whether a place is illegal (part of Amona that was in fact torn down) or not (Revava won a libel case against Peace Now for making false claims of its 'illegality').

I have certainly not changed any tactics, thanks for pre-empting me here with what I had just accused Nableezy on another page, I have always demanded that sources specifically mention the locality and not just in passing. There is no such thing as 'super-majority' and the RfC Nableezy filed failed to approve that peculiar non-existent policy. --Shuki (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Nableezy, your RfC was not clear from the beginning, and I'll say that is the reason it failed, and failed to go anywhere constructive and why I (and most anyone not in your POV) was reluctant to take part for so long. --Shuki (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


Reply to Stifle and others including Nableezy. Peculiar the accusations and follow-up accusations as well. One only needs to look at what both of us do simultaneously to see who collaborates with others and improve WP, and who is merely here to get blood to push his interests. On 18 July at 19:19, at the same time that Nableezy is putting the final touches on this repeat AE against me filed 5 minutes later (and sadly against himself as well - People who live in glass houses should not throw stones), I can be found collaborating with an 'opposing' editor here.

2nd reply, to Stifle, to 'topic-ban us both' Nableezy, and 'take one for the team' RomaC. I certainly do not believe in WP suicide, but we know that Nableezy is ready for martyrdom with many uncivil remarks made and threatened retirement when he was blocked and then surprisingly weirdly unblocked early at the beginning of the year. Frankly, I know that most 'Israeli cities, villages, towns, and more in the West Bank / Judea and Samaria Area' articles are not on the watchlists of many, if at all, and no one has been contributing to the topic of 'Israeli settlements' articles as much as me though I wish I had more help. I admit to the kneejerk reaction to what I saw Nableezy doing (evidently and his admitted flooding of articles with tendentious boilerplate one liners, contrary to Sandstein's closing RfC recommendation to deal with each issue on a case-by-case basis) was to quickly make those reverts, and hopefully merely temporarily freeze him on his admitted conquest to add it to all 200+ articles, so that perhaps the WP community could handle this much better with, hold on, collaboration and consensus. I was not going to follow him around on each page to put it in another section, given that some editors have an issue with that too - something that calm consensus should decide. I cannot recall too many instances in which we have seen a reasonable and rational Nableezy, wanting to accomplish anything except to get is POV included and he only bothers to behave if others are watching too. To his credit, and perhaps the exception that proves the rule, he did start the RfC. Unfortunately, he did not bother to pursue further dispute resolution given his failure with the RfC.

3rd, to Stifle, I do not see how a three month topic ban is proportional to merely reverting six articles once and with my long-term record which is centred primarily around creating, improving and maintaining Israeli geography articles. Since coming out of my single 1RR 'topic ban', I have managed to keep that 1RR behaviour intact except for a repeat SPA anon who was/is repeatedly just making a mess on three articles and has been reverted by others as well. On the other hand, comparing me with Nableezy who was;

  1. topic banned for two months
  2. blocked and topic 1RR and violates it leading to
  3. 2month topic ban and then
  4. comes out of his most recent two WP:ARBPIA topic ban swinging to which I alerted the collaboration project and
  5. a very SPECIAL MENTION making blanket reverts not unlike what he is accusing me of doing scroll to bottom to the edit comments sources call this place a Palestinian village (?!)

and his repeated use of AE for the hunt (of me), even though warned only a month ago from making non-actionable claims

The proper thing to do would have been for Nableezy to make another RfC, or use other dispute resolution mechanism to engage editors in this issue, or perhaps get other advice from a mentor, or like-minded but mature editor or admin. I am not interested in 'taking anyone down with me' and frankly, I don't care to see Nableezy topic banned either (and I have tried unsuccessfully in the past to suggest he make positive contributions instead of only the negative edits that he characterizes him). Peace, here on WP and in Israel, will not be made by one side attacking the other but by each side wanting to progress and improve. If I could sanction Nableezy, it would be to A) get him to join Wikipedia:Palestine, and B1) improve above stub status 200 Palestinian locality articles (in contrast to the 200 Israeli articles he was beginning to edit), or alternatively B2) create 100 new 'pro'-Arab/Palestinian articles starting with the requested ones on WP:Palestine (not anti-Israel ones) or alternatively B3) work on getting GA status for five Arab/Palestinian articles of his choice (preferably ones that promote Arab issues, and do not include anything about 'international law', warfare and blood). Instead, until then, I see this as another frivolous attempt ato bully me and scare others as well. Many have come to support me here (surprisingly, thank you and I have not emailed or canvassed anyone either) and few have come to back Nableezy up, and there is no shortage of editors who are on 'his side'. It is a fact that the six accused edits mentioned are definitely not 'an attempt by me at filibustering', that while my accuser prefers otherwise, even if I have shown to accept inserting material my personal POV would rather not have included and I collaborate. --Shuki (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Shuki[edit]

Comment by Malik Shabazz

Shuki, where does WP:V or WP:RS require that a source "not just [mention the locality] in passing"? I seem to remember you made the opposite argument in the past. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG --Shuki (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The assertion that Israeli settlements are illegal under the Geneva conventions is an "exceptional claim"? Wow. Just wow.
I'm sorry, Shuki, but REDFLAG doesn't say what you think it says, and you don't get to set your own bar for which sources are acceptable and which aren't. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Comments by Mbz1

The issues raised in this request are issues related to the contested content of a few articles, and should be discussed on the articles talk pages as such. IMO the request should be closed as non actionable because Shuki has never violated any policy.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

On a side note I am surprised that Nableezy while filing the request about Shuki has no problems with IP, who inserts unsourced POV to the same articles with the edit summaries like this one for example: "an illegal settlement built on a stolen and occupied land is NOT a villeinage!!!! stop promoting lies violating wikipedias terms and the international law!!!!". --Mbz1 (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Response to Gatoclass question about Shuki editing against consensus. No, they did not, just the opposite. Please take a look at one of the articles in question talk page's discussion. Nableezy started it just few hours before he filed this AE, and there's no consensus there. As user:Noon put it:
Israeli settlement is the FIRST descriptor of this locality in this article. Click it and you'll get all arguments regarding settlements. No need to repeat it again and again. This is what links are for in wiki article, unless you wish to make a non neutral point.
I am not going to discuss the fairness and/or correctness of user:Noon's statement because it does not belong to AE. It is a content dispute, which cannot be resolved through arbitration enforcement. --Mbz1 (talk) 05:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


I really liked Shuki's proposal about sanctions for Nableezy. In general I believe that topic bans should be imposed rarely, if there's absolutely no other choice. I believe uninvolved admins should be more creative in the sanctioning of the involved editors. I actually liked how Tznkai topic banned Supreme_Deliciousness:

"This topic ban will run for 30 days from 00:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC) or until I see one of the following: A comprehensive and good faith proposal for a neutral standard on naming conventions, to be submitted for the consideration of Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration|The Israel Palestine Collaboration WikiProject; a comprehensive and good faith proposal for a neutral standard on how images are chosen for Levant cuisine, to be submitted for the consideration of Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration|The Israel Palestine Collaboration WikiProject; or a 3000 word essay on the meaning and importance of assuming good faith and avoiding battleground behavior."

So I concur with Shuki proposal about sanctions for Nableezy. It will help Nableezy to avoid being anti-Israeli single purpose account, and it is always the right thing to do. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

To the closing administrator. I would like to stress out three important points provided by me and others as a small summary:


  1. Nableezy filed this AE at 19:24, 18 July 2010 less than 4 hours after he started the discussion on the issue at the article's talk page, and failed to get consensus. It is not the way to proceed. It was neither an emergency, nor BLP, nor something else extraordinary that could not have waited for a few days. This request created unwanted wiki drama, that could have been avoided by a simple discussion.
  1. Every article in question, except one, is linked to Israeli settlement. Israeli settlement article provides all information about Israeli settlements therefore there's no need to repeat it in every article. As somebody has written ""International law" is a tricky thing that people claim to know, but there has been no binding court case on the matter, and considerable legal debate. The Israeli settlement article discusses the complex legal issues at length", and it is the place to learn about it. The one that is not linked to Israeli settlement is linked to Community settlement (Israel), and I am not sure how it got to Nableezy's request in a first place.

According to the above this AE against Shuki should be closed as non actionable. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

To the closing uninvolved admins, I am not going to jump into your space as very much involved Gatoclass did, but I do agree with him: banned editors should know what they are banned for. Shuki has done absolutely nothing wrong at all. The issue of the request is a content dispute, which could not and should not be enforced by AE. Nableezy did not make nearly enough efforts to resolve the issue at the article talk pages before bringing the matter up to AE. He demonstrated a battleground behavior, and it is not first time he files non actionable, time-wasting AE. That's why IMO Nableezy should be given 2 weeks symbolic ban on AE just to make him give it another thought before he files another AE. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


Comment by Gatoclass[edit]

While I certainly agree that the status of all such settlements in international law should be outlined somewhere in the relevant articles, it doesn't strike me as imperative that this status be noted in the intro, unless perhaps the intro is long and/or the settlement a particular source of friction. IMO, it's sufficient that the status of such settlements be referred to somewhere in the body of the article. In any case, this looks to me like a run-of-the-mill content dispute, and I don't see anything actionable under ARBPIA. Gatoclass (talk) 03:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Re Nableezy's questions - firstly, your diffs do not demonstrate that Shuki has been "filibustering the content from appearing anywhere in the article". If he has done so, that may be an issue worth addressing, but I think you would need a pretty strong case, ie lots of diffs, to demonstrate that and you haven't provided any. In regards to your other question: Is a systematic campaign to violate core policies of this website not actionable? I would say it is, or should be, actionable, but again it would have to be clearly demonstrated. Perhaps, say, if you could demonstrate a persistent defying of consensus across multiple pages, that could be considered disruptive. But ultimately a lot will depend on the view of the closing admin. Gatoclass (talk) 05:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Having just read Shuki's comments above, I am obliged to amend my position. I consider Shuki's statement that "I have always demanded that sources specifically mention the locality and not just in passing" to be an absurdity, as it's clear that if a reliable source states that all Israeli settlements in area x are illegal, one does not need to find a source which specifically mentions that settlement y in area x is illegal. If Shuki has been reverting based on such specious reasoning, that could certainly in my view be considered disruptive and thereby sanctionable under ARBPIA. Gatoclass (talk) 05:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

an Israeli organization .... was forced to pay damages and issue a public apology to settlers after falsely claiming that a particular settlement was built illegally on private Palestinian land - Ynhockey.

Well, fine, but that is quite irrelevant to this discussion. Sources can always be wrong, we knew that. The issue here is that Shuki is demanding a higher burden of proof for the inclusion of material than is required by WP:RS. He is demanding that sources specifically state that a given settlement is "illegal", when logically it is only necessary to demonstrate that a settlement is in the occupied territories to demonstrate its illegality. A source could of course be wrong in making either statement, so that's an entirely separate issue. Gatoclass (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

People need to stop making arguments for their take on the content dispute since that it not the scope of these requests - Cptnono.

Cptnono, there is a difference between a content dispute and sheer illogic. If someone holds a position that is plainly logically fallacious, and maintains that position even after having its erroneous nature pointed out to him, that has ceased to be a mere content dispute and become disruption. In this case, Shuki's position is rendered untenable by simple logical deduction:

  1. All Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are illegal under international law.
  2. This is an Israeli settlement in the occupied territories.
  3. This is an illegal Israeli settlement.

There can therefore be no justification for Shuki's claim that Nableezy is required to produce sources that state a particular settlement is illegal. Nableezy only needs to produce a source which states that the settlement is in the occupied territories, because its illegality is a function of its location. If Shuki is prepared to acknowledge his error and agree to stop reverting on those grounds, perhaps there is no need for further action here. If however he is going to insist on maintaining his current view, I think that would be grounds for imposing further sanctions. Gatoclass (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Gatoclass is in violation of WP:GAME. Nableezy's adding of "illegal under international law [like every other settlement]" to the first -- I repeat: 1st -- paragraph of dozens of articles is exceptionally poor form after the joint RFC to promote this action failed. Gatoclass, Nableezy, Tiamut, and co. support of of this collab RFC did not sway the general public and Gatoclass's comments here are an ARBPIA violation of WP:GAME. i.e. to promote a sanction on Shuki after failing to get the results he was looking for through the proper course of action (RFC, dispute resolution) is a bad faith attempt to use the policies of wikipedia. Thank you. JaakobouChalk Talk 03:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
"the general public", that's a good one! RomaC TALK 03:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Ynhockey

While it pains me to say so, I have to agree with Shuki's assessment of Nableezy's general editing practices (although I disapprove of the specific terms used). It is unfortunate that Nableezy has chosen not to make constructive contributions to articles about settlements, but rather to go out of his way to "prove" that they are illegal. Even if, theoretically, ample sources could be provided and the significance of this statement could be proven, it still seems like a WP:BATTLE action to just go around articles about settlements saying they're illegal and adding no other content. This WP:AE request seems like yet another piece of WikiDrama to get an editor from "the other side" banned and thus have a certain version of the article say. If Nableezy continues to edit settlement-related articles, I sincerely hope that he invests more resources into improving sections about the history, geography and culture of settlements. —Ynhockey (Talk) 04:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a relevant note, although this might not belong at WP:AE, but I thought it more appropriate to post it here than on user talk: As Shuki noted, an Israeli organization (Peace Now) was forced to pay damages and issue a public apology to settlers after falsely claiming that a particular settlement was built illegally on private Palestinian land (Hebrew article). What I am saying is that this is an extremely sensitive issue that is essentially similar to WP:BLP (which was created, in part, to avoid legal action against WMF), and it is important that each settlement is examined on a case-by-case basis. —Ynhockey (Talk) 16:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Note to Stifle: I will respect any decision you make, but ask you to look at what each editor has done for the articles in question. In fact, as far as I can tell, Shuki has singlehandedly written most of the content in settlement-related articles. As I noted above, Nableezy has unfortunately failed to make any contributions to these articles. I ask that this is taken into account in any decision you make. —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? nableezy was contributing to the settlement articles by adding the entire worldview with reliable sources. And the sourced worldview was removed by Shuki. Who is the one that has been trying to contribute to the articles here? and who is the one who has been tampering the articles here? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Cptnono

I hope that any request for enforcement against Nableezy will not look like reprisal since it has been coming for some time now.

The RfC closure set a very good chance to do some case by case basis with a firm reminder not to start any shenanigans. This should have been handled better and Shuki should not be shouldering the brunt of the blame.Cptnono (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Gilsa makes a point that the wording and the sources have been questioned. Editors continuing to stick them in on a mad spree after a contentious RfC is not the way to go about doing things. Shuki was reverting what he saw as contentious edits inserted on multiple articles and now he gets an AE for being a POV pusher essentially. Bad form and Shuki shouldn;t have even been brought here. A little bit of talk page would be better but unfortunately that hardly stops the wackiness going on in this topic area.Cptnono (talk) 06:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
People need to stop making arguments for their take on the content dispute since that it not the scope of these requests.Cptnono (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Stop discussing content here, Gatoclass. Not everyone agrees with it so it is therefore contentious. Methods used to include or removed that contentious material are the concern. Maybe editors feeling so strongly that their edits can be defended with assertions such as shear logic is the problem since their are channels in place for content disputes which should not be ignored. Unless of course the purpose is to set a precedent (Shuki was wrong therefore everything must be mentioned as "occupied"). Basically what I am saying is that Shuki is allowed to revert bold edits. Nableezy is free to seek other channels to include it if that is done. There is not an overuse of the revert function and Shuki is not alone so why make such sweeping changes when there is an ongoing dispute? And I agree that AE needs to get a little tougher on editors who have repeatedly been blocked or received sanctions if it is shown that they have crossed the line. Cptnono (talk) 04:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)\
Why Nbaleezy is being scrutinized has come up here. I really don't think it matters if Gatoclass wants to switch into admin mode and comment down there so fine I will provide some diffs. Nableezy and I were discussing this on my talk page and he also asked for some evidence of what I thought was his wrongdoing. My thoughts on it are that he needlessly reverts and does not participate with a collaborative mindset. If Shuki is POV pushing than Nableezy surely is but if both of them stop reverting and finding other methods I don't care that much about what they do.
His response was typical for him with deflection and other assertions such as: It was propaganda (kind of a dirty word here), It was sourced (disregarding that the sources have been questioned and that we should not be mirroring the tone of biased sources), reverts were to a troll (even though he has edited in tandem with an IP that others have accused of being a troll), and so on. I'm not going to list diffs of accusations of edit warring not related to the subtopic this AE gets into, civility, gaming, outing , and other potential problems since Stifle might have a good suggestion and overdoing the diffs would just lead to needless mudslinging. What is an obvious problem is that Nableezy came off of a restriction and within a day started rocking the boat in issues dealing with the legality of places, occupation, and settlers. Regardless of his feelings, he needs to stop hitting the revert button.
I think a full-on topic ban would be fine but I am obviously frustrated with him and Stifle's idea might work. I also think a 1rr would be good. For Shuki, if he is reverting as much as Nableezy than he should suffer similar consequences. I don't buy any argument that says the listed reverts show him as POV pusher but I am admittedly biased.

Reply to Cptnonos "Diffs and thoughts and stuff" I have edited 1080 articles. I am interested in the Arab-Israeli conflict and so are many others, so those who are interested in the same topic will of course run into me on several articles. Now to Cptnonos accusations where he mentions my name:

  • I have edited the Mount Hermon article for a very long time, my first edit there was over a year ago. So I did not just "pop up" there just because nableezy edited it. And my edit there on the 7th July was not the same as Nableezys, they were two seperate edits. At the Golan Heights article there has been talks many times and at Mount Hermon talkpage we have had many talks about the issue, and I have participated at the talkpage discussions at both articles every single time. All reliable neutral sources show clearly that we can not say that the area is in Israel since that is against the entire international view (Npov). Also notice that at the Mount Hermon talkpage pushing for the Israeli pov is at least one topic banned sockpuppeteer Amoruso and his sock the Sipio account.
  • Concerning the Ortal, Golan Heights article, nableezy actually reverted himself there, back to Shukis verion, so there was no rv there from him. The problem there was that Shuki had changed position of the settlement and kibbutz and he had not gotten any consensus for the rearrangement yet he continued to change the position from the status quo. So why did he do this? I asked him repeatedly at the talkpage to show me at what time the "kibbutz" was before "settlement" but still he hasn't shown this til this day. And I did one rv at the 24th June and then almost one month later on 18th July did another rv and the only reason for the second rv was because he still after all this time hadn't shown me at the talkpage at what time exactly when both terms was in the article was the "kibbutz" before "settlement". Just like he right now hasn't answered to my latest post there. Also my last revert there at the time 18.32 18th July was by accident, I unintentionally pressed the rollback button, but I reverted back to his version and explained this to him: [172]
  • Concerning Neve Ativ, I did not just "stepp in" there, as I will explain below that I am familiar with Jubata ez Zeit and Neve Ativ. A newly registered account Martinakohl came and removed that Neve ativ was built on top of Jubata ez Zeit, he claimed that Marsad was an unreliable source [173] so Nableezy added a source from cambridge university[174] but the newly registered account continued to remove this clearly reliable source several times and also edit warred with a user named Jeff G. and several IPs to remove the sourced information. And I knew in advance that Neve Ativ was built on Jubata ez Zeit because it was me who started the Jubata ez Zeit article, and I had edited the Neve Ativ article before adding this info:[175], and I also had another source to confirm the same thing from the Jubata article, so I added the other source [176] and I explained at the talkpage [177] and just because the title of the book source I added was called "Settlements and cult sites on Mount Hermon, Israel: Ituraean culture in the Hellenistic and Roman periods" , he removed it saying: "Jubata ez-Zeit is not a Roman village" which is complete nonsense since it has nothing to do with anything, the text I added to the article did not say it was Roman and the source in the book did not say it was Roman. He was blocked [178] and then he created two sockpuppets to continue to forcibly removed the sourced content: [179][180]. So in this "conflict" I made one rv and in that rv added another source and I participated at the talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if there was confusion. I wasn't trying to single you out here and I did not intend for it to an argument against your editing. I think you still make some mistakes. So does Jujitsuguy on the other side. Both of you have mirrored some bad habits seen in more experienced users like Nableezy but neither of you are under any scrutiny here.Cptnono (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Gilisa
Yes, the removed material was sourced. However, the wording was far from being neutral. The international status of Ma'ale Adumim is far more complicated than these sources show. The USA discussed with Israel many times the possibility of acknowledging such cities as regular part of Israel, in fact, it's also discussed between Israel and the palestinian representatives.

Also, these sources are all from Guardian and BBC. While they are usually RS, they are not considered impartial in their attitude through Israel. Infact, once Israel submitted official complaint against the BBC for being biased against it. The BBC then was forced to establish a committee that scrutinized these complaints. They never published the committee's conclusions. If you search the web for it, you will find many reliable sources heavily doubt the neutrality of British media sources like the BBC and the Guardian about the I-P conflict. When it comes to settlements thing then no one is argue that the BBC came up with MA being considered as a settlement by the UN. But it does not represent the entire issue and the wording by itself is harsh and not neutral still.--Gilisa (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Jiujitsuguy
Funny how Nableezy’s name keeps popping up on these boards, over and over again, either as a complainant or respondent. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. It seems to me that he comes into this with soiled hands, edit warring while mastering the art of tag-teaming. Nableezy has adopted the Lord of the Flies approach to editing Wikipedia, reverting endlessly, baiting others into edit wars, tag-teaming and initiating harassing enforcement actions when things don’t quite go his way. The admin who rules on this case should also note that Nableezy has been indeffed (for threatening legal action, later lifted when withdrawn) has been blocked and subjected to lengthy topic bans. This is not exactly your model editor. As for the substantive issues involved, this is a content dispute in which Shuki has provided ample and cogent reasoning for his edits. If anyone should be sactioned, it is Nableezy who continuously uses these enforcement actions as tools of fear to silence his opposition.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Sean.hoyland

This is about policy compliance. We can't have people removing sourced information because the information isn't wearing a hijab or whatever the nothing-to-do-with-policy reason was here. Editors are obliged to edit according to policy. If they are upset by reliable sources saying that Israeli settlements are illegal and editors adding that information to articles there are plenty of other subjects for them to work on. What would happen I wonder if, rather than topic bans and such like, editors who find it difficult to comply with the discretionary sanctions were simply restricted from removing sourced material from articles ? They could add sourced material, reword existing material but not remove it altogether without calmly proceeding to the talk page and making their case. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Another alternative to the standard and clearly ineffective methods currently employed to deal with neutrality-challenged editors might be to require them to swop to 'the other side' of the conflict for a period. This is something I would really like to see happen personally. If an editor wants to blatantly ignore WP:COI, blatantly ignore the 'Editors counseled' section of the sanctions and consistently advocate for a side in a conflict as so many do then maybe there should be a cost to the editor. Perhaps they should have to advocate for 'the other side' too and the benefit should accrue to Wikipedia in the form of improved content and a general reduction in silliness. If an editor is genuinely here to build a better encyclopedia they shouldn't mind adding policy compliant material for a period even if it comes from sources they don't like such as..um..the BBC and even if it makes 'their side' look bad in their eyes. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Epeefleche

When we have highly disruptive editors (as in, those who have been blocked three times already this year) elevating their content disputes to non-actionable complaints, in apparent efforts to further their own POV, we have a wasteful time-suck. Perhaps it's time to consider ways to slow down our most disruptive editors; especially those who gravitate towards controversial areas such as the I-P area. Something that slows down those editors who have already been blocked 3 times in 2010, say, from taking any of various steps that lead to wastes of time for the community at large (ARE, AfD, etc., in the I-P area). In the U.S., felons are prohibited from voting in many elections. And at wikipedia, when articles are controversial, we limit editing to certain editors who we view as more trustworthy -- such as non-IPs. Extending those concepts here might prove beneficial.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Misarxist

Just over a week ago Shuki came of a 3 month 1r restriction (AE result) this doesn't appear to have sunk in as since then:

He just doesn't seem to be here to edit collaboratively and probably requires a topic ban rather than another revert restriction. Misarxist (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry to get into your space I will move my comment, if you'd like me to, but did you notice by any chance that in first three examples of so called edit warring you provided, Shuki reverted IP vandal, who was reverted by quite a few other editors, me including, as well. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Re the admin comments about 'content dispute', obviously there is disagreement about the content, but the complaint is about straight-foward multiple reverts of sourced content without discussion. As I noted above (even with Mbz1's note, yes that's not as simple as I claimed, but the 3r example is undeniable) we are talking about an a know tendentious edit-warrior. There doesn't seem to be any real argument about Shuki being sanctioned again. But the complaints about Nableezey's record (the bulk of the responses here) are not relevant to that. And if Nableezey's conduct is at fault there's going to to need to be evidence cited, the fact that he's in a dispute with a tendentious nationalist editor isn't good enough in itself. Also while the underlying and widespread dispute does need to be dealt with, this simply isn't the right venue. Misarxist (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by AMuseo.

Since the status of all land that has been conquered in a defensive war is a complex matter and the status of the West Bank finds no consensus among international legal experts, it is POV pushing to write the kind of statement that User:Nableezy is defending. I do not see nableezy questioning the status of the Western Sahara, or of Tibet, or criticizing the recent genocidal attack on the Tamil. He writes on behalf of a political cause dear to his heart. This does not make him a useful colleague. You can, after all, always find newspaper articles making flat assertions about just about anything. this is not scholarship. A simple statement that there is no consensus regarding the legal status of the West Bank would be better and could be well-supported. But I do not expect scholarship or balance from Nableezy. He is a highly contentions editor, the kind that drives moderate, informed editors from Wikipedia. Actually, I have come to believe that it is his goal to make editing so unpleasant that moderate people will go away, leaving the field open to him to use Wikipedia as a battleground to wage a Palestinian proxy war.AMuseo (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Fandriampahalamana

Although I wasn't involved in the articles mentioned above, I do feel it necessary to decry Nableezy's disruptive edit habits and intimidation of editors. On the Helen Thomas article while I explained every move I made, he vandalized my edits without any explanation, or with meaningless ones which is even worse. Once, it could have been explained away, but not a pattern of them. Then he had the gall to try to intimidate me by pretending that he is an administrator and admonishing me (for doing what is right) when he should have admonished himself for editing in bad faith. On one edit on July 13 (not pertaining to me) seeing that he can’t have it his way, he then made another controversial edit slanting the lead and explaining it with "all right, you want specifics add specifics, not just one part of the story." He seems to be using Wikipedia to tell the story the way he wants it to be told, as he actually admitted in a moment of truth and exasperation, of if you're getting it your way then I'll get it also my way. He sees everything as "your way" or "my way". I think he is unhelpful and a drain on controversial articles. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Peter Cohen

It's unfortunate that this request is following the usual pattern of people's views on Shuki's conduct being 100% corfrelated with their views on the IP dispute. I regret that I'm conforming to that pattern. Looking at the last edits listed by Nableezy, I see that theis effect is to remove any mention of the status of these settlements under international law. It has to be a notable effect about these places that they are considered illegal by major international institutions that pronounce on and enforce international law. The major institutions I have in mind are such organs ases of the UNSC, the high-contracting parties to the Geneva Conventions, the ICC, ICJ etc. When all those that pronounce on the matter say the settlements are illegal and none dissents, then the fact has to be mentioned in the articles. To remove any such mention is a clear violation of WP:NPOV.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Noon: I'm surprised by your reasoning. The quote from Nableezy indicates that there are a number of banned or permanently blocked editors who persist in creating sockpuppets in order to carry on distorting Wikipedia in favour of their political position. Persistent sockpuppeteers are damaging to Wikipedia. They increase the appearance of conflict between legitimate editors and anyone who uses SPI/CU to root out these users is to be praised. Accusations by the likes of Stellarkid who was a puppet of a user banned for participating in a drive by an external organisation to distort the content of Wikipedia have a wholly deleterious effect on the project. The fact that they have edit-warring and the reporting of legitimate users to the various admin boards as weapons is just evidence that thre is an organised effort to malign political opponents. One of those opponents should not be criticised for pointing this out. That certain editors leap to the defence of such sockpuppeteers also raises the question as to whether they are here to improve Wikipedia or whether they are themselves part of the effort to disrupt the project.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Brewcrewer[edit]

As this is apparently the place to hang out these days, I feel obliged to chime in lest people forget my existence. Unlike some other editors here who feel this is an content related dispute and should be closed as unactionable, I'm of the position that some action should take place as a result of this report.

The editor who filed the report insists that the first three words of any article on an Israeli entity beyond the '48 border should be "illegal settlement". This position has resulted in lots of edit warring. Numerous editors and a RFC later (linked above) have revealed a consensus that although the argument for illegality should clearly be included in an article, it should not be the first three words, per WP:NPOV.

Nevertheless, Nableezy still insists that "illegal" be in the opening sentence and any position taken to the contrary is "stupid". Not only is it "stupid", arguing that it does not belong in the first sentence is an ARBCOM violation.

Nableezy claims that Shuki wants to remove any mention of illegality of article, but that's blatantly false. Each article linked by Nableezy mentions the illegality issue, some even have an entire section discussing the illegality argument.

Thus, what we have here is a blatantly frivolous AE report filed by one of the most prolific AE filers, who should know better. Some sort of action should be taken so that this huge waste of time does not reoccur. Perhaps an AE ban? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, sorry for placing this statement here, but that is simply not true. Nowhere did the RFC say that the words "illegal settlement" should be used as the first three words, legality was not even the topic of the RFC (which, oh by the way, certainly did not result in the consensus that you claim). And nowhere in the articles Ofra, Ariel (city), Amona, or Immanuel (town) is the legal status discussed. Kindly do not misrepresent what I have written or the RFC or the content of the articles. nableezy - 14:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The first two links you brought as the basis for your claim have entire sections catered to the illegality issue.[187][188] I don't plan on spending more time litigating and word playing. This has wasted enough time already.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
And the rest of them? You wrote "Each article linked by Nableezy mentions the illegality issue". Is that or is that not true? And you did not address the gross misrepresentation of the RFC. I guess that is "word playing". nableezy - 14:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment by RomaC

Concur with Peter Cohen above on all points. See many examples of Israel saying A and the rest of the world saying B, and some editors pushing A first, then a mention of B, then a rebuttal per A as "neutral." As for the admin suggestion below re: possible concurrent 3-month blocks, excuse my cynicism but I imagine Shuki might agree to "take one for the team" and be blocked if Nableezy were also taken out. There are few topic areas with nearly as much concerted partisan activity as Israel-Palestine. Yes, Nableezy may be biased, but he's also badly outnumbered which makes him sort of stick out in these content disputes. Respectfully, RomaC TALK 14:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Noon

As I understand the AE regarding the I-P articles, one of its purposes was to facilitate a reasonable editing atmosphere in this contentious area. Contributors who exhibited "battleground" mentality and aggressive behaviour were banned or were blocked for a long period of time. In contrast to this purpose, the filing party of this request is engaged for a long time in trying to get the upper hand in content disputes by making considarable efforts to ban his opponents or block them indefinitely. Just one sample illustration of his "battleground mentality" may be found here, where he says: "There were three people who had pushed for my first topic ban. One of those was later blocked as a sock of NoCal100, the one who filed the complaint has now been blocked as a sock of Dajudem/Tundrabuggy, and the last is still taking aim at me." WP is not a battleground nor a venue for shooting ducks as done in Luna Parks. It looks as if the filing party spends most of his energy either to make small controversial edits to push his political views, while violating the fundamental WP:NPOV policy, or in targetting disruptively his opponents, espacially those who dare criticizing or reporting him, until they get out of his way. Content should adhere WP:NPOV not only in the facts and refs, but also in the tone of what is written, and how and where the facts are presented (ie. either in the lead, or as a link to the relevant article where all POVs are presented, or in a separate section in the same article where more views can be presented). accordingly, and for the huge waste of time dealing with this unwarranted request, it seems that the filing party fails to adhere to the purpose of building an encyclopedia, and the I-P AE penalty guidelines may apply to him. Noon (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed this "and the last is still taking aim at me" too, and I agree it is yet another example of a battleground behavior by user:Nableezy--Mbz1 (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
@ Peter Cohen regarding this quote: Please listen to the music, imagine the moving targets, listen to the 'shootings', listen to the happy victory shouts, imagine the sniper tracing and targetting his 'enemies' above earth and in war tunnels, look at the sparkling eyes of this sniper when he realizes that some 'enemy troops' are still there hiding disguised somewhere or trying to sneak away... don't you hear real sounds of WAR here in Wikipedia? and this is just one example I've found in few minutes.
In my opinion this battlefield mentality is what the Arbitration Committee tried to stop, or, at least, significantely reduce, in their harsh sanctions in the I-P case and its subsequent AE mechanism.
There is no place for such a war mentality when trying to build a useful and accurate encyclopedia. Noon (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Supreme Deliciousness

Stifle, Nableezy has not done anything wrong here, while Shuki has been removing sourced information. Please look at the real issue instead of what other people say here at this enforcement. Every time there is a pro-Israeli editor up for enforcement, the same group of people show up in defense of that editor. Please look at the real issue here instead. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Stifle, please think about what you are saying, you are talking about a sanction on a user for adding the entire international view with a reliable source into an article. This is not a content dispute, when someone removes the entire worldview that is sourced with a reliable source - that's censorship, you can not impose some kind of "collective punishment" here. Also agree with Gatoclass, please explain your comments about this in more detail, "each side is at fault" is vague. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Additional comment by Jiujitsuguy

When evaluating sanctions, prior disciplinary history should be factored in. A look at Shuki’s record reveals two relatively short blocks, the last of which occurred more than a year ago This is an indication that Shuki is adhering to wiki policy and guidelines. By contrast, Nableezy’s block history is a mess, full of lengthy blocks and topic bans[189] In fact, Nableezy has just come off a topic ban. In addition, Nableezy has previously been indefinitely blocked for threatening legal action against Wikipedia. It was lifted when he withdrew his threat but it shows that he has lost sight of reality and can not distinguish between the real and virtual worlds. It is clear from his prior sanction history that this is an editor who takes a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing with a “take no prisoners” mentality. Clearly, under the totality of circumstances, the person who deserves to be permanently banned from the topic area is Nableezy.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You forgot Shukis recent 3 month 1rvpd restriction [190] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

When you are a recidivist, like Nableezy, when your block log history reads like a lengthy rap sheet, like Nableezy’s when you find yourself on these boards on a daily basis, either as a respondent or complainant, like Nableezy, When you come into every I-A article with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, like Nableezy, when an editor loses his grip on reality and threatens to sue Wikipedia, as Nableezy has, it’s time to ask; Is this a productive editor or a disruptive one? I leave it to the admins to decide.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Pantherskin

I have not encountered Shuki in the past, although it is clear from the diffs provided that he has a strong POV which is reflected in his edits. On the other side, he is prolific content contributor in the Israel content area, and most of his edits clearly improve the enyclopedia. Regarding Nableezy I have encountered him and again it is clear that his edits reflect his strong POV. That in itself is not necessarily a problem (although usually it is), but when coupled with incivility and combative language ([191], [192] - some recent example, but from cases clearly a pattern), speculations and accusations about the ulterior motives of other editors ([193], [194]) it becomes a problem as it makes collaborative editing difficult to impossible. I am ignoring here the partisan editing of Nableezy and presumably Shuki - it would probably be beyond the scope and my take on it is that we probably need a fully fledged arbcom case to deal with the current detoriation in the Israel-Palestine topic area.

Nableezys comment "Go away" was to a blocked sockpuppet who had repeatedly disrupted the Golan heights article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
No, it was directed against an IP address that was temporarily blocked and tried to start a discussion on the talk page (at last). I do not know where you get the sockpuppet part from, as there is no indication on the IPs talk page and no sockpuppet investigation. Pantherskin (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The IP was blocked [195] and then he used another way to edit the talkpage while his other IP was blocked, that's block evasion. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Tariqabjotu

This isn't about Shuki specifically, but the prevalence of arbitration enforcement requests and posts on AN3, ANI, and RFPP, especially as of late, regarding Israel-Palestine articles and articles that only mention something Israel-Palestine-related suggests that it's high time for another ARBCOM case. Either that, or admins need to be more willing to exact serious sanctions against editors that have been shown to be disruptive on these articles. We see the same editors being reported again and again (and the same editors doing the reporting again and again). This is one of today's most persistent and divisive conflicts, and while I appreciate people's willingness to give editors second, third, and fourth chances, the fact of the matter is, those people who edit disruptively in this arena will almost certainly always edit disruptively in this arena. This method of moderate sanctions and warnings that never get followed up on is not working. It's clear that a certain set of editors are testing the community's patience, and if they can't voluntarily move to an area in which they can more constructively edit, they should be forced to do so post-haste. -- tariqabjotu 12:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Agree with Tariqabjotu. However the administrators who regularly "manage" these areas are just as much at fault for the disruption as those who some consider "problematic" editors. The admins have become unwilling pawns of so called "battlefield warriors" and are therefore are unable to be non-bias, uninvolved parties themselves. Part of the solution, I feel, to defusing this situation (in addition to a new/clarified ARBCOM case) is to remove the administrators who regularly "enforce" actions on this board. I'm not suggesting revoking their admin status, only that since there is gross failure on their part to effectively administer IP-related disputes on ANI/AE (as evident by the level of REPEATED drama that regularly appears here), they should no longer be making binding decisions on editors whose action is brought to ANI/AE. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 19:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's entirely fair to blame the administrators here. The problem is not so much the administrators, as the AE system itself, which is still remarkably undefined and arbitrary. What this project needs more than anything in my view, is a simple, streamlined, transparent and predictable process for dealing with content disputes, which is what most disputation is ultimately about. We have got to stop throwing the content dispute dilemma into the too hard basket, and come up with a method of dealing with such disputes that doesn't compromise the Wikipedia commitment to NPOV. Gatoclass (talk) 03:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The administrators who regularly handle the tag-team "game" that AE has become have ignored concerns stated by others about the process and summarily ignored or dismissed those who question their neutrality. They have allowed themselves to become pawns of those who use Wikipedia as a battleground and therefore have ceased to become "neutral" "uninvolved" parties. Therefore, they do indeed share in the blame. True, the current AE system has been greatly abused and become a tool with which to "do battle", but you cannot ignore the fact that this "three ring circus" has been allowed to carry on as long as it has -- and to the extent that it has. There are other remedies for abuse of wikipedia processes themselves, completely separate from IP Arbcom regulations, but no one seems to be interested in taking advantage of them. Instead, the destructive, abusive, and disruptive behavior is allowed to continue unabated, with editors gaming the system knowing full well that the worst that will happen is a slap on the wrist. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 04:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, my concern is that remedies are often too drastic rather than too lenient. But it can go either way. That's why I think this process is unduly arbitrary - it's usually left up to a single admin to decide upon a remedy, and depending on who he is or how he sees it, it might end up being anything from a 24-hour block to an indef ban. It's kind of like Russian roulette, you just never know what the outcome will be. We ought to be able to do better than that. Gatoclass (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
What if we had three admins decide a short term remedy - Maybe if an immediate block is warranted, do an emergency block for 12-24 hours, then have a group of admins decide what the "new" block should be. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment by ZScarpia

Unlike the Israeli legal position, which is irrelevant to it, the overwhelming international viewpoint, as embodied in such organisations as the UN, is very staightforward: the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law (see the article on Israeli settlements, such documents as the text of UN Human Rights Council Resolution 7/18 and newspaper articles such as this one from Le Monde Diplomatique).

The Wikipedia rules require, as stated by Nableezy, that articles should present the all significant viewpoints and in a proportionate manner. Those on Israeli settlements and outposts, particularly major ones such as Ma'ale_Adumim and Ariel, should reflect the main global point of interest in them (as shown by the context in which they normally appear in sources), their status as illegal settlements in occupied territory and their role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Trying to minimise or suppress the proportionate representation of that viewpoint amounts to point-of-view pushing. That is particularly true when reasons given for reverting edits, rather than being based on the Wikipedia rules, are, as they have been here, where a reason given for reverting was that the status of the settlements is uncertain because it has never been examined in a law court, is based in a particular viewpoint (from the international point of view, the settlements are illegal because that is the ruling of the bodies responsible for making those judgements).

The reliablitly of the BBC as a source has been mentioned above. The BBC is far from infallible, but its duty as a public service broadcaster to report neutrally means that its reports are subject to more than normal editorial oversight, which, in Wikipedia terms, is an indication of greater reliability. In 2006, the report produced at the end of an independent review commissioned by the corporation's board of governors was, unlike the internally-produced Balen report, published. The review suggested that the BBC's reporting, if anything, favoured the Israeli side. The review panel recommended that the BBC should make public an abbreviated version of the Israel and Palestine part of its journalists' guide to facts and terminology. In light of the conversation going on here, perhaps the guideline which says, "when writing a story about settlements we can aim, where relevant, to include context to the effect that 'all settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this," which is very similar to the text that Nableezy was trying to introduce, might be seen as of interest.

    ←   ZScarpia   21:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you comment on the RfC? That comment would have been better there. Anyway, so what you are saying is that the articles should start - Ariel is a city in the West Bank....established...with x population. Ariel is an Israeli settlement. That would satisfy what you suggested. --Shuki (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
That is a very revealing comment from Shuki. Even at the end of an enforcement case against him, in which he faces a possible topic ban, he still cannot bring himself to concede that the illegality of these settlements should be mentioned in the settlement articles. Shuki's lack of objectivity in this topic area could scarcely be made more apparent. Is it any wonder that other users become frustrated? Judging by the comments he has made at this AE case, it appears to me that it's time for Shuki to find some other topic area in which to contribute. Gatoclass (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Once again it is a content dispute, which should be decided individually in every situation at the articles talk pages, and it could not and should not be enforced by AE. It is not as black and white as some try to present it here. And no, it is not an enforcement case against Shuki, or at least it is as much against Shuki as it is against Nableezy. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Removing the entire worldview from articles that is sourced from reliable sources is not a content dispute, its embarking on an article in a harmful manner. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Nobody has demonstrated any wrongdoing by Nableezy in this case. Everything that's been said about Nableezy has been in the form of either vague generalities or dredging up of old disputes. I've seen no evidence of current misbehaviour, and I might add that I think his past record of alleged misbehaviour is also overblown. But that of course is another issue. Gatoclass (talk) 03:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
You obviously did not read my comments above in which I show specifically that Nableezy has done exactly what I have and much more, and given that his record is problematic, while mine is significantly better. There is nothing 'revealing' here, and as an admin you should know to discuss the AE here against me (and consequently Nableezy for bringing the spotlight on himself as well) and relative to other accepted/tolerated behaviour on WP, not content. --Shuki (talk) 08:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
You are correct that I did not previously read all your comments, per WP:TLDR. However, I have now read them per your request and stand by my previous comment. Moreover, on closer examination of your arguments I find the following:
Nableezy, blocked numerous times for problematic behavior, is himself in violation of AE with his insertion of negative boilerplate WP:REDFLAG material. Specifically, his latest non-consensus solo effort, is to find any mention of a locality that also says that it is illegal. No proof of any court action specifically declaring this and definitely in contrast to many court cases with the Israeli Supreme Court that has decided whether a place is illegal...
Here, you are characterizing the position of every major international legal body that the settlements are illegal as an exceptional claim per WP:REDFLAG. As Malik noted above, that is simply a preposterous claim. Not only that, but you are conflating Israeli law regarding the legality of settlements with international law, when they are entirely separate entities.
I don't want to speculate on what might motivate you to try and defend these indefensible positions, but the fact that you are continuing to try rings very loud alarm bells for me. I'm not in a position to judge your overall contribution to the project, but if this is typical of your approach to disputes, then I'm sorry to say that I think you are editing in the wrong topic area and need to look for an area that is less emotionally charged for you. Gatoclass (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

{Reply to the comment addressed to me by Shuki at 22:29 (UTC) on 21 July 2010} Ideally every involved editor should be co-operating to produce a less single-perspective article. If the lead section were to be written by me, it would start something like:

Ariel is a city in the West Bank which was founded as an Israeli settlement in 1978. It is now the mother settlement of 26 others in its vicinity. Together, these comprise the Ariel settlement bloc. Like all settlements in the West Bank, the international community views these as illegal, though Israel disputes this. After the one at Ma'ale Adumim, the Ariel settlement bloc is the largest Israeli settlement in the West Bank.

    ←   ZScarpia   20:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

In regard to court judgements on the legality of the settlements, in its role as the principal judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice stated the following in an advisory opinion given to the UN General Assembly on the 9 July 2004:

(page 9 of the summary) ... the Court considers that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable in the Palestinian territories which before the 1967 conflict lay to the east of the Green Line and which, during that conflict, were occupied by Israel ...
(page 10 of the summary) The information provided to the Court shows that, since 1977, Israel has conducted a policy and developed practices involving the establishment of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention which provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” The Security Council has taken the view that such policy and practices “have no legal validity” and constitute a “flagrant violation” of the Convention. The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.

    ←   ZScarpia   02:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The addition of statements noting the international view that particular settlements are illegal has a long history and is not, as far as I can see, a breach of established consensus. For example, in the article on Ariel, the first time such a statement was added in April 2005, a year after the article was created, by Doron.     ←   ZScarpia   15:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


Comment by Hope&Act3!

it is the first time that I express my views in such a setting and being inexperienced I will probably be clumsy, please be indulgent. Some have already said things I agree with, no need to repeat them


I don't contribute much since I have been busy reading kilometers of Talk pages, exclusively in the I-P domain, (which is the most vicious battleground in wp despite every guide line,) trying to understand where the grip is and hoping to come up with a proposition to fix it. In my following comment I will adopt the 'they' and 'us' 'pro-I' and 'pro-P' style although it's not my vision of the I-P in real life it only represents the actual situation in wp:en
(1) the context
it's obvious to everyone I think that this endless bickering is a waste both of time and energy, - war is not appealing to most editors so they avoid taking part in it and in consequence don't contribute and that ends being wp's loss
(2) the actors
I won't address directly Nableezy's accusations, the root of the problem is beyond that.
Did you notice that Shuki is the main 'pro-Israel' contributor in these so called discussions? so much so that seeing all the 'pro-Israel' on this page is amazing since they (like myself) don't figure so much there. That's the way it is, only Shuki managed to bear with Nableezy's uncompromising atitude: Nableezy won't ever be ready to give up until he has achieved his goal: occupation is illegal must be mentioned every 3 words at least so that nobody can forget the unforgivable wrong doings of the Zionists... (don't read it literally, it's a caricature, just to make the point of how it feels discussing with him)


I admire Shuki's patience and fortitude for Nableezy is a relentless attacker, if Shuki did fail in anyway it is because he has been pushed unto that intended breaking point.


Nableezy, which might be a pleasant person, is a victim of his blind hatred of the State of Israel and Zionism, and through that is easily manipulated by the 'pro-Palestinian' party: he is the willing spearhead which will eventually take the fall and that did happen many times already as we know
(3) my personnal experience
as soon as I started to grasp the depth of the war -consider that Jiujitsuguy added 'Jewish' before Gamla and SD could not take it: no such word is to be written in any place on the Golan which is Syrian, was Syrian, and will be forever Syrian.... Gamla was Jewish and many RS exist , so when I understood that I refrained from editing and as I said above read and read and read .... and I specially decided not to engage Nableezy in any dispute -not even about the 'stupid things' attack- and let it go since I consider that to be a futile exercise in nothingness and due to lead to frustration and possibly even anger hence my admiration for Shuki.
once in a while I did edit but that brought upon me a tentative of intimidation by RomaC for 'vandalism and warring' (I was waiting a few days before filing a complaint)
out of that I got the message that 'they' want to have a free rein in the I-P editing -as said Ynhockey, AMuseo, Noon - and will try to discourage anybody 'pro-Israel' bold enough to dare come and play in 'their' courtyard -since I am a genuine account 'they' had no chance to oust me for sockpupettery which is 'their' regular feat so 'they' have to find different ways. one must not forget: it's WAR! ('their' opinion)
(4) solution?
- quit this war state of mind (as many advocated)
- blocking editors doesn't work, it's brutal and when they come back, well it's back to square 1 (remember the last return of Nableezy -sorry, I don't mean to target you but this the only example I can think of presently- )
- I too thought like Sean.hoyland of this technique used in conflict resolution groups when everyone has to bring up the other side's position but I figured that in a workshop setting the participants will stay in situ and collaborate, here those which don't want to will simply stay away for the time of the exercise and then... resume the same game


- I will plead not to ban either Shuki or Nableezy -it should be both, albeit not identically, or none- for (see Mbz1) a ban is cruel since it hurts and doesn't reform and in the long term it's bound to be counterproductive, just demand a monitored* cease fire in litigation and pov push and instead of the inumerable rfc et al a serious brainstorming with everyone interested to come up with a friendly solution (not just the administrators), as oppose to the big stick policy which has failed so far -that at least is clear to me-. Violence breeds violence and is to be avoided. I believe that with a lot of good will from everyone we can pull it up, it won't be easy but there is really no choice, carrying on the present way is a dead end. Guide lines are just that, they must not be blindly -and foolishly- enforced but with flexibility to meet both parties' wishes, unless we intend to institute once again the good old Pax Romana
- if you still think that only a firm hand will bring results and do want to break their back, I will suggest a very radical measure: a topic ban of ALL the editors and hopefully the new batch will be wiser (I very much doubt that though)


*should be very closely monitored in order to avoid the type of policy SD -which is not the subject here- adopted so that s.o. else would fight his battles (re Tznkai /topic ban)


:@RomaC: There are few topic areas with nearly as much concerted partisan activity as Israel-Palestine. uh! if it's how you see it that does explain a lot regarding the failure in reaching balance! that is a point to clarify then. Nableezy may be biased, but he's also badly outnumbered which makes him sort of stick out in these content disputes. I disagree, as I said Shuki was mainly left on his own to face endless days of lines of over and over the same words and arguments, are you saying that Nableezy believed he was alone holding the fort? I felt under attack myself I guess that I do not think that I only can save the world where he felt desperately obligated to fight to the end, was it so? that also is to be discussed . On another wiki I read an essay: 'Nobody is irremplacable' (fortunately) still each one of us is unique, ok?
I read again the comments and I saw a lot of a militantist attitude, I hope this is not the tone which will prevail
@Stifle: thanks for offering your help, Hope&Act3! (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional Comment by Pantherskin

One of the most destructive tactics to use on Wikipedia is the introduction of hoaxes into articles, and the use of made-up sources. At the Syria article both Nableezy and Supreme Deliciousness wanted to include the sentence "...to defend itself against Israeli shellings into Syria. According to the UN office in Jerusalem from 1955 until 1967 65 of the 69 border flare-ups between Syria and Israel were initiated by Israelis." in the article, cited to "Kamrava, Mehran, The Modern Middle East: A Political History since the First World War, University of California Press; 1 edition, p. 48". I checked the source in the library, neither on this page nor anywhere else in the book is there anything even remotely. You can even check it on Google Books, [196] For me page 48 does not show, but it is clear that this chapters is about the pre-World War I era. You can also search for the numbers 67 and 69, the numbers 67 or 69 are not mentioned anywhere in the book. In short, these editors used a made-up source to bolster their claims and only after being caught red-handed did Supreme Deliciousness remove the fake source (see [197] and [198]). I do not know how one can work collaboratively on this projekt or have trust in Wikipedia articles if we cannot trust our editors to be honest about their sources. This is even more important than civility and conforming to NPOV.

I did not "want to include the sentence" I reverted an edit that you made that removed something that I did want to include and you never once raised any concern about the other material. Perhaps I should have checked the first part of the edit but as you never once said one word about the material or the source I did not. Kindly do not misrepresent my actions here. nableezy - 21:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
We even discussed this section on the talk page and on the NPOV noticeboard, and I made it clear that the claims of Israel having shelled Syria are in conflict with what virtually all other sources say. I even quoted the first part, the part with the made-up source Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Syria, so how you manage to be completely oblivious to this is beyond me. Either way I do not know how one can trust you as an editor when one has to double-check the sources you use. Pantherskin (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
You never once said one word about this source. If you had either removed just this and the material it was sourcing or if you raised the issue on the talk page I would have checked the source. But you did not, you just kept removed it with the Dayan quote. The reason I reverted that is because of the Dayan quote, of which there is no doubt of the authenticity or relevance. I dont particularly care what you think of me because, well, I dont think too highly of you. If you want to pretend that this was the issue you can, but anybody who looks at the discussion page can see that it was focused on the Dayan quote and you never once raised a question about this source. nableezy - 21:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
That sentence has been in the article since November 2008. It isn't unreasonable for Supreme Deliciousness and nableezy to assume good faith that the source supported the sentence. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The comments here above from Pantherskin is clearly Assumption of Bad faith. That text was in the article and looked to me as well sourced, Panterskin removed it together with a well sourced Dayan quote and did not say anything about that the Jerusalem office text had a false source. As soon as it was pointed out to me that that specific part about the Jerusalem office had a false source, I removed it myself. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The content was questioned several times by editors on the grounds that it contradicts what is known about this conflict from reliable source, including me (Talk:Syria#Border_Flare-Ups, /Talk:Syria#Invalid_Source_on_Dayan_Admitting_to_Israel_Provoking_Clashes). But you Supreme Deliciousness insisted that it is well-sourced. You never said that you do not know what the source actually says and mislead other editors about the content. The manner in which you removed the content after being caught red-hand furthermore suggests that all the time you knew that the source was fake. Pantherskin (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually it suggests that if you had once questioned that line on the basis of the source not supporting it SD would have checked it and removed it himself. nableezy - 16:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment by unomi

To me it seems clear that what we have before us is not a content dispute. The dispute may be grounded in the content, but the enforcement request is solidly regarding policy violations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal_of_sourced_edits_made_in_a_neutral_narrative_is_disruptive

We have had a number of public discussions regarding how sources deal with the illegal settlements; at IPCOLL wikiproject, and across a multitude of talkpages. While there are sources which dispute the 'illegal settlement' moniker, the majority of quality sources support it. For a light primer see fx Daniel C. Kurtzer's article in Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs reprinted here:

Secretary of State Cyrus Vance made this clear in Congressional testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, March

21, 1980: US policy toward the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories is unequivocal and has long been a matter of public record. We consider it to be contrary to international law and an impediment to the successful conclusion of the Middle East peace process...Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention is, in my judgment, and has been in the judgment of each of the legal advisers of the State Department for many, many years, to be. . .that [settlements] are illegal and that [the Convention] applies to the territories.

Vance's view was based on longstanding US policy. For example, in March 1976, Ambassador William Scranton told the United Nations Security Council: Substantial resettlement of the Israeli civilian population in occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under the convention and cannot be considered to have prejudged the outcome of future negotiations between the parties on the locations of the borders of states by the Middle East. Indeed, the presence of these settlements is seen by my government as an obstacle to the success of the negotiations for a just and final peace between Israel and its neighbors.

Scranton's statement was based on the position expressed by Ambassador Charles Yost, who told the UN Security Council in July 1969: Among the provisions of international law which bind Israel, as they would bind any occupier, are the provisions that the occupier has no right to make changes in laws or in administration other than those which are temporarily necessitated by his security interests, and that an occupier may not confiscate or destroy private property. The pattern of behavior authorized under the Geneva Convention and international law is clear: the occupier must maintain the occupied area as intact and unaltered as possible, without interfering with the customary life of the area, and any changes must be necessitated by the immediate needs of the occupation.

I think it is fair to say that these are not fringe views, and they are supported by ECJ and ICJ publications. In light of the supermajority of sources which support the wording that Shuki tendentiously edited to remove I find Nableezys enforcement request entirely reasonable. Unomi (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarify the limits[edit]

Can you please clarify the limits of this action? Does it basically include; 1) all locality articles in the region, 2) all geography articles (including parks or attractions), 3) talk pages as well?.

I made a couple of comments at Talk:List of national parks and nature reserves of Israel today. If they are included in the ban, I will refrain from continuing. --Shuki (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the purpose of this ban is to prevent edit-warring over whether or not a particular site is actually in Israel, surely all that is necessary is to restrict editing in this limited area. Even accepting the legitimacy of the block, I can't see a reason why Shuki or Nableezy should be prevented from making edits like this or this. RolandR (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Shuki[edit]

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

I invite Shuki and Nableezy to show cause why they should not both be topic-banned for 3 months from articles about towns, cities, settlements, and other places or locations in Israel and neighbouring countries. And I request in advance that all comments relating to this request are added here, not at my talk page. Stifle (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

For clarification, "here" means "on this page". Stifle (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Just a note that I have read all the submissions and am analyzing the evidence. In a couple of days I intend to propose a final sanction and invite admin comment on same. I am reading the diffs and other details provided and will not be jumping to conclusions. Stifle (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I have read and reviewed all the submissions and diffs and remain convinced that each side is at fault. There is a possibility that one party is more at fault than the other, but that is neither here nor there. I am still minded to impose a topic ban on both parties, although I will shorten the duration to the end of August. I invite comment from other uninvolved administrators here (i.e. this section) as to whether this appears appropriate. Stifle (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. This is a content dispute which the people involved can't resolve in a collegial manner. I considered proposing limiting the scope to Israeli settlements, but that's probably too open to gaming and disagreement.  Sandstein  11:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
You are entitled to your conclusion of course Stifle, but I think the parties to the dispute are also entitled to know what precisely they are being convicted of, and on what evidence. "I remain convinced that each side is at fault" is not exactly forthcoming. Gatoclass (talk) 11:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Edit warring, tendentious editing, and using reverts rather than discussion on a disputed article. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The individual articles link to Israeli settlement, which contains an overview of the legal situation. To what extent any of this needs to be summarized in the articles is obviously an editorial decision, however edit warring over whether there should be a mention in the lead is disruptive, and therefore can result in sanctions being imposed. I agree that Stifle's proposed sanctions are reasonable. PhilKnight (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Further to the above discussions and pursuant to Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions, Shuki and Nableezy are both topic-banned until 23:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC) from articles about towns, cities, settlements, and other places or locations in Israel and neighbouring countries. Violation of the topic ban shall result in a block of appropriate duration and the topic-ban being reset to run for five weeks from the end of the block. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
As things stand, (1) is included, (2) is included (as a park or attraction is a place), and (3) is not included. Disruption on talk pages will however be viewed dimly. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)