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



AndresHerutJaim notified of the WP:ARBPIA restrictions. No other action taken.
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 AndresHerutJaim[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
RolandR (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
AndresHerutJaim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Name of remedy
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [1] Reversion of edit, with false claim of vandalism removal
  2. [2] Repeated reversion of same edit
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
Not Applicable
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Block or topic ban
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning AndresHerutJaim[edit]

Statement by AndresHerutJaim[edit]

My intention was to remove unexplained and arbitrary changes on the Givati Brigade article. I never meant to offend anyone.--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems that, after all, I wasn't so wrong. The tendentious information was removed from the article.--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 03:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning AndresHerutJaim[edit]

Clearly this user is not that knowlegdable in the inner workings and slick moves that prevail in the I-A conflict, but I don't think we should act consistently with three threads above, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Sherif9282. We should take full advantage of this opportunity and atleast block him if not ban him. Then we should block his sockpuppet. All kinds of exciting stuff in the pipeline.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Question and comment - The article didn't have the 1RR notices at the time the reverting was happening. AndresHerutJaim, would you have made the 2nd revert if you had seen the notices ? The reason I ask is that you refer to reliably sourced information as "Ridiculous anti-Israel bias", "vandalism", "anti-Israel accusations" and "tendentious information". I would like to see you confirm that you would not have made the second revert if the notices had been in place. The information itself is about the IDF putting things right according to their rules so I really have no idea where the "anti-Israel" is coming from and it's being reported by the BBC, AFP, the Israeli press and probably many other sources so I'm not sure what all the wiki-edit-war fuss is about either but I guess it will be sorted out on the talk page now. I do think it would help though if you confirmed that you are willing to follow 1RR in cases like this in future. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy close with no sanctions Sherif9282 was only warned, doing something different to the user in question will be more than unfair.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy close with warning I agree with Mbz1 for the reasons stated. Sanctions need to be issued on a consistent basis. Issuing a sanction here when Sherif9282 was not sanctioned for precisely the same offense strikes me as patently unfair. In addition, he's got a clean record, has never been issued an ARBPIA warning and according to his home page, English is not his first language so he may not have been well-versed with the restriction. Moreover, unlike the case involving Sherif, the 1RR sanction notice was placed on the page only after the alleged violation. All these facts militate in the respondent's favor. A warning should be sufficient--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

@PK: He can't self-revert since I already reverted back to it. Roland should have used the talk page instead of reverting per BRD. AHJ should not have made the second revert (although he was not aware of the possible sanctions) and he should not have marked it as removing vandalism. So I simply put it back to its state before the contentious edit. Roland has still not responded on the talk page even though AHJ opened a discussion on it. Per BRD, Aa42john should have been the one to open it. Of course BRD is only a suggestion and we should be happy one of the editors actually initiated use of the talk page.Cptnono (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, he could undo his second edit. I just tried, without saving, and it worked just fine. PhilKnight (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
But then he would be reverting me. Should he be reverting when we have an ongoing discussion? Of course, I could always revert in 4 hours. But then we are being counter productive. I think people in violation of 1/rr should receive blocks. However, others have pointed out that the notice was not on the article and he was not informed. Therefore, any sanctions are not appropriate and your request for him to self-revert might be based on the good principle of recognizing his actions as problematic but are equally as disruptive to the process. Makes it not necessary.Cptnono (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
@PK. There is currently an ongoing discussion on the Talk page concerning the edit. Self-reverting now while the subject edit is being discussed would just throw a monkey wrench into the mix and would accomplish nothing. He is now on notice of the 1RR and that should be the end of it.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

ARBPIA specifically says the following: Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision. AndresHerutJaim has never been notified of ARBPIA according to WP:ARBPIA#Log of notifications. You could argue that if the article had the 1RR notice that was enough of a notification, but that isnt even the case here. I dont think it would be fair to issue an ARBPIA sanction for a 1RR violation the user did not know existed under the authority of a case that the user may not have know existed. The user should be notified of ARBPIA and everybody else can call it a day. nableezy - 01:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Phil. The edit which was tagged as vandalism upon removal is clearly a violation of WP:ARBPIA. It doesn't make much sense asking someone reinsert an WP:ARBPIA vio into article space. The logical move is to note the user what the problem was in their conduct and warning them to avoid repetition. JaakobouChalk Talk 01:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

In what way was the edit a breach of ARBPIA? And in what way was it vandalism? There may be a legitimate discussion about its relevance and weight, but surely not about the good faith of the original editor. RolandR (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't say the original edit was but your revert without seeking the talk page while also dismissing BRD was a dick move. Add that on top of coming here while still ignoring talk and you are the epitome of what is wrong with the topic area.Cptnono (talk) 09:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me, have you actually looked at the talk page recently? I think it is you ignoring it, not me. RolandR (talk) 09:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me, have you actually looked at the talk page recently? 22:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC) was the initial entry on the conflict. You did not respond over there until 08:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC). But your request here was at 23:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC). SO you disregarded it and instead came here. You also disregarded BRD. TO make it worse, it took you until just a little bit ago to use the talk page for this concern? Bad form and you should feel bad.Cptnono (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I have nothing whatsoever to feel bad about, and I request that you desist from personal attacks. RolandR (talk) 10:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning AndresHerutJaim[edit]

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

If AndresHerutJaim self-reverts, then I don't think any further action would be necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I've notified AndresHerutJaim of the WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. Based on the above discussion, the time that has passed, and that further edits have occurred, I think we can close this report without further action. PhilKnight (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It's reasonable to close this without a block, in my opinion. Material is still being reverted at Givati Brigade by others, though in a slow-moving war. I suggest that we place a notice on the article talk page that any further 1RRs on that page may lead to an immediate block, if an admin sees them, or if the violation is reported at WP:AN3. I also suggest that contentious material should not be replaced in the article without getting a talk page consensus first. The current talk discussion is vigorous and many of those commenting seem to know the relevant policies. EdJohnston (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


Cptnono blocked 3 hours for incivility
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 Cptnono[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
nableezy - 14:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC) 14:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Cptnono (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. [4] Telling a user he is going to "fuck with" them
  2. [5] Should be self-evident that this is an insulting and degrading comment
  3. [6] Again
  4. [7] calls another user a "prick"
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. Not applicable, has previously been sanctioned under ARBPIA and has opened multiple threads at AE so is clearly aware of the case
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Topic ban
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
After having recently making clear his view on Arabs (see here) Cptnono has repeatedly made insulting comments on article talk pages. Telling a user that he is a "prick" and that an article about racism in Israel is just about "Palestinians feeling sad" or "being screwed with giant dildos". I dont usually care about "civility", but a user who has in the past repeatedly called for others to be blocked on minor infractions should not be telling others he is going to "fuck with" them or that they are "pricks". A user who has said flat out that he is "anti-Arab" should not be making such quips about the Palestinians.

I dont understand why an Arab Muslim (me) should be required to give a user who says that he is "anti-Arab" and that Islam is "problematic" any type of assumption of good faith. In fact I cant see how it is expected that I should show Cptnono anything other than overt hostility. An editor repeatedly makes negative comments about others ethnicity and religion and all people have to say is "boo"? I also wonder why the very same users who demand that I be blocked for calling an editor an "idiot" are here saying that the very user who made the complaint about me calling another editor an "idiot" that resulted in my being blocked should not have any sanctions imposed after calling another user a "prick". This is all very fascinating and enlightening. nableezy - 21:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Cptnono[edit]

Statement by Cptnono[edit]

I completely violated the decorum section of the decision (4.1.2). I have been doing it a lot lately since I assumed it did not matter to anyone in the topic area anymore. I see it two ways, I would be happy to be more civil or I could receive the same treatment Nableezy receives for his incivility (a pass without any modification to the behavior). Both seem fair but I really should not get in the habit of calling other editors pricks and will refrain from such pointed attacks.

And I made it clear that I see the Arab governments and the predominant religion over there as problematic. Nableezy is the one who ignored the clarification and assumed the worst. I have been neutral compared to many editors in the topic area so even if I was a racist I don't think my editing history shows blatant bias (although I do tend to favor the Israeli side in edits for the most part).

Nableezy forgot to mention that I attempted to emulate his page with some material showing extreme bias that was offensive.[9] Eventually removed after some thought on it since it looked like a little too far. I know where the lines are and chose to ignore them. I don't mind being more cautious but it would be appreciated if the same rules applied to Nableezy.Cptnono (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

@Roland: I didn't even consider the apology. I should not have called you a prick. I still think it was bad form of you but attacks like prick (Nableezy favors calling others duchebags) are uncalled for. Apologies for that. I was actually looking for the edit to strike that out while you were commenting. And I was not trying to make a point. I just felt that several editors were disregarding decorum so thought I would try it out myself. Didn't last long but that is for the best.Cptnono (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
And both you and JJG are getting off topic. Like I said, bad form on your part (surprised you do not see that) but you didn't need to be called a prick.Cptnono (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
@Mbz1: Appreciated but the complaint is valid unfortunately. My week of being flippant is nothing compared to years of incivility in the topic area, but that doesn't make it right.Cptnono (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
@Sol: I don't see a problem disliking certain governments or a religion. Pretty mild compared to all the things editors say on their user pages (some are certainly "pro-" something and look to be "anti-the other) with user boxes, rants, and quotes.At least I was open about it. Now if I start using racial slurs or actively editing against Palestinians then there is a problem. I have !voted to keep articles that those on the often pro-Israel side have opposed. I have reverted vandals regardless of if I might agree just a hair with their opinions. I have actively attempted to use some degree of neutrality and for the most part have been. You cannot say that about several editors in the topic area. Can you say that about yourself? Yes, I believe Palestinians are shown in an overly victimized light on Wikipedia. That is why I struck out and edited the "being sad" comment that was condescending.[10] Cptnono (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
@nsaum75: Pretty much sums it up. I certainly was in breach of the decision and shouldn't have done it. I'm not pointing to Nableezy's behavior to say that it was acceptable. Just pointing to it because it is easy to see why I would think that editors are allowed to say whatever they want. Thought I would try it out. Didn't work out very well did it? Depending on the severity of any sanction, I will point to his previous cases here regarding civility as setting a precedent for the appropriate duration.Cptnono (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
@Jaakobou: Nableezy was not personally attacked in any of the diffs provided so any form of an interaction ban is not appropriate. If I am allowed to continue editing in the topic area, I should not be burdened by an interaction ban due to his continuous disruption. I actually understand why he brought this up here. I was just surprised since he has been doing it for so long and getting away with it while I just started. But overall, this is not a frivolous enforcement request. I thought I could be rude and it looks like I cannot. Double standard? A little bit but that doesn't change the fact that I was treating people like dirt.Cptnono (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
@PhilKnight: Is that how you read my response? I provided reasoning with why I thought it would be acceptable. It obviously was not. I will appeal any sanction that is not inline with the conclusions to the multiple reports about Nableezy's incivility, though.Cptnono (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
@Chedovi: The diffs regarding Chesdovi's talk page: [11] and [12] Cptnono (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC) I don't find those words offensive (all are acceptable on TV here in the States) and I was not trying to be rude to you (I was trying to give you a little pep talk, actually) but now that I know how much you despise that language you can be assured I will tone it down. I also did not refuse to remove them. I struck them out instead after you refactored my comment. You are not supposed to do that. After you still were concerned a redacted them.Cptnono (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
@Nableezy: You are already hostile and I don't see how you could act much worse. I do believe your religion has been problematic. It isn't the religion's fault but certain elements within it. Same could be said for most religions. I can understand being offended to a certain extent but I don't see anything in the decision that says I cannot express that opinion (not that I wish to continue discussing it after this case is closed out). And I didn't volunteer it out of nowhere. I have been repeatedly called "pro-Israeli" which isn't exactly true and wanted to clarify. In regards to the primary reasoning to the "anti-Arab" comment: Yes, I honestly believe that many governments over there have caused major problems. I can only assume full-heartedly that you believe the Israeli government is problematic. You make that abundantly clear on your user page. Sorry to clarify since we should not be detailing our personal thoughts too much but you are acting so offended. I am surprised. Even if I was an overt white supremacist (which I am not and those guys are usually anti Israel, right?) I honestly do not believe your feelings would be that hurt. You don't strike me as someone who has any problems with offensive rhetoric. I understand that others do, though, so will make a better effort to not be a jerk.Cptnono (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
@NMMNG: Nableezy has clean hands in this case for the most part. I dislike that he took my comments out of context, though.Cptnono (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I just had a really interesting corresponding via email with another editor. I would like to thank the editors who are supporting me. Please keep in mind though that I am the one who made a mistake recently. I was acting like another editor since I thought I could get away with it. It was stupid and it is clear that I also did more than just ruffle feathers. So to those that were offended: I understand why and apologize. I don't want one but I'm not going to say I don't deserve some sanction.Cptnono (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

@Shuki: LOL. I did notice that there were more "Hey, look at Nableezy" than "Cptnono did nothing wrong"! Your lack of support is noted :P Cptnono (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
@Tijfo098: Yes, we could benefit from white supremacist editors. Anything related to those articles is completely not neutral and because no one has the gaul to detract from editors not showing them in only a negative light. I don't agree with white supremacy at all but I feel ashamed as an editor when I see certain articles get skewed too far in one direction. That is neutrality. Realistically, that isn't even in this topic area unless editors are prepared to show edits that I was antisemitic. That is laughable considering that I am assumed to be on the side of Israel. Cptnono (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
@Sean: I usually hate the facepalm. But exactly. I screwed up. Assumed it was OK but this AE shows otherwise. Kind of a good thing in my opinion.Cptnono (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
@Lanternix: I didn't take it that far and Nableezy either pretending or wanting to believe I did is silly. Yes, I do believe there have been problems with Islam but calling it criminal is not something I could get behind. If it means anything, I also have problems with LDS, Protestants, and Catholics politically throughout history. It doesn't mean the religion is bad. Just that crisis has erupted in the name of those beliefs. Cptnono (talk) 11:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
@ZScarpia: Truth. It should be noted that my "anti-Arab" comment was "If anything I am anti-Arab..." on my own talk page after receiving repeated messages and allusions to my assumed beliefs. This was later clarified and it never impacted the main space. I get why making that statement raised hackles. If I am to be sanctioned, I think calling another editor a "prick" was a bigger concern. That along with a couple other recent comments have either been struck out or apologized for. I do not have a lengthy track record of incivility (not that I have not crossed the line before). I simply pushed the limits after seeing editors being uncivil and using their user pages to make polemical statements with little interest from admins. It wasn't right but that was my overreaction to it.Cptnono (talk) 12:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Cptnono[edit]

Speedy Close with no sanction: He's recognized the mistake, expressed contrition with a promise not to repeat. Move on.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Cptnono may think that offensive comments "do not matter to anyone"; but he did not consult me before making his gratuitous and totally unwarranted attack. Had he done so, I would have told him that I do indeed mind being called a prick. Now he suggests that this is OK, because he believes that Nableezy has behaved similarly. As far as I am aware, Nableezy has never made any such crude attacks on anyone; if he had, that would be grounds for censure, not for emulation.

As Nableezy points out, this comment was part (and not actually the most offensive) of a pattern of editing by Cptnono. He suggests above that this was in order to prove a point, he offers no apology, and he appears to make compliance with Wikipedia norms conditional upon the treatment of other editors. None of this is acceptable, and the issue should not be simply ignored. I think that Cptnono should be given a strong civility warning, with the stipulation that any further such edits will invoke appropriate, and increasing, sanctions. RolandR (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Roland you made a number of contentious edits to Givati Brigade without consulting the Talk page. Then you brought an AE against a user who reverted what he rightfully perceived as vandalism. You still refrained from using the talk page (which could have explained the tendentious edit) and instead chose to file an AE which obviously took more time to compose. Cptnono expressed frustration with your bad conduct and quite frankly, you are very frustrating.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I have made precisely two edits to the article. The first was to revert a removal of content, which had been falsely labelled "vandalism". It clearly was not vandalism; there was a content dispute. Then, when the same editor reverted me, I reported him for breach of 1RR; the case is still open above. This was not "a number of contentious edits"; it was one edit, reverting a false claim of vandalism. I have subsequently made one further edit, which has also been reverted; and I have argued on the talk page why this edit is appropriate. I entirely fail to see in what way my behaviour has constituted "bad conduct". And I am sorry about, but cannot be held responsible for, your frustration. RolandR (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Yet another absolutely unwarranted request by Nableezy. IMO this request is more about Nableezy's conduct than about Cptnono. How many ungrounded requests Nableezy has made in the past? This should be speedy closed with no sanctions.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Editors don't have to like each other, that's fine. We can all secretly despise each other and dream of putting spiders in our e-nemesis's pillow or call each other nasty names as long as things chug along more or less as usual. But when you come out as actively opposed to an ethnic group and a religion, you have just killed any possible assumption of neutrality or good faith when editing those articles and alienated any editor from those groups and beyond. Questioning the need for an article, not on its merits but because "How many separate articles do we need on the Palestinians being sad?" or to "Call it 'Palestinians getting screwed with giant dildos' as far as I am concerned.", is hilariously bad-faith. Sorry, Cpt, but I'm leaning towards the same result I'd expect if it were my ethnicity/religion: topic ban. Sol (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

wouldn't bring it up otherwise, but once you bring up your ethnicity and religion, would you mind answering what exactly is your ethnicity and religion? feel free not to answer if you don't feel like it. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Sure thing, champ. Would you like a DNA sample, credit report, polygraph, inner thigh measurement, sexual history and my kindergarten grades while you're at it? You could guess or I could just admit that I'm a monastic Pastafarian, and I am, as previously stated, probably not a cactus. Sol (talk) 05:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Re CptNono: You can despise any religion you so choose. You can protest the Protestants, revile Revisionists, dislike Taoists, ad nausem. But don't tell us about it. Most people do see something wrong with blanket statements against religious groups. And, for the love of Odin, don't use it as an explanation for why you are "Anti-Arab"; it's like saying it's not racist to be "anti-white" because you actually just don't like Christianity. Insert another group, Jews or blacks, in your statements and then think about them. That you think this isn't affecting your editing isn't reassuring; you voted against an RFC concerning Arab citizens of Israel because you don't like how a related/overlapping group is portrayed on WP and you said as much. This is surprising and disheartening given your past record of commendable neutrality but this is too far over the line. Sol (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I find it somewhat amusing that a user who regularly tells people to "fuck off" [13] [14] suddenly cares so much about decorum. As for all these arguments about alienating others, again, that would have a bit more weight if it come from someone who didn't have a Hizbollah user box or a poem saying "now I have a gun, take me to Palestine" on his user page. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Once you stop being amused you can try to read what you post to this page. My userpage does not contain the words "now I have a gun" in English or any other language, nor is there a "Hizbollah user box" or even the word "Hizbollah" (or any variant) on my user page. The second diff is me quoting Cptnono telling somebody to "fuck off". In the first I say the reason I say "bye" is because I have 'been told "fuck off" is not an acceptable way to bid farewell to others.' That is, I did not tell Cptnono or anybody else to "fuck off" in that diff. I was told this in a WQA thread, a thread that Cptnono should remember quite well as he played a prominent role. Bye. nableezy - 21:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Here's a diff [15] of the now I have a gun poem, in Arabic. I'll leave it to anyone interested to figure out what the yellow userbox at the bottom of your page is about. It's not very difficult. Now I'm amused by your contention that you didn't tell anyone to "fuck off" in the two diffs I posted above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that line did exist on my userpage and I have long since removed it. And I did not say that I didnt tell anyone to "fuck off" in either of the diffs. I very clearly did in the second, but I did so by quoting Cptnono. In the first diff I did not tell anybody to "fuck off". I said I now say "bye" because I was told "fuck off" is not acceptable. Bye. nableezy - 21:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Didn't you also use to have this picture from the the lynch in Ramallah on your user page? Yes, you are obviously someone who is easily offended and takes care not to offend others. If I didn't know better, I might get the feeling your actions were somewhat hypocritical. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
No I did not, and I expect that you either provide evidence for such a charge, or that it be stricken, or that you be blocked for making an inflammatory and knowingly false accusation. nableezy - 00:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
If an admin tells me there are no deleted versions of your user page with that picture, I'll gladly retract. I know I saw it on a user page here. Maybe it was someone else. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I dont care where you saw it as it was not on my user page; you have now refused to remove an accusation for which you have no evidence. You should be blocked for that. nableezy - 00:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I didn't make an accusation, I asked a question. I'll wait for an admin to clear this up. You'll excuse me if I don't take your word for it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: as the receiving end to a good number of provocations and no-comment reverts by Nableezy (e.g. "somebody with a 4 year old's understanding of English can see that"[16]). Nableey has an amazing statistic as the leader of wikipedia among people who opens enforcement requests against fellow editors, usually done after he tag-teams with another editor with a world-view similar to his who quickly comments on these complaints. Just recently, Nableezy complained that he was accused as a liar, demanding sanction -- soon afterwards he followed that up by "suggesting" others are liars. Obviously, I feel that Cptonio has been caught with a few violations of proper conduct, but when you place the context where he was being provoked by a tag-team, one of whom has a lengthy block and ban log which includes 4 months this year alone (Nableezy) -- I would suggest banning both parties for a short time-span for provoking each other and letting matters escalate like this without making an effort to resolve the issue properly. If the parties involved would make comments that they will make an effort to avoid each other, than a sanction should be avoided though. To further illustrate my point, I note how even on talk-pages he requires oversight (btw, a good decision PhilKnight).[17] JaakobouChalk Talk 21:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I did no such thing, please stop spreading such malicious and untrue accusations. Making an accusation without diffs backing that accusation is uncivil and should result in sanctions. I am also completely uninvoilved in any of the issues raised here, being neither the attacked or the attacker, which makes your accusations of "tag-teaming" and "provocation" as asinine as ever. nableezy - 21:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Will you follow calling me a malicious liar by claiming you were never banned or that you're not the wiki-leader on AE filings? Yes. You repeatedly provoke your fellow editors. The issue of disruption and soapboxing and the way you revert as vandalism requests to tone things down (sample) should be obvious by now. JaakobouChalk Talk 22:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC) +c 22:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sample discussion with Nableezy (pasted from Talk:Gideon_Levy#focuses_on_the_Israeli_occupation):

Nableezy, I'm sure you mean well when you keep reinserting the words occupation and illegal to articles but you're forgetting the context and are ignoring references. In the spirit of collaboration, I suggest we list the non opinion-pieces that mention his topics of discussion so we can get a wider perspective on this issue. Please add sources to the list below (no opinion articles please). JaakobouChalk Talk 02:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Jaak, if you continue edit-warring over this line I will be asking that you be topic banned. Self-revert the change you made for which you know there is no consensus. You also know full well that sourcing to a Hebrew source requires that you quote and translate the relevant text. nableezy - 21:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Calm down and join the discussion. I made a rephrase to my previous suggestion to one that is closer to the only non opinion source we currently have listed hoping we'd get closer to a final version. If you insist on opening complaints left and right because you can't discuss anything, that is not my fault -- you can already see that most of my desired changes have been resolved and you're the only one fighting for this "occupation"/"illegal" issue. Anyways, you are invited to add sources and work in a collaborative spirit in hopes of finding the best NPOV source-based phrasing. JaakobouChalk Talk 22:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Thats just funny. You get reverted once by Roland and once by me and you run to AE and you are going to say that I "insist on opening complaints left and right because you can't discuss anything". The hilarity in that cannot adequately be measured. Again, you are required to quote and provide translations when using a non-English source. Again, either self-revert your edit or we may have to see how much edit-warring in a BLP by a user who has a history of poor editing in BLPs is acceptable to the admins patrolling AE. nableezy - 22:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Are you interested in anything other than personal conflicts on this website? I've opened this section so that we can promote a long term consensus -- I did not open it for filibustering. Do you have any non opinion-piece sources to add? I'm also open to compromise suggestions that tone down the "occupation"/"illegal" rhetoric and add into the context the general topics which Levy writes about. JaakobouChalk Talk 22:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Although incivility and behavioral issues were addressed at the recent ARBPIA pow-wow, admins chose to focus on other issues, and the AE filing spree has continued. Cptnono you were wrong in your behavior, as has Nableezy been in his past behavior. Cat and mouse never works for anyone involved. Unfortunately when these things are opened it becomes a mess of "he said, she said, they said" which does nothing but polarize individuals even more and create further distrust and disruption in the community. Nobody ever becomes permanently topic banned in these filings, which is perhaps a shortcoming of the process. That said, I implore CPT and Nableezy to refrain from using terminology that they even have the slightest inkling may be considered offensive. It takes a "bigger man" to step back and walk away in moments of heated discussion than to say something "off the cuff". Apologies mean nothing, if it is just a recurrent word not followed by action. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 21:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment As I stated earier, Cptnono has recognized the lapse, expressed contrition with a promise not to repeat. So let's move on and not waste anymore time with this nonsense.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Stop using profanities I wish everyone would just never ever use bad words. Is it really too much to ask? Cptnono once used the most horrible language on my talk page and did not agree to remove it at first. Why do people have to swear? Why bring immature, crude playground talk onto wiki? Even reading these awful words on this page make e cringe. A little self control, please. Chesdovi (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

@PhilKnight: At the top of this page it says "Anyone requesting enforcement who comes with unclean hands runs the risk of their request being summarily denied or being sanctioned themselves". Would you say Nableezy came here with clean hands? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I hope that this will not be another example of some weird 'affirmative action' where Nableezy is given much more leeway for uncivil behaviour since it seems to some admins that he balances his opponents. I think he thinks we are dolts for not seeing through his '2 diffs' for telling other editors to F-off without explicitly saying that. Reminder Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive72#Nableezy (civility). FWIW, I can assure you that a ban of Nableezy will not mean a flurry of POV edits but rather quiet and a natural drop off of editing by many others like in the spring when SupremeDelicious was also banned. --Shuki (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
FWIW cpt, I'm not 'defending' you :-) but find it hard to accept the hypocrisy of your accuser. --Shuki (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I can't say I'm happy with being charged for fabricating Nableezy's history but I still feel that if Nableezy reciprocates the favourable response extended by Cptonio then there is no need to sanction either party. JaakobouChalk Talk 01:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
PhilKnight, do you feel there's room for some oversight on talk page conduct for both editors? I thought you responded well here. JaakobouChalk Talk 01:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC) +clarify 01:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment by Brewcrewer: The issue may be moot soon per the "historic" exception carved out by User: PhilKnight for a previous AE regarding Nableezy,[18] in which one of the issues were Nableezy calling another editor "stupid." [19] Curiously enough in that AE, where Nableezy was a defendant, Phil Knight felt it appropriate to take into consideration the behavior of the complaining party.[20] I'm sure many editors would like Phil Knight to explain why in this case, where Nableezy is the complaining party, Phil does not see a reason for analyzing the complaining party. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Tijfo098: "I actually think we need more white supremacists editing here". Happy Thanksgiving! Tijfo098 (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Lanternix Just a comment here. I quote user Nableezy when he/she says: I dont understand why an Arab Muslim (me) should be required to give a user who says that he is "anti-Arab" and that Islam is "problematic" any type of assumption of good faith. I am sorry, but since when exactly is it wrong to say that Islam is problematic??? Is it wrong wrong to say that, say, Nazism is problematic??? What if I, or other people for that matter, believe that Islam is a worse ideology than Nazism, that Islam calls for killing innocent non-Muslim civilians, and that Islam has been behind so many crimes throughout history for the past 1500 years??? Should we just shut up and be politically correct because the feeling of some people, like user Nableezy, are going to be hurt??? Until when will this favoritism for Islam exist? YES, Islam IS problematic AND criminal and there is NOTHING wrong with saying that! --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 04:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Just try substituting "Judaism" for "Islam" in the above credo, and see what you make of it. And then to imply that there are double-standards at work here! RolandR (talk) 08:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I did replace "Islam" with "Judaism", "Christianity", "Nazism" and many more ideologies in the above quote, and I came to one and the same conclusion: Muslims want Islam and the Islamic ideology to remain above criticism, and this ain't happening! Compare for instance the reaction of Christians worldwide to a play that pictures Jesus as a gay man (offensive, from the Christian POV, but no violent reaction) and the reaction of Muslims worldwide to some drawings picturing Muhammad as a violent person (offensive, from the Muslim POV, and how many people were killed, and how many places - including embassies - were torched?) No sir, no ideology, including Christianity in which I believe, is above criticism! And everyone is free to speak his/her mind about Islam, just as they are about any other ideology - Nazism being one of them! --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 15:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a blog or an arena for soapboxing (see:WP:NOT). World view commentaries are best reserved for places they are welcome; article talk-pages is not a place where they are.
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 15:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Suggesting Judaism, regardless if you agree or disagree with such phrasings about Islamic fundamentalism, is inflammatory and offensive. Considering the website you run, this "harmless" comment is even more offensive.
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 11:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I am mystified. What website do you think I run? RolandR (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I guess I assumed Jews Against Zionism was mostly just a website but now that I give it a second look, I realise it is an "organization" of sorts. You know, comments that you are 'mystified' are not really ingenuous so I hope you're not planning on filing a "harassment" complaint just because I answered your question. In any event, your Judaism equals Islamic fundamentalism comment was of poor taste, even if was only to illustrate a point. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about. I assume that you are referring to a website run by Neturei Karta, with which I do not have even the most tenuous connection. And where do you get the idea that I equate Judaism with "Islamic fundamentalism"? I don't, and I fail to see any comment of mine, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, which could lead to such a mistaken and far-fetched inference. RolandR (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry. I'm not confusing the non religious site with the ultra-orthodox .com site. Your comment, intended or not, alludes an equality between Judaism and Islam and between perception of Islamic fundamentalism and Judaism. Please avoid making such commentary, even if only to make a point. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Roland was not equating Judaism with Islamic fundamentalism but suggesting you re-read Lanternix's words replacing "Islam" with "Judaism" and seeing if you catch what's offensive about the comments. It's a good practice when trying to decide if your comments could be construed as bigotry; insert another group to check if you were unconsciously using a double standard. Sol (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
RolandR's comment is quite offensive in itself. Better avoid such pointy examples and just note the user that his phrasing is problematic. Btw, both editors, I believe did not intend to insult anyone. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Hold up, so it's offensive when you replace "Judaism" with "Islam" in Laternix's rant but it's not offensive as is? That's the double standard. It's like someone watched youtube videos of wanna-be suicide bombers and assumed that this is what Islam is all about. We should be able to criticize and discuss controversial aspects of all religions in a way that doesn't devolve into bigotry. If you can't tell the difference between the worst things done by a religion's followers and the religion itself then you shouldn't be editing in the area. Sol (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree. In that case, maybe YOU should not be editing in this area, because clearly you can't tell the difference between Islamic terrorism and Islam. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 22:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
And in light of the above discussion, it's about time that user Nableezy be apprehended for his words and actions. That user has been given leeway for way too long, and it's about time for him/her to be treated the same way all other users here are treated! --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 04:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Given the above gratuitously offensive comment, I hardly think that it is Nableezy who should be "apprehended (sic) for his words and actions". How would you apprehend him, anyway -- send in a snatch squad? RolandR (talk) 08:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
See facepalm. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Sean and Roland,
Not everyone knows the difference between 'ban' and 'apprehend'. Its a shame to see established editors approach wikipedia like a content blog where ridicule of others takes precedence to other alternatives.
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 11:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
You think my concern was about Lanternix's English language skills ? Marvelous. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I apologize if there is a misunderstanding. Do explain what your facepalm comment was about.
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 14:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Jaakobou, no need to apologise. My facepalm was for the wide ranging soapy hand grenade Lanternix threw into the crowd which in just a few words managed to deal with Islam, Nazism, the killing of innocents, 1500 years of history, criminality, political correctness, bias in Wikipedia, censorship and of course Nableezy. Impressive but not very helpful in my view. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

SUGGESTION How about we all just, like, grow up? This "wiki-lawyering" is seriously lame. If someone makes a completely unprovoked attack on someone, fine, they should be sanctioned. But if we're dealing with two editors (or two groups of editors) who clearly hate each other, either topic ban them both permanently, or let them have at it. Surely constantly nominating each other for breeches of civility is a complete waste of time. And for the record, surely anyone should be able to say they don't like Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Religion, Arabs, Jews, Israelis, or that they support Hamas, Hizbollah, Hitler, Irgun, and whatever or whoever else, without being threatened with topic-banning on those same subjects! Some sanity people please! Surely a lot of the best info on the Adolf Hitler article comes from his admirers, and surely a lot of the best info on Israel comes from her detractors. HarunAlRashid (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course, if editors want to give their own personal opinions on anything apart from the content of articles, Wikipedia not being a forum, they're in the wrong place. Perhaps we should return to the arbitration enforcement request at hand?     ←   ZScarpia   12:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, yes, that's what my first four sentences were about... wake up. HarunAlRashid (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
HarunAlRashid, you said it very well. I will quote you again, in bold, so some people can understand that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING is above criticism, and that all ideologies must be treated equally with no favoritism for any particular one! "Surely anyone should be able to say they don't like Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Religion, Arabs, Jews, Israelis, or that they support Hamas, Hizbollah, Hitler, Irgun, and whatever or whoever else, without being threatened with topic-banning on those same subjects!" (see also my reply above to Ronald) And of course, in light of this, Nableezy's comments above are out of line, because user Cptnono has ALL the right to say that Islam is problematic (which, in fact, I perceive as a euphemism very politely put)! --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 15:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: This may be my first time weighing in in favor of an enforcement action. Cptnono, I went to you directly instead of even considering AE after the "sad Palestinains" comment, but I was just aghast over the "dildos" follow-up. I do appreciate your deleting the incivil remarks. However, the animus you illustrated in trivializing the experience of Palestinians by both remarks 2 and 3 suggests that you are simply hostile at this time to Wikipedia coverage of the oppression of Palestinians. As Sol said above, "you have just killed any possible assumption of neutrality or good faith when editing those articles." I can't find the retraction convincing right away, nor can I assume good faith. I think a temporary topic ban is appropriate.--Carwil (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: What Cptnono has done is wrong (on a number of levels) and completely out of character. OTOH, topic ban for any significant lentgh of time seems to be inpappropriate for such a good contributer. Sorry, but I can see it is as a battleground action by Nableezy. I think these guys need to be instructed to work together to build encyclopedia. I know that dispite this, you guys CAN work together. Please try harder. I know, in particular, that cptnono can write from NPOV and I think Nableezy can too. Not easy but there is no other way. Sorry. BTW Nableezy asked to consider this in the context of his block for calling someone an idiot. Nableezy's block was for 3 hours, right? That could be more appropriate for cptnono than a topic ban. - BorisG (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment I'll put down my popcorn and make an observation. Very, very few contributors here have actually focussed on the issue - that cptnono was clearly abusive, several times, but has made a - somewhat tardy - apology (before the AE would have been far better, but I absolutely commend his efforts to stop "supporters" going off on one). How about you all stop trying to compare this offence with every other offence ever committed by any of the editors in this area? It's like a bonsai version of the real IP conflict.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Cptnono[edit]

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

I'll wait to see if other admins post here, but my initial comment is that saying the editor shouldn't be sanctioned, because the person filing this report is alleged to be just as uncivil isn't a particularly good argument. PhilKnight (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


Ronda2001 blocked for 48 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 Ronda2001[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
O Fenian (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Ronda2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Further remedies
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [21] Revert 1
  2. [22] Revert 2, breach of 1RR
  3. [23] Revert 3, further breach of 1RR
  4. [24] Revert 4, further breach of 1RR
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. [25] Warning by O Fenian (talk · contribs)
  2. [26] Warning by O Fenian (talk · contribs)
  3. ...
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Sorry I cannot find the 1RR remedy to link to, I assume people dealing with this are more than familiar with this remedy already though?

The IP editor is quite plainly Ronda2001, based on this edit where he takes part in a discusion Ronda2001 was notified of, and also makes the same claims about his own credentials as here.

Both the account and IP were notified yet made the third revert, that is in addition to the edit notice warning of 1RR.

I am unsure on the best way forward. The editor is obviously new, but is editing in such a grossly point-of-view way I do not know if reform is possible. There may have been some constructive improvements buried in the article somewhere, but it is difficult to know where to begin looking as I am not overly familiar with the subject. I do know enough to recognise obvious point-of-view though.. O Fenian (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you PhilKnight for linking the remedy. Fourth revert now added. O Fenian (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[27] and [28]

Discussion concerning Ronda2001[edit]

Statement by Ronda2001[edit]

I am new to wiki - its true- but not new to the subject of the Lebanese war as it is the topic of my research at The university where i am an associate lecturer- please examine the article based on the FACT that this is well researched (the firts scetion before you get to the bit on militia's) and referenced with the most seminal peer-reviewed research on the topic of the pLO in Lebanon- and NOT based on hearsay and psuedo-intellectual sources found on the internet. Again I repeat that Yezid Sayigh "armed struggle and search for a state", Rex Brynen's "Sanctuary and Survival", Michael Johnsons "Class and Client in Beirut", Farid Khazens "the breakdown of the state in Lebanon" are the most eminent works in the field on the civil war in Lebanon and the PLO in Lebanon.

I provide specific page numbers for people to look up the facts quoted.

I respect the democratic attempt by wiki to arbitrate between different ideas and allow a platform for different views- but really when such poor research is involved- it should not be given the equivalent platform as sound established and peer-reviewed research- the outcome is not democratic when fringe ideas , ideological and rhetorical accounts of history are given free reign- AS IF THEY WERE EQUIVALENT TO THE LIKEs OF SAYIGH AND JOHNSON.

previous versions of this site are referenced with extremely impoverished and Fringe sources- the list of extended readings contain some acceptable resources- yet the article contains nothing of the information in this extended list

Comments by others about the request concerning Ronda2001[edit]

Comment by VsevolodKrolikov This seems to be a clear case of someone who does not understand how wikipedia works, and in two very crucial areas.

  • First of all, Wikipedia is not about "the Truth" or FACTS, but about representing the balance of reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a venue for someone to have their research published, and wikipedia does not take sides where there is genuine scholarly dispute, no matter how passionately one side or the other feels about the matter. I think that it's this misunderstanding that leads to the rather incredulous and strident tone.
  • Secondly, the behaviour shows that the editor fails to appreciate how editors work together when there is a dispute. If other editors are not convinced by your contributions to the article, you need to persuade rather than insist. And if you are an expert in the topic, you should be able to provide good evidence (and we have good rules about what counts as good evidence). We are almost all anonymous here: an editor's claimed credentials cannot be given weight when it comes to deciding content. Genuine credentials mean that you'll likely end up contributing a lot anyway.

Wikipedia's success is based upon a series of principles that have enabled volunteers with all kinds of expertise and none to work together mostly harmoniously to create good content. We need people with knowledge and expertise, but it's part of the package that their influence extends as far as what they offer, not who they are. Because this editor may actually have a lot to contribute to the encyclopedia, I would ask for a statement by the user that s/he has read and understood the appropriate policy pages on interactions with others and on NPOV editing, and understands that up to now s/he hasn't been following these principles. With that forthcoming, we might want to avoid a block. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Ronda2001[edit]

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

Given the editor has made 3 reverts on an article clearly tagged as having a 1RR restriction, there isn't an option of suggesting a self-revert. Under the circumstances, I'm considering a 24 hour block be applied to the logged in account and IP. PhilKnight (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Not to step on your toes, Phil, but I've blocked for 48 hours. I would normally go with 24 in such cases, but the blatant violation of NPOV and the use of the IP sock, I feel, make this more egregious than a normal first offence. I don;t think any action is warranted against the IP as it should be caught by Ronda2001's autoblock. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Indeed it has been. This can probably be closed now. T. Canens (talk) 12:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle[edit]

I'm looking for advice about how to handle a situation in the Israel-Palestine area, from admins who might be willing to keep a close eye on it. I've been working on this article slowly since May 2009 with a view to taking it to featured article status. It's about a crucial issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the expulsion of over 50,000 Palestinians from their homes in Lydda and Ramle in 1948. Although it's a crucial issue, it's not a hugely contentious one, because modern mainstream historians on both sides agree there were expulsions and also agree that there was a massacre just before the expulsions took place.

I recently started the final round of copy editing, prompted by User:Noisetier, who wants to translate it and nominate it for featured article status on the French Wikipedia. I was able to find an academic historian who is familiar with the topic, and who kindly agreed to review the article. He has written a 14-page review, with suggestions for how to improve neutrality and reliability. What I would like to do is fix the article up along the lines he suggested, then take it to peer review for uninvolved input, and then to FAC.

The article was stable, and had hardly been edited recently. But today several editors with strong views on both sides of the conflict have arrived, and one has already started to remove sourced material he doesn't like, [29] along with adding material sourced to to the lead. I'm only able to revert once a day, so there really is no way I can protect the article against this kind of editing.

I'm unsure how to approach this within the ArbCom restrictions, and would appreciate advice. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think changing the article based on what one historian thinks is balanced and neutral is how we do things here. All significant POVs should be represented, and basing everything on one guy's opinion is unlikely to achieve that. Maybe you could post his report somewhere and we can discuss that before changes are actually made to the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I've put some sourcing on the talkpage regarding one of the removals. I do find it tiresome when people remove tag material which is easily verifiable. It puts unnecessary strain on AGF. And well done Slim for getting some professional input. Of course editors should have a look at it, No More; I don't think Slim suggested that he take over the article. The review might be rubbish, but chipping away at its value sight unseen seems unhelpfully cynical. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, SV has made several dozen edits to the article in the past couple of days, presumably based on this report. I have already found an edit which I object to, and that's just by my mouse lingering randomly over it. I don't think a single editor can take upon themselves to make radical changes to an article based on an unknown historian and a report nobody else has seen. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I've made 864 edits to the article, only two of which were prompted by this historian's suggestions, which I've only begun to work on, as I said. I'm currently checking text-source integrity and tightening the text. Editors arriving to edit it with very strong views but without knowledge of the source material isn't exactly helpful. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Will you let others see this review? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I've forwarded it to two editors who've said they might offer advice or review the article once I have a draft ready for FAC. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I can't imagine why an editor would choose that article to bring to FA unless they love drama. Wait where are we now? oh right, AE. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • SlimVirgin can be very focused on an article and make a lot of edits in a short time (but this can mean several days). Speaking from my own experience, if you catch an article she's editing in mid-stream so to speak, you can draw the wrong conclusion about where she wants to take the article. I suggest giving her some leeway here. Maybe she can post on the talk page when she thinks she's mostly done with her rewrite, and you can judge the final result. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the very idea of bringing this article to FA will not only create drama but will be detrimental to the quality of the article itself. For many will see that the very attempts to bring this uncontentious article to FA (and translate into French) are themselves contentious. But maybe I am a pessimist. Good luck. - BorisG (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't know why it has to be contentious. It's an area where historians largely agree, except for details or emphasis. And so far as I know all the writing in the article is mine, so it's my own work I'm copy editing, to make sure it's reliable and accurate. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Because featuring this article, however uncontentious, on the Wikipedia's front page will inevitably be seen as an attempt to demonise one side by giving undue weight to a single historical event, which must be seen in context. - BorisG (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree with Boris.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Its becoming a featured article, if that happens, will not necessarily, or even probably, mean it goes on the front page, and if it does manage to get FA status and is ever nominated for the front page, you can argue against that at the time. That's not a reason to try to stop it from becoming featured. Also, the undue weight thing is an odd argument, because this is a key issue. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The 1st pillar states that wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. We are not here to "to demonise one side by giving undue weight to a single historical event" (assuming this is nosense) and we are not here to take care of those who could feel offended by this risk either. Anyway, how harmfull they could be for the project, they are here and we have to live with them. In the current case, instead of transforming articles in battlefields, those who could feel offended can develop other articles and bring them to FA status. Two FA articles were translated from the French wikipedia to the English wikipedia but are not FA here yet. They could be seen by these observers as more favorable to the "interests of their community" : Battle of Latrun and 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine. Noisetier (talk) 07:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

To the people complaining about the article: This is not an appropriate venue for discussing whether we like a topic or not (tho note anyone who tries too hard to make an article controversial might end up back here;) and perhaps more importantly we most certainly do not get to decide what other editors spend their time on.--Misarxist 08:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, gosh... I am not arguing against improving the artlce (SV's efforts are most commendable), but against attempts to bring it to the front page. Alas I am not even myself against it, I am just suggesting some other people may be, and this, in turn, may cause some drama and may, in the end, be detrimental to the article. I agree the discussion is in the wrong place, but I did not bring this discussion here. Questions were asked here and I tried to offer my observations, even qualifying them by saying maybe I am a pessimist. An idea that I am arguing against anything or feel offended myself is baseless. I also agree that none of the people here are trying to demonise any side (and SV is about the last person to be suspected of that), I am just thinking many readers (editors or not) may think that way. I did not make a single edit to the article. - BorisG (talk) 09:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The fact that an article may (statistically, the chances are actually quite slim) one day end up on the main page is really not an argument against writing featured articles. FA quality is what we aspire to for all articles, and editors take pride in taking an article to that level, whether it ends up on the front page or not. --JN466 15:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I mixed it up. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 02:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Ferahgo the Assassin[edit]

Ferahgo blocked for 3 days by MastCell. For instructions on how to appeal, please see WP:AEBLOCK. NW (Talk) 23:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Ferahgo the Assassin[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Mathsci (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
WP:ARBR&I (topic ban)
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

Ferahgo the Assassin has edited an article on the biography of a scientist connected with Race and intelligence (as mentioned explicitly in the article and one of the external links). She reverted an edit by WeijiBaikeBianji (talk · contribs), about whom both she and Captain Occam have made multiple complaints. She reverted the addition of a reference in the further reading section connected with eugenics. The lede mentions eugenics in the first sentence.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
not applicable
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Warning or other sanction
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
  • The subject of the biography is mentioned on 62 pages of the book.[31] Perhaps Maunus should WP:AGF.
  • Contrary to the statement of Ferahgo the Assassin (which she has now modified), the article contains the sentence in a separate paragraph: "He is also known for his theories on intelligence and racial differences, particularly his work The Evolution of Human Races."
  • Among other books which examine this scientist, his reputation and racial theories is the recent biography, "Henry Fairfield Osborn: race, and the search for the origins of man" (not used to write the article, but described as sympathetic to Osborn by its publishers) [32] Really this subject matter should be completely avoided, given the clear reference to race in the article, the topic ban and previously voiced disputes with the reverted editor. Other users could add the book I just mentioned to the article: evidently, given its title, nobody under an WP:ARBR&I topic ban should go anywhere near it (including me, so I will go straight back to my RL maths research ...).
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Ferahgo the Assassin[edit]

Statement by Ferahgo the Assassin[edit]

This has got to be one of the most frivolous AE threads I've ever seen. I'm topic banned from "race and intelligence-related articles", and Henry Fairfield Osborn is a paleontologist. I have the articles for several dozen paleontology-related topics on my watchlist; anyone can see from my contributions that this is my editing area of choice. If someone makes an edit to an article about a paleontologist which is on my watchlist that I explicitly disagree with, of course I'm going to challenge it.

The article I edited mentions race and intelligence in only a single sentence, and the rest of the article is about his paleontology work. WeijiBaikeBianji attempted to make the article more focused on race and intelligence by adding a "further reading" section which talks only about Osborn's eugenics work, and none of his paleontology work. I don't think it's okay that Weiji can add information like this that’s mostly irrelevant to any paleontology article that I watch, and then expect me to not edit it because thanks to what he added it’s now under the scope of my topic ban. I agree with Maunus that this looks like baiting, and I also think it's a problem how Mathsci and Weiji appear to be working together to support Weiji's edits, despite Mathsci being topic banned from editing race and intelligence articles.

Mathsci just posted another AE thread a few days ago that relates to this topic area, and it hasn’t even been closed yet. I really think it would be helpful to everyone here, including yourself, Mathsci, if you stop watching my contributions and this topic area - which you are banned from editing in - so closely, and let everyone get back to contributing to the encyclopedia. Additionally, I think that any administrators examining this thread ought to consider whether this pugnacious, aggressive behavior of Mathsci's that's been going on lately is at all similar to the behavior for which he was sanctioned in the arbitration case.

Comments by others about the request concerning Ferahgo the Assassin[edit]

  • comment I would decline this request. Weijibaikebianji has added this book as further reading to a number of articles that are marginally related to the topic of the book (or even less than marginal). I don't think it is at all clear that the article on Henry Fairfield Osborn is within the scope of Ferahgo's topicban. It looks more like a succesful attempt at baiting given Ferahgo's interest in dinosaurs.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It seems there's some AGF deficit here on behalf of several parties. Yes, the book does cover Osborn to a sufficient extent that justifies adding it to the furhter reading section, so I've re-added it myself. But, (1) it wasn't obvious how the book was related to Osborn based on the title or link provided initially [34], which doesn't mention him at all (2) there are several other books even more focused on Osborn, which have now been added to that section. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • comment While the article (and in particular the edit) falls under the ban broadly construed, I think the appropriate action here is a warning, not a three day topic ban. Had this been in the context of an edit war, a block would be more appropriate. aprock (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Ferahgo the Assassin[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • This clearly falls under "race and intelligence articles, broadly construed", and thus under the topic ban. The article clearly details Osborn's connections to eugenics and his work on purported racial differences in intelligence. Ferahgo's response here explicitly casts her edit as an attempt to reduce the degree to which the article focuses on race and intelligence, thus confirming that it violates her topic ban. The fact that the revert gives at least an appearance of being targeted against WeijiBaikeBianji, with whom Ferahgo and Captain Occam are in an entrenched dispute, is an aggravating factor. I've blocked Ferahgo for 72 hours for a violation of her topic ban, and logged this block as an Arbitration enforcement matter on the case page. MastCell Talk 23:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


Dnkrumah self-reverted, and has been notified of the WP:ARBPIA case. No other action taken.
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 Dnkrumah[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Mbz1 (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Dnkrumah (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. [35] Edit warring on Gaza War
  2. [36] Edit warring on Gaza War
  3. [37] The edit summary and the edit itself show a battleground mentality.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

"Also Da'oud, be careful about the 1RR restriction on this article described at the top of the talk page. You've made one revert so that is your limit for 24 hours. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)"

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
topic ban
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
The user is well aware that the article is under 1RR, yet he chosen edit warring versus seeking consensus on the talk page.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
After reading the user statement I'd like to point out few more instances of battleground mentality that are "I am not going to allow..." and calling other editors edits "vandalism".--Mbz1 (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
notified.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Dnkrumah[edit]

Statement by Dnkrumah[edit]

The only people edit warring are the people trying to present a biased point of view in the article. This is the article before I showing the original content of the article and my edit: [38]

I simply changed this:

In March 2010 a trial began for two Israel Defense Forces Staff Sergeants suspected of forcing a 9 year-old Palestinian boy to open a number of bags they though might contain explosives. The charges against the soldiers are inappropriate conduct and violation of IDF authority.[1] If convicted, they could face three years in prison.

Into this:

In March 2010 a trial began for two Israel Defense Forces Staff Sergeants suspected of using a 9 year-old Palestinian boy, Majd Rabah, as a human shield by forcing him at gunpoint to open a number of bags the IDF soldiers though might contain explosives. The charges against the soldiers are inappropriate conduct and violation of IDF authority.[2] On October 3, 2010 both soldiers were convicted of reckless endangerment and conduct unbecoming. During sentencing the soldiers were placed on 2 years probation with a suspended sentence of a minimum three-month jail term if they commit another crime. Both soldiers were demoted from Staff Sergeant to Sergeant. [3]

After this was posted a Cptnano went and removed the entire section. He did this without using the talk section. This had the effect of seriously slanting the article and making it very misleading. Since the prior paragraph's sentence states: In response to the report, a dozen English-speaking reservists who served in Gaza delivered signed, on-camera counter-testimonies via the SoldiersSpeakOut group, about Hamas "use of Gazans as human shields and the measures the IDF took to protect Arab civilians".[305][306]

I made a revert at that point. I posted my reasoning in the talk section. After this another editor posted this:

Setting aside the comments about bias and vandalism, I don't think this material qualifies for inclusion unless it is made clear why it's important. Here are some sources that might help to show why these cases are notable within the context of OCL and beyond.

  • JPost
o "one of the most high-profile criminal cases from Operation Cast Lead"
o "Military prosecutors had requested that the court impose lengthy prison sentences and demote them to the rank of private for violating the boy’s human rights and the IDF’s code of “purity of arms.”"
o "The IDF probe was opened based on information in a report compiled by a special UN representative appointed to investigate matters involving children and armed conflict"
  • BBC "It was reportedly the first such conviction in Israel, where the use of civilians as human shields is banned."
  • Bloomberg Comment by HRW "“Under the laws of war, using civilians as human shields is a war crime,” Bill Van Esveld, an Israel-based researcher for Human Rights Watch, said in a phone interview. “It is hard to see how a demotion and a short suspended sentence are adequate to the gravity of that offense.”"
Sean.hoyland - talk 13:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

After Sean posted I edited the information to add his suggestions and the article was brought to this point: [39]

Now editor, Jiujitsuguy came along and again removed this section, again without seeking discussion. Plus he added factual errors to the article by claiming "resulted in the death of a non-combatant". The reference clearly says two women were killed.[40]

This being the bottom section of the article and reference before he changed it:

In June 2010, Israeli Advocate-General Avichai Mandelblit summoned a recently discharged soldier for a special hearing. The soldier was suspected of opening fire on Palestinian civilians when 30 Palestinians, including women and children waving a white flag moved towards an IDF position. The incident took place January 4th, 2009 killing 35-year-old Majda Abu Hajiji and her 64-year-old mother Salama. Israeli Advocate-General Avichai Mandelblit decided after the hearing to indict the IDF soldier, a member of the Givati Brigade, on a charge of manslaughter. [4]

This being that section after he changed:

In June 2010, Israeli Advocate-General Avichai Mandelblit summoned a recently discharged soldier for a special hearing. The soldier was suspected of opening fire on Palestinian civilians when a group of 30 Palestinians that included women and children waving a white flag, approached an IDF position. The incident, which occurred on January 4th, 2009 resulted in the death of a non-combatant. Israeli Advocate-General Avichai Mandelblit decided after the hearing to indict the IDF soldier, a member of the Givati Brigade, on a charge of manslaughter despite contradictory testimony and the fact that IDF investigators could not confirm that the soldier was in fact responsible for the death.[5]

Now, after looking at the talk they claimed they wanted it shorter and for First sergeant to say soldier. In view of that and the factual error present I performed a rewrite and came up with the present version.

This doesn't fall under the revert rule because their edits are Vandalism. These are therefore necessary edits and as an editor they are my job and I actually did take into consideration reasonable claims by both editors in making the edit. I also took into account that having an article falsely claiming one person was killed when the reference attached to it says two people were killed would negatively impact Wikipedia's image.

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

That is the purpose of Wikipedia and yet we have two people, that spend a lot of time on each others talk pages BTW coordinating activity, removing the same information. There is no question the information is factual and from the above links you can see that this information in an outdated version was present in the article prior to my edits.

NPOV requires that this data is present and that accuracy of facts by Wikipedia:Verifiability is maintained. I am not going to allow anyone to use unverified statements and mislead under Wikipedia's name. Again that is my job as an editor. The section it was repeatedly removed from is entitled Accusations of Misconduct by the IDF. It is ridiculous for anyone to remove from such a section information from the last week or so that shows two IDF soldiers being convicted and sentenced in an Israeli court for a war crime. Particularly since prior to my edit the article contained information on the same two soldiers being charged with these crimes. Every statement I made is backed by a reliable source.

Especially, considering the previous sentences which these two left intact state that the only human shields are used by Hamas and basically that the human rights groups accusing them are lying. Finally, no rule requires me to allow the willful transmission of unverified information using Wikipedia. In fact, all the rules require me to edit such information.Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 05:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Additional Statement:

Wikipedia:Vandalism "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles."

Specifically Blanking Illigitimate would apply to Jijitsuguys removal of the sourced sections. "Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary." Furthermore, Jijitsuguy added nonsense to the article. This is exactly what Jijitsuguy did and the same accounts for Cptnono. Identifying the removal of verifiable sourced information and references without a valid reason I acted to fix the article. "If you find that another user has vandalized Wikipedia you should revert these changes."

Furthermore, their action can only be considered not Vandalism if I consider them good faith. Even giving them benefit of the doubt it isn't good faith to delete this information when it is on topic, when it is well sourced and it builds on information already contained in the section. That is what decided the matter for me that it is Vandalism as opposed to edit warring on their part, that the information was already in the article just not up to date. Why delete it?

You want to talk about talk pages? These two had every opportunity to use the talk pages and instead they chose to delete and add false and misleading information. When Sean came to the talk page and posted his view. I took that view into account and added it to the edit. I also took the advice to use soldiers instead of a specific rank and to condense the section into account in the rewrite. So, I am certainly seeking consensus and following the rules of Wikipedia.

I can tell them you are not going to delete verified and well sourced information just because you don't like that the IDF were convicted of a war crime. It will stay there if I have to go to ArbCom.Vandalizing an article by deleting well sourced referenced information because you are pushing POV is outside the range of 1RR and my correcting such Vandalism is my job. Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 07:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Dnkrumah[edit]

Clarification - ...regarding Mbz's statement 'yet he chosen edit warring versus discussing on the talk page'. Actually Dnkrumah is doing both, breaking 1RR and discussing it on the talk page Talk:Gaza_War#Incident. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, right, I've changed it to "versus seeking consensus on the talk page".--Mbz1 (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mbz1, I think you could have meant 'seeking' instead of 'sicking'. PhilKnight (talk) 07:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thanks.
Question for you, Phil. How could the user revert battleground mentality?--Mbz1 (talk) 12:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, yes, I agree some of his comments are worrisome. However, this report was for the most part about a 1RR violation, and now the editor has self-reverted, I think we can close this discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
A reminder to the editor to not assume others motivations would be useful although his two comments doing that were more annoying than disruptive.Cptnono (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
And a note from an admin about forum shopping ([41][42]would also be appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Dnkrumah[edit]

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

If Dnkrumah self-reverts, then I don't think any further action would be necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 07:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

He's self-reverted, so I think we can close this report. PhilKnight (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I do not think so. Let's see how the user is going to proceed in 24 hours. If he's going to rewrite the entire article as he promised I do not believe he understood how it works.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Since he's self-reverted his 1RR vio, there's no clear violation of any restriction, so I'm not sure this report is actionable. If problematic edits continue, then I would suggest re-reporting, pointing out this thread so any passing admin can see the history. If the "battleground" mentality continues, it may not be actionable at AE, but probably would be at ANI (or my talk page if you prefer). Not an invalid report, but I think the best we can do at the minute is keep an eye on things. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I've notified him of the WP:ARBPIA case, so if the battleground mentality continues, the correct place to report would be here. PhilKnight (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ferahgo the Assassin[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
An admin chose to reduce the block duration to 24 hours. Other admins accepted that result, with various cautions. All the admins agreed that a sanction was appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

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 
Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
72 hour block, imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ferahgo_the_Assassin, logged at Wikipedia:ARBR&I#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions
Administrator imposing the sanction 
MastCell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
[43] Courcelles 08:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Ferahgo the Assassin[edit]

As far as I knew, this article was not covered by my topic ban. I actually did not notice that this article discussed race and intelligence until after Mathsci pointed this out in the AE thread - if you look at the diff of my initial statement there, I said I thought the article did not mention intelligence at all. After Mathsci mentioned this I updated my comment, stating in my edit summary that I hadn't previously noticed the article's single sentence which referred to this. As is evident from my contribs, I regularly edit paleontology articles, and I noticed the edit which I reverted because most articles about well-known paleontologists are on my watchlist. I don't think that a single sentence discussing race and intelligence should necessarily make this a "race and intelligence related article" which I'm therefore not allowed to edit. And if it does, then this was an honest mistake on my part, because I didn't notice this sentence in the article until after Mathsci pointed it out.

If I had been warned prior to this block that the article was covered by my topic ban, I would not have made another attempt to edit it (I made a second edit to the article while the AE thread was open, but at that point no one other than Mathsci was expressing an opinion that my topic ban covered this article). Since I have had no prior blocks for any reason, and it was not completely clear that my topic ban covered this article, the lack of a warning seems unusual. I'm also concerned by the lack of discussion among admins prior to the block. The AE thread was open for less than three hours before I was blocked, and MastCell blocked me before any other uninvolved admins had commented there. Of the other editors commenting in that thread, no one else felt that a block was an appropriate result. I don't think it's appropriate that on my first offense, I should be blocked for 72 hours with no warning and no discussion among uninvolved admins.

I think that the appropriate response in this case is a warning, and I would like my block to be replaced with that. If I am unblocked and warned that the Henry Fairfield Osborn article is covered by my topic ban, I will not attempt to edit it again as long as I remain banned from race and intelligence articles.

Statement by MastCell[edit]

Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Discussion among involved and uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ferahgo the Assassin[edit]

Comment by VsevolodKrolikov It was disappointing for the dispute with user:WeijiBaikeBianji to be seen as a vendetta by two editors that aggravated the supposed offence. It's not a matter of two editors, as the certified RFC regarding that user shows; other editors find his editing odd and at times tendentious. WBB has been adding various links as "further reading" to a number of articles (not just this book) which don't appear to be that necessary (and I'm not sure he's read them, so I don't think it's editorial recommendations as covered in WP:FURTHER); it seems to be a way of suggesting sources to other editors to integrate into the text (rather than doing it himself or using the talkpage). I don't think Ferahgo reverting WBB specifically should be seen as aggravating the situation. Anyone might have reverted that addition as not useful (after all, it's not a book dedicated solely or mostly to the article topic, and indeed heavily implies POV regarding what the topic is most notable before). I also think the closing was really far too swift, and it should be noted that MathSci does seem to be getting involved in disputes in this topic far too much for someone banned from it.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Mathsci In her two submissions to WP:AE, Ferahgo the Assassin wrote first that she was "removing material related to race and intelligence from the article",[44] and then that she was "removing material that made the article too focused on race and intelligence". [45] The edit to which she which she refers [46] is the addition of one book, unrelated to race and intelligence as far as I am aware, with the edit summary "added further reading section and citation to book". Her unfortunate choice of words in both edits indicates unambiguously that in her perception she was removing content explicitly related to the subject of her topic ban. In addition to her own perceptions, the article explicitly mentions the topic of racial differences in intelligence.

The two diffs above also cast aspersions on other editors which Ferahgo the Assassin has continued to make since the imposition of the topic ban of her boyfriend Captain Occam in August. On this occasion her wording suggests that she was following the edits of another editor in what she perceived to be the subject of her topic ban: she has placed herself in a long-standing, acrimonious but wholly one-sided dispute with this editor. Ferahgo the Assassin should take responsibility for her own actions, whatever her personal conspiracy theories might happen to be.

My topic ban was by mutual consent, unlike those of others sanctioned by WP:ARBR&I. It covers editing articles on this topic or their talk pages, broadly construed, but not process pages. I have no interest in how articles in the area of the topic ban are edited. I have, however, been monitoring violations of topic bans (for example the multiple antisemitic sockpuppets of Mikemikev (talk · contribs): Juden Raus, Suarneduj, RLShinyblingstone, Oo Yun, etc). I removed this edit by Mikemikev from this page. [47] Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin, possibly aided now by third parties, have continually tried to push the limits of their topic bans. In this latest instance Ferahgo the Assassin has made namespace edits directly related to her topic ban. Mathsci (talk) 09:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Jayen466: I would have agreed that the sanction was a poor decision if the book had been a clearly inappropriate, coatracky addition to the Further reading section of Osborn's biography. If the book had had two or three passing mentions of Osborn, then Ferahgo should have been quite entitled to remove it, her topic ban on race and intelligence notwithstanding. However, looking at the book in google books, it does discuss Osborn, incl. Osborn's support for Grant's views on the superiority of the "Nordic" race, in detail. Osborn's name occurs on 100 pages of the book. In my view, this makes it an appropriate addition to the Further reading section, making Ferahgo's removal not justifiable on the grounds of WP:Undue, and bringing it within the scope of the topic ban. As such, I believe MastCell's block was justified. One might argue that 72 hours was long for what appears to be a first-time offence of the topic ban, but I agree with MastCell that the topic ban was violated. --JN466 11:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment about Jayen466's comments on the book I have expressed no opinion here on appropriate sanctions, if any. Jayen466 correctly analyzes here and below why the book is an appropriate further reading reference for the article most in dispute here, and would serve well soon as a reference in a footnote attached to revised article text. I had the book at hand yesterday, when it was due at my local public library, and I will have it in hand again by Monday, when I circulate it from the academic library at my workplace. The book is meticulously researched and professionally edited and points to many useful sources for wikipedians to use to edit other articles. As I selected the Wikipedia articles to which to add further reading references to that book, I looked at the book's index, following selected page references to read them in context, and looked for Wikipedia articles that didn't already cite the book (per WP:FURTHERREADING) and that appeared to need more sources added. I didn't add the book to many articles about persons or organizations that were mentioned off-hand in the book, but I tried, proceeding alphabetically, to add the book to articles for which other editors may be able to use the book for editing article text, and in any case for which readers of Wikipedia could gain additional information about article topics if they refer to the book. That's all. I'll be doing more of that with more books on more articles, often timed according to when I need to accelerate reading a book before I return it to a local library. It would be a funny view of core Wikipedia policy if adding reliable sources to articles becomes regarded as disfavored editing behavior. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: Ferahgo appears to be correct in stating that the block was not preceded by any warning, as required by Wikipedia:AC/DS#Warnings:

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; 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.

Accordingly, the correct thing to do would be to lift the block, and convert it into a warning. --JN466 12:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

  • That is not correct. Ferahgo the Assassin received an official warning when NuclearWarfare imposed her topic ban on October 7.[48] No further warning is required. The topic ban was logged at Wikipedia:ARBR&I#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions. Her edit, whatever justification other users might give for its possible validity, violates that topic ban. Mathsci (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Being advised of a topic ban is not the same as a warning for problematic editing. On the other hand, Wikipedia:ARBR&I#Enforcement_of_topic-bans_by_block does state that violations of a topic ban may result in a block, without prior warning. I suppose once a topic ban has been made, we are no longer in the realm of discretionary sanctions, and my argument above that a warning should have been given first looks like it was wrong. I agree that the topic ban was violated. --JN466 14:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Again completely incorrect. As MastCell and others have written, this is black and white—there are no "ifs" and "buts". Since Jayen466 is himself under an indefinite topic ban per WP:ARBSCI, I'm surprised that he is so unclear about these matters. Mathsci (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
        • What is completely incorrect? I thought I had just agreed with you that the topic ban was violated, and that according to the arbitration remedy no prior warning was required. --JN466 05:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Thanks for clarifying that and apologies for any misunderstanding. Mathsci (talk) 05:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
            • That's alright, thanks. --JN466 07:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment about the book. Counting google hits in a book is like counting google hits on a web search. You can't just look at the headline number. I've had a look through the book as available on google scholar. It really isn't about Osborn. Osborn was a close associate of Madison Grant, and worked with him on a eugenicist project, so it's not surprising that he gets quite a few mentions. However, in this book he appears as a supporting actor, with his own life barely examined, except where it crosses paths with Grant, and at least half the time even when the subject turns to Eugenics (a good deal of the search results come out of Osborn's tenure as head of the American Natural history museum), many of those results are his name in a list of others who were also eugenicists. There is a patch of mentions (on average once every eight pages) in the last half of the book when it really deals with eugenics, but nothing solid. There is practically no mention of Osborn's view of race and intelligence, and certainly no analysis of it. There's not even a chapter dedicated to him. It's true that WP:FURTHER is simply too vague about what should go into further reading. This book's citation as further reading is rather like citing Queen Victoria's biography as further reading on the life of William Gladstone. You might glean something, but really not a great deal compared to other works, and I would see deletion as entirely reasonable. (In trying to fathom WeijiBaikeBianji's methods, to me it looks like he's found this book on the internet, and decided to recommend it as a source to several pages by adding it to further reading.) "Further reading" should not be any book somehow connected with the subject.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I did look at the book pages mentioning both Osborn and race, e.g. [49], [50], [51], [52] etc. and respectfully disagree with the notion that Osborn is but a minor figure in the book -- he is not. Note [53]. --JN466 14:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say he was minor (I used "supporting" quite deliberately), rather that the book really isn't about him, at least not enough to merit inclusion as "further reading". Yes, the book has a picture of him, and the picture subtitle refers to his work as head of the natural history museum, not as a eugenicist (that came later). What is your understanding of the criteria for "Further Reading"? Mine is that it is most like the rather better developed criteria for external links (as reflected in discussions) - which this book would fail for lack of substance and possible coatracking. The book is really no more than a life of Madison Grant, even though its title suggests more than that. In any case, I think it's a struggle to see this as a clear-cut violation of a topic ban. Bans and blocks are meant to be preventive, not punitive, and we have a clear promise to avoid this kind of thing again, with an unforced admission of misunderstanding the full nature of the article topic in question. I would recommend WP:ROPE here. If Ferahgo is on the make, then harsh sanctions next time.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I guess you'd argue that the book would fail WP:ELNO 13 if it were an external link. That's something one could debate, though personally I think the book contains enough material about Osborn to add value for the reader. I'm not unsympathetic to the view that a warning, or a shorter block, might have been enough here. --JN466 15:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Ferahgo has asked for a warning. I would take this as an act of good faith - that she accepts the community would have every right to take stronger action in such circumstances now the situation has been made clearer. On a side issue, someone really needs to look at WP:FURTHER. I looked at it myself because of the books added by WBB to creativity. They're both on topic, but very new (i.e. I suspect unread by the person adding, given the apparent ignorance their previous edits on the topic showed if those were good faith edits) and in one case a particularly novel angle that is explicitly going into new territory on the subject.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Professor marginalia I have no opinion about whether the block might be lifted and a warning issued instead. But Ferahgo the Assassin's revert of WeijiBaikeBianji's edit was her very first edit to the Henry Fairfield Osborn article. It is more likely that she is continuing to monitor WeijiBaikeBianji's edits than it is he was deliberately baiting her to violate her topic ban when adding the "further reference" to two dozen articles she's never even edited. Henry Fairfield Osborn was one of the two chief architects and promoters of the American Eugenics Society-the other was his nephew. Eugenics and the superiority of European genes, including intellectual genes, was a significant aspect of his life's work. It was largely due to his influence and esteem in the scientific community that eugenics and biological superiority was "legitimized" in the early 20th century as science. So I think more clear eyed research of topics and less "paranoia" and "palace intrigue" would go a long way in sorting out legitimate editorial differences of opinion in the articles. And there would be a whole lot less disruption if editors would apply simple common sense to comply with existing sanctions rather than constantly pettifogging over their fine print for legal loopholes. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Professor marginalia correctly sums up the rationale for the edit. He also points to what should be done to ensure a more productive editing environment on many articles. I of course have no access at all to the watchlist of any editor. I am sorry that some editors are offended by efforts to add reliable sources to articles, but that is Wikipedia policy, so we all have to live with what the best sources say as we build an encyclopedia.

-- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a nice misrepresentation. No one is objecting to the addition of reliable sources to the main body of the text - indeed, it would be great if you did that rather than litter article pages with sourcing suggestions for other editors (rather than use the talkpages). Whatever Further Reading is for, it is not meant as a dumping ground for unread sources.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Another editor has restored the text to the "further reading" section.[54] The issue here is whether or not Ferahgo the Assassin has violated her topic ban, and the admins who evaluated the case concluded she had. If there are other issues with WeijiBaikeBianji's editing in race and intelligence related topics, any changes to them must be left handled to editors who aren't currently topic banned. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • comment I endorse HJ Mitchell's shortening of the block.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment on guidelines. WP:FURTHER was recently modified (although not as a result of this incident but because of a dispute at WP:SCICITE) to recommend annotating the further reading list in confusing cases. This incident might have been a good opportunity to put that in practice. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Ferahgo the Assassin[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Added to AE page Courcelles 08:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • My reading of the above discussion is that the block was just and there was a violation of the topic ban, however, 72 hours may have been a little harsh for a first violation (and first entry in the editor's block log). Accordingly, I have reduced the block duration to 24 hours from the time the original block was imposed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
HJ Mitchell, in the above discussion, do you see a clear consensus to reduce the block duration? PhilKnight (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I was about to respond above at length, but I'll just do so here briefly. Long story short, I recognize that block length is a gray area. I don't have any objection to HJ Mitchell's reduction to 24 hours, so long as we're all agreed that this was a clear violation of the topic ban. MastCell Talk 21:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Unacceptable. Now, MastCell says that he doesn't have a problem with it, so I will not be seeking comment by the Arbitration Committee. HJ Mitchell, take care to note that AE blocks are not to be modified without clear community consensus. You cannot just arbitrarily reduce block length because you feel it is inappropriate. NW (Talk) 23:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
It's cool. The topic-ban violation was black-and-white, but block length is a gray area, so I don't feel especially dogmatic about 72 hours. MastCell Talk 23:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
On one hand, HJM - please keep in mind that AE sanctions are applied only in topic areas historically subject to a great deal of disruption, and are intentionally held to a different standard than our other actions because the community wants the disruption to stop so everyone can get back to producing an encyclopedia. I think that you should have waited for this discussion before acting. On another hand, until I saw this section I had decided to recommend that the block be lifted (not reversed), as I think that FTA probably gets it a little better now. On the gripping hand - motion to close this thread as resolved satisfactorily enough? - 2/0 (cont.) 04:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with much of what 2over0 has said, and in particular, we can close this thread now. PhilKnight (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Note on protections of computability-related articles[edit]

This is just a note (and opportunity for others to review) about some enforcement of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Carl_Hewitt, in particular Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Carl_Hewitt#Post-case_clarification. The syndrome is multiple IP editors repeatedly adding material that pushes a POV favoring Hewitt's research, with references to Google Knol articles or articles written by Hewitt. Today, I semi-protected Church-Turing thesis for 1 month. Gödel's incompleteness theorems has been under pending-changes protection for a while. It's an admittedly esoteric area, so only editors who have the pages on watchlist are likely to notice. I don't mind doing these protections, but since I'm a frequent editor in that area I wanted to make a post here for transparency. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that these protections are necessary. In many cases, WP:PROTECT might allow longer protection than one month, since the problem has been going on or four years. Blocking these IPs doesn't seem possible, since there are so many different ones. EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
See the closing statement by T. Canens at the bottom of this report. Participants are reminded of the consensus wording found by LHvU. Shuki is topic banned from I-P for six months. Nableezy and a set of three others are interaction-banned. EdJohnston (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Request concerning Shuki[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Nableezy 17:35, 27 November 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. [55] See below for explanation
  2. [56] Same
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. [57] Notified of case
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Indefinite ban from editing material on Israeli settlements and international law
Topic ban on all articles about Israeli settlements
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
A very long discussion took place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues about whether and how to incorporate the well-sourced fact that Israeli settlements are considered illegal under international law. Shuki was a part of this discussion and so is obviously aware of it. An uninvolved admin, LessHeard vanU, closed the discussion saying that a specific wording has consensus to be included and further has consensus to be included in the lead of developed articles on settlements. LHvU later clarified the point (here) emphasizing that in articles where the illegality of these settlements is expanded on in the body there is consensus for it to be included in the lead of the articles. I added the line to 3 articles a few days ago ([58], [59], [60]). The line was, unsurprisingly, removed by 3 editors who argued against its inclusion in the very discussion closed by the uninvolved admin with a note that there is consensus for its inclusion ([61], [62], [63]). There was some confusion about the close, so a request was made to the admin to clarify (that clarification is linked above). After LHvU clarified that in these articles the wording under discussion has consensus to be included in the lead of the articles, I re-added the line to 2 articles ([64], [65]) with a note on the talk page saying why and referencing the centralized discussion ([66], [67]). Shuki then removes the edits ([68], [69]) claiming, in his single comment to the talk page explaining his reverts, that there is "no consensus" ([70]). This despite the clarification from the uninvolved admin that there is specific consensus for including that line in the lead of such articles.

The close from the admin included the following:

It is my impression that there is a body of editors of the opinion that the legality of these Israeli settlements should not be noted; it is a valid opinion to be held by an individual so inclined, but it is not conducive to building an encyclopedia. Attempts to stop, stymie or divert efforts to build the project in incorporating that commentary must be resisted like any other form of disruptive conduct.

Shuki is very clearly one of those editors who holds "the opinion that the legality of these Israeli settlements should not be noted" and further he "attempts to stop, stymie or divert efforts to build the project in incorporating that commentary". This request is meant to see if this "disruptive conduct" will be allowed to continue unabated.

I have no doubt that as with most AE threads I am involved in we will see a large number of those who support Shuki or simply dislike me making rambling comments that are of little relevance to the issue. I hope they will be given the consideration they deserve and be ignored.

Shuki claims, in their response, that the admin did not "close" the discussion and that there was no finding for consensus for placement. In the clarification linked above LHvU wrote the following (emphasis in original):

I found that there was consensus for the wording per proposal 2, and for it to be included in the opening paragraph(s) of multi section articles, where it may be expanded per WP:LEDE in the article body, and to be used without further expansion in stub or very short articles

I do not see how an editor can in good faith claim that there was no finding for consensus for placement in the lead or for specific wording when the plain English quoted here shows that there is for both. nableezy - 18:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
As I am sure was the intent, a number of users have made a simple request into something that I doubt many sane admins would like to deal with. I beg an admin to please disregard the noise by Jaakobou and Jiujitsuguy and actually look at what happened here. An uninvolved admin says there is consensus for this material to be in the lead of these articles. If a few users want to argue over the semantic differences between "Like other Israeli settlements in the (West Bank/East Jerusalem/Golan Heights), X is regarded as illegal under international law, though the Israeli government disputes this" and "Like all Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, X is considered illegal under international law, though Israeli disputes this" thats fine, but it is inane argument to make for removing the wording. If Shuki or Jaakobou would rather use the former sentence they could have replaced it and there would be no issue here. Instead Shuki removed the lines, claiming there is "no consensus" period. The question here is whether or not a block of users can ignore what consensus is and filibuster any attempt to add material that has consensus. No amount of pedantry can escape that Shuki did not simply modify the phrasing but instead completely removed it. My question is whether or not this will "be resisted like any other form of disruptive conduct." Can these users simply say NO NO NO and remove any material they do not like, or is there some penalty for such behavior? nableezy - 07:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the proposed interaction bans, I think they are unnecessary. Cla68 is right, I cant dispute that, but there is a cause and effect here. The more nonsense that I deal with, the more of an asshole I become. I admit I havent really thought about how new people would react to seeing some of the discussions that the regulars have, but that is partially due to the fact that most of the "new" names we see are just old faces with new names. But Cla68 is right, and I will make an honest effort to be more collegial. I dont know how an interaction ban would work, we all edit the same articles. Would it be a race to see who gets to an article first and any editor who arrives later would be violating the ban? The workings of such a ban are impractical, and I think the issue can be satisfactorily dealt with by blocks and bans for future issues with personal attacks or incivility. Though I do think that restricting editors from making comments in AE requests that do not concern them is a marvelous idea. nableezy - 21:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Curious to know where Cla68 came from out of nowhere, but even more your sudden attempt at tobah. Gatoclass thinks I have battleground mentality but ignores that it takes two to tango, including your 24hour+20minute revert on Maale Adumim. Your provocative use of AE is anti-'collegial', so drop that misleading attitude, people see through it easily. --Shuki (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
He inappropriately reverted to Nableezy's version at Ariel. I can only assume he came here because he was miffed that I changed it and notified him of the error. I could be wrong about that and he does bring up a point. Some of the back and forth between editors is heated and that is a problem. I don't think my comment was nearly as bad as he makes it out to be but overall I agree that we need to follow the decorum bit of the arbitration decision closer.Cptnono (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I dont know what "tobah" is supposed to mean. My use of AE is meant to stop editors from engaging in disruptive editing. Yes, I reverted at Ma'ale Adumim. However, unlike you, I have consensus for my revert. My last comment was sincere, I will make a greater effort to be collegial. That will be much easier if editors who disruptively edit against consensus and without regard for the policies of this website are not allowed to continue doing so. nableezy - 21:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Shuki[edit]

Statement by Shuki[edit]

The principle of this AE is that Nableezy is making false accusations and misrepresenting my opinion that he assumes even though I have never claimed what he is accusing me. I certainly do not deny that there was an effort to build consensus and did take part, but I do question that there was in fact consensus and the admin did not in fact close that but opening it up for more discussion. There was also no consensus on placement and that was also supposed to be done by consensus at that central location. Nableezy is not just being bold here but unwilling to continue this consensus building for fear that it might unravel as others are exposed to it (if they can manage to follow it) instead ramming it through. He himself admits that he was reverted by three editors, who in fact, did not really take part in that confusing and hard to follow discussion. Nableezy also chose to make these changes on Shabbat when he knows that there will be virtually no opposition. This is a frivolous and false AE.

It is incredible nerve and anti-AGF that he ends this AE attack by preempting the opposition and discrediting of anyone who might come here in support of me (it will take time, Shabbat will only be over on the West Coast in several hours and we cannot assume everyone runs to their PCs to get updated on WP). He even demands that they be ignored, very considerate and showing his intentions to shut up others. --Shuki (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, are you saying there's a rough consensus for the legality wording to be in the main body of the article, but whether it should be in the lede should be decided on a case-by-case basis? Or are you saying there's no consensus whatsoever? PhilKnight (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The legality wording that had some support is not the WP:SOAP violation text Nableezy was pushing into the lead. There is no consensus for that "like all Israeli settlements" version and Nableezy disingenuously presents his version as the one that was discussed when that is not the case. JaakobouChalk Talk 00:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
That's not a bad argument but it's not what Shuki is saying. Shuki's contesting the legitimacy of Proposal 2's consensus and seems to accept Nableezy's wording as some derivative of it (there's little material difference although employing the verbatim line makes a hell of a lot more sense, but whatever). If that were the argument then it would have been simple enough to say "This is not the proper wording of Prop 2" in the edit summary/copy paste it in. Sol (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I have brought up Nableezy's repeated insertion of the incorrect wording at the centralized discussion.[72] although I suppose editors might want to discuss it here as well. Cptnono (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The entire tendentious edit that Nableezy proposes, in the context of content, scope, wording and placement are still points of contention and hotly contested. It is clear that he is using (abusing is the more appropriate term) this AE as a means to intimidate, to instill fear and to force his POV, by hook or by crook, on to the reluctant majority.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
An uninvolved admin has said there was consensus for the inclusion of this material in the lead of the articles. No amount of lawyering can escape that and efforts to do so betray, well Ill leave the rest of that sentence untyped. nableezy - 07:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
No. You are fabricating words which were not specifically said. No uninvolved admin said there was a consensus or even a "basis" for consensus for pushing the soapbox "Like all Israeli settlements" into the lead. The editors who quickly disagreed here are a reality and it is disruptive to see you ignore this fact. Fabricating a "consensus" to propose a sanction against another editor is a clear example of WP:GAME. Also, repeating that same bullshit argument even though it was rebuffed as a false statement is a form of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, so stop making bullshit arguments. The version the LHvU said there was consensus for is The international community considers Israeli settlements in [WB/EJ/GH] illegal under international law, though the Israeli government disputes this. If you want to argue that the addition of "Like all Israeli settlements" makes this a "fabrication" you can do that, but it is a manifestly absurd thing to say that verges on being purposefully deceitful. nableezy - 15:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Again you are fabricating new interpretations to what LHvU actually said. (1) There was no agreement for your soapbox text. (2) The version noted by LHvU as a basis for a future consensus is quite different than yours. (3) Six editors disagree with your insertion of soapbox into leads. (4) You are repeating the same bogus argument over and over again to justify bad conduct and gaming. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
What you write is not true and the fact that you continue to write untruths can only mean that you are doing so intentionally. LHvU wrote the following:

I found that there was consensus for the wording per proposal 2, and for it to be included in the opening paragraph(s) of multi section articles, where it may be expanded per WP:LEDE in the article body, and to be used without further expansion in stub or very short articles.

That is, he found there to be consensus for including the line The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this. to the lead of the articles. You are making a pedantic dispute that Shuki did not even raise as the basis for this massive amount of wikilawyering that you have been engaged in. Stop making such purposefully dishonest arguments. nableezy - 17:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Again you are fabricating new interpretations to what LHvU actually said. (1) There was no agreement for your soapbox text. i.e. It just happens to not be the statement that was selected in the discussions -- Sean.hoyland, 17:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC) (2) The version noted by LHvU as a "basis" (why are you ignoring that word in your diff?) for a future consensus is quite different than yours. (3) Six editors disagree with your insertion of soapbox into leads. (4) You are repeating the same bogus argument over and over again to justify bad conduct and gaming. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
You are again misrepresenting clear words. I will quote again:

I found that there was consensus for the wording per proposal 2, and for it to be included in the opening paragraph(s) of multi section articles, where it may be expanded per WP:LEDE in the article body, and to be used without further expansion in stub or very short articles

Why are ignoring that LHvU repeatedly said that there is consensus for "proposal 2" in the lead of the article? Can you really have missed the now 4 times this line has been quoted, or are you just playing dumb? Consensus is not determined by numbers, it is determined by strength of argument and consistency with the policies of this website. Or, again quoting this same admin

[C]onsensus is determined by weight of argument, based in policy and discussion, and not the number or the passion of support or opposition.

Your purposefully misleading statement not withstanding, this is a simple problem. A set of editors, yourself included, have long attempted to remove any mention of the illegality of these colonies. When an uninvolved admin says there is consensus to include this fact in the lead of the articles, editors from this set have ignored that and disruptively removed it. No amount of wikilawyering changes these indisputable facts. nableezy - 17:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Phil, NO, there is certainly no final consensus on wording or placement either and Nableezy and SupremeDeliciousness are being ultrabold in inserting it before the final wording has been accepted by consensus . Nableezy is also being uncollegiate in continually discrediting anyone who opposes his POV. Nableezy continues to misrepresent the voices of any editors not in his POV by accusing them of long removing any mention of illegality when in fact the struggle has always been to prevent him from simply applying boilerplate generalization without specific WP:V. I suppose that you and Nableezy actually read what LessHeard wrote and also the conclusion that is certainly not final or decisive and quite open ended. Look at the first comment from Cptnono who mentions this and Cptnono was very much part of wanting to build consensus and also not totally 'on my side'. I suggest you read WP:CONS and especially various lines like Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised. You might notice that virtually any opposing voice in this 'consensus building' was merely minimized or ridiculed. The line that is assumed to consensus is exactly the original line that SD and Nableezy were ramming into articles and also does not remain neutral and minimizes Israel opposition to mere wimpy 'but Israel disputes this'. You will notice that the 'consensus' building does not include a wide variety of editors due to heavy layering, and very hard to follow chit chat from editors who were online a lot virtually preventing anyone 'uninvolved' from being able to understand what was going on. You might remember an RfC that Nableezy posted about the term settlement and that was very easy to follow. Phil, I also remind you of your recent 1RR implementation that was done after an orderly and clear survey. This one was a mess and did not build consensus. --Shuki (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
This is going to be good. The unequal severity of this proposed topic ban, based on two reverts and a 'comment'(?!) above shows me to be the main danger on WP in this area. You can only measure this claim by seeing the Israel-Arab area calm down drastically after I am gone, or not. Ho hum... --Shuki (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Shuki[edit]

Comment by Cptnono

The whole reason the centralized discussion was proposed was due to editors (including Nableezy) edit warring and then opening up separate discussions. Seeing the exact same thing happening is disheartening. Yes, the admin did say there was consensus. He did not close it out which I could see leading to some confusion. I do not understand how the admin could see consensus for placement and I am not the only one. Supreme Deliciousness has been just as adamant as Nableezy in getting this line in and he opened up a discussion on placement after the admin's conclusion. I think Supreme Deliciousness should be applauded (didn't expect to hear that did you?) for his restraint over the last couple of days and think Nableezy should have acted similarly. I told you guys we needed to discuss implementation : ( Cptnono (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: I have said my piece and am going to excuse myself from the remainder of the conversation since it looks like it is going to get out of hand. My closing thoughts on it are that this AE should not be a ruling on if there was consensus or not since that is better left at the centralized discussion (not separate pages, BTW). However, Shuki being confused about the consensus is perfectly valid since multiple editors are.Cptnono (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
@ T. Canens: They are substantially different. I know it looks like little but we went through all of that discussion for a reason. One version states that hands down that it is illegal. The other clarifies and does not take sides. I'm not saying give anyone a pass on this but it needs to be made clear that Nableezy should not have inserted material that did not have consensus.Cptnono (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
@LVHU: Proposal 2 specifically said "1)... Many of these articles can be found at Category:Israeli settlements. This proposal does not detail use in articles that merely discuss settlements." so simply being related is not sufficient per consensus. However, such discussion might be better at the centralized discussion.Cptnono (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

An interaction bad is completely unnecessary. I made the comment "stop going out of your way to cause trouble" and that is sufficient? I did not pile on the accusations here like some editors. I tried to be civil. I started the discussion that is what got us here in the first place. I just got nailed for being rude to editors and have been attempting to make it better. A topic ban won;t be helping that situation especially since I have not had anytime to prove myself. Have there been any comments since the recent AE that I have made in this topic area (I have actually stopped swearing across the project) besides the one mentioned that seemed out of line? The one mentioned isn't even that bad, IMO. He was starting a conflict and that shouldn't even be in dispute. So besides "going out of your way" (which seems a little mean) is there anything else? I even made it clear that Shuki made mistakes here. Should we have an interaction ban? Cptnono (talk) 07:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I have expanded on this at PKs talk page but he does not appear to be swayed. I would appreciate it if my request was looked into before another admin closes this. I have not commented on what I feel is appropriate action for Shuki or Nableezy but me getting lumped into the interaction bans is a big deal to me.Cptnono (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

@T. Canens, have you reviewed my comments in question and believe I crossed the line? I was practically begging Nableezy and the other editors involveded to use the centralized discussion. The single comment that might come across mean should not be sufficient. Add I think it is well balanced by perfectly reasonable comments even while others may be being less then polite: [73]one in question[74][75][76][77]Cptnono (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Mkativerata

I consider myself involved in respect of settlement disputes because I participated in an RfC about them once. I think Shuki's actions here have been disruptive. LHvU's close of that discussion - especially after the clarification - was quite clear. Nableezy's insertion of material was consistent with the close. If any further clarification needed to be sought, that could have been done without reverting. But I'm concerned that editors disappointed with the consensus are trying to obfuscate it by claiming it is not clear. That can't be allowed to happen. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't just Shuki who reverted. I also reverted the edit as did user:Brewcrewer. Nableezy is the one here who is acting unilaterally without consensus.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
All that means is I was feeling generous and did not request that you and brew likewise be topic banned for disruptively editing against consensus. nableezy - 23:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The very fact that it was your edits that were being reverted by three different editors means that it was in fact you who was acting in a disruptive manner without consensus. You've been around long enough to know how to play in the sandbox and you are now, quite frankly, operating disruptively by acting without consensus against the majority and by filing repeated AE actions that require lengthy responses to defend against frivolous claims.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Uhh no. An uninvolved admin specifically says that there is consensus to include that specific line in the lead of those articles. Consensus does not mean unanimous consent, it does not mean that a set of users can filibuster and demand that their position be accepted. nableezy - 23:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
No. You are fabricating words which were not specifically said. No uninvolved admin said there was a consensus or even a "basis" for consensus for pushing the soapbox "Like all Israeli settlements" into the lead. The editors who quickly disagreed here are, on the other hand, a reality. Fabricating a "consensus" to propose a sanction against another editor is a clear example of WP:GAME. JaakobouChalk Talk 00:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
If Shuki had a problem with that part of the sentence, he or she could have raised it for discussion or, at the most, amended the sentence. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
If Nab had a problem with the status quo, rather than inserting a hotly contested edit that was reverted by three editors (in the lede no less), he could have used the Talk page or discussed the issue further in a centralized location.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
No Nableezy had consensus, as determined by the admin who closed the discussion, on his side. Ignoring consensus on the basis that it is "not clear" is tendentious editing. Like it or not, the closing admin's decision needs to be accepted as final. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
So one editor ignoring three others is under a consensus? You think that is logical? JaakobouChalk Talk 01:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
More obfuscation. The consensus was determined by LHvU on the relevant discussion page. It is not determined by however many editors reverted Nableezy. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Your tone does not make your argument stronger. (a) off course it matters what the community thinks and matters how many editors find Nableezy's version wrong. (b) there was never a consensus for the soapbox version Nableezy keeps introducing and LHvU doesn't even mention it. I know its fun to say "x determined y" when we're talking about z... but it's a bullshit argument. JaakobouChalk Talk 03:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
If that was the case Shuki should have amended z to match y, not revert it entirely. Without discussion, it was disruptive and tendentious. In any case, you are inventing your own reasons for Shuki's actions, that are very different for the reasons Shuki has given. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Pushing a non-consensus soapbox version into the lead was the problem, not the act of reverting it. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
You are repeating false statements despite having been shown that your statement is false. When will an admin finally step up and ban you from this place? nableezy - 17:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
@sanctions - aside from the matter about the length of the ban, might it also be worthwhile considering whether the ban should be limited to settlement articles instead of the PIA conflict generally? Settlement articles seem to be a discrete area of WP conflict and this issue doesn't go outside that area. Just a thought. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment by RolandR

It seems to me that LHvU's finding was clear and unequivocal: "I am of the opinion that the wording per Proposal 2; "The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this." has consensus, and secondly that there is consensus for it to be included in all relevant articles". LHvU further noted that "consensus is determined by weight of argument, based in policy and discussion, and not the number or the passion of support or opposition". It is clear that some editors dispute this finding; but they cannot claim that this was not the outcome of the discussion.

LHvU also noted that "It is my impression that there is a body of editors of the opinion that the legality of these Israeli settlements should not be noted; it is a valid opinion to be held by an individual so inclined, but it is not conducive to building an encyclopedia. Attempts to stop, stymie or divert efforts to build the project in incorporating that commentary must be resisted like any other form of disruptive conduct". We are now seeing the truth of this comment; it is surely time for this recommendation to be acted on. RolandR (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You are also misrepresnting my actions and LessHeard. If you read the line you posted, it is actually about those who do not want to note the legality of the settlements. He is commenting on those who want to strike this from the articles, like Nableezy has on the Ariel article. --Shuki (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Sean.hoyland

I would like to appeal to any admins examining this case to review the evidence carefully, particulary the statements by uninvolved admin LessHeard vanU in the centralised discussion. We've reached a critical stage in the process and it's taken years of edit wars, blocks and lengthy discussions to reach this point. It's critical because what happens next in terms of implementation will probably decide whether we can resolve the issue once and for all and move on or whether we will face more slow burn edit wars, blocks, and fragmented, uncoordinated arguments in a large number of articles. It happens to be Shuki in this AE report. It could have been someone else being reported for either adding or removing the content so whatever is decided here there needs to be clarity so that editors know whether their actions are legitimate and consistent with the centralized discussion or not. Sean.hoyland - talk 22:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

For context and a sanity check, I have added a compiliation of sources discussing the legality issue to the IPCOLL page. Some sources are from the discussions that LessHeard vanU reviewed that resulted in the consensus he identified, some are already in use in various articles and some are new sources that I've found. The sources are intended as a resource for people (including admins here at AE) who want to compare LessHeard vanU's findings with the sources and assess the legitimacy of editor's statements and actions. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Jiujitsuguy

This is a case of content dispute plain and simple and Nableezy is attempting to force the issue here, at AE, rather than dispute resolution. He does not have consensus for the contentious language he wishes to shove down our throats and he certainly does not have consensus for inserting this type of tendentious editing in the lede. Indeed, in both articles he cites to, he was the lone editor who was reverted by three different editors, indicating that 1) he is in the minority and 2) that this is still an issue that is the subject of discourse. There is simply nothing actionable here. Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

There very clearly is something actionable here. That you, brewcrewer and Shuki dislike what there is consensus for does not change that there is consensus. At the very least, the clarification by LHvU on what he saw consensus for, and consensus not meaning how many people shout NO as loud as they can, is for including the language you dislike in the pleace you dislike (the lead). It is incredibly disheartening that even after going through this process we still have to deal with crap like a few users not liking the outcome of the discussion and attempting to enforce their view in spite of it. The following things are indisputably true. A centralized discussion took place, with you, Shuki and brewcrewer all being involved. That discussion was closed by an uninvolved admin. That admin said there is consensus for including the line and for placing it in the lead of articles. Are any of those things under dispute? That users disagree with that close does not entitle them to ignore it, much like how if an AfD closes with a delete consensus (regardless of the headcount), a user who disputes that consensus cannot simply recreate the article. nableezy - 22:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Being disingenuous about it won't magically create a consensus when there is non. I'd do the same edits as Shuki did in a heartbeat. That you are still provocatively pushing the words "Like all Israeli settlements", "illegal", and "colony" to the first paragraph of articles relating Israel is a sad reflection on this project's ability to handle disruptive conduct. JaakobouChalk Talk 23:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC) +c 00:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
An uninvolved admin specifically says there is consensus to include that line in the lead of those articles. I actually wish you had been the one to make these reverts as I think Wikipedia would be much better off if you were banned as opposed to Shuki. nableezy - 23:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Just in this short conversation, 6 editors: Cptnono, Mbz1, Brewcrewer, Jiujitsuguy, Shuki, Jaakobou disagree with your disingenuous representation of a so-called consensus. Don't let any facts confuse you. JaakobouChalk Talk 23:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
An uninvolved admin closed the discussion saying there is consensus for inclusion of that line in the lead, including the line I will briefly note that consensus is determined by weight of argument, based in policy and discussion, and not the number or the passion of support or opposition. Dont let any actual facts confuse you. nableezy - 00:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
No. You are fabricating words which were not specifically said. No uninvolved admin said there was a consensus or even a "basis" for consensus for pushing the soapbox "Like all Israeli settlements" into the lead. The editors who quickly disagreed here are, on the other hand, a reality. Fabricating a "consensus" to propose a sanction against another editor is a clear example of WP:GAME. JaakobouChalk Talk 00:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
You are purposely distorting what has happened here. You want to argue that my exact sentence was not what the admin said there was consensus for? Fine, Ill add the exact sentence the admin says there was consensus for, lets see what happens then. nableezy - 07:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Now it is 7 editors who disagree with Nableezy on this discussion. This, according to Nableezy, shows that I am "purposely distorting what has happened". 1 Nableezy : 0 World. Will Nableezy ever let facts confuse him or will he still insist someone determined there was a consensus for his WP:SOAP violating version in the lead when no such thing has happened? JaakobouChalk Talk 10:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
No amount of wikilawyering can escape the fact that an uninvolved admin specifically says there is consensus for that material. Consensus is not a vote, and no matter how many me toos, nearly all of whom voiced already voiced their complaints at the discussion that an uninvolved admin says there was consensus, you get the fact remains that an uninvolved admin says there is consensus for this material. nableezy - 15:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
No uninvolved admin approved your soapbox "like all other" text and you are repeating the same WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT argument. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Your argument is on its face inane. That you repeat it does not do you any favors. There very clearly is an uninvolved admin who says the material belongs in the lead. If you wish to argue that 3 of the 20 words did not have consensus fine, but it does not excuse the complete removal of material for which there is consensus to include. That you persist in calling something that can be sourced to 100+ sources "SOAP" only serves to illustrate the illogical nature of your argument. nableezy - 17:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Jiujitsuguy are false, its not a content dispute, the issue was discussed, consensus is based on arguments, not votes. An uninvolved admin looked at it, and since those who want to have the worldview of the illegality of Israeli settlements kept out of Wikipedia articles did not bring any good arguments, and those who want to have the worldview of the illegality of Israeli settlements in Wikipedia articles brought good arguments, the consensus was to have the information, but Jiujitsuguy, shuki do not accept the consensus, so now they just say "no" and edit war against the consensus.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Mbz1

I read a closure by LessHeard vanU and found it extremely confusing. The request is not actionable. The editors should continue trying reaching the consensus, but not on AE, on the articles talk pages.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Six or even 3 months topic ban for two edits even assuming they were wrong is way, way too much. I hear about battleground behavior, but Nableezy and others are displaying the same kind of behavior. It takes at least two users to create a battleground. How many times Nableezy filed AE that were closed with no actions taken. The proposed sanctions are absolutely disproportional. I believe an interaction ban between Nableezy and Shuki will do the job.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Jaakobou

Nableezy has been topic banned a total of 7.5 months and blocked on numerous occasions for continuous incivility, edit-warring and this "illegal" issue: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

  • 4 months - lowered to 2: [78]
  • 2 months more: [79]
  • 1.5 months more: [80]

Personally, I support the presented edits performed by Shuki 100% and point out that Nableezy is violating both Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Principles of misuse of the project for advocacy and furtherance of outside conflicts as well as continuous effort on gaming the system. JaakobouChalk Talk 23:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)+clarify/punctuate+diff 23:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

p.s. there is a worrying modus operandi where Nableezy tag-teams his efforts to have fellow editors sanctioned when there is disagreement on content. The number of editors who quickly respond here goes to show exactly who wants to make a controversial political advocacy type of addition against consensus (e.g. Nableezy, Supreme Deliciousness, to be seen). JaakobouChalk Talk 23:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

But wait... there's more. 2 of Nableezy's 10 or so sanctions/2 of Shuki's 4 sanctions were related to this dispute: [81]and [82] This one[83] was even Nableezy bringing SHuki here. Both of you guys need to stop reverting. I totally feel Shuki's frustration of courseCptnono (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:IRONY =) Sol (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Sol

So is the consensus confirmation valid or not? That seems to be the real question. I'm amazed the proposal has managed to survive despite the Atlas-crushing mountain of pettifoggery in the discussion, so nice work, those who labored on. Sol (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Shuki made reverts on two different pages. Who say he can't? Queen Nableezy? Adding "like all Israeli settlements" to articles without a source that specifically uses this terminology AND specifically cites the name of the place in question, is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. SPA accounts like Nableezy's are a disgrace to Wikipedia. No wonder the academic world regards this site as a bunch of crap.--Yespleazy (talk) 06:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Its nice to know I have gone to being 50 different wimpy guys to being a Queen. Ill leave your fantasy intact and not disrupt your imagination with what actually happened. nableezy - 07:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy

I suggest everyone read the close by LessHeard vanU Nableezy linked to above [84]. I find it to be very well thought out, clearly worded, and I wish every admin would articulate their thoughts like this.
I don't see how anyone can claim that his close supports the wording Shuki removed from the article. Where exactly does he say "like all Israeli settlements X is illegal" is apropriate? On the contrary, he says he is of the opinion that "(subject) is a settlement of disputed legality..." etc. (or variations thereof)" is what should be included in the lede. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I strongly concur. Here you can see the two versions the closing admin suggested, side-by-side, implemented at the Psagot article. I ended up switching back to the version that included the sentence in the lead, because the admin later clarified their statement that the "disputed legality" phrasing should be used "only in those instances where there appeared to be an introductory paragraph and a main section (or two)." In this case, the article in question (Psagot) has four sections, but the first diff I linked could be viewed as a model of the two options. ← George talk 13:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Um sorry, the version which LHvU says has consensus is "The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this." most certainly not No More's "of disputed ilegality". All Nab has added is "like all". Which simply clears up a potential point of confusion. Entirely blanking the statement for which their is consensus on the grounds that the phrasing is slightly more explicit on one point not covered in LHvU's summary is most certainly disruptive.--Misarxist 14:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I copied the part in quotation marks including the "of disputed legality" (including the italics) right from the diff I provided above. Did you read it all the way through? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
And LHvU said that applied only to articles with a lead and a single section after that. He said for articles with developed bodies the entire line should go into the lead. Ive quoted the clarification where this is made clear. This is simply more lawyering in an attempt to obfuscate a clear close. nableezy - 15:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
(ec)That's correct, the wording No More argues for is in a "suggestion that may satisfy the agreed need to include the form of words that has consensus into articles where there has been a perceived issue" [emph. added] and that perceived issue is the one mentioned in: "Whilst there is agreement of the use of the wording in articles both of multi section length, and single section/stub standard, there is not yet any agreement on how to incorporate it in an article that has a lede paragraph, and then a body which is generally only one section." [emph. added] Hence there is consensus for the longer articles.--Misarxist 15:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I doubt calling something that begins with "I anticipate that there needs to be further discussion on a couple of points I will raise, so I am not prepared to say that my review is definitive; but that it should be regarded as a basis for a consensus of the agreed text between the various parties to the editing of articles relating to certain settlements in Israeli occupied territories." a "clear close" that supports you adding OR to what LHvU said, is more than wishful thinking on your part. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
OR???? Really? Ive given somthing like 20 sources that support the wording I used. And yes, the close was clear. Especially after the linked and quoted clarification, which you distort by saying the text LHvU said there was consensus for was "of disputed legality". nableezy - 15:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. Hopefully, LHvU will stop by and clarify what he meant. I see no purpose in continuing to discuss this with you, so I'll bow out now. Feel free to get your last word in. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
You disagree? You think the following is not crystal clear?

I found that there was consensus for the wording per proposal 2, and for it to be included in the opening paragraph(s) of multi section articles, where it may be expanded per WP:LEDE in the article body, and to be used without further expansion in stub or very short articles

In case that is too difficult to comprehend, "proposal 2" says The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this. LHvU clearly wrote that line has consensus to be in the lead of such articles. Asking for further clarification to something that even a child can understand is simply disruptive stalling. nableezy - 17:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • If LHvU says "relating to certain settlements" then how is it possible to use the expression "Like 'all' settlements"? -- (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC) (observer)
Comment by Gatoclass[edit]

I concur with Sean Hoyland's and RolandR's statements above. This dispute has dragged on for many months now, generating an endless number of cases, debates and discussions, and all because Shuki can't abide to have the highly notable information that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law in his precious Israeli settlement articles. After a recent discussion reached consensus that it was appropriate to include the information, Nableezy is now being reverted on the grounds that he didn't employ the precise wording recommended in that debate, even though the meaning of Nableezy's text is virtually identical. So what's next? Nableezy adopts the precise wording, only to have a new round of objections on the basis that he dared put it in the lede and not in the body of the article. Or that he put it in the lede of an article with only one section instead of an article with multiple sections. And so on.

I consider this to be a classic example of WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour on Shuki's part and I think it's time the community did something about it. The alternative is to have yet another interminable debate which will have to attempt to dot every "i" and "t" of precisely what wording is permitted to be used and where so that there are no possible loopholes left for Shuki to exploit. But we shouldn't need to do this. AE was created precisely in order to circumvent this kind of behaviour and I think Shuki has caused enough disruption already.

BTW, I recommend that adjudicators read Sean's compilation of sources to confirm just how well established and uncontroversial are the facts that Nableezy has long been prevented from adding to these articles. Gatoclass (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No one prevented the legality issue from being added and it is disingenuous to present matters as if that were the case. The issue of contest was Nableezy's "Like all other" soapbox in the lead and/or first paragraph of every Israel related article he touches -- the main reason he was banned for 7.5 months in the past year. Solidarity with your ideological partner aside, Gatoclass, your argument does not relate to the diffs in question. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The recommended text was The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the territories) illegal under international law. How exactly does this differ in substance with Nableezy's edit? I submit to you that it does not. This is not a valid objection at all, it's just wikilawyering. Gatoclass (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Gatoclass, it is of no wonder that you are insensitive to subtleties about Israel ( per "it does not [differ]" ) but clearly, as 6 established editors quickly noted, Nableezy's version is not under consensus. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
That is one untruth followed by another. But we'll see, Ill add the exact wording to the lead and then we can see if the "Like all Israeli settlements" really was the issue. nableezy - 17:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Jaak, it's not soap. It's a statement that complies with policy. As you can see from the compilation of sources here, saying "Like 'all' settlements" is supported by the sources. See the BBC sources at the top and others. It just happens to not be the statement that was selected in the discussions. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
It just happens to not be the statement that was selected in the discussions. - Sean.hoyland, 17:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Even Sean.hoyland -- someone with a similar world-view to Nableezy -- agrees that the version deemed as basis for future agreement is not the one Nableezy is pushing as the so-called "consensus". Sean.hoyland, no surprise, excuses this but there is clearly disagreement to Nableezy's insertion in the lead -- and no admin (except the highly involved Gatoclass) supported his WP:SOAP version either.
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 17:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Pedantry is not a virtue Jaakobou, there is no real difference between the versions. And Sean does not say the version was deemed a "basis", he says it was the one "selected". Next time you misrepresent a person's views you may want to try to do it somewhere other than directly below where they express their views. nableezy - 17:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The uninvolved admin whom you keep misrepresenting used the word "basis" and 6 editors note that your soapbox text is unacceptable in leads. Next time, apply basic thought before you attack me for something I have not said. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The uninvolved admin wrote the following (and this has been quoted no less than 3 times on this page):

I found that there was consensus for the wording per proposal 2, and for it to be included in the opening paragraph(s) of multi section articles, where it may be expanded per WP:LEDE in the article body, and to be used without further expansion in stub or very short articles

Try to argue around that as much as you like, there very clearly was a judgment made that there is consensus for the inclusion of The international community considers Israeli settlements in [WB/EJ/GH] illegal under international law, though the Israeli government disputes this. in the lead of the articles. That you persist in misrepresenting the clear words quoted is only one more reason why you should be banned. nableezy - 17:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
OT and unhelpful discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(edit conflict) Thankyou for the opinion Jaakobou, but I must object to being referred to as "highly involved". Unlike yourself, my participation on I-P pages is minimal, and occupies a tiny proportion of my output, as a look at my user page will demonstrate. My participation in this particular dispute, or on Israeli settlement articles generally, has, apart from the occasional comment in cases brought to this page, been practically nonexistent. Gatoclass (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree that your participation, while clearly partisan, is not of a high volume. JaakobouChalk Talk 18:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The only thing I've seen Gatoclass write here that could be viewed as partisan is that he disagrees with you. That's not a political issue. All of these aspersions, attempts at polarization, irrelevant arguments, ad hominem attacks, accusations and derailings have contributed little beyond confusing an otherwise straightforward issue, i.e., is the declared consensus legitimate. AE threads should be limited to uninvolved editors to prevent these bastardizations of process that read like a cross between an AE request and a mock trial transcript from a Wookie high school. Sol (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Gatoclass , your edit's volume in I/P conflict area might be low, but you're extremely unfair and extremely involved, and extremely partisan. You even would not stop to misuse your administrative tools to have it your way.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
That's certainly not what you told me after I worked hard at improving a couple of your own articles Mbz. But in any case, this is all thoroughly OT and a pretty good demonstration of why we have a guideline about commenting on contributions not contributors, because it only leads to more mudslinging, so I think it's time we dropped it. Gatoclass (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Jaak...I don't have a 'world view' by the way but feel free to carry on thinking that I do. It makes no difference to the rule based decision procedures used to generate article content. I'm not excusing anything. These are all distractions. At some point the content policies of this project have to be enforced and this issue about the the legality statements has to be resolved once and for all. That's what matters, the content not the individuals. If editors want to sacrifice themselves for their cause by disrupting this process then admins should oblige them with a topic ban so that the process can continue in a orderly way in accordance with policy as far as I'm concerned. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I apologize if you feel there's a misrepresentation Sean. However, when you defend soapboxing and policy violations of a certain world-view and when I find myself explaining that there's nothing offensive in describing a prominent left-wing journalist as Israeli left-wing and the response is "he isn't an elephant or a table" it adds up to create a certain image. That said, I agree with you that it would do well for the project to resolve the settlements legality issue -- hopefully in a collegiate manner rather than through gaming. I would support removal of the more disruptive editors in the I-P area, regardless of their world-view. JaakobouChalk Talk 19:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
You are over thinking it.
  • If countless sources said "The international community does not consider Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law, and the Israeli government agrees." that would be the statement that I would be supporting (along with many other people no doubt). It's about what the sources say.
  • I don't know what soapboxing or policy violations you are referring to specifically but saying that all of the Israeli settlements outside of Israel are regarded as illegal under international law isn't soapboxing and in a normal topic area no one would bat an eyelid if someone added an entirely uncontroversial statement like that supported by countless sources to an article. They would be glad that someone else was helping them build the article. That's why I edit in this topic area, because it's broken. I support editors who try to get articles to say what the sources say. It's that simple.
  • If you make a statement like "where does Levy say that he's not in the Israeli left? (hint: he doesn't)." you are employing an absence of evidence to generate a unverified conclusion hence my retort "Maybe in the same place that he says that he isn't an elephant or a table". This was intended to highlight the invalidity of your conclusion by suggesting that you may also be able to conclude that he is an elephant or a table by using the same absence of evidence contradicting those conclusions. I'm a geoscientist not a propagandist. When people use logic like that in my world, bad things happen. Here it's just a verification failed policy violation but it's still wrong. Again, it's about what the sources say. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Could some one please point the readers to the specific international law that all of these settlements are "considered" in violation of? I would appreciate that clarification. (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I oppose interaction bans on principle as I think they are impractical. I don't see how Shuki and Nableezy could work on the same articles without communicating with one another, and while they are obviously frustrated with one another I haven't seen any evidence of gross incivility. Perhaps as a compromise a time-limited interaction ban, to allow tensions to decrease? Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, there's a problem with every I-P report on this board resulting in a hostile debate. I'm not a 100% sure what is the best way to resolve this. I think interactions bans are worth trying. Otherwise, we could ban some editors from commenting on reports that aren't about them. But anyway, I agree with Cla68 comments, and don't think we can allow the situation to continue. PhilKnight (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
So what do you suggest for this specifically? I made an effort to not bombard this AE but when another editor throws in an accusation when they did something 10x worse it is tough to ignore. Cptnono (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

A Heads-Up About Nableezy's Use of This Issue[edit]

I just wanted to let people know that Nableezy is taking it as a forgone conclusion that Shuki will be topic-banned for 6 months and is using that as a threat to get people to self-revert edits that he disagrees with. I don't have the experience with Wikipedia that many of you do, but I suspect that is inappropriate behavior for this site. Please take a look at my talk page. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by LessHeard vanU[edit]

I would note that the only wording I found consensus for was that specifically provided under proposal 2. Any variation of that, by addition or subtraction, needs to find consensus, either generally or in the specific situation. This would include content immediately prior to or preceeding those words, where they effect the meaning of the agreed text.
I also found consensus for those words (but only those words) to be included in all relevant articles (that is, those articles relating to Israeli settlements in the occupied lands). I also further found agreement for the inclusion of the text in the lede of multi section articles, and for it in stub or very short articles where it was the only such mention. Only in some articles, those which had a brief introduction and then a body of one or two sections, was there disagreement on how it was to be incorporated - but not if. I devised a suggestion which allowed the inclusion of the consensus text, by placing it in the body, and satisfied WP:LEDE by using a more concise variant in the opening paragraph.
I trust this clarifies my thinking. I regret that my style of commentary gave the impression that consensus had not been achieved in the substantive issues; in my view it had. I stand by my comments that my view is not definitive - but only in so far that the wiki editing method allows consensus to change upon presentation of better or different interpretation of policy that deprecates that existing - and might usefully continue to be reviewed and discussed; this does not mean that it may be disregarded, however. If parties would like specific comments upon specific points, or interpretation of what I said and meant (not always easy, not even for me!) then please present them in list form. I shall place this page on my watchlist. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do you still continue to not be decisive? Your first paragraph is fine, but then you backtrack in the second. I stand by my comments that my view is not definitive. I stand my by recent comments as well, given AGF, I hope that you are not insinuating that I have disregarded your comments. --Shuki (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I am decisive - I refuse to let my determination stultify further efforts between editors. I recognise my decisions can be overturned by a new consensus, is all. As for whether you have disregarded my comments, I have no opinion since I have no interest; that matter is for others to discuss. My view on what has consensus is, I trust, clear. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
You certainly were decisive. I have already expressed that I do not agree completely with your conclusion but it was a step in the right direction. You showed some fortitude (I would use another term if editors had not been so against my previous language) making a decision. You obviously realize how touchy the topic area is from your closing statement. That is for discussions off this AE, though. Your view on consensus is already being implemented (George did one, Supreme Deliciousness did one, and I reluctantly did one). That has spurred some further discussion and I still hope there will be some changes. We are on the right track but discussion on what (if anything else at all) is to take place with the wording should be at the centralized discussion.Cptnono (talk) 10:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Cla68[edit]

If the responding admins would look at this talk page thread, you'll see a series of personal attacks by Nableezy and Cptnono on each other and other editors. I notice that Brewcrewer was also involved in that discussion. A few months ago, when I warned another editor involved in the I/P articles, IronDuke, about personal attacks, Brewcrewer appeared to imply that I was involved in white supremecy forums off-wiki (at least, that's how I interpreted his remark). If I were a new editor, I would find the hostile discourse that these editors employ with each other in discussing this topic extremely off-putting and distasteful. Actually, I find it off-putting and distasteful even though I'm not a new editor. Cla68 (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There was no personal attack. I was practically begging Nableezy to see the centralized discussion. You on the other hand readded the line that did not have consensus.[85] (which I replaced with the version the admin saw consensus in regardless of my feelings on it, by the way) So maybe a ban for you is appropriate or should we chalk it up to being new in the topic area?Cptnono (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
"Stop going out of your way to start trouble." Do you guys talk to each other like this so much that you no longer even recognize it as personal attack? Cla68 (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
He was causing trouble. There was confusion on the consensus (and we would later be reminded that he was also adding a line that did not have consensus) and instead of seeking resolution at the centralized discussion he was opening up three individual discussions. That is starting trouble pure and simple. I understand that saying "going out of your way" might have sounded slightly mean but it was far from a personal attack. But do you want to clarify why you added the line that did not have consensus? An admin made it clear below that that was not acceptable and you did it within 20 minutes of that. Cptnono (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Good grief. Cla68 (talk) 07:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I feel the same way. Did you notice when I made sure to inform Shuki on the consensus?[86] I am shocked that you would attempt to say that I did anything wrong here. This is compounded by the fact that I was the one who started the centralized discussion that led to consensus (whether I think it was the best conclusion or not). I'm not the trouble maker here. And you have still failed to explain why you mae a revert to a line that did not have consensus.Cptnono (talk) 07:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I think you are reinforcing my point that you and the other main editors of this topic have gotten locked into an adversarial method of communicating with each other. When questioned on it, the editors involved immediately start attacking the accuser and anyone else involved while minimizing their own contributing actions. Is this the norm for that topic area? Cla68 (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Have I called you a jerk or anything like that? No. You made an accusation that specifically named me and I denied it. You still have not explained why you made a revert to a line that did not have consensus. Anyone of us "regulars" would have been at AE for it. Did I bring you here? No. I fixed the edit and informed you on the talk page. Of course I am going to be a little ticked off when you do that then name me as being in error. So do you have an explanation or not?Cptnono (talk) 07:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Cla, your engagement with said debate is welcome, but with respect, in a protracted debate such as this people are inevitably going to get a little testy. What you interpret as "a series of personal attacks" I see as a group of editors trying hard to remain civil in very trying circumstances. Please let's not escalate this dispute any further than is necessary. Gatoclass (talk) 07:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I respect your opinion, but I disagree with you. There is no reason for editors to be communicating with each other that way on an article talk page. If they are getting that visibly and disturbingly testy with each other, then they need to take break from the topic and/or each other. Cla68 (talk) 07:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
And it cooled down after that. SO can you now explain why you made that revert? Seriously, that was much more egregious and you have still failed to answer. I didn't open an AE because I thought it would be counterproductive but now I am wondering why you would not fess up to your mistake there.Cptnono (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Cla, when you mention that you "warned" me for personal attacks, you left a few key details out. The most important of these, of course, is that you were (and apparently still are) meatpuppeting for banned editors User:Gnetwerker and User:Herschelkrustofsky. I had hoped you'd been admonished about this already, or perhaps you decided to ignore it. I think I've been pretty patient about your behavior; I haven't sought any kind of block or ban for what is unambiguously a gross violation of Wikipedia policy, but my patience won't last forever. I have the right to remove any and all comments you make about me or edits against me on behalf of banned editors, though I would rather not do so. I'd rather you acknowledged what you're doing is wrong, or at least promise to cease the disruption.

Oh, and in case that's not already wrong enough, the article in question, Leo Frank, is not in the IP area, and the editor you were championing, User: Machn is an indef-blocked sockpuppeteer who made racist and antisemitic statements ("Mr. Ebonics" and "Jew pervert," to take two charming examples). I wouldn't go so far as to say that your going to bat for this editor makes you a white supremacist, rather, I'd say you were pursuing agendas unhelpful to Wikipedia, and should stop immediately. IronDuke 17:58, 29 November 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 am in substantial agreement with Mkativerata's comment above. Once an uninvolved administrator has determined the consensus of a discussion, it needs to be followed if our consensus-based editing model is worth anything. If there are disagreement with the closure, the closing administrator may be requested to reconsider, or review may be requested at an appropriate venue such as the administrators' noticeboard. But until that closure is actually modified, it is binding.

    According to LHvU's clarification: "I found that there was consensus for the wording per proposal 2, and for it to be included in the opening paragraph(s) of multi section articles, where it may be expanded per WP:LEDE in the article body, and to be used without further expansion in stub or very short articles."

    There are claims that Nableezy's version (e.g., "Like all Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, Ma'ale Adumim is considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.") differs from the wording LHvU refers to ("The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this."), but so far I am able to perceive zero substantive difference between the two.

    In short, this is going into WP:IDHT territory. The consensus has been determined by an uninvolved administrator, yet the user claims that "nothing is settled" and that the closure is "confusing" when it is abundantly clear. I think that this request is actionable, and given the history, including four separate sanctions, I propose a six-month topic ban. T. Canens (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

    • @Cptnono: Fair enough. It's a subtle difference, but now that you pointed it out I can certainly see it. As the objection has been made clear, I expect Nableezy to either conform their future edits to the consensus wording as determined by LHvU, or obtain consensus for their new version. If they do neither, an AE request will likely be looked upon favorably.

      This, however, does not affect the proper disposition of the request at hand. The claim that "nothing [is] settled" is absurd in light of LHvU's closure of that discussion. T. Canens (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

    • With the subject of the request at hand having been addressed, I think we might wish to look a bit closely at the comments above. I think it is apparent that the topic-wide 1RR restriction recently implemented did not sufficiently contain the battleground behavior. The discussion between Nableezy and Jaakobou under #Statement by Shuki, for example, is filled with personal attacks ("fabricating consensus", "purposefully deceitful"). Jaakobou's list of Nableezy's history of sanctions is entirely unhelpful; presumably most admins here are aware of it already (and the history of the filer, of course, has very little, if any, to do with the proper sanctions imposed by AE); the use of <big> tags to surround the "7.5 months" figure is worse. Gilabrand (talk · contribs)'s comment here is also highly problematic ("Queen", "disgrace"). I propose that we also impose interaction bans between Jaakobou and Nableezy, and between Gilabrand and Nableezy, so that we may hopefully curb this battleground behavior. T. Canens (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • @Mkativerata: I did consider a limited topic ban, but given the battleground behavior prevalent in this topic area recently, I think it preferable to force a complete disengagement followed by gradual return on appeal if good work in other topic areas can be demonstrated, rather than risk the conflict spilling over into other parts of this topic area. T. Canens (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree that the two edits by Shuki that are cited by the submitter of this AE represent WP:IDHT regarding LHvU's summing up of the discussion. I support T. Canens' recommendation of a 6-month topic ban of Shuki from I-P articles. EdJohnston (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Firstly, I'd like to thank LessHeard vanU for closing the original discussion, and for commenting here. I substantially agree with above comments by T. Canens and EdJohnston, and I also agree with Sean.hoyland's comment - it has taken a lot of time and effort to get this far in establishing a consensus, and while that consensus may change in the future, we shouldn't simply ignore it. The only area of disagreement I have is that I consider 6 months to be a little on the long side. I would have thought a 3-month topic ban would be sufficient given that Shuki merely removed the wording from the lede, and left the text in the main body of the article. PhilKnight (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, I agree with the interaction bans, and would add if they don't work, stronger measure will obviously be required. PhilKnight (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Regarding the above comments by Cla68, I agree completely, and there should also be an interaction ban between Cptnono and Nableezy. PhilKnight (talk) 07:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
First, I would not interpret Shuki's action as leaving "the text in the main body", as I think it's more plausible that they simply reverted Nableezy. The history here - 4 separate sanctions in a single year (or really, since April, so it's more like 7 months) - also supports a stronger sanction. As always, if there is evidence of good work in other areas, we can lift the ban early on appeal.

The recent deterioration in behavior, however, really needs to be restrained, with seemingly draconian sanctions if necessary, before it becomes uncontrollable and requires yet another arbcom case, which I think no one here wants to see.

In the same spirit, I agree with the additional interaction ban PhilKnight proposed, and I add that if the interaction bans don't work out well, then pretty much the only choice open to us is lengthy topic bans from the whole area.

Finally, I draw people's attention to AGK's comment in this old AE thread, which I find to be particularly on point:

Interjecting criticism of the conduct of other editors into consensus-building discussions is a wholly unhelpful practice....Talk page discussions are exclusively for discussion of the content of an article and for building an editorial consensus on disputed content matters. Any editors who do not abide by this ethos in their contributions to article talk pages are, in the first case, damaging genuine attempts to build consensus, and in the second, liable to be blocked or sanctioned.

T. Canens (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi T. Canens, based on this comment by Shuki, I agree with your assessment, and support a 6 month topic ban. PhilKnight (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think it's time to close this. Based on the discussion above, and under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions:

  • In general:
    • All participants here are reminded that they should conform their future edits in this respect to the consensus wording as determined by LHvU, until and unless consensus for a different wording is established. Failure to do so may lead to sanctions, including but not limited to blocks and topic bans.
    • All participants here are further reminded that it is unacceptable to interject criticisms of other editors into talk page discussions. Concerns about editorial conduct should be brought to dispute resolution processes, or WP:ANI, or WP:AE, as appropriate. Failure to do so may result in sanctions.
  • Topic ban:
  • Interaction bans
    • Jaakobou (talk · contribs), Gilabrand (talk · contribs) and Cptnono (talk · contribs) are admonished for personal attacks and ad hominem comments; they are prohibited from commenting on or interacting with Nableezy (talk · contribs) anywhere on Wikipedia.
    • Nableezy (talk · contribs) is admonished for personal attacks; they are prohibited from commenting on or interacting with Jaakobou (talk · contribs), Gilabrand (talk · contribs) and Cptnono (talk · contribs) anywhere on Wikipedia.
    • The scope of the interaction bans above is defined in WP:IBAN.
    • If either party to an interaction ban imposed above believes that the other has violated the interaction ban, they may not react to this except by the means of a single report at WP:AE. They are permitted to edit the other party's talk page for the sole purpose of informing them of the existence of the report. The other party will be permitted to respond to the report on WP:AE, but neither party may add anything further to the report after the reported party responds.

T. Canens (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
  1. ^ "'I was stabbed in the back,' says soldier who used human shield in Gaza". Haaretz Service. 2010-03-24. Retrieved 26 March 2010.
  2. ^ "'I was stabbed in the back,' says soldier who used human shield in Gaza". Haaretz Service. 2010-03-24. Retrieved 26 March 2010.
  3. ^ "'Israeli troops guilty of Gaza abuse '". Al Jezeera. 2010-10-21. Retrieved 25 November 2010.
  4. ^
  5. ^