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


This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
O Fenian (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [1] Revert 1, to make virtually the same edit as they did in September
  2. [2] Revert 2, within 24 hours of the first
  3. [3] Revert 3, within 24 hours of the first
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. [4] Warning by O Fenian (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
IP editor previously blocked for edit warring on the same article to make the same edit. Obviously my reverting of the IP is exempt from 1RR. O Fenian (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning[edit]

Statement by[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning[edit]

Result concerning[edit]

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

Blocked 72 hours (second block for the same). O Fenian, while reverting IPs is exempt from the 1RR, please at least make an effort to mind your reverts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change[edit]

Closed by filer, filed in wrong spot.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Initiated by A Quest For Knowledge (talk) at 14:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

WMC has been notified.[6] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by your A Quest For Knowledge[edit]

ANI is on my watchlist and something has recently come to my attention. Apparently, WMC has been keeping a list of diffs of various editors in his user space. Although it's not named this, he calls the page his "twat list" in edit summaries.[7][8] I thought that we were supposed to delete these sort of pages within 10 days of the close of the CC ArbCom case. It's of concern to me because I'm listed on his page twice, along with many other editors involved in the CC topic space. Since coming to the attention of ANI, his list has been blanked by admin and is now up for deletion.[9] So I guess I have two issues for clarification:

  1. Are we allowed to vote or comment in the MfD or would that be a violation of the topic ban?
  2. Assuming WMC's "twat list" survives MfD, is it a violation of the CC topic ban to keep such a list of diffs in your user space? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Scott MacDonald (one of the "twats")[edit]

I have some bad feelings about how the CC case is working out with some people.--Scott Mac 14:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes[edit]

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

 Administrator note: If you are asking for clarification from arbcom, then this is the wrong page, and you should be looking for WP:A/R/CL. Personally, I do not see how WMC's page counts as an "evidence sub-page" unless it was, well, used for evidence in the arbcom case. It may well be deletable for other reasons, but not under that arbcom remedy. Also, unless you can demonstrate that WMC's edits to that page subsequent to the closure of the CC case included CC-related material, I do not think that the fact that the page previously contained CC-related diffs is sufficient by itself to make out a topic ban violation given the rather, let's say, disorganized nature of the page. T. Canens (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Piotrus[edit]

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

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

Appealing user 
Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
I presume I was blocked for a perceived violation of the Wikipedia:EEML#Modified_by_motion_3, see #December 2010 notice above. -->
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Mkativerata (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Piotrus[edit]

As Mkativerata notes, I am under a restriction, a topic ban, "from articles about national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe". Please note I am no longer under a ban from "Eastern European" topics. The current topic ban is unfortunately blurry, and in the past months two editors have tried gaming it, accusing me of violating it. Both cases are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive76, with no action taken towards me, although I fully admit that in the first one a valid point was made that I made a single edit too close to the line that I shouldn't; I recognized that and promised, voluntarily, to be even more careful. Please note that both of the reports were closed without an warning to me ("No action taken in respect of Piotrus" x2). At the same time the editors demanding sanctions against me were banned from AE for battleground mentality. Please note that the drafting arbitrator who commented on the first report stated that "[Piotrus] interpretation of the topic area might well have been a bit too wide in this case and that withdrawing is the correct thing to do" (but he did not suggest I deserve a warning, nor that I actually violated the ban). The former is actually an important point: Mkativerata claims I was given "a very specific warning". Where, I dare ask? The word warning is not used in the closure, nor in the admin's comments in the "Result concerning Piotrus" section, nor by Mkativerata himself. It was used only by Vassyana towards the other, reporting editor and by Ncmvocalist towards both me and him (if I understand him correctly); both of those occurred in the general peanut-gallery "Comments by others about the request concerning Piotrus" section. Not to repeat myself, I admit again that that incident was a form of a warning, and I pledged, voluntarily, to be more careful, as I recognize how one of my edits was close to or even over the line. But I was not given a warning, certainly, not a clear one - nothing more than a general, situational reminder that the topic ban I am under is quite murky, and it is possible to brush against it even when trying, with all possible good faith, to avoid doing so.

I now find myself suddenly blocked for an edit and talk page post to Battle of Komarów. Here's my defence:

  1. ) the article itself is uncontroversial; to my knowledge it has never been a subject of an editing dispute, heated debate, edit war, or a controversy of any kind.
  2. ) the issue raised ("whether the battle was the biggest cavalry battle in a given time frame") is uncontroversial (as the article) and unrelated to Eastern Europe anyway
  3. ) my edit to the article was - I hope, obviously - in good faith, helpful and uncontroversial. It was to add an uncontroversial citation needed template, per WP:V and responding to a suggestion by an editor on talk, where I presented, in a civil fashion, an overview of sources and a proposed edit to the article
  4. ) the article is not about any "national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe"; it is about an uncontroversial battle. Thus the article is not about any dispute (unless one considers all military conflicts disputes, but then, almost everything in human life can be stretched as related to disputes - there are academic disputes in philosophy, theology, etc.). The question of whether it was the biggest cavalry battle and in what period ha nothing to do with the topic ban. It is my understanding that uncontroversial battle articles are fine for me to edit; I have edited numerous military related articles since the topic ban was introduced, and they were not controversial (with a singular exception discussed above, where the controversy was not because it was military-related, but because it was related to a controversial "concentration camp and ethnicity" potentially loaded case). I added a missing image to Battle of Grunwald; created a campaignbox and proposed a merge related to the Bar Confederation (war), made some c/e-ing to Batle of Lubrze, a redirect related to Brigade I of the Polish Legions, I reverted a strange claim to Polish hussars, did a major rewrite/c/e of War loot , c/e-ed and DYKed V-2 rocket facilities of World War II , added a list of commanders to Military Gendarmerie ‎ , I was creating missing categories for military coups including for countries in EE, I made a (self-reverted, but valid I believe) edit to Invasion of Poland, I edited articles about castles and miltiary commanders... should I go on? My point is I was doing it for a month, and nobody complained (and, let me repeat - to my knowledge, nobody complained about the edit I was blocked now for, too). You'd think that if I was violating my topic ban those edits would have made it into those recent AE discussions, right? That they didn't shows that even editors trying to game my topic ban discarded them as uncontroversial. Note that the one edit reported there was military-themed, but that fact was never an issue (one would again think that if it was obvious that I cannot edit military-related articles, somebody would have said it so there). Further, few months ago (still during the main EE topic ban), a question was raised if I was within my rights to edit the talk page of Talk:Second Northern War, and it was not seen by the Committee as an issue. Lastly; a while ago I raised the issue of military conflicts (and other) with an arbitrator who drafted my topic bans, and the discussion, while the suggested review on case by case basis, he did not say I cannot edit military topics; he also noted that "if you trip over something in good faith, nobody's going to hold it against you as long as you are diligent in accepting that you may have erred". I accept I might have erred, provisionally, and I ask to be allowed to keep editing in all the other areas I have proven I can edit uncontroversially.
  5. ) PS. Not that the spirit of remedies and such matters much here anymore (if they were, a week block for a fact template and a helpful answer on talk would've never happened in the first place...), but if you look at the EEML case, you'll see that never, ever, where military subjects an issue. I've been a productive contributor to WP:MILHIST for years, those articles where never controversial. This should also explain how surprised I am that somebody could see well-meant and uncontroversial edit to a milhist article as a "clear (how?) violation after a specific (how?) warning (where?)".
  6. ) Lastly, I believe that a week block on a blurry ban for a good-faithed edit is simply over the top. A proper reaction, in my opinion, would be to ask me to stay away for now from military topics why a clarification of the ban wording with regards to military topics is seeked among admins/arbitrators/community.

I should add here that I recognize that some milhist articles are within the scope of the ban, and parts of others are (as was the case with the mentioned edit to the Peace of Riga article in the first report). I saw on my watchlist recently a small edit war and a discussion about who won a certain conflict and I decided to stay away from it, as it might be seen as within the topic ban. But how is the question about a uniqueness of a cavalry battle a violation of my topic ban? The question is unrelated to my topic ban, the only connection is that this battle happens to have taken place in Eastern Europe, a fact irrelevant to the edit and discussion in question anyway (and I am not banned from Eastern Europe topics anymore). My understanding about the word "disputes" in my topic ban is that it relates to controversial issues of ethnicity, nationality, and such, not to general military conflicts (would the blocking admin block me for editing articles about crime, politics, or an academic dispute on a term used by Polish sociologists...?!).

Bottom line, I do not believe I breached my topic ban. If I did, I ask for a clear explanation how I did so, and I'd appreciate if my block was decided in a consensus of adminitrators, as is the usual case of AE. I ask to be unblocked, pending that discussion, and I can promise to avoid all military topics till I get a clarification from them and/or arbitrators whether I can edit them (I also promise to avoid, for the period of that discussion, an other areas that the blocking admin thinks I should avoid that he blocked me for that I do not realize). I was about to start writing a DYK for the WP:CUP, I logged in minute after the New Year, and I have to say that to find this block is hardly the way I was expecting to start the New Year.

I would also like to ask Mkativerata two questions:

  1. ) how did you became aware of my edit in question? Who reported it to you, and why was I blocked without the due AE proceedings? Considering that recently two editors were blocked and/or AE banned for battleground mentality, one of them also for running socks, I believe that if a complaint was made about my edit off-wiki, it should've been re-reported on wiki before being acted upon (so it can be reviewed if it is not a further part of harassment against me, perhaps by an editor who was banned from AE for that very reason, or a sock of his). Or did you just look at random recent edits of mine and concluded I am banned from military articles?
  2. ) I was blocked out of a blue, without a report made, without a chance to defend myself. Why did you decide to just block me, without giving me a chance to respond to an AE report/discussion? Do you truly believe that a "from articles about national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe" means, clearly and without a need for a discussion, a "ban from a military-related article within EE"? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Mkativerata[edit]

Just a short statement from me. A military battle is a "dispute". Quite a serious one. This was as clear a violation of the topic ban as could be imaginable. Now to respond to each question from Piotrus:

1. I discovered the edit myself.
2. Blocks for clear violations of topic bans do not require "consensus" or discussion. Especially not when the offender has been specifically warned for transgressions into the topic ban area, as was the case here. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

A comment on the block length. I went with one week, and I think it should stay that way, because: (1) it is consistent with the first offence blocks for other EEML topic ban violations (see Martintg's one week block for his first violation [10]); and (2) it is an egregious offence after two recent AEs on similar issues, in one of which Piotrus was specifically cautioned not to continue trespassing into the scope of the topic ban. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

@Kirill and Shell: in addition to what T.Canens has just posted, asking us to consider the "spirit" and background of the motion is inconsistent with the scope of the topic ban at the time that EEML was passed. The original motion was to ban Piotrus from all Eastern Europe articles. Clearly Arbcom was not concerned at the time of EEML with only limiting Piotrus from contentious ethnic disputes etc. Those kinds of articles may have given rise to EEML, but there is absolutely no evidence that Arbcom intended to cast the net of its topic bans that narrowly. The evidence is actually to the opposite. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
@Newyorkbrad. Thank you. I think an amendment would be appropriate if administrators are to be expected to enforce the topic ban (a) consistently with both Arbcom's apparent intention, and (b) with each other. An amendment would also be desired to avoid any future wikilawyering over the "spirit" of Arbcom's motion (wikilawyering over the letter of the motion is problematic enough). Following NYB's comments I'm happy to lift the unblock and will do so myself if a couple of the other admins who have thus far sought to deny the appeal agree. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek[edit]

As pointed out by Piotrus the article itself has never been a subject of controversy or dispute. It is my understanding that when the original topic ban was relaxed the intent was to keep Piotrus out of articles that had been in fact subject of controversy or dispute (and many of these controversial ones are actually about stuff that is not or has ever been in any sense a "dispute" in RL, only on Wikipedia), but allow him to edit those - where his work has been extremely helpful and productive - which hadn't. The Battle of Komorow is in the latter category.

Perhaps the confusion stems from what the word "dispute" refers to. May I suggest that somebody ask User:Newyorkbrad about the intent/applicability of the "national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe"" before this appeal is turned up or down, since, AFAICR he was the one who drafted the relevant motion? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, I got to ask. Was this really necessary? Whether or not the edit was a topic ban breach, it was an extremely helpful edit, very informative, and exactly the kind of which we should see more on Wikipedia - one where sources are listed, provided and discussed as a means of HELPING another editor. What was the point of reverting that, seriously? I'm going to restore that Piotrus' edit (per WP:BAN I'll take full responsibility for its content) unless someone can point out a meaningful reason for why it shouldn't be there). Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

@Timotheus AE admins are supposed to extract some sort of ill-defined "spirit" from an arbcom decision - I don't think that is what is being said. Rather the admins are supposed to be familiar with the decision they're enforcing and what it was enacted for. Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

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

Comment by BorisG[edit]

I disagree with esteemed admins. I think the word 'disputes' refer to present day disputes between different views (on and off wiki), not past conflicts between people, nations etc. Why I think so? Because the aim of the whole thing is to stop battleground behaviour by editors. If both the article and the edit are about something that is non-controlversial (which ideally should be confirmed by both sides, rather than taken at face value), then they cannot cause battleground behaviour. This is not about the word 'military'. But ultimately, a clarification from an ArbCom member of what they meant would be useful. - BorisG (talk) 04:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

To put it in legal terms, you're asking us to invoke the mischief rule (what ArbCom meant) rather than the literal rule (what they actually wrote). Since we don't have access to ArbCom's communications, we would need one of the arbs from the case to come and tell us what their intention was in order to use the mischief rule. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Precisely. Just couldn't remember the term. - BorisG (talk) 07:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
We presume that arbcom means what it says and says what it means. Arbcom may have intended to stop the battleground behavior, but that does not mean that the remedy is limited to potentially controversial behavior. For example, Piotrus was originally banned from all content related to Eastern Europe. By your logic, he would remain free to edit Eastern Europe-related content as long as the edits are uncontroversial. Not so. T. Canens (talk) 05:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
This is not what I said. The ruling on Eastern Europe-related content is unambigous. The word disputes in the more narrow ruling is, in my view, ambiguous, and requires clarification. The mischief rule should only be invoked when there is ambiguity. I haven't even read Piotrus tldr defense, but I think AGF would be helpful. - BorisG (talk) 07:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, looks like we disagree on whether it is ambiguous; regardless, any ambiguity there may be is resolved by the principle that topic bans are to be construed broadly to prevent gaming. There are also several other problems with that interpretation: first, does that mean that if there is some on-wiki dispute about this otherwise uncontroversial article, Piotrus cannot edit it? So he can edit it on day 1, but if on day 4 a dispute flares up, he can no longer edit it, but on day 13 the dispute gets resolved so he can edit it again? This isn't how topic bans normally work. Second, it would also mean that whether the ban applies depends on the "controversialness" of a particular edit, or the enforcing admin's perception of it. This is beyond the normal responsibilities of an admin enforcing a topic ban, and I am reluctant to assume that arbcom meant to create such an unorthodox topic ban implicitly by using the word "disputes". T. Canens (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Good point. However AGF may still apply. He might have had the same interpretation as me in mind. - BorisG (talk) 13:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Vecrumba[edit]

My understanding was that "conflict" pertained to conflicts over historical interpretation, not, for example, to ancient Estonians and Latvians whacking each other in battle—while a "conflict," there is no contention by either Estonians or Latvians regarding historical circumstances.
This dictionary definition of "conflict" which ignores conflicts over historical interpretation (where "real" conflicts may not even be involved) ignores the basis of the original EEML sanctions and takes them to mean something quite different. I would have expected some dialog regarding this reinterpretation of what "conflict" means with regard to the origin of any sanctions or restrictions in effect in this case instead of summary judgement.
"Conflict" never meant anything/everything related to MILHIST. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 04:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be some gravitating toward "conflict" meaning any acts of belligerence between parties as opposed to conflicts in the interpretation of history. It would be useful to have some definitive clarification in this regard as I would not want to contact Piotrus regarding some content which could be construed as being under restriction on his part where I effectively wind up baiting him. Thanks in advance. I could file a formal request for clarification if so instructed. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 23:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Shell Kinney[edit]

I think that the difference of opinion here is because Piotrus is keeping in mind the scope of the case while admins reviewing are only looking at the wording of a remedy. It might help to keep in mind that the case and the problems were clearly about ethnic or national identity disputes, not simply all military actions in the area. It's one thing to consider something broadly and another to miss the spirit of the ruling and ding editors for an entire week over completely innocuous edits without any kind of warning that you're considering any military-related article a violation. It's a bit of a concern that we've had 3-4 of these in the past few weeks where a number of editors have expressed confusion over the actual scope of the ban. Shell babelfish 15:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't part of crafting that remedy, but I imagine that nobody on ArbCom assumed that someone would see "national disputes" and decide that it includes all military actions because they involve "nations" and are a "dispute" - I think we're politely pointing out that particular interpretation seems to be taking things to a literal extreme and that perhaps the case itself would give some context if any clarification is needed. Shell babelfish 19:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Generally speaking, when the Committee has crafted remedies referring to "national, cultural, or ethnic disputes", the remedies were intended to cover topics which are the subject of such disputes, not merely topics that might have involved historical disputes in and of themselves. I am thus unconvinced that treating all military history as though it were a matter of dispute is consistent with the arbitrators' intent in the November motion.

Further, as Shell mentions, I think imposing lengthy blocks over an edit that does not appear to be controversial and which may or may not fall within the scope of the remedy is not ideal. It would be preferable for enforcing administrators to familiarize themselves with the context of the original case, particularly in complex scenarios such as EEML, and use that information to guide their enforcement decisions, rather than basing them exclusively on a bright-line reading of a particular remedy. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Newyorkbrad[edit]

I was the author of the wording of the remedy in question. Its intent was to reduce the scope of Piotrus's topic-ban, which formerly included any articles relating to Eastern Europe, so that it would prohibit editing only on disputed topics within the overall Eastern Europe topic area. The purpose was to allow topic-banned editors such as Piotrus to return gradually to editing within the topic area, allowing the encyclopedia to benefit from their subject-matter expertise without becoming embroiled in controversies such as those they have not handled well in the past. As such, the question is whether there is a present-day national or ethnic dispute concerning an issue. The scope of the revised topic-ban should be interpreted accordingly. Further, given that this was my intention when I wrote the words, and I believe the intention of the other arbitrators who voted for them, I am certainly prepared to accept Piotrus's statement that this was his good-faith interpretation as well.

I am travelling for the holidays with limited on-wiki time and access. After I get home on Monday night, if it is deemed necessary, I will propose a motion to clarify this wording. This should not, however, delay any action that is appropriate in the interim, including unblocking if that is warranted based upon the overall record here, including the arbitrator comments. This is not to be taken as criticism of the administrators who may, in reliance on the wording of the remedy, have taken a more restrictive interpretation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Piotrus[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I'm going to say we have to deny this appeal. A battle between Poland and the Soviets is within the "national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe" restriction. Courcelles 01:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Responding to your e-mail, 1) The reason that Poland and the Soviets are meaningful here is that both nations are within Eastern Europe; a battle between Bolivia and Chile, for example, would not be under the restriction. 2) Any military dispute is almost by definition a national one. That the word "military" is not explicitly in your restriction is not really material to the fact that it falls within it. Looking at this for a second time, my opinion on the merits of this appeal remain the same, but I am thinking the length is a little high for a first block in a year, and the first under this topic ban. 24/48h would have sufficed. Courcelles 02:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I received an email from Piotrus asking me to weigh in. I agree with Mkativerata and Courcelles that a military conflict is most certainly a "national...dispute", and I too think the appeal should be declined. T. Canens (talk) 02:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
    • A military conflict between two nations in Eastern Europe is a national dispute in Eastern Europe, especially given the normal rule that topic bans are to be broadly construed to prevent gaming. I agree with Courcelles; just because the word "military" is not explicit does not mean that it does not cover military conflicts - since a fair reading of the wording of the sanctions already covers military conflicts, the principle that expressio unius est exclusio alterius simply does not come into play here. I think the block length is within admin discretion and should not be disturbed. AE appeals are not here to micromanage every single AE action. T. Canens (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
    • @Kirill and Shell: So, instead of trusting arbcom to mean what it says and say what it means in a remedy, AE admins are supposed to extract some sort of ill-defined "spirit" from an arbcom decision (which may well be in the eyes of the beholder), use it to come up with a strained interpretation of the wording of the remedy that best serves that "spirit" (and different admins may well come up with very different interpretations, depending on how they perceived that "spirit" and what they think best serves its purpose), then enforce that interpretation regardless of how counterintutive it is to a normal English speaker and how unorthodox it is compared to a "normal" topic ban (see my response to BorisG above)? This is a recipe for pure disaster. Last time I checked, when someone says "articles about X disputes" in English they do not normally mean "articles subject to X disputes". Does this newly invented meaning of the word "about" mean that someone banned from "articles about X disputes" can be sanctioned for editing an article that is not about X disputes in the normal sense of the word but happens to be subject to an X dispute at the time of the edit? If there is a problem with the way the remedy is worded, then arbcom should pass a motion to fix it, instead of asking AE admins to twist the English language beyond recognition in order to fix its mistake. Until the remedy is so amended, however, its plain language prohibits edits on "articles about national...disputes within Eastern Europe", which four uninvolved administrators so far consider to cover the edit at issue. T. Canens (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I couldn't agree more strongly on your point, Tim, but to stick to our guns in the light of the comments from the three above arbs and particularly in the light of Brad's comments, I feel would serve no purpose but to punish Piotrus. That said, in future, if ArbCom wants admins to do its laundry, then admins have to be able to have faith in their instructions, otherwise AE will fall apart and there's no way that 20 already-stretched arbs can handle that extra workload. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Well, if Brad says that it's an unintended mistake in their wording and Mkativerata is willing to unblock, I have no objection, since it would be odd to have the length of a block depend essentially on Brad's traveling schedule. But please pass a motion to fix that wording. Otherwise it may only be a matter of time before an AE admin decides that reading "not less than 1 year" to mean "not more than 1 year" better comports with the "spirit" of some decision. Homework question: is the article evolution "about" a political dispute in the US? T. Canens (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I agree with the above, especially since Piotrus was warned to take a more conservative approach to his topic ban just a couple of weeks ago. I would agree with Courcelles, though, that a week may be a little long. Personally, I would have gone for 48 or 72 hours. That's not to say it's unreasonable, but the purpose could be served just as well with a slightly shorter block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to unblock Piotrus now (HJ Mitchell agrees and Courcelles would have been happy with 24 hrs which has now been served) with a couple of thoughts for Arbcom in addition to those given by the other admins above (all of which I agree with). Vercrumba raises a good point. Similarly, If the topic ban is to exclude "past conflicts", will that also include past conflicts in relation to which there remain disputes (eg disputes about who was at fault for the conflict)? In either case, how will you express that in a clarified topic ban? Clearly the ban needs to be amended to reflect the apparent intent of Arbcom being much narrower than the text of the topic ban says. But, in my experience drafting laws for a living, it is better to have no restriction at all than a restriction that cannot be unambiguously drafted so as to reflect the drafter's intention. The fact that you have four admins on one side of this issue, and three arbs on the other side (although I note NYB's comment that he means no criticism of the four admins' approach) is a strong as possible an indication of this. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


No action taken.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning User:Atabəy[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Kansas Bear (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Atabəy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [11] 1st revert
  2. [12] 2nd revert


  • 1. Revert limitation (formerly known as revert parole). You are limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism, and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
  • 2. Supervised editing (formerly known as probation). You may be banned by any administrator from editing any or all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area should you fail to maintain a reasonable degree of civility in your interactions with one another concerning disputes which may arise.
  • 3. Civility supervision (formerly known as civility parole). If you make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then you may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. [13] Warning by Kansas Bear (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Up to the discretion of admins.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
As seen here[14], User:Atabəy reaction stems directly from the deletion of articles Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre, Garadaghly Massacre, Agdaban massacre. His/her reaction has been to tag spam articles Maraghar Massacre and Kirovabad pogrom. Any attempt at adding references are met with revertion and the statement, "De Waal used HRW reference in his book, HRW says it is alleged"[15],[16]. This is in direct violation of AA2, which limits any Armenian-Azerbaijan article to 1RR.

I would also like to point out that User:Atabəy was one of the original editors involved in AA2 and therefore was clearly aware of his violation.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning User:Atabəy[edit]

Statement by User:Atabəy[edit]

User:Kansas Bear claims that he warned me over: here for allegedly saying "De Waal is from Armenian sources", and then called it a battleground mentality. Yet, What I said on the talk page is the following (precisely): "The primary source citing them was Armenian eyewitness used by Human Rights Watch, which was quoted in De Waal's book". I don't see how telling this fact is considered a battleground mentality, so obviously Kansas Bear was grossly misinterpreting my words on talk page and assuming bad faith in making the warning he indicated above.

The whole issue with this case stems from the fact, User:MarshallBagramyan, a participant of A-A ArbCom cases, has initiated a deletion of Agdaban massacre, Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre, Garadaghly Massacre pages. All three pages relate to factually established massacres of Azerbaijanis by Armenian forces in the course of Nagorno-Karabakh War. The deletion was carried out by supportive administrator User:Buckshot06, who did so without following any formal procedures, as indicated by administrator here. Also per User:Buckshot06's own admission here, his deletion was based solely on his personal impression of User:MarshallBagramyan and no other procedural or objective reasoning.

After lengthy discussion at [18], and requests to deleting administrator to undo the deletion, I followed admin suggestion and filed this case at WP:DRV, which concluded in an overturn of deleting administrator's action.

Thus the intimidating actions of User:MarshallBagramyan and supportive editors constitute a WP:BATTLE, clearly aimed at initiating the removal of factually-supported articles describing massacres of one side, while defending other articles, without sufficient research or discussion. Reviewing administrators are welcome to look into history of my edits in Maraghar Massacre article under discussion to find out that I placed notability tag and actually contributed well researched sources to the article. Most of the sources, previously used were misquoted, as can be easily seen by thorough review of Google Books references. So I did correct them providing exact URLs of quoted pages and added even more references as can be seen in summary diff of my edits.

The editors disputing my edits or filing this case have not contributed any reference to this article, neither sufficiently participated in Talk:Maraghar Massacre page, providing any reference whatsoever. Reverting User:Takabeg and User:Kansas Bear also did not provide sufficient comments on their edits on the talk page. The former left no comments actually, while the latter kept airing his opinion of me rather than article subject. I welcome the reviewers to look into the talk page to see all the facts.

I would like to still thank User:Kansas Bear for his warning on my talk page. However, I am not sure if Arbitration enforcement request was appropriate immediately after warning me and without further post-warning incidence. This request made by him actually defeats the purpose of his warning.

Thank you for your consideration. Atabəy (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

And User:Kansas Bear is in the list of editors warned about possible sanctions in A-A2 case. Thus, I wonder what is his authority to consider his warnings as an important milestone for restricting other users opposing his POV on A-A articles.
Just to refresh, User:Kansas Bear joined edit warring along with User:MarshallBagramyan and User:Takabeg at Maraghar Massacre article here inserting the same reference and removing notability tag without any sufficient discussion or consensus. His edit comment asserts that using "alleged" (based actually on Human Rights Watch reference) is "weasel wording".
Yet in another example of Kansas Bear's editing, pushing anti-Azerbaijani denial of identity POV, he inserts the following WP:OR: "it is relatively certain and accepted by most scholars" made out of mixture of WP:WEASEL words.
Actually, user's disruptive tag removal, inconsistent and frivolous reporting activity clearly points to being an active participant of A-A2 case, warranting the application of same restrictions as everybody else there. Atabəy (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Editing warring is adding a reference[19] and removing what I saw as weasel wording[20]? This does not help your case when you blind revert twice!
Yes my name is on the AA2 board, here[21] is the reason why. Abbatai removed referenced information, I restored it. I'll take an opinion from your friend Tuscumbia and view your actions as condoning Abbatai's actions[22]. I will be sure from now on NOT to revert any vandalism[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] or racial slanders against Turks[36] done by this editor[37]. Don't you feel like you have accomplished something? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
FYI, dubious not "dubioius". Fixed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, what does all your reverting of vandalism have to do with this WP:AE case? The fact is that you are on a list of editors warned about possible sanctions in A-A2 case, and you continue to engage in revert war, push POV and target other users in the case. Atabəy (talk) 02:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

You were the one that initiated this attack on my edits, as some sort of excuse for your violation of 1RR.
The fact that I am listed has also been addressed and summarily ignored by you.
The reason, which was the restoration of references and referenced information, also has been ignored by you.
Therefore, instead of removing insults on Turkish pages, I'll be sure to ignore those insults just as you have ignored the facts I have posted here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
If you find "attack content" in any of my editing, why don't you file another report proving that. Yes, I did remove the reference and restored the fact tag, but first that is relevant to talk page, where you are not, and secondly, the reference is referencing another reference. You are not using the source but reinterpretation. I am sorry, I don't find any "attack content" or WP:BATTLE in what I just said, neither do I find any good faith in any part of your reporting. Atabəy (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

To administrators: Practically every user in this thread was involved in WP:ARBAA2, and that includes MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs) (participant) and Kansas Bear (talk · contribs) specifically. To better understand the depth of the issue behind this reporting review this discussion at DRV and review Talk:Maraghar Massacre. I don't believe my contribution to articles warrants discretionary sanctions under WP:AE, and, reviewing the latter talk page carefully, it is obvious that reporting users are only trying to push POV on the mentioned article by eliminating other contributors through AE instead of contributing to the mentioned article.Atabəy (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

To administrators: Please, also note that in both edits [38] and [39] that User:Kansas Bear listed as diffs of my "revert violation", I was actually restoring the notability tag which both User:Kansas Bear and User:Takabeg removed in concert without any detailed reasoning on Talk:Maraghar Massacre. Their actions on the page, and subsequent reporting here, were disruptive per Wikipedia:Tagging_pages_for_problems#Removing_tags which says:
  • Adding and removing tags without discussion is not helpful, and can be seen as disruptive. Where there is disagreement, both sides should attempt to discuss the situation.
There is nothing they discussed on talk page, instead focusing on AE. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning User:Atabəy[edit]

In addition to Kansas Bear's complaint, I would like to bring to the attention of the administrators that Atabey's overall activities over the past few days have been a major cause for concern. I will try to provide the background in as concise a way as possible: last week, an administrator named Buckshot08 took the decision to delete three controversial articles relating to this conflict region (Nagorno-Karabakh), which, in his opinion, were too poorly sourced and of otherwise dubious quality.

In probable retaliation to his decision, Atabey and another editor, Tuscumbia, struck at the article in question as well as on the Kirovabad Pogrom page, adding the same three tags (neutrality, unreliable source, notability) and using the same exact arguments which were used against the aforementioned articles prior to their deletion by Buckshot. I believe that Atabey's as well as Tuscumbia's actions are, therefore, clear-cut violations of WP:POINT, i.e., they are being carried out in retaliation to Buckshot08's decisions. They have been editing tendentiously and Atabey himself has implicitly admitted that they are being done in reaction to Buckshot08's actions. These problems have been highlighted and are elaborated more fully on the article's talk page here.

It should be noted that Atabey has been permabanned from several articles in the same area for some time now for virtually the same reasons.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm an admin, but am not familiar with how the A-A editing restrictions have been applied historically, so will sit this one out. However, from looking at Atabəy's recent contributions I think that sanctions would be fully justified. He or she is plainly edit warring in sensitive topics covered by ArbCom discretionary sanctions and their allegations about Buckshot06 (talk · contribs)'s actions being anything but those of an uninvolved admin are totally unjustified. Nick-D (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest to look into WP:DRV discussion here, where the general conclusion is that three articles were removed by admin User:Buckshot06 without following proper deletion procedure. All I was trying to do is to restore encyclopedia articles which were targeted for removal by User:MarshallBagramyan. If you think my concern, found to be a legitimate at both DRV and ANI, is worth sanctions based on reporting and commentaries of contributors who got Buckshot06 into this in first place, that is your decision to make, of course. But frankly that would be very unfair. User:MarshallBagramyan clearly misled Buckshot06 to hastily remove 3 massacre articles as he wished, did not contribute a single source or reference to any article discussed, but just reverted them as did User:Kansas Bear, and now they have a free pass to get me into restriction for trying to actually contribute and improve all mentioned articles, including the ones I tagged for notability?
I do have doubts that uninvolved admin would revert my edit like this without any single comment on the talk page regarding the subject of revert. But assuming good faith, I fully understand Buckshot06's reaction, he was misled and got into criticism he did not deserve, and we all got overly sensitive about this issue. Atabəy (talk) 10:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • But frankly that would be very unfair. User:MarshallBagramyan clearly misled Buckshot06 to hastily remove 3 massacre articles as he wished, did not contribute a single source or reference to any article discussed, but just reverted them as did User:Kansas Bear... -- Atabey.
I have never edited Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre, Garadaghly Massacre or Agdaban massacre. More false statements. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Atabəy. This is not first time Kansas Bear sympathies to Armenian side without being neutral and constructive, he is just obsessed with Nagorno-Karabakh articles and therefore should be topic banned for being one sided and not constructive.--NovaSkola (talk) 11:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
NovaSkola's animosity originates here[40] and here[41][42], where he believes he has the god-given right to remove referenced information.
As seen here[43], NovaSkola's abuse of Twinkle resulted in him losing the use of that program. His attempt to regain Twinkle resulted in his threat[44] of, "...armenian articles as for this will suffer a lot :). Enjoy your day and clean our mess." Typical battleground mentality. NovaSkola's advice for topic ban should be applied to him and his disruptive editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

As long as I know, in Turkish Wikipedia, Atabəy is known as a notorious propagandist with his POV of the Azerbaijani state nationalism. In Turkish Wikipedia we decided to delete these articles about unnotable massacres. In English Wikipedia he repeated same propaganda. Takabeg (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

His attack against the article well-known Kirovabad pogrom have shown his strong Anti-Armenianism sentiments. Takabeg (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Takabeg is complaining about my notability tagging (and his tag reverting) of an article Kirovabad Pogrom devoted to so called "pogrom" (riots/massacre) in which, according to all listed sources, there was not a single civilian casualty... I rest my case. Atabəy (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
This is an inadequate report for an inadequate motion. Why is the User:Atabəy being reported for doing something that is right in Wikipedia? He had filed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 24 to restore the articles incorrectly deleted by an administrator and made edits to Maraghar Massacre article based on available sources. Isn't it too obvious why users Kansas Bear and MarshallBagramyan are pretty active here trying to get User Atabəy banned simply to retaliate since one of the articles was already restored? Tuscumbia (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Tuscumbia, show me exactly where I've asked for Atabey to be banned. Along with making drama, you have to resort to false statements. IF rules do not apply to Atabey and his "friends" then they do not apply to anyone then. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
You don't have to ask for it. Your actions clearly show your intent. Coming onto user Atabey right after him getting the Agdaban massacre article restored is a clear sign for everyone. The user has done nothing wrong at all. He discussed the article on its talk page, inquired about the improper deletion of the article by an administrator, made good faith edits on Maraghar Massacre article while also discussing them on the talk page and is immediately reported by you. Tuscumbia (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Note User:Takabeg's statement above:
  • "In Turkish Wikipedia we decided to delete these articles about unnotable massacres".
I wonder what he means by "we"? It is clear that the editor is talking about his participation in coordinated editing in Wikipedia to push a certain POV. But aside from that, the sentence above clarifies what User:Takabeg is trying to accomplish in English Wikipedia. And I think should be noteworthy for administrators handling A-A case, as User:Takabeg is another potential addition to the list of involved users. Atabəy (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
More false statements.
Here is when he was warned,18:58, 21 December 2010[45]
Here is when Atabey violated 1RR, 02:29, 23 December 2010[46]
Here is when he gets reported, 18:25, 23 December 2010[47]
So when all the emotional drama is cleared away, the facts remain. He was warned on the 21st, he violated 1RR on the 23rd, 15 hours later he was reported. Just because you believe something does not make it a fact.
He violated 1RR, unless you are telling me such restrictions do not apply to certain editors. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Among the most serious violations Atabey has committed has been his retaliation against an administrator's actions on other articles related to this area, most notably on the Maraghar Massacre and Kirovabad Pogrom articles. His edits on the former have not only exceeded the bounds of nPOV but have been written in so mendacious a manner as to skew the actual reality of the event (all of which is given in full detail on the article's talk page here). And for the record, Atabey's blatant flouting of the most basic Wikipedia rules as civility, battlefield mentality, ethnic battleground, etc. has been abundantly made clear on his talk page, here, here, here, and here.

Regarding NovaSkola, it's quite possible that he may be a sock of User:Neftchi.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

User:MarshallBagramyan's moving around of editor comments on this board and selective references comments on unrelated cases from 2-3 years back (2007-2008) clearly points to intimidating intention - get a certain user (in this case me) restricted at any cost. I think checking Talk:Maraghar Massacre article is sufficient to see that User:Kansas Bear, User:Takabeg or User:MarshallBagramyan commented more complaining about my edits on Maraghar Massacre article here on AE than they actually contributed on the talk page of the article itself. Atabəy (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Come on Marshall, this is getting really desperate :) You're pulling up something that dates back to early ages of Wikipedia, for which the user has already been warned and banned in the past. There are a number of records showing your Wiki behavior and bans too. Do you think they should be mentioned here as well? Tuscumbia (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the same circumstances which led to Atabey's restrictions and topic bans from the above-mentioned articles seem to be in play here as well. After all these years, he still demonstrates a battlefield mentality toward his peers on Wikipedia and his most recent contribution on the Maraga Massacre are chock full of unhelpful, sarcastic comments and clearly retributive edits. That he has essentially admitted to carrying out WP:POINT attacks on at least the Maraga and Kirovabad Pogrom articles, has distorted the evidence on hand and gone out of his way to minimize intentionally the severity of those two events, speaks volumes. There's no reason why we should not give an editor a second, third, fourth or fifth chance but when an editor consistently displays so caustic, combative and vindictive an attitude which other uninvolved editors also find objection to, I don't know what other conclusion one can come to.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning User:Atabəy[edit]

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

Could we be clearer on which specific ArbCom remedy is being violated here? There's no notification of any restriction applying to that article on its talk page or editnotice and the respondent is mentioned in the A-A case only once as having been banned from another article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The whole area is under WP:ARBAA2 discretionary sanctions; this user has an extensive prior history under the username of Atabek (talk · contribs), and was a participant in both WP:ARBAA2 and WP:ARBAA; no additional notification is needed. T. Canens (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I've restored this enforcement request from the archive, since it appears that admins did not close it. Can anyone say whether Atabəy/Atabek was still under a 1RR/week restriction at the time these two reverts occurred (about a week ago)? I see that he was originally restricted for one year under WP:ARBAA back in April 2007, but that has expired. Even if WP:ARBAA2 (August 2007) caused the clock to be restarted, which I cannot determine, we are beyond one year on that one as well. Looking for previous AE actions about Atabek, I don't see anything in the log that shows that his general 1RR restriction was renewed. EdJohnston (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I couldn't find any currently active restriction. If someone has a link they should bring it up now. Otherwise, the only question left is whether we should impose a restriction under WP:ARBAA2. T. Canens (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:RESTRICT seems to have some wrong entries for people sanctioned in WP:ARBAA. Some editors are listed as having indefinite restrictions, while we know they expired after one year. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I found the WP:AN discussion about Buckshot06's IAR deletion of certain massacre articles. It is now in the archives of WP:AN. I see that the DRV about this is still open. In my opinion somebody should close it with restoration of all the deleted articles. EdJohnston (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I recommend that this enforcement request be closed with no action. Atabek/Atabəy is *not* under a 1RR/week restriction so far as I can determine. So the remaining question here is whether the data offered in this report are enough to show tendentious editing on AA topics. I do not see such editing at Maraghar Massacre or Kirovabad pogrom which are those mentioned by Kansas Bear in the above complaint. One option that we might consider in the future is to place all of the massacre articles that are mentioned in this report under a 1RR/day restriction. In my opinion, any admin should go ahead and do that if he perceives continued warring there. The massacre articles seem quiet at the moment so there is no urgency at this time. (At least, they are being reverted so slowly that a 1RR/day would not make much difference). For future reference, here are the massacre articles mentioned in the DRV:
For tracking of the problem note also the two articles mentioned by Kansas Bear above:
One of the issues making these articles hard to get right is that often there was no on-site reporting by reliable news organizations, so it is a matter of weighing the testimony of survivors to figure out what really happened. It is understandable that survivors who have lost their relatives may not be neutral. (In at least one case, data on the massacre was collected by an NGO group sympathetic to one of the two sides). Anyone who doubts the veracity of one of the massacre articles can open an AfD. I will go ahead and remove the wrong entries raise the question elsewhere on whether certain entries should be removed from WP:RESTRICT about revert limits after discussing with one of the clerks. Time to close this request, I think. EdJohnston (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

1RR violation and request to ban and restore[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.
Becritical made only one revert on the Israel Shamir article. He did not violate the 1RR restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In the article on Israel Shamir which is under active arbitration, Becritical made seven reverts, though only one a day is allowed. Please ban him and restore the text! 05:41, 2 January 2011 Becritical (talk | contribs) (12,878 bytes) (Reverted 7 edits by Kingfisher12 (talk). (TW)) (undo) [automatically accepted] Kingfisher12 (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

There's only one revert (e.g. this one). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

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


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.
Abd blocked 48 hours for violation of interaction ban.

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

Request concerning Abd[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley#Motions:
"[Abd and William M. Connolley] shall not interact with each other, nor comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about each other, on any page in Wikipedia. Should either editor do so, he may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week."
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [48] Abd is under an interaction ban with William M. Connolley (abbreviated WMC herein); the deletion discussion where Abd commented involves page content almost entirely created by WMC and originally hosted in WMC's userspace.
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
Extended block, at the discretion of blocking admin(s).
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
So, why block Abd for his comments about deleting a page in BozMo's userspace, under the provisions of an interaction ban with WMC?
A bit of context. WMC originally created and maintained User:William M. Connolley/For me/Things people say which recorded diffs of comments made by a number of other editors. The page was recently deleted, persuant to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:William M. Connolley/For me/Things people say.
Shortly after WMC's page was deleted, Count Iblis observed that the content remained fully available on an external mirror site and noted this in a commment to WMC's talk: [49]. A few hours later, BozMo re-created WMC's page at User:BozMo/difflog, copying the content from the external mirror. He notified WMC of the new page's existence on WMC's talk page: [50]. This new copy of WMC's page was almost immediately nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BozMo/difflog.
The violation diff above involves Abd's comment in the second MfD. I cannot think of any plausible explanation for his appearance in that particular discussion other than that he has been watching WMC's talk page (or keeping an eye out for his name in off-wiki venues) and thought that he saw a big enough loophole to wedge a WMC-related comment through. In addition to the interaction ban imposed by motion (linked above), Abd is extensively restricted from inserting himself as a third party into disputes involving other editors. Unfortunately, it seems that Abd has started to edit Wikipedia this year solely to peripherally attach himself to a dispute involving an old enemy.
Regarding choice of block length, Abd has been semi-retired for some time. He has made only a dozen edits since the end of October, and it's been nearly three weeks since his last edit. The (maximum) one-week block prescribed by the remedy was implemented at a time when Abd was a very prolific editor. These days, it seems entirely possible that Abd wouldn't even be aware of a one-week block until after its expiry; the act would be primarily symbolic rather than practical. Abd has received three week-long blocks and a one-year topic ban (imposed in October, shortly before the decline in his activity) under this case's provisions already Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions, to limited effect. It may be appropriate to apply a significantly longer block in this circumstance, as I am sure that it was not the intent of ArbCom – nor is it to the benefit of the project – for Abd to be permitted and encouraged to make intermittent visits to violate his editing restrictions from the comfort of retirement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
@Abd - The interaction ban is deliberately worded very broadly, precisely because of your tendency to be extremely lawyerly. The wording (my emphasis added) "shall not...comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about each other" reasonably includes your commenting on personal notes he was keeping for his own purposes in his own userspace. The fact that those notes were copied to another editor's userspace does not suddenly make them non-WMC writing.
I would be intrigued if you could share with us how it is you came across the deletion discussion, if not (as my "bizarre theory" asserts) through your ongoing monitoring of WMC's talk page. A pattern of conduct exists. You are not a regular participant in MfD; in fact, you've participated in precisely two MfDs in the last year: this one, involving WMC, and this one from November 2010, which involved a whole host of editors you've fought with (against and alongside) related to the climate change dispute. The last MfD you participated in before that – and the only other MfD in your last 500 Wikipedia namespace edits – was all the way back in September 2009, when once again you were commenting on the deletion of one of WMC's subpages.
As for the length of the block, the purpose is not to punish, except with the aim of discouraging your further interest in following WMC's activities. If your response here reflected any remorse (or understanding) that you were testing the bounds of one your many bans yet again, or perhaps an indication that you would undertake to avoid such testing in the future, then a short block (or even no block) might be appropriate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Abd[edit]

Statement by Abd[edit]

I've ruined way too much time by noticing this AE request and responding, and, as usual, I've written too much. But I'll collapse it and summarize the most important points.

full response

Eh? I'm very aware of the interaction ban, have respected it, and cannot see how this violates it. The only disruption coming from this would be the filing of this AE request, and, I suggest, I did not anticipate this and should not be held responsible for TenOfAllTrade's obsession and his bizarre theory regarding why I !voted. There was nothing remotely hostile toward the other fellow in that !vote, and my comments were about what I see as unnecessary deletion (I've opposed many similar deletions in the past). BozMo is responsible for the page under MfD, not the other fellow. I had included a comment that if the original author wanted the page deleted, I'd change my !vote, but decided that this could be an "interaction" of some kind, so I left it out. I hope I can be forgiven for adding that comment here! TOAT was one who, previously, fanned the flames in this area, when asked by me to try to help calm the waters, and, ultimately, some attention might well be paid to this, but it's not a task for me, I have far better things to do than to worry about this pond and the croaking of one frog. --Abd (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing the comment I made, nothing there refers to the other subject of the interaction ban. Which is what the ban prohibits, not some other kind of "involvement." "Silly drama" was a reference to the fuss over this new page. To defend myself here, I must make some indirect references to that person, but I feel no animosity toward him, intend no harm, and am not and was not criticizing him or interacting with him. The !vote was not prohibited by the ban as worded, and definitely was not prohibited by the intention of the ban. Anyone ever think of looking at the intention of a ban?

I'm struck, though, how my relative inactivity is used as a reason for an amplified sanction, presumably so I'll "feel" it, which betrays an intention to hurt or punish, not surprising for TOAT. I have not appealed short blocks because I don't want to waste the time of Wikipedia admins reviewing them, but a long block, I might indeed take to ArbComm, since one sanction after another has been imposed improperly, and, most recently, a pattern of topic banning all knowledgeable editors (not just me) who show up on my Favorite Topic resulted in my renewed topic ban here, even though I was following guidelines for COI editors, rigorously, and specifically for filing a successful delisting request for a blacklisted web site on meta, thus finishing the task I'd begun with RfAr/Abd and JzG. Allegedly it was too wordy. There is no end of novel theories on which to base blocks and bans. --Abd (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's simple. To harass an editor who is under a ArbComm ban, watch his every action and find something that might resemble the ban in some way that can be asserted, even if he might not anticipate that, even if the action isn't actually prohibited, even if it was not, itself, offensive in any way. Then file an AE request that he's violated the ban, and if he claims he didn't, accuse him of "wikilawyering" and "testing the limits." It's pure ABF, and it's done because it often works, and I've never seen anyone sanctioned for doing it.

Never mind that the whole purpose of bans is to be clear, to simplify things. Look at this AE. It mentions He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Mentioned numerous times, creating comments tempting me to respond, such as that of SBHB. I'm not going to. That person is not the problem here. Period. Nor was that person the problem at the MfD, at all. The problem is abusive and/or obtuse admins, impossibly complex and quirky process to address admin abuse or error, inadequate intermediate and functional process to guide and support editors and administrators, shooting the messenger, factionalism, petty wikipolitics and payback, overcontrol, juvenile personal vendettas, and I want nothing to do with it. It's only an encyclopedia! My interests are academic, scientific, and far more universal. I don't blame That Person for my sanctions, he didn't create them! I rarely edit any more because I lost patience with trying to build content here and to resolve issues, with great effort, just to see it slide back, I've concluded Wikipedia is impossible. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 06:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

@Enric Naval: isn't cherry-picking fun? He may, however, vote or comment at polls. The MYOB ban was a beaut: ArbComm, don't do this to anyone else, okay? Previous AEs have hinged on whether or not a list of comments supporting or opposing a ban at AN was a "poll," and bolded supports and opposes by other editors were refactored with a claim that "we don't vote," and I was then dinged for having not-voted in it, while being accused of wikilawyering for claiming it was permitted. I kid you not, but ArbComm clearly intended me to be able to "vote or comment" at XfDs, and I have when I noticed them and had something brief to say.

@the people who, with apparent reason, suggest I should be more careful. Sure. I stopped editing just for that reason. But I do occasionally look at my watchlist, and I'd like to suggest that if a situation has arisen where the police are called because a fellow allegedly jaywalks, and an angry mob gathers, and a police riot ensues, and this happens over and over, maybe there is a deeper problem than a careless jaywalker on an empty street, doing no harm. He should be more careful? Sure. He should avoid the neighborhood! And that's what I've been doing.

One week ban? All this discussion over something with so little meaning or consequence, already recognized as such by the one filing it? What's the purpose here? Enforcement for the sake of enforcement? What every happened to WP:IAR? IAR should govern what we don't do as well as what we do. "If a rule is violated, but it does no harm, ignore it."

The purpose of the interaction ban was to avoid discussions exactly like this, it was believed that the two of us were causing disruption by continued conflict, but, in fact, the real conflict was much deeper than something personal between the fellow and I, and ArbComm wasn't ready to address it, too many editors were involved.

ArbComm, and many admins, tend strongly to assume that if a mob is yelling at someone, he did something wrong, guilty until proven innocent, while, at the same time, "methinks the man doth protest too much." And then, when it occurs that the identification of cause is in error, and the target of the mob isn't properly contrite, he "thinks he's always right," and "isn't listening." I've seen this happen with so many, I used to try to intervene, often successfully, but the MYOB ban prohibited that. Ever wonder why this ban was imposed? There was no evidence presented for it.There was a screaming mob, obviously I must have been doing something wrong! The ban was a last-minute do-something attempt to resolve issues that really had almost nothing to do with me, and, as could have been predicted, it ended up before ArbComm later, in a huge mess, and the community is still bouncing.

Enforcement of a ban like this should keep the purpose in mind! "Wikilawyering" means ignoring the purpose of a rule while insisting on a sort of strict (literal or twisted) interpretation of it. AE is broken; just as filing an RfAr can cause examination of the filer, AE filings should be watched for abuse as tools to harass, and abusers warned, and sanctioned if necessary. I'd be very careful about anyone who seeks the block or ban of another. Very often that person is more of a problem than their target. And if the person is an admin? --Abd (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  • My comment was not about Him. It was about a page created by BozMo, and that this page was based partly on a page earlier created by Him was not relevant to my reasons for commenting. My comment was policy-based. How I noticed the MfD is moot, but I've not been seeking to "interact" contrary to the ban, and have avoided far more than the ban prohibits, and not just with Him.
  • My MYOB ban, raised by Enric Naval, and asserted by selective quotation, explicitly allows voting or commenting in polls. Enric Naval should be warned about creating disruption by misrepresenting the ban. Selective quotation of sources, pushing a POV, is, in fact, part of his documented MO, it has broad effect.
  • The purpose of the ban was to avoid discussions like this. That purpose is frustrated because there are editors motivated to create disruption over my actions, even when they are harmless in themselves. As noted by the filer, the maximum sanction allowed under the ban is moot; therefore the filing is moot, unnecessary disruption. Were the cause of filing more clear, no filing would be necessary. Blocking is already authorized for a neutral administrator. Only someone involved would need to file AE, and he's obviously involved and is maintaining disruption, and should be warned.
  • I could only avoid such disruption by completely avoiding Wikipedia. I'm almost there, for exactly this reason, and because getting anything done, of importance to me, on Wikipedia, is Entirely Too Much Work, and creates nothing of permanence. I'm going to die, and I need to put my limited time into what will endure. Many long-term editors have come to similar conclusions, and are disappearing, retiring, and, occasionally, being banned because they speak up about abuse. Or, sometimes, out of their own impatience, they become abusers, creating massive disruption, more retirements, etc.
  • This AE filing demonstrates a large piece of the Problem, as do many other events ongoing, for those with Eyes. Hint: I'm not the problem, I'm a symptom. On the article covering my Favorite Topic, I'm still being blamed for problems well over a year after I edited it outside of COI restrictions. I understand the issues, and I understand process, as have others, but Wikipedia is not asking for our help, most of the people who understood the situation and who would have assisted have left. While there are some new Arbitrators with heads on their shoulders, we've been there before. ArbComm burns them out. --Abd (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • My MfD history is asserted, as if it proved something relevant.
XfD history for Abd
  • 17:57, 4 January 2011. Deletion discussion for BozMo's page, modified to reflect concerns of original MfD on His page. No mention, by me, of Him. Arguments presented did not relate to Him or His actions. Voted Keep, page withdrawn by creator, who appears a bit disgusted by the process. My concern is almost always process, and that's why I !voted.
  • 19:54, 8 November 2010 MfD filed by the User:ScienceApologist, name since changed to his real name. Nominator previously topic banned from all fringe science articles, and site banned for a time. Basic issues involved, and, I expect, there will be future process over this, the issues are very much alive. My !vote was Keep, matching community snow. Notice tendentious argument from nominator. The community strains at a gnat and swallows flies.
  • 18:08, 13 September 2009 Note that He also !voted (and this was his page, and we both voted Keep, with the community. This was long before the interaction ban.)

Yes. All three MfDs involve, in some way, someone with whom I had some prior conflict. However, only one MfD could reasonably be considered a part or extension of the conflict, the one with ScienceApologist, and this did not violate any ban or sanction, and, even then, did not attack SA. It was supporting the essay, as did the community.

Also relevant (the same issues would apply) would be Articles for deletion, so:

  • 13:23, 7 October 2010. Speedy Keep, with community. Completely unrelated to prior conflict.
  • 13:56, 10 June 2010 voted Keep, with the community. My comment was cited by the closing admin. Yes, I voted differently from Him, but my !vote had nothing to do with Him.
  • 21:54, 27 February 2010 last of a series of AfD and article and guideline edits. I was opposing what I saw as a mindless interpretation of notability guidelines, was successful with Keep on almost all AfDs, with very little exception. The issue was exactly the same with each AfD, and that the result varied (a little) is an example of WP process failure. I tried to make the guideline more clear, to match actual community consensus, so that there would not continue to be useless disruptive AfDs, with no effect. No relation to prior conflict.
  • (Many other national radio society AfDs omitted)
  • 16:54, 25 February 2010 series of comments. Keep, with consensus. My !vote cited in another Keep. No relation to prior conflict.
  • 19:34, 24 February 2010 Keep. result No Consensus. Not related to prior conflict. However, article is now up for AfD a third time. As usual with marginal articles, early !vote favor Delete. Eventually, the deletionists hit a spot where those who might support the article don't show up. There are possible process fixes, but .... I'm voting Keep now, but without further research, it just takes too much effort to roll the boulder back up the hill once again, for too little positive benefit.
  • 21:49, 20 February 2010 Delete. Related to climate change conflict, probably saw it for that reason. Provided some evidence that might have supported the Delete conclusion. Probably would agree with the editors involved in prior conflict, but I don't recognize any names in the discussion.
  • 21:34, 18 February 2010 Keep, with community. No relation to prior conflict.
  • 20:52, 13 February 2010 Keep, with community. No relation to prior conflict.

That's as far back as I have time for. While the MfD sample is much smaller, which reflects how many MfDs there are compared to AfDs, MfDs may have more likelihood of some connection with prior conflict because they are often about what's in user space, and such pages frequently involve existing conflicts of some kind. But there is no support for the suggestion of disruptive participation, in any of these, and, almost always, the consensus follows my !vote. Frequently much research is behind my comments, which may be why they are sometimes cited in conclusions or other !votes. --Abd (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmph! Enric Naval has now pointed to the next Afd that would have been in this list. Interesting example. Yes, it was cited at AE, as he points out, as I recall, but I can't find the place, his citations don't seem to cover it. He points to his own very confused and elaborate AE request. However, the MYOB ban clearly allows such !voting; and interpretations, made then and now, that "intervening in conflict" included voting or commenting in polls, were in blatant disregard of the full text of the ban, and wasn't ever supported, and the clarification issued, which Enric cites, did not relate to such poll comments, but was about article editing (a strange interpretation, by the way, turning an MYOB ban into some kind of general "don't participate in discussions over article content or actual article editing, and don't attempt to help out at the spam whitelist, to help deal non-disruptively with backlog" ban. This AfD was a train wreck, and a strange pattern of !votes was apparent. Immediately after I voted, a whole series of contrary !votes immediately appeared from people with whom I did, indeed, have prior conflict. Maybe it was a coincidence. --Abd (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Conclusion: no significant connection of XfD voting patterns with prior conflict. No disruptive participation or tendentious argument in any XfDs. Apparent positive value of contributions. --Abd (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Process note: It is very clear from neutral comments that the edit did not clearly violate the ban. Some think that it was marginal. Some are certain that it was a violation and they would block. However, if a violation is not clear, and the differences of opinion cited prove that it is, at least to some, unclear, it should result in a warning that makes it clear, not a block. Only if there is a continual pushing of edges would the warning step be bypassed. In fact, what's been happening for a long time here is that edges are being pushed, all right, in the direction of expanding and extending bans, on whatever excuse can be found. I did not ask for an interaction ban, nor did the Other Fellow. It was done in an attempt to stop perceived disruption, which was -- prematurely and inaccurately, my opinion -- blamed on the two who were thought to be, possibly, the source. That was an error, but both He and I have apparently respected the ban, this is the first AE request regarding it, AFAIK. Yet this is asserted in the filing as if it were some sort of long-continued problem, mixing it up, in the case of Enric's claims, with the very vague and difficult-to-interpret MYOB ban. If the MYOB ban prohibited XfD votes ("dispute!"), well, there were a huge pile of them, with no complaint after that AfD that Enric cites, AFAIK.
  • It's being suggested that I agree to "promise not to comment again on anything remotely related to [redacted]." Wikipedia is remotely related to Him, and, in addition, I'm violating a strict reading commenting here. There is no history of any asserted violation of this interaction ban, and no warnings, AFAIK, so there is no evidence for "pushing of the edges." As has been pointed out, this super-strict reading of the ban requires me to anticipate the reactions of obsessive editors, very creative in wikilawyering ban language and interpretation, in ways utterly in contrast to apparent intentions, apparently to push results that they ardently desire, enough to go to the trouble of a filing here. The strict reading turns what was a simple purpose into a ban against editing any page on Wikipedia where the fellow had some input or someone might think it connected in some undefined way.
  • But would I now repeat my !vote? No, of course not. I would not deliberately trigger this disruption. But does that mean I'm required to anticipate the thinking of every member of this crowd? No, I'm required to respect ArbComm bans, and I did. We did. The purpose of the ban, and the letter of it, have been respected. Now comes TOAT who isn't satisfied. And that's important to notice. And Enric Naval, who has a huge axe to grind, since before I ever encountered him, he's behind a series of bans that have warped Wikipedia consensus, and, apparently, I'm being forced to take this back to ArbComm for enforcement of prior decisions. Forced, I'm quite reluctant.
  • And we also see, here, SBHB, who uses the occasion to grind a different axe, harmless, though quite incorrect. Doc James is a wikifriend, whom I thank, he's one of the few left. Brenneman I don't recall, nor Vecrumba. Thanks! T. Canens I don't know, but I'd call him clueless, and that admins will issue opinions without adequate understanding of the underlying situation and its relationship to overall policy and effects is part of the Problem. Elonka has had a long relationship with me, complex. I supported her -- strongly -- in her RfC, but opposed her excessive AE against PHG, which was similar in that it was wikilawyered to extend it, distorting the original ArbComm intention. So maybe there is some pattern there, I don't know. Elonka is often a Good Guy, so to speak, has been willing to act in difficult situations.
  • And not to leave anyone out, BorisG makes a classic quick response, which is, for such, quite correct. If there is a violation here, it is marginal, and therefore should result in a warning at most. Such a warning, in a case like this, should precede AE enforcement requests, which are far more disruptive. With a warning, I'd have responded directly, eventually. AE might or might not have been seen as necessary, and only if there were some repeat violation, very unlikely. Good process conserves community time and effort. Only if the violation is so clear that the user should have known, already, that it was a violation, would skipping warning be in order. BorisG is merely asserting standard practice, and I only disagree in the assessment of the edit as a ban violation, and, I'm confident, that, if he'd warned me, we'd have worked it out with an agreement. I've agreed with far worse than that!
  • But BorisG wouldn't have warned me, unless someone asked him to, maybe, because the action itself was non-disruptive, and didn't -- at all -- violate the intention of the ban. It caused no disruption, no complaint from the Other Party, just from two with some very personal history with me, looking for payback, which is easy to establish. TOAT would have been free to warn me, though, even if not neutral. If I disagreed, I'd have asked for a neutral party to mediate. Anyone ever hear of dispute resolution? And, no, AN and AN/I or AE are not the early parts of DR. Getting a neutral third opinion is.
  • Who teaches admins how to follow process like this? To use their tools and authority to promote agreement rather than to favor one side or another, to punish rather than guide? How are sound administrative practices established and maintained? By allowing a situation to fester for years until there is a Monster ArbComm case? Which then results in minor sanctions, which are, half the time, ignored with little or no consequence? With massive accumulated damage, loss and burnout of expert editors and others, in the meantime? There are answers to these questions, but Who Cares? I did, at one time. --Abd (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • @Mkativerata. Thanks. interactions bans have a clear purpose: to prevent a poisonous relationship between two editors from deleteriously affecting the project What "poisonous relationship" manifested in the !vote? If anything, I'd would be seen as supporting The Other Editor's material. How would that edit, aside from this AE request, have "deleteriously affected the project?" Did you read the MfD history? You'll note that I previously, before the interaction ban, directly supported keeping one of his pages. Was that manifesting a "poisonous relationship"? (No. Not then and not here.) Here is what I see as the flaw in your argument. The purpose of the ban is as you say. To pursue that purpose, "interactions" are prohibited, because it is thought that they will probably be "poisonous." A comment like mine might can be seen as an "interaction," in that there is some indirect connection, i.e., the editor was involved with the content, originally, though he was not a party in the MfD, and the full content, which included edit summaries, which had been considered objectionable, wasn't actually replicated. However, my !vote was not a manifestation of a "poisonous relationship." It is purely a violation of a hedge around a hedge around the law, with no substance relating to the original purpose. If I had !voted Delete, making arguments about how scurrilous the original author was to do this or that -- presume nothing from this about what I think about him and his work! -- it would have been a violation. Please reconsider! --Abd (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Abd[edit]

Comment by BorisG[edit]

Borderline. A warning is called for. - BorisG (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Vecrumba[edit]

Opening interaction bans to be interpreted anything other than direct interaction is opening a can of worms. How do you decide how many degrees of separation still constitute "violating" an interaction ban? An interaction ban does not mean an editor cannot comment on content where the other editor is involved. Once something is created, there is no "ownership." That the content in this case is not in the user space of the editor with whom interaction is prohibited rather renders this a non-starter. That a process mentions an editor which whom interaction is banned does not render commenting there (and a comment not referencing said editor) an interaction within the scope of the interaction ban. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 02:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

@Enric Naval: Forgive me if I misinterpret, but I hope you are not suggesting that the "indirect" part of "interaction ban" means that once editor "A" creates a bit of content, editor "B" can never comment on that content again, regardless of what space it inhabits. I'm sorry, but "interaction" means "direct" = contact an editor and "indirect" = discuss an editor. It is not an invitation to extend the boundary of "indirect" until an editor's action can be wildly construed to be an act which is subject to sanction. Quite frankly, to do so constitutes harassment. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 20:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
@Mkativerata: I believe I have stated the letter of the law above. Anything else is simply a personal interpretation to serve as justification for some action. Assuming good faith demands enforcing the letter of the law but allowing for leniency regarding the intent of the law. Assuming bad faith involves ascribing and enforcing the intent of the law beyond the letter of the law. IMHO, you are stepping out upon an extremely slippery slope. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 20:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Short Brigade Harvester Boris[edit]

I can't help but think that if The Antichrist had pulled a similar stunt, admins would be lining up to block him rather than dithering over whether to give him a slap on the wrist. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Enric Naval[edit]

Note the wording of the interaction ban: "shall not interact with each other, nor comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about each other, on any page in Wikipedia". It's not the first time that Abd pushes the boundaries of his bans, so please don't let him get away with just a slap on his wrist. You will encourage him, and he will keep nagging at the loophole as hard as he can.

He also violated this other restriction: Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

@Aaron Brenneman. Abd is commenting about the merits of a page that was single-handedly written by WMC and which was originally stored in WMC's userpace. Note that he is not an originating party to the dispute, so he is violating another ban at the same time. Note TenOfAllTrades' analysis that Abd is not a regular MfD editor, and that, lately, he has participated on a MfDs only when editors in conflict with him were involved. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

@Abd. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive56#Abd, you agreed to abide by this clarification "The rule is simple: never comment about any conflict between two or more people who are not you.". You said that it was all "silly drama", while commenting about a page created and edited exclusively by a person you were told not to interact with, and you were not a party to the disputes about that page. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking back, a year ago Abd commented in a AfD[52], causing a this AE request and a request for clarification that spawned the WMC interaction ban. The admins in the AE thread recommended not to edit disruptively in AfDs. I think it's disruptive to insert yourself in the MfD of a page written by an editor you aren't supposed to interact with, specially since you don't usually comment at MfDs. The only likable explanation for your behaviour is that you saw a topic related to WMC, and you decided to edit there, instead of prudently staying away from anything related to WMC. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And, of course, a deletion discussion is not a "poll", and using that exception to comment about the deletion of a page written by WMC is plain wiki-lawyering. You already said once that opposing a ban discussion in ANI was a "poll"[53] because people used bolded "support" and "oppose" in their comments (should I search that specific diff?). You were already told that it was a violation of your ban[54]Abd: ban discussions are not polls within the meaning of your restriction unless ArbCom tells me otherwise. Discussions involving Wikipedians that you happen to know, have conflicted with, or have associated with, does not qualify you as an originating party. You'll note my comments at AE talked a lot about the nature of XfDs, and AN, nor ANI, or AE, or so on qualifies as such. "I imagine the polls so mentioned include things like the recent Arbcom elections, constitutional conventions and straw polls, and perhaps even XfD debates. These polls by their nature invite comment from all, though preferably ones that are pithy, insightful, topical. This invitation does not however allow Abd to engage in the disputes of others using XfD as a medium - (s)he is banned from using all on-wiki media in that way. (...) The summary: the remedy allows participation at XfDs that does not otherwise constitute prohibited behavior.". You used a MfD as a mean to comment on WMC.

And, of course, "The whole thing is silly drama" is not a policy-based argument, as you recognize yourself, it's a vaguely-worded personal commentary that can easily include WMC's reaction to the deletion (I really hope you were only quoting someone else's literal commentary, but I don't see any quotes there nor mentions of who said it). And you didn't make any policy-based argument, you just said that Bozmo was right and that the discussion was policy-based. You didn't even cite which policies.

How about you promise not to comment again on anything remotely related to WMC, even if you feel personally that the relation is not significant? Now, that would be a constructive resolution of this AE. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment by your name[edit]

Result concerning Abd[edit]

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

Abd has made a brief comment on a RfD. That the above comment is related to WMC is a little tangential (see Wikipedia:Six degrees of Wikipedia). To call for a long term block based on the evidence provided IMO seems a little much. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hardly tangential IMO, since the nomination at the second MfD references WMC directly. I see a violation here, and propose a one-week block. T. Canens (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

If we want to be able to expand existing sanctions in this manner, then we should write them stretchier in the first instance, not shoe-horn items in afterwards. Do I think Abd was drawn to this due to the involvement of he-whom-cannot-be-named? Yes. Can we prove that (or even the standard that passes for "proof" in arbitration) at all? No. Does the comment itself directly or indirectly reference WMC? No. Should Abd be more careful in the future, since (as he contends) people are out to get him? Yes. Finally, and most importantly, why is there an admin-only comment section? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a note for clarity in the event of later debate, this page has had comments refactored and reverted - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Abd's actions do appear to be a violation of ArbCom sanctions. The AfD clearly listed WMC right in the header, from when it was started at 11:59,[55] and Abd participated at 17:57.[56] Abd's intentions in the matter are irrelevant: As soon as Abd saw WMC's name at the top of the AfD, he should have steered well clear. I would support a block up to a maximum of one week. --Elonka 08:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Isn't threaded discussion nice?
  1. How is the edit commenting on WMC or his actions? I'd like that question answered as concisely as possible, because I'm a bit slow sometimes: What is Abd saying about WMC in this edit, directly or indirectly?
  2. I'm not sure what information you're attempting to add with those two diffs that the original provided as the genesis for this enforcement request did not?
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The Arbitration motion is clearly a total interaction ban. Abd and WMC are prohibited from interacting, either directly or indirectly, on any page in Wikipedia. The AfD was clearly about something WMC-related, which means it fell within the scope of the ban. Abd should have simply avoided it entirely, but he chose to participate anyway, which was a violation of the Arbitration sanction. Therefore an Arbitration Enforcement block should be issued. --Elonka 18:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I could come up with an array of wikilawyer arguments to argue this either way. In my view, interactions bans have a clear purpose: to prevent a poisonous relationship between two editors from deleteriously affecting the project. The bans are worded broadly ("indirectly") so as to achieve this purpose. The context of this MfD and its history indicates that it was, in essence, about WMC and that Abd should therefore have steered well clear of it. So I agree with what T. Canens and Elonka propose. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Abd - it's the fact of the interaction, not just its substance, that can be disruptive. You rocked up to !vote keep for a userpage that was essentially about WMC (initially created by him, a large part of which listed a bunch of his diffs). In this case no disruption appears to have materialised, perhaps because the MfD closed and the page U1'd only a couple of hours after your comment. (Note: I didn't appreciate when making my first comment just how quickly the specific issue at hand became stale, and for that reason wouldn't object to closing this with a mere warning if Abd is willing to accept that these kind of edits will be treated as topic ban violations in the future). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
While this is a borderline case with respect to the exact wording of the restriction, I agree with the above administrators as regards its purpose. Taking into account that the restriction cited in the request allows for blocks of up to one week, and that this is the first sanctioned violation of that restriction, I have blocked him, in enforcement of that restriction, for 48 hours. Abd should henceforth refrain from taking any action that could be construed as even indirectly interacting with the other editor named in the restriction.  Sandstein  21:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

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


Too many unarchivings is bad for one's health. This is stale; if there's a continuing problem it should be brought in a new thread. T. Canens (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Chesdovi[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Chesdovi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
ARBPIA, Discretionary sanctions,
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. Chesdovis behavior yesterday and today has been troubling, disruptive and gaming the system.

Please take a look at some of his comments:

At Seven Arches Hotel he had added that Jordans annexation was illegal [57], and I pointed out that there was no source saying it was illegal, he reply's: "Why are there only sources calling Israels establishments in the occupied West Bank illegal? Wouldn't be the 'ole UN ganging up against the Jews again, would it?". He then goes to the Palestine refugee camps article and says: "West Bank camps are illegal settlements" "The 19 West Bank camps built under Jordan's illegal occupation should be described as illegal. Let's have some consistency here."

He returns to Seven Arches Hotel and says: "No. You don't understand. It is only illegal for Israelis to build in the West Bank, not invading Arabs.", then later ads with the edit summary "more ganging up against Israel by the Arab bloc" - "The Arab bloc is at it again..." while linking to a Haaretz news article that has nothing to do with the Wikipedia article.

At the Syria article he removes a summary of a quote by Israels defense minister that Israel provoked clashes before the Six day war: [58], previously anther pov editor edit warred to remove this well sourced notable information and there was discussion at the talkpage:[59], anyone can clearly see that there is absolutely no consensus to remove this text, Chesdovi is aware of this as he commented there, yet he has today once again removed it from the Six day war section claiming that its "NPOV, UNDUE violations. Use detailed quotes for relevant subjects", (Gaming the system) and then reverted himself with the edit summary: "self rv, 2 early", so he self rv to not violate the 1rr, while planing to once again forcibly edit war and remove this text when there is no consensus at the talkpage to remove it.

At the Syria talkpage he also had continued his personal commentary from above: "Hama bloodbath was legal" - "I was looking for quotes about the Hama massacre, but found out that no international outcry was heard after the Syrian massacres. The United Nations did not condemn Syria's actions, no investigations were called for, and no Arab leaders came forward to condemn Assad's actions. Doh!"

I would also like to ad that this kind of behavior is not new to Chesdovi: [60] [61][62][63]

Reply to No More Mr Nice Guy: No I explained my edit: [64][65], we have not added to the Israeli settlement articles that they are illegal yet we have sources representing the IC saying that they are illegal, yet Chesdovi did that to this article without a source, I have no problem with the edit if its sourced, but in that case then we must also ad to all Israeli settlement articles that they are illegal as a fact and not as a pov. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Chesdovi: What you are saying is not correct, I have not added to all settlement articles that they are "illegal", I explained my edit at the talkpage: "When we discussed and added the Israeli settlements illegality we had found reliable sources representing the international community, and even then we didn't say that they "were illegal" but that the IC view is that they were illegal, in this article we have no source showing the view from the international community, yet chesdovi added that the Jordanian annexation was "illegal" as a fact: [66]" [67]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I edit many articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and I edited Ahava (company) before you. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes I am 100% clear, I added exactly as I said that I had added. I brought it up at the talkpage:[68] and after your comment saying there was no sources:[69], I removed it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
What Chesdovi is saying about me is incorrect, he is claiming I "took offence at the emphasis of the Jewish history" which is not the case and there is no evidence presented that I did. I have previously started an article about a synagogue Malmö Synagogue and uploaded an image about the Jewish quarter in Damascus:[70] and Jewish kids in Damascus: [71] The article is about a suburb in today's Damascus. There wasn't anything written in the article about todays suburb, it was all about its history: see for yorself[72] What I said at the talkpage was that it should be a general article about this suburb [73] and I also showed an image that showed that the article contained factually incorrect text:[74]. The article shouldn't be focused on one single thing while leaving out today's suburb. At Ancient underground quarry, just because something is written in what appears to be a reliable source, doesn't mean that we should cherry pick what that source says and then forget about the other overwhelmingly sources that say that the West bank is not in Israel. The source he wanted to use said that a location in the West Bank is "in Israel". This is something that is factually incorrect. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Re "Jerusalem: Israel vs. West Bank", ehh no.. as I showed you before with several reliable sources including UN source representing the worldview that East Jerusalem is regarded as part of the Palestinian territories:[75]. This doesn't mean that West Jerusalem is part of Israel, the ownership of West Jerusalem is not decided yet. Why do you think all countries even still today have they're embassy's in Tel Aviv instead of West Jerusalem? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Mbz1 :Yes because according to the source The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History and Ideology it did not start out as Jewish, Jews moved in there later, so therefore its false and cherry picking to refer to it as an "ancient Jewish city" in the first sentence of the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Whats wrong with identifying a historian as Jewish? Isn't Bernard Jewish? The same section calls Shlomo Sand an "Israeli", so what is the problem? In this edit [76] I identify Silvio Berlusconi as "Italian", should I be banned for that to? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Ynhockey :What are you talking about? How is this [77] battleground mentality? The source The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History and Ideology shows it did not start out as Jewish, Jews moved in there later, so therefore its false and cherry picking of history to refer to it as an "ancient Jewish city" in the first sentence of the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

An ancient towns ethnicity is usually referred to by its last inhabitants, while previous residents are mentioned in its history. Chesdovi (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
We are talking about one single edit I made neutralizing its lead based on its diverse history, if anyone disagrees with me then this is not a problem, we can talk about this at the talkpage, but to bring that frivolous content edit here and call it "battleground behavior" is ridiculous.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Tariqabjotu : You have misunderstood, I never called anyone "pro-Israeli" or "Jewish" in a pejorative fashion. User:Breein1007 edits was in support of the State of Israel, this is what I wanted to point out. I didn't mean anything insulting or bad against him about it. And how is it a "pejorative fashion" to call Bernard Lewis a Jewish historian? The same section called Shlomo Sand "Israeli", Here I call Silvio Berlusconi "Italian" [78] is this also a "pejorative fashion", you have misunderstood what I meant with those edits. I would also like to point out this comment by you:"I'm not particularly concerned how you feel about losing two of your pro-Israel allies." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Nsaum75: Nsaum75 is misrepresenting me, yes I pointed out there political positions because there was an editor who was blocked who had the same political position as them. And these two editors with the same political position wanted him unblocked. This is not degrading them, I was making other people who might want to unblock the blocked editor aware of that they share the same political position. All the comments I made at Zaatar, Hummus, Ani Medjools talkpage are all things that has already been brought up in a previous enforcement that Nsaum75 started:[79] and I was topic banned. I promised I would not say those kinds of things again, and I have not. Those comments I made where inappropriate and I apology's for them. In those comments I also did not call Jews or Israelis "thieves", and I didn't use Israelis or Jews as pejoratives. I also explained my comment at Ani Medjools talkpage at the enforcement, Ani Medjool used language that was going to get him banned or blocked, so I told him not to say those kinds of things. Should I be banned for the same thing twice? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Please stop putting words in my mouth, I never said "Jews being thieves", I have not done any tenacious POV editing or the other things you accuse me of. I have explained all my edits.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I said they had stolen, not that "they are thieves". Well the talkpage comments were tenacious, I meant that the article edits weren't tenacious POV editing after my topic ban. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Nsaum75 keeps on adding the exact same things that was already brought up in the last enforcement, this is basically fishing. Yes I said Oren0 can not be considered neutral to the subject at the dispute at the Golan Heights article because of the things written at his userpage. The Golan Heights is occupied by Israel, the things written at his userpage shows him being supportive of Israel, so how could he be a neutral part or mediator if he supports one side? Would anyone ask User:Tiamut to mediate between a Palestinian and an Israeli? Both would have a conflict of interest, and this was my concern. And OrenO also closed the discussion in violation of Wikipedia guideline npov. Concerning the Mountain in GH discussion there was also a discussion at the Mount Paras article and Nsaum75 has only presented one diff where the situation and what I said is not presented correctly. We wanted to have the standardized names in English for the Mountains. The names used in Israeli and Jewish sources were almost all using the Hebrew names and not the standardized. This is why I said they weren't reliable for finding the standardized names in English, because Israeli and Jewish sources would most likely use the Hebrew names. Look for example here: [80] One Israeli source basically said that the Golan Heights is in Israel. So it is therefor written from an Israeli point of view instead of a world point of view and this was why I objected to it. See also this comment [81], the English sources, several of these CIA and Texas University maps, used other names then the Israeli or Jewish ones and therefor should be more reliable to represent the standardized names in English then sources from the country that occupies the Golan Heights which would most likely use the Israeli/Hebrew names. And the third part admin who was invited to close the discussion said the exact same thing as me, that Israeli sources would probably use the Hebrew names: [82] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. [83]
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Topic ban from Arab-Israeli conflict.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Chesdovi[edit]

Statement by Chesdovi[edit]

  • "Troubling, disruptive and gaming the system"? If this is about adhering to WP:TALK, I am happy to accept any recomendations. About Syria, the only person who want's the POV violation in the article since my suggestion to remove it pending a solution at talk is SD. I am of the opinion that if something is violating polciy, albeit with illegit. "consensus", it be removed pending mitigation. None of my points made about the Dayan quote were addressed by SD. He is not willing to engage or edit in a helpful fashion. Just readding material after it has been removed pending further discussion is annoying. Chesdovi (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Regarding tariqabjotu: If this is a problem, I am happy take a softer approach. It does take another to point this out, uno. Chesdovi (talk) 14:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I am also pleased to see that SD has seen to it that standards, once espoused herself, ("Israel and Jews have nothing to do with it. They have stolen our lands, now they steal our food and claim it as theyrse." [sic]), are now being monitored by her, Well done. The AE system seems to work. Chesdovi (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I created Seven Arches Hotel three years ago. Four days ago, after doing work on International Law & Israeli settlements, it dawned on me that this hotel was built under the same conditions. Adding this fact to article was nearly immediately pounced on by SD, who not responding to my query at talk [92], removed the word illegal. She also added the "fact" tag for Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan? Yet SD has tirelessly campaigned for the word “illegal” to be included at all Israel settlements. There seems to have been no attempt on her part to find source disputing or corroborating the legality of Jordan’s settlements. I hope that by highlighting this POV issue regarding SD will go to explain why her accusation here should not be treated as coming from a non-neutral editor.
  • SD further says "Anyway we don't add "illegal" before everything Israel occupies in other articles". Presumably she means Israeli buildings over the green line. Since such buildings are often described as being in an Israeli settlement, the IC’s view, obviously and correctly does not need to be mentioned in each individual building page. Yet at Ahava, SD insists that the IC view is added to the page about an Israeli company, (when that is more correctly addressed in the Mitzpe Shalem page, being already linked to Israeli settlement) in order to push her agenda to give as much publicity to the political opinions about everything and anything linked to Israel. On this page, however, as there is no page about Jordanian settlements, it would be necessary to include such a assertion. Chesdovi (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
More importantly, as NMNNG pointed out, how did you come to Seven Arches Hotel? Chesdovi (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Read an article about it in Haaretz and googled it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
And Ahava, Cave of Ramban, Tomb of the Prophets_Haggai,_Zechariah_and_Malachi, Ancient_underground_quarry,_Jordan_Valley... ? You are free to follow me around as long as you don't hound me like Bali. Chesdovi (talk)
  • SD has updated and editied her User request after disscusion has ensued. Chesdovi (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
You are not being 100% clear with everyone. You did add that the IC viewed IS as illegal to many pages. Sure, it makes a difference how these facts are presented, that's precisely why I did not re-add your removal of the word illegal from Seven Arches Hotel. You did not, however, even attempt to use NPOV language as I did in many Golan Heights articles and you tagged the Jordanian occupation reference, which is very strange indeed. You can delete offensive words as much as you like, but don't go round reporting on others if they do the same thing. You removed the word illegal without attempting to initiate and wait for supporting sources, the same tactic you used at Turkish settlements in NC.Chesdovi (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I stumbled across Cave of Ramban which had an ongoing dispute between you and SD in which you had asserted that East Jerusalem was in Israel, despite your being well aware (from previous other talk pages) that East Jerusalem is not considered part of Israel by anyone but Israel. I'm going to assume it's the same dispute . . . and yes, yes it is. Much like what you used to do with Golan Heights. If you keep making the same disputed changes across multiple pages then you're inviting someone to either follow you around or report you. You can't continue the same behavior at new venues and then plead you're a victim. It's tendentious. Please stop. Sol (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I must note that I am now unavaiable for comment for a few hours or till tomorrow and request that no actions are taken before I have had time to digest and response comprehensivley. Chesdovi (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

    • Vassyana, pls explain which comments are inflammatory. And what the difference is betweeen "frustrated expressions and/or insults" and my comments, none I hope were insulting. I have just read about trolling and hope that the bit that you feel applies to me is under the "Pestering" section. Is it? Chesdovi (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
    • And I don't think my acceptance of any recomendation here ahould be called "woefully insufficient". Chesdovi (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement SD’s critique of my actions are described as being “troubling, disruptive and gaming the system”. While my edits my indeed trouble SD, I dispute that I have been disruptive or endeavored on “gaming the system”. SD cites various comments I made at four different talk pages. Disruption can occur at talk pages, but I think the complaint is more to do with style rather than content. Vassyana has said my remarks were “inflammatory.” Originally questioning her view, I have now clarifying the meaning of the word (comments that are provocative and arouse passions and emotions) I concede that some can indeed be construed to this end. But they were not made in a vacuum. Precisely the fact the all occurred within 24 hours shows this. They were frustrated remarks all made in response to SD’s unilateral removal of the word “illegal” at SAH. It was for this reason too that I made, what I still view as acceptable, remarks about legality at Palestine refugee camps. Why did the removal of this word set me off? Because from past experience, I have tried to reword sentences at pages about Israeli settlements, leaving out the word “illegal”. This caused a major stir, upon which the word was re-added. My attempt to add the word “illegal” to Turkish settlements was then removed too. SD was involved in both instances and then subsequently crusaded to get a “final consensus” in order to have the offending word appear at each Israeli Settlement page. Before my “illegal” addition at SAH, I posted at talk. No response. As soon as I add it, SD comes along and removes it, requesting sources, to which I agree to. (bear in mind that the hotel’s construction was possibility illegal as, from the article it would seem that it violated Article VII of the Israel-Jordan General Armistice Agreement of 1949). Anyhow, that is why I went on what seems to have been documented here as a rampage, but all remarks are totally linked to SD provocation. I therefore cannot view my subsequent comments number of talk pages as being a normal case of trolling (if I understand what Vassyana is referring to).

The comments about "Hama bloodbath was legal" and at "Syrian Air Force" were also made in response to SD not responding to my earlier reamarks about the Dayan quote. They were made with a sense of frustration, unknowing that such expressions are not in order. I mean, I have not and would not insult someone intently. I think that as SD has been lambasted similarly in the past, she is taking every chance of reporting other instances from the “other side”. I may have been getting carried away, which regrettably does happen from time to time, but I was not aware that it would result in an AE post. In retrospect, I concede comments were politically charged, highly incivil? If I offended the UN (“Wouldn't be the 'ole UN ganging up against the Jews again”) or to the Arab bloc therein (“The Arab bloc is at it again” – highlighted to illustrate the possibility why the existence of the Arab bloc and not a Jewish bloc at the UN has precluded the labeling of Jordan’s settlements as illegal) , I apologise. I apologise to Jordan for claiming its occupation was illegal outright without clarifying that it was merely a position held by the Arab League for a matter of weeks. (Now clarified somewhat with the help of Harlan; SD could easily have tried clarified this, but chose to delete the reference). I am sorry to the “UN, Arab leaders and the international community” for assuming their silence on Hama meant they acquiesced to it. Basically I fell into SD’s trap. All what SD has documented above stemmed from her initial provocation. If she felt comments of mine were troubling, she should have mentioned it to me, rather than gathering up as much evidence as possible to get me blocked or banned as she not a couple of weeks ago. Her reaction to my edits was intransigence and lack of will to discuss and compromise. Allegations that I am gaming the system are silly. She can tell from my edits at IL & IS that I am ready to comprehensibly discuss all points she picks up on. No personal insults were ever made, and unless I have to be punished for responding to SD in this way, I don’t see why any sanctions are needed. I can see from the reaction here that there is no room for banter here, well not when SD is involved. Chesdovi (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment about SD's previous actions: If we are discussing SD’s previous actions, let me add this [93]. SD added a tag with concerns that “Its about a suburb of Damascus and there is nothing here about todays suburb.” Does that warrant a POV tag? She presumably took offence at the emphasis of the Jewish history of the village (“which should be a minor subject”) under the guise that there was no modern material. I added the expand tag to placate her, but it was really unwarranted. At Ancient underground quarry, Jordan Valley, reliable sources specifically described the cave as “the largest cave ever found in Israel”. SD was having none of this, [94], calling the National Gepographic "factually incorrect". Also has in the past refused to recognise the current status of the West Bank, [95]. Chesdovi (talk) 10:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Vassyana, I cannot accept your conclusion. Whatever I say, you would reject. You are free to focus on these remarks and my other sins, but I have already stated on more than one occasion here that I understand in retropesct that flurry of comments was not in order and am willing to brush up my act in future. If you are unwilling to accept that, so be it. Chesdovi (talk) 11:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem: Israel vs. West Bank
SD has non-neutral edits too: She has double standards when dealing with Jerusalem. Here she changes the Temple Mount from being in “Jerusalem, Israel” to “East Jerusalem, Palestinian territories” claiming Its not in Israel, the international community recognizes East Jerusalem as being part of the Palestinian territories. Yet when it came to Mahane Yehuda Market, in West Jerusalem, she removes “Israel” claiming that the Status of the city is not set yet. No country recognizes it as capital of Israel Meaning that Israel can never feature as the country Jerusalem is located in, but if site are located in eastern Jerusalem, she insists “Palestinian territories” or the West Bank Map is shown, and does not claim that the cities status is “not set yet”. Chesdovi (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

SD is claiming that East Jerusalem is internationally recognised as belonging to Palestine, while West Jerusalem is not recognised as being part of Israel. Is this true? Chesdovi (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
According to you, yes, all of Jerusalem is not recognized as Israeli. According to the rest of the world accepting '67 borders? No, West Jerusalem is in Israel. Sol (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Former is indeed correct: The international community, even after 1967, considered the status of the territory of the city of Jerusalem to be unresolved, meaning that it did not deem any part of the city of Jerusalem to be territory of Israel, including the western sector of Jerusalem, which had been under Israel’s control since 1948. Why does SD insist then on adding PT or WB map? Chesdovi (talk) 10:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you! That was exactly the source I was trying to get from you. I've sources contradicting it but this isn't the time or place to discuss so I'll take it elsewhere. Sol (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Chesdovi[edit]

Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy

The editor creating a battleground atmosphere here is SD, by reverting information he knows is factually correct rather than just tagging it for sources (here are just a few [96] [97] [98] sources supporting Chesdovi's edit, which took me less than 5 minutes to find). He did the same thing in another topic when following Chesdovi's contributions a couple of months ago. Such bad faith revert-for-the-sake-of-reverting are just one of things that create a battleground atmosphere in the topic area.

Also, perhaps SD could let us know how he came upon this somewhat obscure article? Following users you don't like just so you can make their editing experience unpleasant enough to get a reaction and then reporting them (repeatedly) also has the stench of a battleground.

If a bit of sarcasm is not acceptable, Chesdovi has indicated he will stop using it. I won't go into the kind of much more blatant uncivil behavior that gets a pass around here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

General comment by Sean.hoyland

Adding material in the I-P conflict topic area without sources isn't something to be encouraged and people removing it shouldn't be accused of "bad faith revert-for-the-sake-of-reverting". Nothing personal in Chesdovi's case, lots of people do it, but we all know the rules and adding unsourced material in this topic area is like lighting a fuse. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

We're talking about a piped link to an article that already included sources. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's useful to talk about when citing sources isn't required in articles covered by discretionary sanctions or if verifiability can be provided via piped links to completely independent instances of content that aren't synchronized by any automated processes where the target at the end of the pipe that is assumed to provide WP:V compliance can be changed by anyone at anytime. Even social insects handle information more reliably than that. People can simply cite the sources like it says in the sanctions. It's easy. Here's an example of me removing something I know for a fact to be true, that I or someone else could have found sources for because there is a mismatch with the current sources. No one complained. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Comments by Mbz1
SD came here with "unclean" hands.
At Gamla erases any reference to historical Jewish presence in the city :with edit summary "Jews moved in there later" Dec 19, 2010
The edit is unreferenced, has no basis in fact and its only :purpose is to further turn topic area into a battleground.
Let's see what the source say: "The city of Gamla is mentioned in Talmudic sources as a walled city dating back to the time of Joshua Bin-Nun" .
Here he dismisses the views of two editors for the following tendentious reason
NOTE: Both Epeefleche and No More Mr Nice Guy who here above have opposed the block are both pro-Israeli editors.” Oct 23, 2010
As if to say, if you are identified as having Israeli sympathies don’t bother commenting because your views are unwelcome and automatically tainted.
In the following edit,
Dec 12, 2010 SD changes "Jerusalem International Airport" (THE OFFICIAL ALTERNATE NAME) to "East Jerusalem International Airport." The edit is neither fact-based nor sourced and its only purpose is to further turn topic area into a battleground.
In this edit SD adds "The Jewish historian" introducing Bernard Lewis as a Jew, as if to say that if he's a Jew, he's biased and can not have an untained opinion

--Mbz1 (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC) ;Comment by MalcolmMcDonald I find it difficult to believe any action will be taken against this problem, particularly after seeing the battleground tactics already deployed.

In this case, I'd be fairly sure that Chesdovi is even factually wrong - there is nothing to indicate that Jordan's annexation was illegal. Even the partisan and non-reliable Jewish Virtual Library seems to grudgingly accept that it was uncontentious to all parties ( Sessions of the Arab League, Session 12-I, May 1950 "Iraq pressed a compromise position (later accepted) which viewed Jordan as the 'trustee' of the area" and Session 12-II, Resolution 321, 12 June 1950 "Acknowledges receipt of the information that East Palestine had been annexed by Jordan"). The UN never objected, unlike the near-unanimous and repeated condemnatory resolutions about the situation of the area post-1967.

However, it is plainly not worth attempting to contribute usefully at a topic that has been allowed to deteriorate so badly. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC) struck comment of banned editor.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The illegality of the Israeli settlements, the Wall, and the associated administrative regime have been authoritatively established by the political and judicial organs of the UN and the contracting state parties to the Geneva Conventions. No similar authoritative declarations or opinions were ever expressed with respect to the union of Arab Palestine and Transjordan. On at least one occasion, I reverted an edit by Chesdovi regarding the illegality of the annexation of the West Bank by Transjordan and directed him to the existing discussions on the article talk page.[99]
I had provided a number of published sources, including the US State Department "Digest of International Law" and the State Department "Foreign Relations of the United States"-series which say that (i) the union of Arab Palestine and Transjordan was a case of the legal acquisition of sovereignty over territory; (ii) that the law of nations recognized the inherent right of the non-Jewish communities of the former Palestine mandate, including Transjoran, to organize a state and operate a government as they saw fit in the territories occupied by the two communities after the mandate was terminated; and (iii) that the union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan had been brought about through regional congresses and a plebiscite that reflected the freely expressed will of the two peoples. Here is a list of sources in my user space [100] and one of several discussions regarding the topic at Talk:Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan [101].
FYI, the Vaad Leumi and the Jewish Agency granted themselves all legislative, executive and judiciary powers over the Arabs in the territory they occupied.[102] That included quite a bit of territory that lay beyond the boundaries of the UN partition plan. The UN Security Council and UN Mediator subsequently accepted formal agreements between Jordan, Egypt, and Israel which established the permanent lines of demarcation and the de jure authority and exclusive competence under international law of those states to negotiate any future boundary changes between themselves. Jordan and Egypt subsequently recognized the PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinians. Jordan ceded its claims to the West Bank territory to the PLO when the union betweenthe East and West Banks was legally dissolved. Israel signed a peace treaty with Jordan that preserved the status of the territory that it had occupied in 1967. harlan (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I can only base myself on what I have read and the Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan which says the Arab League viewed Jordan's presence in the West Bak as illegal. Chesdovi (talk)

:::I'm not making a list of articles that suffer from POV, but that's another obvious one. No resolutions at the UN declare the annexation illegal, the Arab League eventually defined it as trusteeship, and if Nasser or Kassim thought it was illegal they never formally said so in any of the 3 references [103][104][105] given. If they had said it was illegal it would be under Sharia, not under any Internationally acceptable interpretation. A POV narrative has become the encyclopaedia's neutral voice. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Question for Chesdovi - have you ever seen this and have you or any other editor ever challenged it or produced a counter to it?
If you have seen the information there, have not challenged it, but persist in trying to edit in a fashion contrary to the evidence, then there must be serious questions over your conduct.
I have also dipped into your contribution record going years back, in Oct 2006 I found "The Dome of the Rock was built as a Masjid, but not a? as a mosque for exclusive Muslim worship ... the fact that the building was not meant for exclusive Muslim worship and that claims of exclusive Muslim rights for prayer at the edifice are therefore tenuous, should [be?] given prominence in the article" and "... this discussion is not necessarily about who owns the land. We all know that the Jewish people own the Temple Mount. It’s transaction by King David is recorded in the Bible" which would make it appear that you've carried out pretty odious religious baiting over a period of more than 4 years. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 13:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC) struck comment of banned editor.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The information on the explicit and implicit recognition of the political union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan was already posted to the article talk page on Jordan's occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem [106], before Chesdovi started editing the article about the illegal annexation/occupation. [107] harlan (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Petri Krohn

There is something really strange going on at Seven Arches Hotel. While most hotel articles tell how many stars a hotel has, in this article an IP editor – who seems to share Chesdovi's pov – is insisting the that the first sentence starts with a WP:COATRACK for an "illegal occupation" theory. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Pantherskin

It seems that Chesdovi has no clean hands here, althoug SD's description of what is happening at the Syria article is highly misleading given that there is anything but a consensus to include the quote; given that SDs editing in this section is highly biased; given that SD insists on including this quote without any disclaimer, depite the source making it clear that the quote is not seen as giving an unbiased summary of events by historians. Chesdovis excessive tagging, and edit-warring might violate the rules of Wikipedia, but the selecdtive use of sources as done by SD in this article is far more damaging to Wikipedia. Sadly though NPOV is not actively enforced here... Regarding the quote SD insists on including, without any qualifications. The same article he uses to cite the quote says "Historians took a cautious approach, noting that the conversations had not been a formal interview."; "Bruce Maddy-Weitzman, a senior researcher at the Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies in Tel Aviv, said he was troubled that the published conversations could overshadow other factors in the decision to strike Syria.", "He didn't intend to give a full, rounded interview, said Shabtai Teveth, a biographer of Dayan. Here he singles out the kibbutzim, which is not a very balanced picture". That shows pretty much that in at least this instance Chesdovi was in the right when it came to the content and SD blatantly violated NPOV.

Comment by Nsaum75

Above in SD's response to Tariqabjotu, he says he's never called anyone Pro-Israeli or Jewish in a degrading fashion. I beg to differ. On several occasions he's tried to label editors as Pro-Israeli in an attempt to have their viewpoints dismissed[108](see comment above NMMNG's comment). AND on least three or four occasions used pejoratives to refer to Israelis and members of the Jewish faith, describing them as “thieves.” He has also used this term on off Wikipedia forums as well. [109] [110] [111]. The issue was brought up again recently and he was asked to retract those comments[112]] but SD dismissed it saying "he had already recieved a topic ban for those types of comments".[113]. SD also dismissed the results of an RfC at the Golan Heights article in part because the closing admin was Jewish[114]. And then there was an instance where SD said sources written by Jews were not reliable for determining the English language name of a mountain in the Golan Heights[115]. An Israeli may not speak english as his native tongue, but almost half of the Jews on Earth live in the United States and speak english as their native language.

There was also this nice little comment he left for a now blocked/banned user, whom he often edited in concert with on articles[116].

I have more diffs as well. But what I see is a long pattern of editing not designed to improve an encyclopedia but more or less to push a personal POV and possibly personal dislike of certain nations, races, religions and nationalities into articles, but done in such a manner that it flies under the radar most of the time, just like the advice he gave to Ani Medjool where he stated how one has to use "doublethinking" to make edits and achive goals[117]. AE Sanctions can go both ways -- against the filer and the person being filed on. I would ask the admins to keep that in mind. Chesdovi has exhibited inappropriate behavior at times over a long span, but so has SD. I'm very reluctant to say it, but I'm concerned that SD may have a dislike for Jews, Israel, and Israelis that he is unable to separate from his editing, even though he may not use such direct terminology as often as in the past or he hides it using, in his words, "doublespeak" and "not saying what he means"...essentially gaming the system. His long-term edit history and comments (recent and past) shows a pattern, that unfortunately, should not be ignored. -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡ 17:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply to SD not banned twice. But your edit history afterward has shown you have not changed your way of tenacious POV editing and thinking, you've only learned to go about it a different way by gaming the system. And you never retracted the racist comments about Jews being thieves, something that should have been done when it was asked of you the very first time...even if you had been sanctioned for it previously and said you would not make those comments again...hateful comments should be retracted and struck out. But thats aside the point here. Your battlefield behavior, pov pushing and tenacious editing has not changed over the long term despite sanctions and warnings. -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡
Reply to SD 2 You did call them theives. You even created a now deleted article title "Israeli theft of arab food". I appreciate you now apologize for those racist comments, but you should have made the apology when you were repeatedly asked to apologize (or struck them at that time)...not now, when its been brought up at AE. It exemplifies my concerns that you have not changed and still operate under alterior motives, and only say/agree to things when your actions could potentially lead to punishment (to quote you: "you have to realize that to get somewhere on Wikipedia you have to use doublethinking. Do not always say what you truly believe"). Reactive behavior (such as apologizing right now, as opposed to when it was repeatedly requested earlier) does not encourage me to believe you've changed, especially the latest flurry of AE's youve posted.. -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡ 18:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Reply [118] Looks to me like you're calling Jews and Israelis thieves. Who else "stole your lands"?? If Israel came into existance in 1948, then it couldnt have been Israelis who "stole your lands". And in your last response, you still don't see how your edits could be tenacious or POV.
My listing of your historical edits are not intended to be used in this AE, but rather to show your long, POV, tenacious, anti-jewish history and the fact that you may have learned to game the system, like when you said "there's not much WE can do, but you have to realize that to get somewhere on Wikipedia you have to use doublethinking. Do not always say what you truly believe, try to reach your goals in another way. " Even after sanctions and blocks, every article you edit turns into a battlefield and you still do not recognize how your viewpoints and edits may be POV, despite admins pointing it out. Chesdovi and pantherskin are not guiltfree in the least and have created battles, but I don't see an extensive history where they exhibit anti-semetic viewpoints and give suggestions on how to edit from an anti-semetic/anti-Israeli point of view without being caught. -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡ 18:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Addendum by Nsaum75[edit]

I offer my sincerest apologies to Supreme Deliciousness if my concerns stated here are unfounded or cause personal distress to him; I did not come to the decision to raise the issue of antisemitism lightly, however the long term pattern of editing, commentary, and behavior causes me concern. In reading Chesdovi's & Pantherskin's AE, and the accusations being made, I decided that my concerns should be placed in the open for Administrators to decide if they may warrant any merit.

AGF is one of the pillars upon which WP is built. Without it all of us lose credibility and respect. The IP article area, an arena in which I have not been a regular contributor for quite some time, suffers from a failure of AGF on a massive scale. This is evidenced by related articles' dysfunctionality and the constant re-appearance of its members on this enforcement board. We are all human, and all suffer from shortcomings, and I think everyone here recognizes that. But at times, events occur that draw into question the Good Faith nature of editors actions.

I do not claim to be unbiased, and the person who claims such is no friend to themselves or others. However I felt I can offer a different viewpoint as an editor who is aware of the ongoing problems in the project, but not a "regular" who is "caught up" in the moment or has something personal at stake. The vast majority of my edits, contributions and photos, lay outside of the IP realm. In fact, although I have contributed hundreds of photos to the project, I now refuse to donate photos from the middle east because they may be considered contentious by some or because they may express a personal bias of mine that I am be unaware of.

Again, I offer my deepest apologies if my comments here have caused offense or distress to SD or others. I also ask for forgiveness if the issues that concern me turn out to be innocuous. However, given the gravity of my concerns and the complete failure of the editing process in IP articles, I felt they should be in the open for their merits be decided upon. I wouldn't be doing anyone, or the project, a favor if I ignored such concerns. -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡ 16:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Sol

Chesdovi is a good contributor. When it's his area of expertise he's excellent. But some of this is getting a bit silly. No one, or at least very few, editors in the topic area are politically "neutral" (whatever that would be here), that's fine, but sensitive issues need careful treatment, not more disruption. When Chesdovi added nine possible suggestions to the "Judaism and Violence" article (concerned with religiously mandated/attitudes toward violence) in quick succession, implying that editors were looking to make Judaism more violent than it is, I was not entirely amused (only partially, it is funny stuff although off base). When he started calling out specific editors and implying that Jewish theologians didn't care about events in which only Jews died, the intent was crystal clear. Something needs to happen. The last ban over the "Judaism and bus stops" incident (which was, frankly, a very funny article) didn't work so it really seems like something needs to happen. I don't have much love for either SD or Chesdovi's politics and that's just fine but we really don't need more trolling in an area already rife with partisan bickering. You are better than all this, Ches. Sol (talk) 04:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It was not to do with "implying that editors were looking to make Judaism more violent than it is", but rather to highlight the fact that if the certain violent passages in the Bible were being used to depict the Jewish religion in a "bad" light, editors should not be selective. There are many instances of violence in the Bible. Why have editors picked up on only the cases of Hebrew violence against gentiles? That is wrong. When I have a chance, I will push for inclusion of the 25,000 Jews violently killed duting the civil war and of eariler muderous acts commited by biblical personalites which religious Jews venerate. I was not banned over Judaism and bus stops as far as I recollect. That could well have been turned into a valid article. I must point out that with all the bickering between me and SD, neither of us have decended to personal insults and the use of profanities which had been the case with other editors. (SD is decent in this respect, like me!) Chesdovi (talk) 10:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Apologies. You are correct, it wasn't about "Judaism and Bus stops" but something else, my mistake!
As to the article, the point of it is neither to make Judaism look violent or "depict the Jewish religion in a "bad" light" but to cover Jewish religious doctrine/attitudes concerning violence. You're ignoring the spirit of the article in favor of attacking the article's editors as not caring about Jews and slandering Judaism. If you would like to include material on Judaism's teachings concerning Jewish-on-Jewish violence (which, like most violence, is largely prohibited although the halakhic concepts of din moser and din rodif are good starting points), feel free. Adding snippy talk page additions isn't making the article better or addressing your concerns. Sol (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Procedural comment by Kanguole

User:Ynhockey, who has commented in the Result section, does not meet the definition of uninvolved for ARBPIA: see e.g. this AE request regarding Nableezy. Kanguole 00:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Chesdovi[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • These are the kinds of actions topic bans were made for. Chesdovi is being highly incivil and his politically charged comments are creating a battleground atmosphere that will only lead to more trouble in the area. If I were to throw out a period of time at this point, I'd say two months; Chesdovi hasn't been a particularly prolific disrupter in this area. -- tariqabjotu 14:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I would put three months out there, along with a sharp warning that further inflammatory comments in any topic area will be rewarded with blocks. This is a big set of blatant trolling and bombthrowing. --Vassyana (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Many of the comments are obviously inflammatory. Saying it's just your approach and you'll tone it down if it's a problem is woefully insufficient. That a response appropriate to some frustrated expressions and/or insults, not for a large series of absolutely over the top trolling. --Vassyana (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • @Chesdovi: You can't just say things like this that add nothing to the discussion but an argument. Talk pages are not discussion forums for you to win debate points. This and this seem like outright trolling to me. This and this just seem like stumping and stirring up trouble. This could be minor by itself but fits into a wider pattern of provocation. I also note this comment, which is deeply concerning in context. And that is all just within 24 hours of your last edit. --Vassyana (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • @Chesdovi: Your response does not leave me more hopeful. You place the blame on another editor. You do not seem to understand the problem with your comments. You make sarcastic apologies to the UN and so on. You indicate that it upset you so much that you could not help yourself. You seem to indicate that it is personally important to ensure "balanced" coverage. These are all indicators that you need to be separated from the topic area. --Vassyana (talk) 02:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed that Chesdovi has crossed the line with many of his edits. On the whole, I support the proposed sanction, but believe that we must not act quickly and examine the behavior of both sides, as among the mutual mudslinging in the case, some actually legitimate concerns have been raised about the recent behavior of the editor who filed this request. There is a high degree of battleground mentality here, as demonstrated by edits such as this (brought up above). I feel that if we don't identify the deeper problem, we will be loaded with more cases like this soon. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
SD's lengthy comment below about nsaum is a prime example of battleground mentality (seeing editors as "pro-Israeli" and "Jewish" in a pejorative fashion). Note that that makes SD's third AE request in maybe five days... there's clearly a problem. That being said, topic-banning Chesdovi can be done now while the sanction against SD can come in the coming days. -- tariqabjotu 16:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
That would be acceptable, although I believe that for our own convenience, we should merge the Pantherskin case and this one in order to examine the behavior of the relevant editors before the case is closed. I don't believe there is any problem with sanctioning one of the editors (Chesdovi) as an interim and not final step in this case. —Ynhockey (Talk) 20:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with both of you. We should handle all of the problematic conduct in front of us. --Vassyana (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

To whoever decides to close this, please be in contact with me before making a final descision as I may have an important request. Chesdovi (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Unarchived. This still needs closing. T. Canens (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


Stale. Regardless of the merit of the request at the time, Pantherskin has not edited since the end of 2010. If warranted, once he begins editing again, a new request can be filed. NW (Talk) 02:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Pantherskin[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Pantherskin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
ARBPIA, Discretionary sanctions, edit warring
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. Pantherskin had previously edit warred to remove a summary of a quote from the Syria article. You can see him here edit warring, he removed it at least three times from the Golan Heights article and seven times from the Syria article: [119]

There was no consensus at the talkpage to remove it.

He was blocked for slow motion edit warring.

He then left Wikipedia for a couple of months, then he returned and without any new consensus or any new discussion once again reverts it and removes the Dayan summary:[120]

And now since his return he has once again continued to edit war and remove it again:[121] anyone can clearly see that there is no new consensus at the talkpage to remove it [122] so Pantherskin is continuing to forcibly remove it.

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


Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Topic ban from Syrian-Israeli conflict
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Reply to Mbz1, I did not "erase any reference to historical Jewish presence in the city", With this edit [124] I removed in the first sentence that its a Jewish city because the first source in the article shows that Gamla did not start out as a Jewish city. It is therefor incorrect to refer to it as a "Jewish city" in the first line of the article when Jews later moved in there.

So, according to you, I should go to Palmyra, and remove from the first line that it was an ancient Arab city in Syria, because it was first a Sumerian city, then a Solomonic one, then Greek/Roman, and only conquered by Arabs in the 7th century? Because it is incorrect to refer to it as an "Arab city" in the first line of the article when Arabs only later moved in there. I want to make sure I have this right. Two for the show (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the history of Palmyra, but if it was several different things then it shouldn't be called just "Arab" in the lead. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

In this edit [125] I added that Atarot Airport is located in East Jerusalem, I see now that I shouldn't have added "East" before "Jerusalem International Airport", that was a mistake.

Whats wrong with identifying a Jewish historian as Jewish? The same section calls Shlomo Sand an "Israeli", so what is the problem? In this edit [126] I identify Silvio Berlusconi as "Italian", should I be banned for that to? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Try to call Berlusconi a Christian politician or Romney as a Mormon politician and see what happens. - BorisG (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Being a Jew is also an ethnic background, not only religion. And its also the context of the text, the text is about a historian talking about the origins of Jews. So to point out that the background of the historian is also Jewish is relevant. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
It is, but I can't see how ethnic angle makes is more acceptable. If anything, it is even worse. Would you call Miliband a Jewish politician in the context of policy debate on relationship with Israel? - BorisG (talk) 03:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't know who Miliband is, maybe if it fits in the context of the text, as I said above, the text was about a historian talking about the origins of Jews, so I believe it was relevant, I didn't mean anything derogatory about it, you have misunderstood me if that was what you thought. As I said above I also called Berluscioni "Italian", should I be banned from Italian related articles? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Your persistent reference to context only highlights the problem more graphically. It implies that if a historian is Jewish, he is likely to have a particular POV (or explains his POV). This is called prejudice, to put it mildly. I hope admins will see it for what it is, even if you refuse to do so. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
So the editor who added in the same section that Shlomo Sand is an "Israeli", does he also have prejudice? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
No. It is common to mention nationality of someone (Egyptian hisotrian, British historian). It is much less common to mention someone's religion, much less ethnic origin (Muslim historian, Arab footballer, Christian scientist, Alawy politician). It is not always clear-cut because some (many) ethnic groups identify themselves as nations even if they don't have a state of their own. But I think it is only proper to call a politician Welsh if he idenfiies himself in this way. No such self-identification is necessary for the use of one's nationality (British, Israeli etc). I think you get the idea. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
"Jewish Historian" gets 69,800 results on Google books.[127]. So my edit was in accordance with mainstream publications. If anyone feels that it was a problem then we could discuss this at the articles talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Another question what was the need to mention the religion of the historian. The only need was to show that he is Jewish, and that's why he cannot be trusted. SD has not changed, when he wrote: "In his userpage it says "This user supports the continued existence of a free and independent state of Israel." and "This user is a Jew." Therefore Oren0 can not be considered neutral to this subject, and another 3rd point of view should have been picked for the disputed/occupied argument". --Mbz1 (talk) 03:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Pantherskin: What Pantherskin has done here below is to cherry pick a couple of sources that supports his pov, Moshe Dayans quote was published in 1997 and the source used is NYT [128] so its new information. And who stopped Pantherskin from adding other relevant information? This is not a reason to remove the summary of the Dayan quote. The quote is also brought up in several books: p 154 "Israeli security was the alleged reason for military action in Syrian Golan Heights, but conflict over resources and farmland were important issues in themselves. According to Moshe Dayan..." "Israel intentionally precipitated hostile exchanges with Syrian farmers in order to justify larger military adventures in the Heights", p 355 p 47

And there is no source presented by Pantherskin that contradicts what Dayan said. But there are also other sources talking about the same thing, see for example:p 43 [129][130]. He removed all the text about that Israel provoked the clashes, and turned it into a Syrian claim, this means nothing. This is a content dispute about something he doesn't like personally and he wants it removed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

NYT is not reliable? UN observer Jan Muhren is not a credible source? The current affairs programme can be found online, also The Discourse of Palestinian-Israeli Relations by Sean F. McMahon is published by Routledge, what is wrong with it?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
How come you didn't mention The Discourse of Palestinian-Israeli Relations? Article in Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs is by Sheldon L. Richman, he looks like a good source: [131]. Muhren was an UN observer, he was right there and saw everything with his own eyes. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
So a balanced view according to you is to remove reliably sourced text that Israel provoked clashes and then ad text written by the Israeli ambassador to the United states saying that Syria sponsored Palestinian attacks, and text that: "Syrian artillery repeatedly bombed Israeli civilian communities" [132] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Michael Oren isn't the Israeli ambassador to the US? If a source doesn't have a quote doesn't mean that they ignore it. And I have shown you several reliable sources that bring up the Dayan quote and other reliable sources talking about the exact same thing as Dayan. The only thing said in the NYT article is one researcher in Tel Aviv saying that other things involving Syria is not mentioned, (this can easily be added) and his biographer Shabati Tveteh claiming he is singling out kibbutzim. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Pantherskin[edit]

Statement by Pantherskin[edit]

Please note that this a general overview article of Syria. What was previously in the article on Israel-Syria relations before the Six-day war was a single quote by Moshe Dayan. The quote was sourced to a NYT article that said "Historians took a cautious approach, noting that the conversations had not been a formal interview.". What means that this quote at best only gives a partial picture, and at worst is misleading. Nothing about these doubts about the quote in the article, and nothing about what is typically included in history books on this time period, i.e. the shelling of Israeli settlements, the incursions by Palestinian militants into Israel that were sponsored by Israel, and different interpretations of terms of the status of the demilitarized zone between Syria and Israel.

Only including this quote without any disclaimer thus violates NPOV. Even worse, only including this quote is giving a biased view of Syrian-Israeli history given that pretty much every history book that discusses this time period gives little attention if any to Moshe Dayan's quote or the substance of it (see for example [134] (page 51, [135] (page 192), [136] (page 88), [137] (page 58ff.), [138] (page 289) etc).

A few days ago I removed the quote and replaced it by a summary of this time period, taken from reputable sources (see [139] - the edit Supreme Deliciousness complains about). I invite every editor to check the neutrality. I tried my best, including Syria's defense that it cannot be held accountable for actions by others, and that Israeli was isolated in its view on the status of the demilitarized zone. Given that this is an overview article I also removed the Dayan quote, partly because of its dubious nature, partly because reliable sources make it clear that other events are seen as more important by historians. Nevertheless the short discussion on the status of the demilitarized zone and excursions by Israeli armored tractors summarizes the essence of the Dayan quote - according to the Israeli interpretation these excursions were legal, according to the Syrian interpretation they were provocations. The quote might suggest that the Syrians were right, but as historians are doubtful I left the quote out.

I do not wish this AE request to become another battleground for the usual pro/anti-Israel/Zionist whatever warriors, but I understand that this is what inevitably will happen. All I can say about this request is that I tried my best to improve the article and to bring this small section into compliance with NPOV. Supreme Deliciousness stand in the discussion on the talk page seemed to be that because this quote can be sourced it should be included, and that if there are doubts or opposing viewpoints someone else should work on finding them and including them. But that's not how good articles are written, because then - instead of looking at what good sources say about this time period - I would solely look at what sources say about this specific quote.

Reply to Supreme Deliciousness I find it hard to take this response serious as it rather proves my point. I did not cherry-picked my sources. I simply looked for academic books on the history of Syria/Israel and looked at what they write about this time period. One, to find out about events. Second, to learn how differents events should be weighted in an overview article. He comes with articles on very specific events, at least one from a a partisan source, none from anything resembling a serious and authorative source. The would be hardly be sufficient to establish events, and even if they would they would not tell us anything about how to weight these events in the larger context of things. Of course presenting these kinds of newspaper articles is a good way of using wikipedia policies to subvert WP:NPOV because hey it can be sourced and should thus be included. And seriously "something he doesn't like personally and he wants it removed"?? I made a case using sources, and that's what I get as an answer??

The Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs is a highly partisan source, and the UN observer Jan Muhren is a credible source on himself, and nothing more. And I never said that the NYT is unreliable, I simply asked for taking the NYT serious by taking note that the NYT article says that this quote needs to be approached with caution. What is wrong is that you want certain claims in the article and try to find sources that support this claim.
You never presented this source at the talk page. All you did on the talk page was stonewalling, reverting, and saying this quote is sourced, thus it should not be removed and if there are POV problems others should fix it - but of course the quote has to stay there. WP:GAME to me, but of course that can be a very successful strategy when it comes to driving away those who want to present a balanced view of a time period.
This is getting tiresome. All I see from you is the same silly insistance on including a quote, despite the fact that most sources on this time period of Syrian-Israeli relations ignore this quote, or are emphasizing that it needs to be approached with caution. Even worse, you are making false claims such as that I inserted text written by the Isreali ambassador. The more I see of your battleground behavior and WP:GAMEs, the more clear it is that you should be topic banned from this area. It is utterly laughable when you accuse others of POV editing, when all you do is to insist on including a quote despite your source making it clear that this quote is somewhat misleading.
If you found all these good and reliable sources, why have the quote if we simply could say that the Israelis provoked the Syrians? And why do you continue making false claims, such as that I used Michael Oren as a source when I did not (although he would be a high quality source given that he is respected scholar). My apologies, the book chapter was indeed written by Michael Oren - a historian and scholar who happened to become an Israeli ambassador. A high quality source.

Reply to George Al-Shami Highest caliber of POV-pushing. Unabashed extremist pro-Zionist stance. He will cook up some disingenuous argument. You are not even presenting a single diffs that somehow would support your claims!

Reply to MalcolmMcDonald And can you show a diff and explain why this diff violates NPOV? Or can you just throw mud in the hope that it sticks.

Some evidence for disruptive editing by Supreme Delicousness This recent edit by Supreme Deliciousness, [140] exemplifies what I see as disruptive editing. A book published by a scholarly publisher and written by Michael Oren, an academic historian, is suddenly not good enough to establish the historical fact that Syria supported Palestinian raids into Israel (note that this fact can also be found in countless other scholarly history books). Instead it needs to be attributed to Michael Oren personally, as if this is a controversial claim, and Michael Oren needs to be described as the Israeli ambassador, and not as the scholar he is. I have no idea what Supreme Delicousness motiviation for this edit is, but it looks pointy and disruptive.

This is a good example of the very serious POV introduced by Pantherskin - and the very problematical sources he insists on introducing. We all know what is said about ambassadors. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I hope you are not serious. Either you are simply trying to provoke, or you just have no idea what you are talking about. Pantherskin (talk) 08:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Pantherskin[edit]

Comments by Mbz1
SD came here with "unclean" hands, and he has to be topic banned. Please see below:
At Gamla erases any reference to historical Jewish presence in the city :with edit summary "Jews moved in there later" Dec 19, 2010
The edit is unreferenced, has no basis in fact and its only :purpose is to further turn topic area into a battleground.
Let's see what the source say: "The city of Gamla is mentioned in Talmudic sources as a walled city dating back to the time of Joshua Bin-Nun" .
Here he dismisses the views of two editors for the following tendentious reason
NOTE: Both Epeefleche and No More Mr Nice Guy who here above have opposed the block are both pro-Israeli editors.” Oct 23, 2010
As if to say, if you are identified as having Israeli sympathies don’t bother commenting because your views are unwelcome and automatically tainted.
In the following edit,
Dec 12, 2010 SD changes "Jerusalem International Airport" (THE OFFICIAL ALTERNATE NAME) to "East Jerusalem International Airport." The edit is neither fact-based nor sourced and its only purpose is to further turn topic area into a battleground.
In this edit SD adds "The Jewish historian" introducing Bernard Lewis as a Jew, as if to say that if he's a Jew, he's biased and can not have an untained opinion--Mbz1 (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment by BorisG
Seems like a normal content dispute, and a rather trivial one at that. Not appropriate for AE, in my view. - BorisG (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree in relation to Pantherskin, but I believe SD editing pattern that has lately became the same she was topic banned for a few months back should be looked at, and I believe sanctioning SD is in order.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Re to Boris: Coming back from a 5-month break to start an edit war... That does not look good, especially for someone who came to the project to be constantly involved in editing ethnic conflicts (one of his first edits: [141]). Biophys (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
What Pantherskin explained above is perfectly logical even if his methods are not. Who leaves and comes back does not bother me. A number of people in this area have battleground mentality and Pantherskin is not an exception at all. SD is a typical example of this. BTW it takes (at least) two to edit war. When one partisan editor brings his opponent to AE, it does not look good either. Admins should look at conduct of all sides (or dismiss without action). - BorisG (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Edit warrign is not just reverting, its the spirit of what is happening, there is no agreement to remove the quote, so to keep on removing it despite no consensus is the origin of the edit warring. Thats why I opened this Enforcement, because I don't want to edit war. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Sure, it takes two to tango. The important factor is not the "mentality", but what exactly someone is doing or contributing here. If one looks at the edit history of an editor who made only ~800 edits (for example), and most of them represent reverts, claims like this or that and contentious disputes, this is a serious matter for concern. One must contribute content, not conflicts.Biophys (talk) 05:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
It appears we have two POV warriers here. Arguably, more than two. I really have no interest researching their record to determine which of them is worse. All I am saying is that admins should take into account the record of both sides. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I strongly agree. A lot was said about problems in EE area, but these conflicts are worse. Just look at the statements below. SD: "Breein1007 who is Pro-Israeli". George Al-Shami: "his unabashed extremist pro-Zionist stance". If I was an admin, I would topic-ban them all. (I do not argue for draconian sanctions, but these conflicts are ugly. I never called any editor "pro/anti-Chechen/Russian" while editing Chechen war subjects, but still was topic banned for this [142]) Biophys (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I do too. Both SD and George Al-Shami's language is unacceptable.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I am not quite sure why Mbz1 was indefinitely blocked, but I certainly did not suggest to block him because he appears to be a good content contributor (unlike some others). If would be great if Vassyana could review his block as a part of the investigation and possibly change the duration of his block if this is reasonable.Biophys (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Mbz1 was blocked in what seems an unrelated matter to this. See the ANI thread and Mbz1's talkpage. unmi 21:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Nsaum75

Biophys brought up the argument of "content over conflict" in the immediate section prior. SD was topic banned from I-P related articles for 30 days (April 30 to May 30) of this past year.[143] During the 30 days he was banned he only made TWO types of contributions[144]. One type was to forum-shop over 10 admins in an attempt to find someone willing to re-read a battle-field laiden SPI case against a user he had been involved with numerous conflicts with (essentially carry on the battle). The second type was 10 edits to ONE article about Playstation 3 games. He made two edits to potential IP related articles, but self reverted so as not to violate his topic ban. Those edits can be viewed here..

In my opinion, an editor who is here to contribute constructively to an encyclopedia will find other areas to edit if they are banned. An editor who is here just to create conflict and push a POV, will just drop out until their ban is over, or go to AE/SPI and try to punish their opponents while they are "down for the count".

The closing admin needs to take into consideration the editing history of both Editors, not just the individual who this case was brought against. -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡ 06:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk about a bad faith comment by Nsaum75, There was a SPI based on behavior and no admin looked at it because it was very long, so I asked the closing admin if I was allowed to ask admin to look at it and he said that I could: [145]. Many admins declined to look at it so I just kept on asking several admins until it got attention. Your claim that I am here to "just to create conflict and push a POV" is absurd and not based on anything. I edit many articles that has nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict, I have also created several articles that has nothing to do with the A-I conflict, I can go into greater detail of this if any admin wants.
Nsaum75 is an editor who edits Wikipedia to push a pov: "The international community considers it part of Israel" When it is infact the opposite, that the international community do not consider it part of Israel.
Previously I opened a AE against Breein1007 who is Pro-Israeli. Nsaum knows breeins disruptive behavior:[146] he later removes that comment: [147] saying he "doesn't want to get involved". Then when an admin advocates a topic ban for Breein75: [148] directly after nsaum once again posts and pushes for me to be sanctioned, although I had not done anything wrong: [149]. This is the exact same thing he is doing now.
Nsaum 75 is constantly wikistalking me, shows up to articles right after I edit them, although he has never made any edit there before: List of LGBT Jews:[150][151] transport in Syria: [152][153] Ben-Gurion House: [154][155] Shebaa farms: [156][157] Gaza flotilla raid: [158][159] WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement: [160][161] Anti-Lebanon mountains [162][163] List of wine-producing regions [164][165]Israeli wine [166][167]Og [168][169] Second Temple of Jerusalem [170][171] Golan: [172] [173] Al-Araqeeb: [174][175]Arrack (drink) [176][177] Highway 87 (Israel):[178][179]. I opened a AfD. Nsaum75 then edits there, previously he never touched that article until I opened the AfD, [180].
At one time I started a thread about a sockpuppetér and his puppet at the ANI, I explained In the first sentence why I didn't notify him:[181], Nsaum then right away went to the discussion and pushes for me to be sanctioned: [182] (Why is Nsaum75 even getting involved in that discussion?) He also posts at another talkpage that I didn't notify despite me already saying why I didn't notify and despite that he already asked for me to be sanctioned at another board [183] Clearly forum shopping as also noticed by another user: [184]
He opened a clear straw man RfC: "Should the Golan Heights be referred to as a "disputed" territory or "illegally occupied" territory?". Basically gives two option, the Israeli view, then a view that clearly will not get support "illegally". Two other people reacted to this aswell: [185]
In a conversation at an article talkkpage, Nsaum75 removed a comment where he had said it is "not neutral", while at the same time adding that: "Are we going to try to game the system by interjecting trigger words like "non neutral" whenever something is said that we don't agree with?" [186]. This really says it all.
An obvious sockpuppet named "LibiBamizrach" shows up starts edit warring, pov pushing and begins to be generally disruptive at a wide variety of Arab-Israeli articles, anyone can clearly see that this is on old account just looking at his first edits at wikipedia. LibiBamizrach contacted Nsaum75 and said: "thx for the welcome": [187] but on LibiBamizrach talkpage there is no post from Nsaum75. Why is Nsaum75 sending of wiki messages to this "new" account outside of wikipedia? In this edit LibiBamizrach mentions how a "cleanstart" is interesting:[188]. Why is nsaum75 sending of-wiki messages about "cleanstart" to this "new" user who is obviously a reincarnation of on old disruptive pov editor who is continuing the same behavior? I opened a SPI against him, after Nsaum75 sent this sockpuppet off wiki messages to tell an admin that the new account is a "cleanstart", when infact its nothing but abuse of multiple accounts, right after the new puppet contacts an admin:[189], and right after the SPI I opened was deleted by the admin, I first thought it was Amoruso, but what I do know is that there is something very shady with what happened with him deleting the SPI and I asked the admin if LibiBamizrach has been notified of the ARBPIA sanction before and he did not reply to me. But later admin Sandstein saw through this fasad of "cleanstart" that Nsaum75 had told "LibiBamizrach" to present his puppet account as, and Sandstein blocked the account:[190], please read what Sandstein says: "it is also highly likely that you are a banned or blocked editor trying to evade your sanctions, or a veteran editor attempting to evade accountability for your actions with this or your other account. This means that your use of this account is an abuse of multiple accounts."
This is only some of the things Nsaum75 has done, there is more. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
That long, and cherry picked response helps to exemplify mine and other concerns about long-term battlefield, pov-warrior, and disruptive behavior. I wikistalk no one, and its not a requirement to edit a page in order to watch it (i have many watched, unedited pages) and I also follow AfD listings. My edit history speaks for itself[191] as does yours.

I have also never been sanctioned or blocked, how about you?? However if you want to bring up wikistalking, perhaps you could address why you recently popped up to request file mover rights on the Commons only a day after I requested (and was successfully granted) file mover rights[192][193]
AND, Unlike my successful request, your request was denied because of admins concerns that you might have political motivations[194] and because you did not recognize your own POV[195]. You continued to argue how you don't make POV edits even after being denied filemover rights[196]
Anyhow, like I said, your long winded response only helps to exemplify your long-term battlefield, POV mentality here on WP. But like BorisG and others above said, you are not alone in exhibiting long-term, poor, non-productive behavior on WP. The same problem exists with several editors on the "Israeli" side as well. However most of them seem to recognize their hands are unclean, but in your responses here and elsewhere, I've not seen evidence that you realize any problem with your edits, actions or behavior...despite being sanctioned, blocked and warned by numerous admins -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡ 14:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Nothing of what I said is cherry picked, the diffs speaks for themselves. The problems at Commons started because of account Kàkhvelokákh, guess who that was? I don't remember exactly everything that happened there but it was about the description of images, and I also wanted to move some names, so its only natural that I would ask for it. All images I asked to be renamed have been renamed:[197]. Is this "political motivations" or "pov" names ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
If you say so... My edit history speaks for itself. I'm not the one who has sanctions and blocks as part of their edit history, been denied editor tools because of pov and disruptive editing and behavior nor do I make regular appearances here on AE. Why do you think that is?? I'm not perfect has to ask that question.. -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡ 16:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Unclean hands is not the same as Tu quoque. This is the latter. Please file an AE against SD instead of parking material here. If you've got a case, bring it, but this is getting way off topic. Sol (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I believe that the information is part of the larger picture admins are dealing with here, especially the long-term behavioral issues that both sides of the filing present. Therefore, in my opinion, it is relevant, especially in light of the flurry of AE filings that have been going on recently amongst a small group of editors. -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡ 07:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Filing an AE request against SD would be tit for tat strategy. That is something employed by SD. No, do not do it, please.Biophys (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment by George Al-Shami
Pantherskin is attempting to remove a properly sourced paragraph from the Arab-Israeli conflict section of the "Syria" article. I have seen nothing, but the highest caliber of POV-pushing by Pantherskin. To give an example of this; on some articles he does not delete sources from the New York Times provided they back his unabashed extremist pro-Zionist stance; however if that same publication prints something that contradicts or criticizes Israel he will cook up some disingenuous argument just to remove that source. This former behavior is in complete contradiction to the integrity of Wikipedia. A closer scrutiny of Pantherskin's edits will prove the former contention.George Al-Shami (talk) 03:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Italic text ;Comment by MalcolmMcDonald A quick scan of Pantherskins contributions makes him look like a serial violator of NPOV. I found this at the NPOV board concerning the article on Syria and the section on the Six-Days War. Only those determined to insert POV into the article could defend what he's trying to do there. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC) struck comment of banned editor.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Pantherskin[edit]

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

I am currently looking over all of the diffs provided. I am also looking at the article histories and discussions being referenced. There's a lot to review here, so please be patient with me. One thing I note is that there is a lot of personalized, insulting back and forth going on here. Bringing that here is an extremely unwise choice. A wise choice would be to take a breath, cool down, self-edit and apologize. --Vassyana (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Unarchived. This still needs closing. T. Canens (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)